BEHIND THE BLOODSHED: AMERICA’S MASS KILLINGS:

A medical professional can render such a diagnosis!

No one has a "right" to be a danger to others.

The courts have already decided that when it comes to spousal abuse.

 

DOMA was to assuage the fevered imaginations of the fundamentalist theists!

 

Did you even bother to look at that list, there are a lot of those that were stabbings, blunt force, smoke inhalation...Not just guns. The fact is that there are predators, those that believe it is easier to take than too earn. Almost anything can be used as a weapon, Europe is finding out the hard way that cars and trucks are devastating and far more people die in car accidents than by firearms.

But you make the leap to "we need to get rid of guns", a little research will show you that while mass shootings have gone down in the UK and Australia since their gun bans, assaults, robberies and rapes have increased exponentially...Now that victims cannot defend themselves.

A firearm is a tool and nothing more, it cannot aim itself, it cannot load itself, it cannot shoot by itself...So get it through your thick skulls that it is the person or criminal that holds the gun, that commits the crime...Start blaming the person, start making mandatory sentencing laws that severely punish those same criminals. And get the h*ll out of the way of people that want to protect themselves and their families...Remember when seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.

 

You've obviously never been to Switzerland where there is a fully automatic AK-47 in almost every home.

 

Meaning that it is not possible for yourself to actually explain what factors might motivate the public to support passage of a particular piece of legislation. Thus it is not possible for yourself to demonstrate how proof is indeed unnecessary for the enactment of legislation.

 

About half of adult female homicide victims are killed by means other than firearms. If someone is considered so dangerous as to be forbidden ownership or possession of a firearm, why are they not locked up?

 

Domestic violence is in no way related to owning a firearm, nor is it even relevant to the discussion pertaining to the use of medications to address mental health issues. One is a criminal offense that can be prosecuted, the other is a constitutional right.

Does all mental illness indicate violence?

The argument being made is that simply owning a firearm does not make one a danger to others, and that the burden of proof is on government to conclusively prove otherwise.

 

Sounds like even more states should remove guns from the homes of spousal abusers.

 

Are you denying that the NRA kneejerk response to every mass shooting is that the killer was mentally unbalanced?

Since that is the consensus why not just TRY keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unbalanced and see if it reduces the number of mass shootings?

Or are you afraid that would include too many NRA members?

 

It seems they should remove all knives, hammers, bats and opposable thumbs, too.

 

You have citations to support this claim? San Bernardino comes as the first example to my mind, followed by Pulse and one of the Fort Hood shootings.

"Mentally unbalanced" doesn't really have a scientific or legal definition. There are laws to prevent those adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution from owning guns, but efforts to widen that prohibition have been met with resistance from ACLU and mental health organizations.

Was this necessary?

 

Nope. It means it depends on the law.

 

No son that is not true

 

How would you know it is not true ?

 

Perhaps because the Swiss don't use the AK-47 as a service rifle, preferring the SG 550 that's actually built in Switzerland.

 

If someone has been convicted of domestic violence, they cannot legally possess a firearm.

Demonstrate such. Cite these responses so that they may be reviewed.

Someone who has been adjudicated on the basis of mental illness or being mentally defective, or those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health institution, cannot legally purchase or own firearms.

However, unless the system that is in place is actually used for doing what it is supposed to do, it is useless.

Is there really a need to engage in such juvenile, immature personal attacks against entire groups of individuals?

 

I haven't been there since 1992 so perhaps they have changed...but there is still a true 'Assault Rifle' in most homes.

 

I'm not aware of anytime in history where the Swiss used AK-47s.

 

Well, the NRA members I know continue to be those "who would bend over backwards to help you in anyway they could." Just because they don't believe in the same things you do doesn't make them "a bunch of political hacks."

A legitimate and fundamental declaration of empowerment. Why in the world would you be offended by such?

 

Well, some might accuse me of blasphemy, but when you look at the design the Sig 550 series is really just the culmination of the original Kalashnikov design, enhanced to it's ultimate efficiency.

 

More so than the Galil?

 

There will always be arguments about which one is better. The Galil is a fine weapon system, but head to head I find the Sig more intrinsically accurate (admittedly by only a small amount) and lighter to carry. It also has a higher level of modularity than the Galil. YMMV

 

The lack of an actual response has been noted.

 

How's that go?
Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue; extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice.