I agree. It is too simple to just scapegoat the mentally ill for actions like this. There are many people in the US who suffer from some kind of mental illness and pose no threat to other people.

Jhooman - please take this in the manner it is intended. I'm not being sarcastic.

In your example, who do you propose should pay for your friend's medical bills?

Attention Brits: Question
 

What do you think of our gun laws vs. United Kingdom's gun laws?
Would like to hear your input and what you think of the Arizona slayings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol..._United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...United_Kingdom

So if this guy was thrown out of college, posted crazy things on YouTube and most people thought he was just a hair off.


How the H^^L DID HE GET A GUN?

The answer is:
The law enforcement officers when called to the college and who actually sat in on a class to protect the students from this mentally ill people did not bother to file mental health papers on him so he could be hospitalized and received treatment.. why I have been saying we need mandatory reporters.

And liberals are always spouting off that we cannot hospitalize mentally ill people and keep too many of them off the street because we do not want to violate their rights..

IF this mentally ill person had mental papers filed on him by any of those MANY people who were aware of his mental illness, he would NOT have passed the FBI backround check and he would not have been able to purchase the gun.
There is the truth.
JJ

And once again the ever present bogey man liberals are at fault....

So this is an example of conservative hate speech.

I noticed you did not deny it, and you know what I said is exactly what should have been done to prevent this crime. All you can do is call me a hater.. name calling is all liberals can do when confronted with the facts and the truth.

guns
 

Guns kill and rather easily as we just found out. Until we can find a way to keep wearons away from people like this, home-grown terrorism will only become more of an issue. With the technology we possess today why can't we have better methods od IDing these people. I have an idea. Maybe we can take a few of the multi-billoions we use on airport security to come up with a better profiling method.

The issue at hand is more easily talked about than enacted!!
 

That of involvement. Who among us would be the first to report an individual for acting strangely to the authorities? Based on statistics I would venture a guess of significantly less than 1%.....but to allow a more than generous margin of error, make it 5%.

Involvement is not exactly a majority participant issue in today's society/environment. Just like Ft. Hood....everybody knew but nothing was done about the individual. Why? Lack of involvement? Fear of political correctness policing is more likely why even the smallest percent involvement.

The event has nothing to do with politics; nothing to do with guns; everything to do with tolerence and lack of involvement.

btk

[QUOTE=JimJoe;321947]The answer is:
The law enforcement officers when called to the college and who actually sat in on a class to protect the students from this mentally ill people did not bother to file mental health papers on him so he could be hospitalized and received treatment.. why I have been saying we need mandatory reporters.

And liberals are always spouting off that we cannot hospitalize mentally ill people and keep too many of them off the street because we do not want to violate their rights..

IF this mentally ill person had mental papers filed on him by any of those MANY people who were aware of his mental illness, he would NOT have passed the FBI backround check and he would not have been able to purchase the gun.
There is the truth.


You hit the nail on the head

I didn't call you anything.......you blamed the bogey man liberals who don't want the mentally ill put away.

This is called projection.......

The best solution
 

The one and the best solution is: NO HANDGUNS ALLOWED!!

If you say your 2nd Amendment rights allow handguns - (In JimJoe's famous words, "Prove It"). The drafters of the Constitution had flintlock muskets and never envisioned semi-automatic Glock pistols with an extended magazine:boom:. Since al lot of you are "strict constitutionists", get a flintlock musket and keep that as allowed by the Constitution.

The 2nd Amendment also makes reference to the guns being necessary to a militia. Well, the militia is The National Guard. Let the guns be owned only by National Guard members - as well as law enforcement officers.

'Nuff said, time for more golf. Maybe I can "shoot" par!!

The constitution says : A well regulated Militia, being necessary to secure the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" do you not understand.
It says Arms, not flinklock musket.
Whether the reason for the right to bear arms was to have a well regulated Militia means the National Guard or not, " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
It seems to me that if you believe in gun control, you should see a Constitutional Amendment, and that may be appropriate.

It's all about the money!
 

This gun stuff has nothing to do with the second amendment and all to do with money. Just follow the money.Politics as usual in D.C. In 1994 Congress passed the assault weapons ban which included a ban on high capacity magazines which enable a gun to fire a fusalage of shots very quickly without reloading. Honestly,and any gun afficinado will tell you,the only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to kill a lot of people quickly.
In 2004 with President Bush support the Senate supported renewal but the House never voted on it.
Now this nut buys a handgun and 2 high capacity 33 round magazines and in a matter of seconds kills 6 people.
Here is where it becomes very obvious to me that money buys votes on BOTH sides od the aisle. NRA spent $12.2 million in the 2009-2010 election cycle with $1.4 going directly to candidates of BOTH parties.
Maybe I'm a dreamer but I do not believe that our representitives would vote to allow assault rifles and high capacity magazines to be sold under the guise of the second amendment.
As a gun owner I find this sickening. People it's ALL about the money. Think about it. Even if they cancelled the 2nd amendment do you really think people like me would give up my guns?
I just wonder how these people would vote if the NRA wasn't giving them money. This is part of the reason why I have no faith in our government. To me they are all bought and paid for and this liberal v conservative stuff might get some of you excited but in the big picture if you are not contributing lots of money your wasting your breath.

I get nothing from the NRA. I do not own a gun. I respect the Constitution.