Customize

School shooting in CT

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Paroxetine Samurai, Dec 14, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Anonymous Member

    aaand this brings us to the NRA's policy that there be a national registry of mentally ill.
    Can't wait to see the definitions for that.
  2. Anonymous Member

    You are not listening! We DON'T need guns! We are safe in our homes, and our kids are safe in school.

    Betcha wish you could say that!
  3. Anonymous Member

    Er, yeah, dumbass! Soldiers etc should have assault weapons, numptie joe public NO!

    And the police should always have better firepower than those they are facing!

    You sound like a jelly 4 yr old. Well he's got one so I want one baw!
  4. Anonymous Member

    I wholeheartedly agree! If your son had issues with arson would you remove as many means if ignition from your house or just keep buying boxes of matches and say you need to work on his issues? To say society has a problem with violence but not remove one of the main tools for expression of that violence is nonsense.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  5. Anonymous Member

  6. OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

    Our Failed Approach to Schizophrenia

    By PAUL STEINBERG

    Published: December 25, 2012

    Washington
    Enlarge This Image
    1226OPEDdorfman-articleInline.jpg
    Matt Dorfman



    Related

    Related in Opinion

    NYT_Twitter_opinion.png
    Connect With Us on Twitter

    For Op-Ed, follow@nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow@andyrNYT.
    TOO many pendulums have swung in the wrong directions in the United States. I am not referring only to the bizarre all-or-nothing rhetoric around gun control, but to the swing inmental health care over the past 50 years: too little institutionalizing of teenagers and young adults (particularly men, generally more prone to violence) who have had a recent onset of schizophrenia; too little education about the public health impact of untreated mental illness; too few psychiatrists to talk about and treat severe mental disorders — even though the medications available in the past 15 to 20 years can be remarkably effective.
    Instead we have too much concern about privacy, labeling and stereotyping, about the civil liberties of people who have horrifically distorted thinking. In our concern for the rights of people with mental illness, we have come to neglect the rights of ordinary Americans to be safe from the fear of being shot — at home and at schools, in movie theaters, houses of worship and shopping malls.
    “Psychosis” — a loss of touch with reality — is an umbrella term, not unlike “fever.” As with fevers, there are many causes, from drugs and alcohol to head injuries and dementias. The most common source of severe psychosis in young adults is schizophrenia, a badly named disorder that, in the original Greek, means “split mind.” In fact, schizophrenia has nothing to do with multiple personality, a disorder that is usually caused by major repeated traumas in childhood. Schizophrenia is a physiological disorder caused by changes in the prefrontal cortex, an area of the brain that is essential for language, abstract thinking and appropriate social behavior. This highly evolved brain area is weakened by stress, as often occurs in adolescence.
    Psychiatrists and neurobiologists have observed biochemical changes and alterations in brain connections in patients with schizophrenia. For example, miscommunications between the prefrontal cortex and the language area in the temporal cortex may result in auditory hallucinations, as well as disorganized thoughts. When the voices become commands, all bets are off. The commands might insist, for example, that a person jump out of a window, even if he has no intention of dying, or grab a set of guns and kill people, without any sense that he is wreaking havoc. Additional symptoms include other distorted thinking, like the notion that something — even a spaceship, or a comic book character — is controlling one’s thoughts and actions.
    Schizophrenia generally rears its head between the ages of 15 and 24, with a slightly later age for females. Early signs may include being a quirky loner — often mistaken forAsperger’s syndrome — but acute signs and symptoms do not appear until adolescence or young adulthood.
    People with schizophrenia are unaware of how strange their thinking is and do not seek out treatment. At Virginia Tech, where Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people in a rampage shooting in 2007, professors knew something was terribly wrong, but he was not hospitalized for long enough to get well. The parents and community-college classmates ofJared L. Loughner, who killed 6 people and shot and injured 13 others (including a member of Congress) in 2011, did not know where to turn. We may never know with certainty what demons tormented Adam Lanza, who slaughtered 26 people at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14, though his acts strongly suggest undiagnosed schizophrenia.
    I write this despite the so-called Goldwater Rule, an ethical standard the American Psychiatric Association adopted in the 1970s that directs psychiatrists not to comment on someone’s mental state if they have not examined him and gotten permission to discuss his case. It has had a chilling effect. After mass murders, our airwaves are filled with unfounded speculations about video games, our culture of hedonism and our loss of religious faith, while psychiatrists, the ones who know the most about severe mental illness, are largely marginalized.
    Severely ill people like Mr. Lanza fall through the cracks, in part because school counselors are more familiar with anxiety and depression than with psychosis. Hospitalizations for acute onset of schizophrenia have been shortened to the point of absurdity. Insurance companies and families try to get patients out of hospitals as quickly as possible because of the prohibitively high cost of care.
    As documented by writers like the law professor Elyn R. Saks, author of the memoir “The Center Cannot Hold: My Journey Through Madness,” medication and treatment work. The vast majority of people with schizophrenia, treated or untreated, are not violent, though they are more likely than others to commit violent crimes. When treated with medication after a rampage, many perpetrators who have shown signs of schizophrenia — including John Lennon’s killer and Ronald Reagan’s would-be assassin — have recognized the heinousness of their actions and expressed deep remorse.
    It takes a village to stop a rampage. We need reasonable controls on semiautomatic weapons; criminal penalties for those who sell weapons to people with clear signs of psychosis; greater insurance coverage and capacity at private and public hospitals for lengthier care for patients with schizophrenia; intense public education about how to deal with schizophrenia; greater willingness to seek involuntary commitment of those who pose a threat to themselves or others; and greater incentives for psychiatrists (and other mental health professionals) to treat the disorder, rather than less dangerous conditions.
    Too many people with acute schizophrenia have gone untreated. There have been too many Glocks, too many kids and adults cut down in their prime. Enough already.
    Paul Steinberg is a psychiatrist in private practice.
  7. Anonymous Member

    You sound like a person without a single principle. A pragmatist, perhaps.

    There is a principle involved here, and until that sinks in, it really doesn't matter what you think. If you didn't learn the concept of 'rights' that is an indictment of our educational system, but I am not bound nor limited by your misunderstanding of what rights are.

    and your last statement shows without a doubt you have not learned the lessons that history teaches. When it gets to the level you suggest, the police state is one crisis away.

    As for wanting one, why, I've had one since i was ten. Several, actually. Maybe that demystified the experience for me. Guns are tools, nothing more, nothing less.
  8. Xenu Is Lord Member

    By subhuman I assume you mean the people that view their neighbors as armed bible thumpers? I mean when view your neighbors like that, one tends to start reverting to a animal state of primal fear and action. I got news for you Boris, not everyone who owns a gun in this country is a religious nut no matter how bad you want to be the case. If you look at any major pro gun website they talk about constitutional and human rights not the bible. It is like saying someone who supports socialized healthcare is wanting gulags, after all they are joined at the hip. As a 2nd Amendment supporter (not religious) and as someone who has come to respect your intellect I am both insulted and dismayed.

    And a Happy New Year to you too.
  9. Xenu Is Lord Member

    Yeah maybe if you spent a year in a ER you would be against automobiles too. The kill and wound more people that guns. But whatever you do don't talk about the 2.5 million lives saved by guns each year. We can't have that type of talk in the ER, it is bad for reactionary practices.

    * Myth #1 "Guns are only used for killing"

    Compared to about 35,000 gun deaths every year, 2.5 million good Americans use guns to protect themselves, their families, and their livelihoods - there are 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun - five lives are protected per minute - and, of those 2.5 million protective uses of guns, about 1/2 million are believed to have saved lives. [2]

    * Myth #2 "Guns are dangerous when used for protection"

    US Bureau of Justice Statistics show that guns are the safest and most effective means of defense. Using a gun for protection results in fewer injuries to the defender than using any other means of defense and is safer than not resisting at all. [3] The myth that "guns are only used for killing and the myth that "guns are dangerous when used for protection melt when exposed to scientific examination and data. The myths persist because they are repeated so frequently and dogmatically that few think to question the myths by examining the mountains of data available. Let us examine the other common myths.
  10. Anonymous Member

    Does anyone see them saying disarm them?
  11. Anonymous Member

    No, XIL, you've misunderstood me.

    I was not talking about gun deaths versus other types of death.

    I was talking about the US murder rate versus the murder rate in other developed nations.

    The rate of murders - including murders with guns, knives, bare hands, broomsticks, and everything else.

    It's a lot higher - five times higher, according to some stats, three times higher according to others - in the US than in the UK.

    That is, an American is three-to-five times more likely to be murdered than a Brit.

    Here's some dox for that - homicides per million people (please note, this is total homicides - it's not gun deaths versus non-gun deaths):

    [IMG]

    from the UK Office of National Statistics (which is a non-political government organisation in charge of, yep you guessed it, national statistics).

    Now there are not that many differences between the USA and the UK. Gun control is one of the major differences in respect of law and order - I guess the death penalty is the other. Since most of those excess deaths (in the USA) are gun deaths, it seems reasonable to conclude that gun control might be relevant to the issues at hand.

    I guess that if Americans feel that their current murder rate is perfectly ok and acceptable, and a sign of a system working well, then it's not up to us in the rest of the world to convince them otherwise... but I feel for the victims and their families.

    Childish reasoning is childish, and is contradicted by the empirical evidence.

    The world is not a Hollywood movie.

    Batman is not a documentary; nobody is suggesting that the police be disarmed, and vigilantism usually ends badly.

    batman-mkvsdc1.jpg
    ^ not a real person.

    220px-Die_hard.jpg

    ^ not based on actual events.



    This would be a fair comparison if the people involved in these cases spent the same amount of time skateboarding as they did being shot at.

    If you want comparable statistics, you need injuries per hour (or per day) doing the activity.

    So,

    - injuries per hour skateboarding

    versus

    - injuries per hour at a school shooting

    would be a fairer comparison.


    False.

    If they NRA are saying that, then they are lying.


    This is how it is.


    [IMG]
  12. Anonymous Member

    NRA and CoS had the same math class I think.
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/frum-guns-safer/index.html



  13. Anonymous Member

    Cont from previous post cause it was tl;dr Same link featuring much bad math.



    • Like Like x 1

  14. December 25, 2012

    Our Failed Approach to Schizophrenia

    By PAUL STEINBERG

    Washington
    TOO many pendulums have swung in the wrong directions in the United States. I am not referring only to the bizarre all-or-nothing rhetoric around gun control, but to the swing in mental health care over the past 50 years: too little institutionalizing of teenagers and young adults (particularly men, generally more prone to violence) who have had a recent onset of schizophrenia; too little education about the public health impact of untreated mental illness; too few psychiatrists to talk about and treat severe mental disorders — even though the medications available in the past 15 to 20 years can be remarkably effective.

    Instead we have too much concern about privacy, labeling and stereotyping, about the civil liberties of people who have horrifically distorted thinking. In our concern for the rights of people with mental illness, we have come to neglect the rights of ordinary Americans to be safe from the fear of being shot — at home and at schools, in movie theaters, houses of worship and shopping malls.
    continues: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/opinion/our-failed-approach-to-schizophrenia.html?pagewanted=print
  15. Anonymous Member

    Interesting.

    Has the problem really been an excessive concern for civil rights, or rather is it a lack of funding for mental health services?

    (I ask not to make a point but purely for information - wouldn't really know, myself. Anyone got figures on US mental health funding?).
  16. Anonymous Member

    This is one reason why the "good guys" versus "bad guys" rhetoric which the NRA likes so much is not well-suited to the real world outside of TV and movies.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  17. Anonymous Member

    It is both. Mental healthcare began its spiral during Reagan and has not recouped since.
  18. Anonymous Member

    How does US mental health spending compare to other first-world nations?

    It would also be interesting to see how gun violence varies across different US states with different levels of mental health provision and gun licensing laws.

    E.g. presumably there are some states in the US where a paranoid schizophrenic (to name a random example) isn't allowed to own weapons. (Or are there?)
  19. Anonymous Member

    You know what I find hilarious and troubling about this?

    That the statistics don't state how many of this fictional 2.5 million lives saved used combat rifles or used plain pistols/non-semi-autos or whether the guns were actually shot or not.

    Also, never mind the fact that those 2.5 million might be facing or have lost wrongful death lawsuits. That's right. Even if you used a gun to save your ass, you might get it sued off.

    And lets just explain to families that their loved ones died, but it was justified or that under the Second Amendment, the shooter's rights took precedence over their loved ones life. Love to see you be the one to break that news XIL.
  20. Anonymous Member

    This would be the more honest argument for the NRA to make:

    "Sure, people die, but the right to bear arms is so important that it's worth some innocent lives".

    As opposed to their current line of "guns don't kill people", which is (IMO) just dishonest.

    (There are many areas in our lives where we accept a certain level of harm in order to retain things in society that we think are worth having. Driving cars comes to mind. If the government banned all private cars then road deaths would fall, but we don't ban cars because driving is so useful. I'd find an argument along those lines more compelling than the current bullshit).
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  21. Come on, Anon!
    You can do better than that (discussion above).

    What do you think of people who don't want to live? Those who don't believe into anything Beyond. Those who "know for sure!" ('cause they were taught to) that there is neither Hell nor Paradise. That there's just "suddenly nothing!" and that there's no awareness after that.
    You think they are crazy? Why? Because YOU yourself believe in something?

    Why do you think that those who don't believe neither God nor Devil must touch other people's lives? He might just feel that "snce it's worthless for me (life) it CAN'T be worthwhile for them (especially those children who haven't yet come to realize what he realized for himself, i.e. that there is nothing to live for, no reward, no nothing, just sudden stop at the end).

    Are you sure competent to discuss this?

    Are you sure that the problem in in the Gun Law?

    Hasn't the US brought their people to feel they "can believe this or that but the truth is that there is nothing Beyond"?

    Tell me!
    • Dumb Dumb x 2
  22. Anonymous Member

    If you argue, "We will fund cancer and heart disease treatment but not treatment for bipolar disorder or schizophrenia," you come off like a bigot who doesn't like mentally ill people.

    If you argue, "It is mean to keep people in institutions and to make them take medicines when they don't feel the need for the treatment," you sound like a civil rights champion.

    So most people who want to cut services for the mentally ill rely upon the civil rights argument.

    Diagnostic categories are a poor basis for laws. People with the same diagnosis can be very different. And over time scientific understanding evolves and diagnostic systems change. So I'm not really in favor of using a person's mental health history as the basis for restricting their civil rights. We need some other measure of sound judgment and impulse control.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  23. Anonymous Member

    Hi VaD.
  24. Anonymous Member

    One point to add: Diagnostics can't foretell future actions with absolute certainty.

    For example: A person could pass the tests with flying colors. Then one day that person goes ape shit and kills people. Meanwhile another person could fail and end up never harming a single person in their lifetime.

    Welcome back VaD. You weren't missed at all.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. Anonymous Member

    No, I agree with them.

    deliver, what are you talking about and who are you arguing with? Your post is incoherent.
  26. Anonymous Member

    Yes, I have principles, yes I have rights, I do not have the "right" however,to own/use a gun. Taking snipes at my ejucashun is typical of you, it shows your superiority complex snowflake!

    As for history! Ha! I havnt learned from it eh? Compare the history of violence in the American society and compare that with the UK's. Check out the numbers murdered, over history, due to gun crime, count how many school massacres there have been in the UK and then compare that with the USA! The only real difference between our societies is the USA's obsession and fantasy with the gun, we in the UK do not need shit like that in our society, and it obviously works, the USA however, as recent events yet again have shown, it doesn't.

    Sooner or later you dickheads will have that moment when the penny drops and you realise that guns do more harm than good, you will eventually have to give them up as weapons have no role to play in a civilised society period! I fear that day will not come soon enough, more of your schoolchildren will have to die at the hands of someone gone batshit, probably quite a few more school massacres in fact. Your infantile thinking will eventually grow up as your society cannot evolve with guns as a part of it.

    The UK has on occasion had terrorist attacks and such like, and when it has, there has been a few imbisciles crawl out from under a rock and start calling for armed cops or the "right" to own a gun, every time this happens one statement stops the discussion dead, "WE DON'T WANT TO END UP LIKE AMERICA!"

    You are a shining beacon of how fucked up things can be if you allow guns into the hands of the public, hell! You can't even be trusted to vote a decent leader into power! How fuckingly awesomely proud you must be.

    Yes, guns are tools, you wouldn't let a plumber near your house if he didn't know one end of a wrench from another, and you require he has proper training before he picks up those tools! But hey! Fuck all that when it comes to lethal weapons like guns eh! Let any idiot have one! God bless/help America!
  27. Anonymous Member

    ...and way you said that shows you are mad or have no intent on having a serious conversation. If all you got are ad hom attacks on the US, then you have a problem and it doesn't have anything to do with guns or violence...

    Your point is invalidated because the UK enacted all of this within the last 50 years.

    The Second Amendment has been around since 1778. Long before you, I, or the UK's gun laws were around.

    Hence the problem: Since this Amendment hasn't changed, but the world has it makes actual changes to said Amendment difficult. Add to it: Some take the law too literal and will vigorously defend it despite the fact at the time it was written, the world was a way different place.

    A shining example of your intelligence: Ad hom attacks and an unsubstantiated superiority complex based on a terminal case of Unwarranted Self Importance....

    BTW: A civilized society wouldn't have such a tantrum like you obviously are having. Neither would it resort to ad hom attacks that you seem to enjoy.

    I am sure people here would love to see proof of how the statement that you don't want to end up like the US stops such a discussion. Dox or you know.

    What is really contradictory about your statement is the fact the US hardly has terrorist attacks. Could it have something to do with all the guns or is it just coincidental?

    You so mad, bro. I can see your mad from space.jpg

    Also you show your awesome education and rational with your infantile rage post here. Your a shining beacon of rageposting and ad hom attacks. Bravo, Madfag.

    Again: Learn to understand what is at the heart of this issue: The Second Amendment, written hundreds of years ago, is blocking any reform due to NRA zealots refusing to accept the radical notion the world is way different from back in the days it was written.

    It isn't a simple issue and never has been. If you'd get down from your molehill you think is a mountain top, you'd understand that. However, you are so enraged or so smug about how "better than them" you feel, it is pointless to get you to try to engage in a decent discussion.
    • Like Like x 1
  28. Anonymous Member

    IF you are going to make a stupid comparison like this then you have to talk percentages, how many automobile trips made per death per day/year, and how many guns fired per death per day/year

    Figures not so good now chuck, are they!

    So, using your figures, someone dies every 13 mins from gunshot wounds in the good ol USA, that's a number you are proud of eh! Numbnuts.
  29. Anonymous Member

    o1cwj.jpg
  30. Anonymous Member

    [IMG]

    Victims of terrorism, 1968-2006:

    USA: 3,227 in total population of 311m people = 10 terrorist victims per million population
    UK: 366 in total population of 60m people = 6 terrorist victims per million population.

    Sources:
    http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/ter_ter_act_196_fat-terrorist-acts-1968-2006-fatalities
    https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata...&idim=country:GBR&dl=en&hl=en&q=uk population
    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=u...&sugexp=chrome,mod=1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

  31. Anonymous Member

    Incorrect, the UK has never had the "right" for the general public written in its laws, again, we have never had your sort of mentality. The law that did come into place was to stop the gun fantasists before they turned the UK into the USA.


    The Second Amendment and all your other rights and laws were written for the people. You can change them, they are not cast in stone never to change, it won't take a lot, it's not that difficult, honest.

    You could ignore the ad hom and address the points brought up instead of taking the easy route and emphasising the ad hom as a way of avoiding the discussion, it shows your side of the discussion is weak and best not reply to save face.
  32. Anonymous Member

    Considering that the 3,227 victims of terrorism came from the 9/11/2001 attack, your point still is invalid. You need to show the frequency of the attacks, not the number of people hurt/killed in these attacks. Also, what are the current (2012) stats? Afraid to show them, MadMax?

    Also: Using statistical averages (this X terrorist victims per million shit) doesn't prove this:

    Because, heaven forbid, if the UK got it's own version of 9/11/2001, those numbers would go from 6 to 10 in just one attack.

    ...and shows you are a raging 12 year old Brit who can't understand why the world doesn't work the way they think it should.

    Extra LOL for using google links as your dox. Try again.
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  33. Anonymous Member

    Moar ad hom, little dox eh! I merely used "dox" provided by Xenuto calculate the numbers
  34. Anonymous Member

    I don't agree.

    You were arguing (if I understood correctly) that placing guns in the hands of the civilian population acts as a deterrent to terrorist attacks.

    The fact that your prediction doesn't hold for 9/11 doesn't mean that it's reasonable to exclude 9/11 from the figures.

    That's cherry-picking to include the data that supports your theory and and exclude the data which doesn't. Not allowed.



    You can show that if you like, I'd be interested to see it.

    But the number of deaths is a figure that matters to me.

    Less deaths = better. I don't see how you can figure that any other way.


    No idea. Year's not finished yet. If you can find some online then feel free to share - I just did a quick search.

    That quote is from a different Anon, nothing to do with me.

    Also, "this X terrorist victims per million shit" is kind of important, if you're arguing that the US has less terrorism than other countries, which you are.


    I was disproving your statement that

    which I think I did quite successfully.


    Data hosted at Google was used only for the total populations of the US and UK (because obviously the raw US figure is bigger but then the US is a bigger country, so it makes more sense to compare them per capita - IMO).

    Data in the first link is from World Development Indicators, data in the second link is from US Census Bureau. If you have alternative population figures you'd like to suggest, be my guest.
  35. Anonymous Member

    Again: The laws that you have are more current than the Constitutional law the US has.

    Not to mention the fact changing that or any constitutional amendment right now is all but impossible because of it's requirements, which is a 3/4ths vote in both houses in favor of a new constitutional amendment...

    Good luck with that considering how well the Repubs and Demos are working together right now. (Hint: They are not.)

    It's more complicated than a person going to the president or to their congress rep and saying "Overturn this please!"

    Maybe you don't know this, but most US citizens want gun control. However, as long as the NRA has Republicans and Democrats in their pockets, it is going to be an uphill battle.

    Again: A Three-Fourths vote in both houses. Watch the hullabaloo about the pending Fiscal Cliff here and you'll see how "easy" it is.

    TL;DR - It isn't going to happen. Both parties can't agree on a pizza topping, much less agree on Gun Control. Why people put them back in office is a mystery I have no answer for nor a reasonable explanation.

    Your raging and anger taint your points. You want a serious answer? Then quit belittling and berating. Stop the "UK, fuck yeah!" shit and try a more civilized approach.

    Ad homs make you look simple and nobody is going to pay your points attention if they are covered in insults and will just fire back. If that is your intent, to berate and get insulted back, then you won. However, your points get lost in that. So don't bitch that your points get ignored because of the ad hom as you are the one doing the ad hom.
  36. Anonymous Member


    Harsh but true. Too many people were institutionalized that didn't need it, now too few that need it are still loose until they get caught committing a crime when they end up in jail. Which isn't the proper place for someone who needs medication that will control behavior.
    It used to be there was a 3 day hold on people who were grossly mentally ill. Now it's hard to get that unless you can prove they are a danger to themselves or others- proof is a interview with a mental health officer. And you have to be completely delusional to tell a mental health officer you are thinking of hurting anyone.
    Mental illness can be episodic, when people are sane they should be let out. That was a big problem before Reagan closed down mental health facilities, and missing re-evaluation of the institutionalized should be corrected.
    All that being said, the schizophrenic that walks up on my porch and takes stuff then gets angry when I tell her to put them back needs hospitalization IMHO.

  37. Anonymous Member

    ^^
    The mentally ill need to be kept safe as much as we need to be safe from them, I didn't make that point.
    Personal experience- when my mental illness wasn't treated I ended up institutionalized and it was the first time I felt safe. Then I got better and was released, I still was sick but could function.
  38. Anonymous Member

    But you do have a right to that gun. That is what a principle helps with. It helps clarify issues so that you can wend your way through the thicket to the truth without taking your eye off the prize, namely those rights you have by the fact of being human.

    You are human, aren't you? If you are, then you have the right to sefl defense and property. Guns fall under those two categories.

    And while you may not want a gun, and that is totally fine, no one is required to carry one, you do not have the right to take my gun away (something that would require other guns in order to achieve), so we know it is not violence as such you are opposed to, only some violence. I assume that you are happy with State sponsored violence, since you would leave guns in their hands. IOW, you do not have a principle to stand on here. YOu object to some violence, if the people aren't wearing the proper colored clothes, then a gun is bad, but if they are wearing a particular shade of blue, then guns are good.

    As I said, you seem to lack principles.
    Remind me never to ask you to build a house. You'd not understand the purpose of the foundation.
  39. Anonymous Member

  40. Anonymous Member

    I have lived in many different places, in and out of the US. I have never needed a gun, nor would a gun have helped me solve any situation, ever.

    I don't understand why an honest private citizen, who doesn't go around making enemies, would need a gun, people living in the wild or where predatory animals stalk excepted.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins