empty spiritualism, empty catered lifestyles, empty idols, vis a vis empty parenting, (absentees even within the home) plus no conflicts and strict regimentation. these are all easy answers for that.
truly though, the cases must be analyzed individually. The population is massive in the fucking world, and its still fucking growing, these are rarer than cases of guys with 132lb testicles (in reality just scrotum tissue that abnormally developed) but they're rare instances according to statistical data.
Of course they're horrible and wrong, but they are STILL rare. Don't let the panic button set in until they become a weekly occurrence. Some people feel their own lives aren't worth merit without enacting something significant. ARTISTS use this same selfish and self aware but insecure hysteria and compulsiveness to create works that will last forever, while the chumps just gun people down and look for their name as a "bad boy" somewhere; accepting love mail from insane broken fucked up women in prison who are convinced that the world doesn't "understand them"....
its only probably recently been documented. These folks are driven by personal gain unless they're actually being planted and sprouted by intelli-cells. I really doubt that in these cases though.
shameful.
thomasquinn 32989 · Member since
All done with LEGALLY OWNED guns, you might add. Anyone who maintains that guns aren't, at the very least, a significant part of the problem just does not get it.
The Real Wizard · Member since
The NRA will win every time. They have most of the politicians in their back pockets.
Less gun sales = less profits.
And most of the country drinks the kool aid. They're just too stupid to see it, hiding behind the second amendment as if it is actually something useful or meaningful.
matt z · Member since
There IS however a danger to depriving citizens of the right to own guns. detractors will state that it was an archaic clause ONLY designed to prevent the abuse of Occupying British Military personnel. However, it is an IMPERATIVE preventative measure against tyranny from WITHIN. Although a few of the "founders" wrote extensively on the fear of a tyrannical government, nothing is really codified as law; it is only written that they had supported the overthrow is and when necessary.
It's not to state that paramilitary groups should have the right to assemble without question (and these ISOLATED incidents are used to promote to the end that there is a risk of paramilitary groups) when in fact the most extreme cases involved crazed individuals who would have been desperate for attention/significance in their own perverted way anyways.
Recently at least a year ago, the US government had stockpiled munitions and heaps and heaps of orders of bullets at local "social security administrative offices" and then the story was swept away within the week. It was during the period of "sequestration" (budgetary cuts restricting guaranteed amounts to be paid) for CERTAIN, those bullets were intended for the citizenship should any demands or "crises" ensue. Once the story was broached no one seemed to think it relevant for the times.
The point all in all to be made about outlawing private ownership of weapons is that the government can act unilaterally (as seen during the Bush administration) and that simply relying on the good will of order taking soldiers is no guarantee that they have the vested interest of the public at heart. This ability to act unilaterally can almost guarantee a unique abuse of power. That's already been happening now.
It's also been shown with historical examples that depriving the ownership of private arms is one of the first steps toward dictatorial rule. For Americans to be concerned with the negation of the principle would drastically undermine their own civil liberty. Private gun ownership is said to be a deterrent to violent crimes in various states (AZ, NM, TX) on the principle that the more citizens that are legally armed, the less likely the occurrence of abuse by others who are not.
Once the private ownership disappears, who's to stop "Johnny Lawless" from busting down doors and exploiting the disparity?
I'm not a hard liner, but I believe that in principle alone it's a valuable asset to the citizenship, at least until Obama authorizes drone strikes on citizens in their sleep.(*might have to wait until the next president)...they've already paved the way for the removal of 'Habeas Corpus'. At times I can see it as one of the only deterrents to abuse of power. I doubt that we'll see a third party candidate elected into the Executive Office; that will handle the repeal of the "pa***** act" in our time.
So many people signed off on that after the incipient hysteria of the New York attack. It's a crappy era to be in.
matt z · Member since
yes.... I said "Johnny Lawless"..... he's related to XENA: the warrior princess
Oscar J · Member since
Forbidding private gun ownership can cause dictature? Interesting statement, when virtually every other civilised democracy has restrictive gun laws.
I felt so sorry for Obama in his latest press conference on the matter, trying for the umpteenth time to talk some sense into all the idiots going on about "mah freedums" and "I have a right to defend mahself".
The Real Wizard · Member since
Matt - nobody needs to defend themselves from anything. That's NRA propaganda, and the kool aid is being drunk by millions.
The US is the only remotely civilized country where ordinary citizens are allowed to carry guns, and they happen to have a homicide (and suicide) rate that's astronomically higher than any other remotely civilized country.
The second amendment was written at a time before automatic weapons even existed. Nobody needs to be carrying around weapons suitable for the army.
"Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend or acquaintance than to kill an intruder, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine."
If you're into facts and data and believe they're more a suitable basis for laws than ideology and irrational fear, I suggest you give this a read.
matt z · Member since
Eh. I probably subscribe to an irrational fear then, But I'm still gonna read this.... first thing in the morning.
Thanks wiz. Healthful and hopeful
magicalfreddiemercury · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]
Forbidding private gun ownership can cause dictature? Interesting statement, when virtually every other civilised democracy has restrictive gun laws. [/QUOTE]
According to one of the republican presidential candidates, Ben Carson, private gun ownership might have prevented the Holocaust:
"Though a combination of removing guns and disseminating deceitful propaganda, the Nazis were able to carry out their evil intentions with relatively little resistance."
"I’m telling you there is a reason these dictatorial people take guns first."
“I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed."
But then, as a neurosurgeon, he also said, “I never saw a body with bullet holes that was more devastating than taking the right to arm ourselves away.”
His ideas *and* his grammar suck.
Scary to think this guy is near the top of the list of preferred republican candidates. He's second only to The Donald.
YourValentine · Member since
Surely people need guns to fight Obama drones and maybe fighter jets and tanks? Sounds pretty under-equipped to me. I think people need at least bazookas and defense missiles.
90% of the voting populace want stricter regs, including background checks. But that cannot even get voted on in the House of Reps due to a handful preventing it from getting to that stage.
Democracy. Gotta love it.
Donna13 · Member since
The problem with gun laws is that if a person is lawless, then they will easily gain access to illegal guns (assuming we decided to disarm citizens or ban certain types of guns). It's similar to teens getting access to alcohol. Very easy: fake ID, getting another person to buy the alcohol for them, taking the alcohol from the trusting parents that do not lock it up. So, just relying on a law that requires background checks is not going to work.
I think we need more trained citizens to carry guns and have the skill to take down a mass shooter. Remember how airplane pilots requested the right to be armed? Nobody should have to be helpless.
I've heard the argument here before that lots of innocent people would be shot due to lack of skill. But when I imagine myself in a situation such as the Virginia Tech shooting, where locking a door or hiding behind a desk is the only option, I know that in such a situation I would be very grateful if one of my classmates was able to shoot back.
