He was released on May 24 after having back surgery and had been complaining about back pain. A week after being released, he goes and kills the surgeon who operated on him (and others), presumably because of the back pain. The kicker: he bought the semi-automatic rifle he used that morning.
.
Seems to me this scenario presents an argument for a waiting period of, say, at least three days between arranging purchase and obtaining the firearm. A waiting period may not stop a person like this guy from acting on his grievance, but a âcooling off periodâ possibly could prevent at least a few of these. And what is the downside? It seems to me that anyone who has an âurgentâ need for a gun right away is likely to be someone who intends to use it on someone. That urgency, if expressed or otherwise made known, should be a red flag in and of itself.
He was released on May 24 after having back surgery and had been complaining about back pain. A week after being released, he goes and kills the surgeon who operated on him (and others), presumably because of the back pain. The kicker: he bought the semi-automatic rifle he used that morning.
.
Seems to me this scenario presents an argument for a waiting period of, say, at least three days between arranging purchase and obtaining the firearm. A waiting period may not stop a person like this guy from acting on his grievance, but a âcooling off periodâ possibly could prevent at least a few of these. And what is the downside? It seems to me that anyone who has an âurgentâ need for a gun right away is likely to be someone who intends to use it on someone. That urgency, if expressed or otherwise made known, should be a red flag in and of itself.
the right wants to keep their guns as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.
the left pretends to try and find a middle ground under the guise of gun control.
when the right brings up the blatant failures of gun control, the left just says we need more laws.
when the right brings up the failures of gun laws in places like Chicago as an example of how the most stringent laws do not work, at all, the left changes the subject and refuses to acknowledge the blatant failures let alone even discuss them.
when the right finds that the left does not want to discuss the failure of gun laws other than to say we need more laws and that will fix everything, the right does not take the left seriously on the issue. especially when the laws on the books are hardly even enforced anymore. only a fool would believe that more laws that will not be enforced will solve the problem.
the lack of enforcement is taken to be intentional by the right. the lack of enforcement is done so the left can say, see we have all these laws and they do not work, ∴ we need to confiscate the guns as it is the only sure way to fix the problem.
and here we are.
imo ...
Some of these claims appear to be pretty, um, sloppy:
no guns, period? really? not even justified use like in Australia, as Haresfur explained?
2nd amendment .. you appear to be ignoring the prefatory clause here. There is a purpose and context to the "right to bear arms".
blatant failures of gun control so we don't need more gun control laws - yet gun control works fine in almost all other countries, why not in the States?
the left is intentionally not enforcing existing gun control laws so as to introduce a ban - this sounds a) outlandish and b) contradicts the very argument you made in the preceding paragraph, that gun control laws don't work per se.
the right wants to keep their guns as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.
the left pretends to try and find a middle ground under the guise of gun control.
when the right brings up the blatant failures of gun control, the left just says we need more laws.
when the right brings up the failures of gun laws in places like Chicago as an example of how the most stringent laws do not work, at all, the left changes the subject and refuses to acknowledge the blatant failures let alone even discuss them.
when the right finds that the left does not want to discuss the failure of gun laws other than to say we need more laws and that will fix everything, the right does not take the left seriously on the issue. especially when the laws on the books are hardly even enforced anymore. only a fool would believe that more laws that will not be enforced will solve the problem.
the lack of enforcement is taken to be intentional by the right. the lack of enforcement is done so the left can say, see we have all these laws and they do not work, ∴ we need to confiscate the guns as it is the only sure way to fix the problem.
In 2018, CNN investigated school shootings worldwide between 2009 and 2018. The US, as it turns out, has “57 times as many shootings as the other six G7 countries combined”. What an appalling statistic.
...When you moved to a colony as a settler, Hannah Arendt observed long ago, you freed yourself from the morality of your home country and acted any way you wished, as long as you had your carbine by your side. Colonizers were “functionaries of violence”, Arendt explains, able to define themselves both by their opposition to their home country and by their brutal subjugation of the natives around them. This particular kind of colonial arrogance sounds familiar. In American mythology, we call it rugged individualism.
Somebody just shot up a medical complex in Tulsa; 3 more sacrifices to the gun god - plus the shooter.
That’s the hospital where my friend, who was raped and beaten, was treated. She hasn’t checked in, and I’m concerned about her. She’s out of the hospital, but obviously still getting treated for her serious injuries.
Baseball bats? Cricket bats? Chainsaws? Hammers? Hatchets? Socks stuffed with flashlight batteries? Cars? Rocks or stones? Catapults? Rat poison? Fence posts? 2by4's? Meat cleavers? Paring knives? What about empty bottles?
Fire extinguishers?
Razor blades?
Aerosol cans that can turn into mini flamethrowers?
Swimming pool acid?
OK - that's your vision of the world you want to create and live in. I think you are misguided.
"You can only possess or carry weapons if you do so safely"....sounds ok, with exceptions, much like your firearms laws as far as I understand them.
Still doesn't solve what appears to be an almost uniquely US problem of a medicated, sad, lonely crazy person wanting to do harm to a bunch of other innocents.
I guess in your world that couldn't possibly be worth examining as a problem.
Keep on pissing into the gale....keep infringing on the personal liberties of everyone because of the actions of very few....and enjoy what comes to you.
As I said - I think you are misguided, but I suppose the Kool-Aid was tasty.
It's my vision of the world I do live in and it's not too bad. Look, I do have some differences of opinion, like I think carrying a Swiss Army knife just because you think you might need it is no big deal and I get nervous when you leave too much to the discretion of the police but overall it works. If you are a chef heading to work with your knife roll, no big deal; if you are some rando waving a cleaver around in the central business district, the police can and will stop you.
Yeah, lots of things can be turned into weapons but they aren't optimal weapons. The general principles are to make it hard and to minimise the damage. I'd rather face someone with an aerosol can than an AK-47.
I suppose you have a point about the medication. If a million people can't be productive members of society because they are too depressed to do anything at all, they probably won't have the energy to shoot up a school. Talk about infringing on freedom.
Hatred is a product of fear, and fear is increasingly nurtured in the arena of instant information. IOW, the algorithm of fear haunts the world of knowledge by using the input of personal insecurity against it....
Well put. I'll just add that fear is a primal emotion and easily exploited and nurtured as you mention.
I will note one exception, broccoli. So many people seem to hate it. Probably because it is good for you ...
The 25-count indictment includes both first-degree murder charges and second-degree murder charges as hate crimes, as well as three counts of attempted murder and single counts of gun and domestic terrorism charges. Mr. Gendron has pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Gendron, an avowed white supremacist, is accused of shooting 13 people, almost all of them Black, at a Tops supermarket in a largely Black section of Buffalo, New Yorkâs second largest city. Three of those shot on that Saturday afternoon survived the attack, which was one of the worst racist massacres in recent American history.
Hatred is a product of fear, and fear is increasingly nurtured in the arena of instant information. IOW, the algorithm of fear haunts the world of knowledge by using the input of personal insecurity against it....
Hatred is a product of fear, and fear is increasingly nurtured in the arena of instant information. IOW, the algorithm of fear haunts the world of knowledge by using the input of personal insecurity against it....
If, as it appears from your posts, this is more a uniquely American problem due, in your estimation, to a over-medicated populace, why do you think almost all other âwesternizedâ countries have way more restrictions on gun ownership/possession?
In this context, I would go with hate is a learned thing, a function of nurture.
Hatred is a product of fear, and fear is increasingly nurtured in the arena of instant information. IOW, the algorithm of fear haunts the world of knowledge by using the input of personal insecurity against it....
