Another senseless mass shooting

[CdnCarrie]

Go to RCGroups.com off-topic section and we can talk about it. We can't talk about it here.


One thing that is evident, all we're going to do in this thread is go around in circles for days like with every other same topic thread.

No because I 110% disagree with your point of view on the matter. Not even disagree but find it reprehensible and baffling.

 

[Corryn]

I am not so sure. Many ordinary objects can be used by someone to harm or kill another, all the way down to simply using your hands or feet to inflict injury. From Cain and Abel to the present day, there have been people who want to harm others and will use whatever is available to do so. As much as I would like to think it’s as simple as not producing weapons, people who are intent on causing harm will simply use something else, whether it’s driving a car into a crowd or picking up sharp kitchen utensils or a rock in the forest to use instead.

It’s obvious that things are not working the way they are right now. It’s going to take change in many areas, such as mental health and anger management, as well as changes in background checks, training and licensing. My frustration is that no one seems to want to put in the work or expense long term that it is going to take to come up with a workable solution. Sadly, even when we get to the point where it happens rarely, I don’t think we will eliminate it completely, but I feel a reduction would be better than nothing.

I agree with you. If our elected officials REALLY wanted to help, they would stop overprescribing psych meds and check to see if there is a health issue. Back when I was a kid, before a doctor prescribed psych meds (tranquilizers) they first checked your Thyroid. Now, there aren't even adequate tests for thyroid, they only test the basics which show up as normal on most people, they do not check if the person has antibodies, which would indicate autoimmune issues.
Doctors are VERY quick to give people, even little kids, Xanax, Ritalin, etc. without checking the root cause of the problem. Overuse of antidepressents/psych meds without having a psych issue causes OTHER problems, AND the person STILL has the overlooked medical issue.
BUT..... Follow the money... Who profits on misdiagnosed people? The pharmaceutical companies and our elected officials BOTH SIDES.
Healthy People don't make Anyone money.
Sick People make investors WEALTHY.

Let's start with the meds

 

[CdnCarrie]

I agree with you. If our elected officials REALLY wanted to help, they would stop overprescribing psych meds and check to see if there is a health issue. Back when I was a kid, before a doctor prescribed psych meds (tranquilizers) they first checked your Thyroid. Now, there aren't even adequate tests for thyroid, they only test the basics which show up as normal on most people, they do not check if the person has antibodies, which would indicate autoimmune issues.
Doctors are VERY quick to give people, even little kids, Xanax, Ritalin, etc. without checking the root cause of the problem. Overuse of antidepressents/psych meds without having a psych issue causes OTHER problems, AND the person STILL has the overlooked medical issue.
BUT..... Follow the money... Who profits on misdiagnosed people? The pharmaceutical companies and our elected officials BOTH SIDES.
Healthy People don't make Anyone money.
Sick People make investors WEALTHY.

Let's start with the meds

Your elected officials prescribe you medications? They moonlight as doctors?

And how are meds different anywhere else in civilized countries? I thought the USA medical system was top tier?

 

[TeamRiley]

It shows peace can happen when countries honor the terms of their treaties.

 

[Buzz Rules]

Sorry, that treaty is the primary reason WWII happened

What, how? The UN was created after WW2 so….

 

[Neapolitan Ice Cream]

Is it worth mentioning that here in the UK we basically have no handguns and no rifles except for shotguns, light target rifles and air rifles and we have pretty much no gun violence AT ALL?

 

[gmi3804]

No other country does, actually. While there are more violent places overall (see link), there's nowhere that these mass-shooting incidents are common.

NOTE: This data is outdated (2016) but I really like the way they also tally suicides and casualty by unintentional discharge. Those give a little different view of the potential impact of guns, beyond just the use in homicides.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-violence-by-country

The US boasts 60 firearm suicides PER DAY. Almost all suicide attempts by firearm are successful. A huge percentage of attempts by other means are unsuccessful.

 

[Neapolitan Ice Cream]

It would limit more from getting them. And it would make law enforcement have an easier time catching the criminals who still possess them.

Tables don't remain standing if you take away a leg.

Of COURSE, guns are going to slip through the net, but if you make it harder to actually get a hold of these weapons, they will be less prolific. Math.

 

[Buzz Rules]

Tables don't remain standing if you take away a leg.

Of COURSE, guns are going to slip through the net, but if you make it harder to actually get a hold of these weapons, they will be less prolific. Math.

So we agree then?

 

[Neapolitan Ice Cream]

So we agree then?

I believe so

Just a bit of background for the American DISers out there - the cause for the ban on handguns here in the UK was a tragedy in Dunblane. A man went in to a school with a couple of pistols and slaughtered a bunch of children (I believe). At that point we as a country just said, Enough is Enough.

On 13 March 1996, local man Thomas Hamilton shot dead 16 children and their teacher, Gwen Mayor, in Dunblane Primary School's gymnasium before killing himself.[5] He used his licensed weapons and ammunition.

 

[Buzz Rules]

I believe so

Just a bit of background for the American DISers out there - the cause for the ban on handguns here in the UK was a tragedy in Dunblane. A man went in to a school with a couple of pistols and slaughtered a bunch of children (I believe). At that point we as a country just said, Enough is Enough.

For the record I do believe in the second amendment but I also believe in limitations to it. Congress would have put major limitations on it back in the 18th century if they knew what the public could buy today. I wish many in this country could see that.

 

[john7994]

For the record I do believe in the second amendment but I also believe in limitations to it. Congress would have put major limitations on it back in the 18th century if they knew what the public could buy today. I wish many in this country could see that.

Congress has weighed-in on no less than 12 Federal Acts from 1934 to as recently as 2022.
There is a difference between banning (nullifying 2A) and regulating - just so we are on the same page.
(This post is NOT an endorsement of either point of view - just a point of fact in response to the poster).

 

[Neapolitan Ice Cream]

For the record I do believe in the second amendment but I also believe in limitations to it. Congress would have put major limitations on it back in the 18th century if they knew what the public could buy today. I wish many in this country could see that.

As weapons technology and society advances, so must the Second Amendment evolve to keep up. We're not in the Wild West anymore. The law is subject to the police pretty much only. And now we have far more advanced weaponry such as rifles and magazine fed handguns. I don't mind the right to have a weapon - I own an air rifle and practice sharp shooting - but I do equally practice respect for that rifle.

 

[Neapolitan Ice Cream]

Just to play devil's advocate, what do people think of the right to own "zombie" knives? Legitimately used for hunting, improperly used for a gruesome death?

 

[john7994]

Just to play devil's advocate, what do people think of the right to own "zombie" knives? Legitimately used for hunting, improperly used for a gruesome death?

I think that might be a subject suitable for somewhere else?

 

[Neapolitan Ice Cream]

I think that might be a subject suitable for somewhere else?

Yeah, probably is. Sorry, was just watching a Forensics TV show about a killing with a knife and someone suggested that if a murderer couldn't get a gun they'd use a knife. I'd contestant's that a knife is harder to wield and preferable to an AR-15, for example.

 

[sam_gordon]

It shows peace can happen when countries honor the terms of their treaties.

And if people would "honor the terms" of the laws, we wouldn't be in the situation we are now.

 

[EACarlson]

For the record I do believe in the second amendment but I also believe in limitations to it. Congress would have put major limitations on it back in the 18th century if they knew what the public could buy today. I wish many in this country could see that.

Almost all of the writings of the Founding Fathers disagrees with you. Most everyone then felt that there should be no limitations on the types of arms a citizen may possess. The common belief among those seeking independence was that the government should never be better armed than it's citizens, that is what kept the government in check. There were fully automatic weapons in that time, they were incredibly expensive but they did exist.

 

[Moliphino]

Almost all of the writings of the Founding Fathers disagrees with you. Most everyone then felt that there should be no limitations on the types of arms a citizen may possess. The common belief among those seeking independence was that the government should never be better armed than it's citizens, that is what kept the government in check. There were fully automatic weapons in that time, they were incredibly expensive but they did exist.

I highly doubt they'd want everyone to have nukes.

 

[Neapolitan Ice Cream]

I highly doubt they'd want everyone to have nukes.

Or magazine fed firearms. Didn't have those, back then. How could they even imagine such things?