14 Executive Orders on Gun Safety?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Most of these sound pretty good and sensible.
Well, I'm obviously not going to comment on every point, but a few things stand out as stupid.
(Specifics may vary by state)
"our nations refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill."
A few things on this. According to DSMIV most people could be classified as mentally-ill in some regard or another. Welcome to the database.
Besides, if we changed that to "a national database of anyone who's ever contracted an STD" people would be up in arms about privacy. Why not here?
Add a second serial number to new guns or improve placement of the first one
There's nowhere on a gun you can't reach...they're not cast in one piece. Worst case scenero: make your own gun. Pottery kilns can easily be used to cast metal, and make ceramic molds!It is not illegal to make your own guns. It is not illegal to give those guns away. It IS illegal to sell guns you manufacture without a dealers liscence.
Make gun sellers report details of sales to manufacturers
Citizen-to-citizen transfers don't have to be reported, background-checked or registered. As long as you didn't manufacture it. But if you did manufacture it, you can give it away and accidentally find some money on your counter.
And so on. My point is, there's always ways around it, even legal ways.
Guns can be made, and so can ammo and gunpowder. You cannot ban the items needed to make any of them without banning modern society and urination.
Several things on that list are things that they should already be doing. And number 14... what exactly is wrong with that AK? I mean, it's originally a pistol. If you put stock on it, fill out your paperwork/pay the tax according to existing laws, and you have an SBR. Even then it's still not fully auto, so it's not an assault weapon. I don't see the problem.
Is it because it "looks" scarry maybe? Functionally, it's just another style of semi-auto that fires only one bullet per trigger pull. It's no more dangerous than any Remington or Ruger semi-auto deer rifle that's been available for decades.
First of all, I don't think any president should be allowed to issue executive orders.
Second, these are just another step on the way to taking your guns away.
Their excuse will go something like this:
"You see, they dont want to take your guns away! These are just simple laws that don't impede on your second amendment rights in any way. You conspiricay nuts are making a mountain out of a molehill. They'llnevertake your guns away."
And then 50 years from now we will no longer be able to own firearms.
I've said it many times before on here - the government doesn't just up and completely change the law to take away something from you or give something to you. They incrementally make laws that, by themselves, aren't significant but when added together over the course of decades will become very intrusive on your rights as an American.
They've been doing it with guns, they've been doing it with healthcare, they've been doing it with welfare, they've been doing it with police brutality, and they've been doing it with your other constitutional rights.
Regarding the actual executive orders, some of those are pretty scary and will be abused in the future. I don't agree with any of them, but some are just really, really scary.
None of these look effective at all and are, once again, just watercoolers for an emotionally-charged mass. Even if he made some grand sweeping decree that banned guns, it wouldn't stop gun crime in the United States.
Although some of the things I think they should be doing, like licensed sellers reporting to manufacturers (which they already do in a way), etc.
More big government that doesn't address the two biggest issues surrounding gun violence: 1. Failed 'war on drugs' 2. Mental illness treatment KC_Hokie#8 and #9 on the list seems to be about mental illness.
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]More big government that doesn't address the two biggest issues surrounding gun violence: 1. Failed 'war on drugs' 2. Mental illness treatment nocoolnamejim#8 and #9 on the list seems to be about mental illness.All it talks about is creating a database of the mentally ill. Doesn't address the problem...the illness itself and lack of treatment.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Link This is a list of 14 different, and more importantly SPECIFIC, things that President Obama might do to regulate gun sales and ownership without taking away the guns of current owners. So, two questions, which (if any) of these 14 items would you think would be positive steps towards preventing gun massacres like Sandy Hook? Followup, which of the 14 do you think President Obama has the ability to implement by executive order without involving Congress?sonicareI am honestly more concerned with just gun violence and accidents in general.. Sandy Hook accounted to the small figure of some 300 dead in mass shootings in schools since the 1980s.. Your chances of getting shot in a school by a gunman borders on the line of you winning the lottery.. You have a greater chance of stepping outside and getting struck by lightening then getting shot in school.. Very good point. These shootings tend to get scrutinized in the media, but they contribute very little to the mortality rate. The bigger issues is domestic and gang violence and the higher number of deaths related to that.
Exactly. As with anything, though, what tragedies get the limelight is defined by the national mass media. Bodies on the ground, crazy gunman, oh, and kids involved... that'll generate traffic/views.
All the while ignoring the millions of cases per year that a gun is used defensively. Even ignoring the deaths of criminals because who cares about those guys?
As terrible as Sandy Hook is, the media is letting the focus on guns steal attention from the bigger causes of the violence.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]More big government that doesn't address the two biggest issues surrounding gun violence: 1. Failed 'war on drugs' 2. Mental illness treatment KC_Hokie#8 and #9 on the list seems to be about mental illness.All it talks about is creating a database of the mentally ill. Doesn't address the problem...the illness itself and lack of treatment. It talks about reporting and raising awareness of mentally ill individuals.
Very good point. These shootings tend to get scrutinized in the media, but they contribute very little to the mortality rate. The bigger issues is domestic and gang violence and the higher number of deaths related to that.[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] I am honestly more concerned with just gun violence and accidents in general.. Sandy Hook accounted to the small figure of some 300 dead in mass shootings in schools since the 1980s.. Your chances of getting shot in a school by a gunman borders on the line of you winning the lottery.. You have a greater chance of stepping outside and getting struck by lightening then getting shot in school.. VoodooHak
Exactly. As with anything, though, what tragedies get the limelight is defined by the national mass media. Bodies on the ground, crazy gunman, oh, and kids involved... that'll generate traffic/views.
All the while ignoring the millions of cases per year that a gun is used defensively. Even ignoring the deaths of criminals because who cares about those guys?
As terrible as Sandy Hook is, the media is letting the focus on guns steal attention from the bigger causes of the violence.
Agreed. More people die in Chicago every weekend due to gang violence fueled by the failed 'war on drugs'.Very good point. These shootings tend to get scrutinized in the media, but they contribute very little to the mortality rate. The bigger issues is domestic and gang violence and the higher number of deaths related to that.[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] I am honestly more concerned with just gun violence and accidents in general.. Sandy Hook accounted to the small figure of some 300 dead in mass shootings in schools since the 1980s.. Your chances of getting shot in a school by a gunman borders on the line of you winning the lottery.. You have a greater chance of stepping outside and getting struck by lightening then getting shot in school.. VoodooHak
Exactly. As with anything, though, what tragedies get the limelight is defined by the national mass media. Bodies on the ground, crazy gunman, oh, and kids involved... that'll generate traffic/views.
All the while ignoring the millions of cases per year that a gun is used defensively. Even ignoring the deaths of criminals because who cares about those guys?
As terrible as Sandy Hook is, the media is letting the focus on guns steal attention from the bigger causes of the violence.
Millions of cases per year where a gun is used defensively in the U.S.? Do you have a source for that claim?It talks about reporting and raising awareness of mentally ill individuals. nocoolnamejim
Why, because they could be a danger to others? Why don't we have a registry of STD-infected people? They're a danger to society, are they not?
What about violent alcoholics? We definitely need THAT database.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]All it talks about is creating a database of the mentally ill. Doesn't address the problem...the illness itself and lack of treatment. KC_HokieIt talks about reporting and raising awareness of mentally ill individuals. Who gets to define 'mental illness' in that case? The Federal government? Creating a national database on people with mental illness, a disability, is a huge violation of civil rights. Wait. You're going in circles here. First you say the root cause is mental health illness, and then you say finding out who is and is not mentally ill and keeping tabs on which ones want to buy guns is a violation of civil rights. How do you improve mental illness treatment without being able to diagnose or define who is and is not mentally ill? I suppose the American Psychiatric Association would be the ultimate judge on the definition. So, you're going to have to explain a little further what you're getting at here.
Wait. You're going in circles here. First you say the root cause is mental health illness, and then you say finding out who is and is not mentally ill and keeping tabs on which ones want to buy guns is a violation of civil rights. How do you improve mental illness treatment without being able to diagnose or define who is and is not mentally ill? I suppose the American Psychiatric Association would be the ultimate judge on the definition. So, you're going to have to explain a little further what you're getting at here.nocoolnamejim
Doctor-client confidentiality.
It's not new.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] It talks about reporting and raising awareness of mentally ill individuals. br0kenrabbit
Why, because they could be a danger to others? Why don't we have a registry of STD-infected people? They're a danger to society, are they not?
What about violent alcoholics? We definitely need THAT database.
Exactly. It's a slippery slope and depression is considered 'mental illness'. Something like 20-25% of the population experience depression sometime in their lives. Imagine a Federal database with 25% of the American people in it.Talk about big government. Sounds like something the Nazis would do.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] It talks about reporting and raising awareness of mentally ill individuals. br0kenrabbit
Why, because they could be a danger to others? Why don't we have a registry of STD-infected people? They're a danger to society, are they not?
What about violent alcoholics? We definitely need THAT database.
Just trying to follow the logic here. The problem isn't guns, it's mentally ill people with guns. But you also can't keep track of mentally ill people who ask to be given guns. So, if none of the 14 items that are in my link would be acceptable, what steps would YOU suggest towards reducing the number of gun deaths each year? What do you think would be fair game?[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] #8 and #9 on the list seems to be about mental illness.nocoolnamejimAll it talks about is creating a database of the mentally ill. Doesn't address the problem...the illness itself and lack of treatment. It talks about reporting and raising awareness of mentally ill individuals.
The problem is... it's still going to rely heavily on people actually speaking up. In all the recent shootings, there were friends/family/school officials that saw the warning signs. In the case of Loughner, he couldn't come back to school without a clean bill of mental health. Why wasn't this brought to judge to declare him mentally unfit to purchase a firearm. Cabela's couldn't deny him his right if he passed the background check. The laws in place worked.
With Sandy Hook, he was at the counter and denied. Where was the action there? By reports out there the mother knew, may she rest in peace. The laws were in place.
We can pass a billion more laws, but if people aren't willing to contribute, then people will always be slipping through the cracks.
Just trying to follow the logic here. The problem isn't guns, it's mentally ill people with guns. But you also can't keep track of mentally ill people who ask to be given guns. So, if none of the 14 items that are in my link would be acceptable, what steps would YOU suggest towards reducing the number of gun deaths each year? What do you think would be fair game?nocoolnamejim
I think you're asking the wrong question. Here's the real question:
Is it possible to live in a free society and be safe from free individuals?
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Just trying to follow the logic here. The problem isn't guns, it's mentally ill people with guns. But you also can't keep track of mentally ill people who ask to be given guns. So, if none of the 14 items that are in my link would be acceptable, what steps would YOU suggest towards reducing the number of gun deaths each year? What do you think would be fair game?br0kenrabbit
I think you're asking the wrong question. Here's the real question:
Is it possible to live in a free society and be safe from free individuals?
No, I'm asking the right question. U.S. gun homicide rates are 19.5 times higher than other comparable countries. There are restrictions on freedom. In most cases, these are modest and based on common sense. We have free speech, but still aren't allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater because of the danger that can cause to others by creating a stampede and someone getting trampled. So, is your position that there are NO restrictions, NOTHING that can be done to limit who does and does not have access to any gun?[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] It talks about reporting and raising awareness of mentally ill individuals. nocoolnamejim
Why, because they could be a danger to others? Why don't we have a registry of STD-infected people? They're a danger to society, are they not?
What about violent alcoholics? We definitely need THAT database.
Just trying to follow the logic here. The problem isn't guns, it's mentally ill people with guns. But you also can't keep track of mentally ill people who ask to be given guns. So, if none of the 14 items that are in my link would be acceptable, what steps would YOU suggest towards reducing the number of gun deaths each year? What do you think would be fair game?You're both right.
We do need to keep track, but who gets to decide? First, someone has to bring it to the attention of the authorities. That's the FIRST step and where the failing is.
Most states and local municipalities have laws on the books that they cannot deny anyone the right to purchase a firearm if they are not decreed mentally unfit by a judge, who will have required a phychiatric evaluation by a court-appointed physchiatrist.
But all of that doesn't matter unless step number one happens first.
[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] It talks about reporting and raising awareness of mentally ill individuals. KC_Hokie
Why, because they could be a danger to others? Why don't we have a registry of STD-infected people? They're a danger to society, are they not?
What about violent alcoholics? We definitely need THAT database.
Exactly. It's a slippery slope and depression is considered 'mental illness'. Something like 20-25% of the population experience depression sometime in their lives. Imagine a Federal database with 25% of the American people in it.Talk about big government. Sounds like something the Nazis would do.
Would you rather that people with mental illness be allowed to legally purchase firearms? What's the solution?[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Just trying to follow the logic here. The problem isn't guns, it's mentally ill people with guns. But you also can't keep track of mentally ill people who ask to be given guns. So, if none of the 14 items that are in my link would be acceptable, what steps would YOU suggest towards reducing the number of gun deaths each year? What do you think would be fair game?nocoolnamejim
I think you're asking the wrong question. Here's the real question:
Is it possible to live in a free society and be safe from free individuals?
No, I'm asking the right question. U.S. gun homicide rates are 19.5 times higher than other comparable countries. There are restrictions on freedom. In most cases, these are modest and based on common sense. We have free speech, but still aren't allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater because of the danger that can cause to others by creating a stampede and someone getting trampled. So, is your position that there are NO restrictions, NOTHING that can be done to limit who does and does not have access to any gun?Nothing can be done.
You can pass all the laws you want, but it'll end up just like marijuana: the law may not accept it, but society at large doesn't give a $hit.
Did you run and tell the cops the first time you saw a friend with weed? Of course you didn't. And it's going to be no different with guns.
I tell people "outlaw and remove guns and the people who really want them will make them" and everyone is all "but not many people know how to do that."
Making meth is a hell of a lot harder than making guns, but the dumbest pieces of $hit to walk the trailer park manage to figure it out.
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] It talks about reporting and raising awareness of mentally ill individuals. nocoolnamejimWho gets to define 'mental illness' in that case? The Federal government? Creating a national database on people with mental illness, a disability, is a huge violation of civil rights. Wait. You're going in circles here. First you say the root cause is mental health illness, and then you say finding out who is and is not mentally ill and keeping tabs on which ones want to buy guns is a violation of civil rights. How do you improve mental illness treatment without being able to diagnose or define who is and is not mentally ill? I suppose the American Psychiatric Association would be the ultimate judge on the definition. So, you're going to have to explain a little further what you're getting at here.Mental illness is a problem. Creating Federal laws addressing it is a terrible idea. Couldn't think of a worse idea.
Mental illness should be addressed at the state and local level which is also where gun laws are made.
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Exactly. It's a slippery slope and depression is considered 'mental illness'. Something like 20-25% of the population experience depression sometime in their lives. Imagine a Federal database with 25% of the American people in it.[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]
Why, because they could be a danger to others? Why don't we have a registry of STD-infected people? They're a danger to society, are they not?
What about violent alcoholics? We definitely need THAT database.
sonicare
Talk about big government. Sounds like something the Nazis would do.
Would you rather that people with mental illness be allowed to legally purchase firearms? What's the solution? Has to be addressed at the local and state level which is where gun laws are made.[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Exactly. It's a slippery slope and depression is considered 'mental illness'. Something like 20-25% of the population experience depression sometime in their lives. Imagine a Federal database with 25% of the American people in it.Would you rather that people with mental illness be allowed to legally purchase firearms? What's the solution? Has to be addressed at the local and state level which is where gun laws are made.But wouldnt that be basically the same thing? Instead of the federal govt getting in your business, it would be the state govt.Talk about big government. Sounds like something the Nazis would do.
KC_Hokie
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Exactly. It's a slippery slope and depression is considered 'mental illness'. Something like 20-25% of the population experience depression sometime in their lives. Imagine a Federal database with 25% of the American people in it.[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]
Why, because they could be a danger to others? Why don't we have a registry of STD-infected people? They're a danger to society, are they not?
What about violent alcoholics? We definitely need THAT database.
sonicare
Talk about big government. Sounds like something the Nazis would do.
Would you rather that people with mental illness be allowed to legally purchase firearms? What's the solution? That's the question that I'm trying to ask. I viewed most of the 14 items listed in my link as relatively non-intrusive and uncontroversial. They don't seriously impinge on most peoples' rights to purchase and legally own firearms, but try and keep them away from ones who will misuse them.[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Has to be addressed at the local and state level which is where gun laws are made.KC_HokieBut wouldnt that be basically the same thing? Instead of the federal govt getting in your business, it would be the state govt.No. Big difference between a local judge determining someone is mentally ill versus a Federal database of millions of Americans. So...what happens if someone is declared mentally ill in Virginia and then moves across state lines? Now, he or she can go buy a gun unless the state he moves to knows he's been determined to be mentally ill.
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="sonicare"]But wouldnt that be basically the same thing? Instead of the federal govt getting in your business, it would be the state govt.nocoolnamejimNo. Big difference between a local judge determining someone is mentally ill versus a Federal database of millions of Americans. So...what happens if someone is declared mentally ill in Virginia and then moves across state lines? Now, he or she can go buy a gun unless the state he moves to knows he's been determined to be mentally ill.If the person is deemed a threat to themselves or society by the courts they should be in treatment. If they are already treated they shouldn't be in any database and treated like a normal human.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]No. Big difference between a local judge determining someone is mentally ill versus a Federal database of millions of Americans. KC_HokieSo...what happens if someone is declared mentally ill in Virginia and then moves across state lines? Now, he or she can go buy a gun unless the state he moves to knows he's been determined to be mentally ill.If the person is deemed a threat to themselves or society by the courts they should be in treatment. If they are already treated they shouldn't be in any database and treated like a normal human. Then what's to stop them from getting their hands on guns? If guns don't kill people, but mentally ill people kill people, what's the next step? Just wait until they get a gun legally and shoot someone? And THEN take their gun away?
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] So...what happens if someone is declared mentally ill in Virginia and then moves across state lines? Now, he or she can go buy a gun unless the state he moves to knows he's been determined to be mentally ill.nocoolnamejimIf the person is deemed a threat to themselves or society by the courts they should be in treatment. If they are already treated they shouldn't be in any database and treated like a normal human. Then what's to stop them from getting their hands on guns? If guns don't kill people, but mentally ill people kill people, what's the next step? Just wait until they get a gun legally and shoot someone? And THEN take their gun away?If the courts determine you are mentally ill and a threat to society or yourself you should be locked up until treated.
If someone leaves treatment prior to being deemed treated that's when someone should go on a list.
Then what's to stop them from getting their hands on guns? If guns don't kill people, but mentally ill people kill people, what's the next step? Just wait until they get a gun legally and shoot someone? And THEN take their gun away?nocoolnamejim
I'd be willing to bet that most gun crime by far is committed by perfectly competent folk.
It's easy to lable people, it's not so easy to deal with the actual problem.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Then what's to stop them from getting their hands on guns? If guns don't kill people, but mentally ill people kill people, what's the next step? Just wait until they get a gun legally and shoot someone? And THEN take their gun away?br0kenrabbit
I'd be willing to bet that most gun crime by far is committed by perfectly competent folk.
It's easy to lable people, it's not so easy to deal with the actual problem.
Which you have said nothing at all can be done about.Then what's to stop them from getting their hands on guns? If guns don't kill people, but mentally ill people kill people, what's the next step? Just wait until they get a gun legally and shoot someone? And THEN take their gun away?If the courts determine you are mentally ill and a threat to society or yourself you should be locked up until treated.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]If the person is deemed a threat to themselves or society by the courts they should be in treatment. If they are already treated they shouldn't be in any database and treated like a normal human. KC_Hokie
If someone leaves treatment prior to being deemed treated that's when someone should go on a list.
Locking up a mentally ill individual indefinitely seems like a bigger civil liberty violation than simply restricting their access to firearms and putting them in a database.I like one and two. Seriously? The ATF doesn't have a full-time director? WAY TO GO WASHINGTON! Two is kind of common sensical. Okay with three as well, so long as it isn't some micro-stamping BS that would require an entire new addition to the firearm. Good with four, that's also pretty much common sense. Not okay with five. If a person loses their license to sell firearms they need to have a means to sell off their inventory. Not okay with six. My information was already published by the Rockland Journal News, so I'm not going to support anything that requires me to give over more information. Okay with seven and eight. Both should have been happening. Also okay with nine and ten. Not okay with 11. I think it would become a burden in an already bad economy. Not against the idea in principle, but I think it would have unforeseen consequences. Okay with 12, provided I get some of the OT to do undercover work. :cool: Okay with 13. I'm tenatively okay with 14 as well, but only if it doesn't have any cosmetic bans in it.
With that said, I would like Obama to stop referring to sporting rifles as assault rifles, and by extension I would like liberals to stop using the term assault weapon. And I would like this crusade against cosmetic features to end. Because there's no reason I shouldn't be allow to have a compensator or a collapsible buttstock on my rifle.
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]If the courts determine you are mentally ill and a threat to society or yourself you should be locked up until treated.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Then what's to stop them from getting their hands on guns? If guns don't kill people, but mentally ill people kill people, what's the next step? Just wait until they get a gun legally and shoot someone? And THEN take their gun away?nocoolnamejim
If someone leaves treatment prior to being deemed treated that's when someone should go on a list.
Locking up a mentally ill individual indefinitely seems like a bigger civil liberty violation than simply restricting their access to firearms and putting them in a database.Who in the Federal government gets to decide who is 'mentally ill' and should be on a government list?And no when you lock up someone with mentally illness who is a deemed a threat to themselves or others by the courts does not violate their civil rights.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Then what's to stop them from getting their hands on guns? If guns don't kill people, but mentally ill people kill people, what's the next step? Just wait until they get a gun legally and shoot someone? And THEN take their gun away?br0kenrabbit
I'd be willing to bet that most gun crime by far is committed by perfectly competent folk.
It's easy to lable people, it's not so easy to deal with the actual problem.
http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm
The vast amount of gun crimes are gang related. What a shocker that is. I wonder what new laws are going to prevent those criminals from committing more crimes.
heh heh, he said butt.I like one and two. Seriously? The ATF doesn't have a full-time director? WAY TO GO WASHINGTON! Two is kind of common sensical. Okay with three as well, so long as it isn't some micro-stamping BS that would require an entire new addition to the firearm. Good with four, that's also pretty much common sense. Not okay with five. If a person loses their license to sell firearms they need to have a means to sell off their inventory. Not okay with six. My information was already published by the Rockland Journal News, so I'm not going to support anything that requires me to give over more information. Okay with seven and eight. Both should have been happening. Also okay with nine and ten. Not okay with 11. I think it would become a burden in an already bad economy. Not against the idea in principle, but I think it would have unforeseen consequences. Okay with 12, provided I get some of the OT to do undercover work. :cool: Okay with 13. I'm tenatively okay with 14 as well, but only if it doesn't have any cosmetic bans in it.
With that said, I would like Obama to stop referring to sporting rifles as assault rifles, and by extension I would like liberals to stop using the term assault weapon. And I would like this crusade against cosmetic features to end. Because there's no reason I shouldn't be allow to have a compensator or a collapsible buttstock on my rifle.
airshocker
Which you have said nothing at all can be done about.nocoolnamejim
Not through law.
How's prohibition working for drugs? Hell, you legally need a prescription to get pain meds, but how many people addicted to pain meds do you think have a script?
And meds are something you have to keep buying. A gun you only have to buy once.
[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Then what's to stop them from getting their hands on guns? If guns don't kill people, but mentally ill people kill people, what's the next step? Just wait until they get a gun legally and shoot someone? And THEN take their gun away?DJ419
I'd be willing to bet that most gun crime by far is committed by perfectly competent folk.
It's easy to lable people, it's not so easy to deal with the actual problem.
http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm
The vast amount of gun crimes are gang related. What a shocker that is. I wonder what new laws are going to prevent those criminals from committing more crimes.
Most people don't realize when you add up gang/drug related gun violence and suicides that's 80%+ of the gun violence in the U.S.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment