Robert Card (Maine Mass Shooter) Case Analysis

  • Thread starter Thread starter CrazyNutz
  • Start date Start date
So are you saying there were more guns in civilian hands 70 years ago, or less? I guess I’m confused at what point you are trying to make.
I’m saying that gun laws were more lax, but we had less mass shootings. Ergo, it’s not the gun availability that’s the problem.
 
It would be extremely naive to believe that quote and think it’s exclusive to a particular country.
I don’t know what sources are what, but the US does make up like 70% of mass shootings.
Granted, I don’t know what constitutes a “mass shooting”
Is some dude in Israel going ape shit a mass shooting? Or is it just wartime fodder
 
I don’t know what sources are what, but the US does make up like 70% of mass shootings.
Granted, I don’t know what constitutes a “mass shooting”
Is some dude in Israel going ape shit a mass shooting? Or is it just wartime fodder
That quote says “mental illness” and “massacre someone”. Context is very important here and still not exclusive.
 
I’m saying that gun laws were more lax, but we had less mass shootings. Ergo, it’s not the gun availability that’s the problem.

Thats hardly evidential.

I posted this in another thread the other day, but 2A is like the Paris Hilton of amendments. It’s famous for being famous. The strongest argument for it still to be a right is because it’s already a right.

For the sake of discussion, I’ve never really heard an argument to keep it that isn’t circumstantial.
 
I think it’s conclusive, let alone strong. If it is gun access that’s the problem, it would have been worse when anyone could mail order a gun.

Very few things are the same now as they were in the 60s. But that is what I was asking with the quote. What has changed? Is it mental health? Probably.
is it more sophisticated guns? Probably that too.

But my point is, there is no reason that laws cannot change with society. People can still “bare arms” while being limited to which arms they can bare.
 
People can still “bare arms” while being limited to which arms they can bare.
So your argument is the type of gun? “Assault rifles” are the bogeyman, but I believe handguns are responsible for the vast majority of gun deaths. And those have been around, again, forever.
 
giphy-1.gif
 
So your argument is the type of gun? “Assault rifles” are the bogeyman, but I believe handguns are responsible for the vast majority of gun deaths. And those have been around, again, forever.

Assault rifles are only part of it.
It’s just like what you said, “what has changed?”. It’s the driving force of troubleshooting most any problem.

In this instance we are talking about gun ownership and mental health. More simply, mentally unstable people are getting ahold of guns. There is no way around that fact, so how is that happening? Is it irresponsible gun laws or irresponsible gun owners? If you didn’t say “a little bit of both” you are lying to yourself.
Most gun owners certainly are responsible, but gun owners are also the root of how unfit people are getting them.

So how to we fix that? Objectively, what is the best way to go about it? Either gun laws have to be tighter, gun owners have to keep them more secure, or we somehow abolish mental illness.

Or as always, a bit of everything
 
No one has demonstrated any sort of link between “Mental illness” and gun violence. I assert that the most dangerous people are in fact thought to be mentally well, EG the US government that incinerated two Japanese cities with nuclear bombs. Or the Israelis genociding the Palestinians. The problem lies in one’s definition of “Mental illness.”
 
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

- J. Krishnamurti

The really hopeless victims of mental illness are to be found among those who appear to be most normal. "Many of them are normal because they are so well adjusted to our mode of existence, because their human voice has been silenced so early in their lives, that they do not even struggle or suffer or develop symptoms as the neurotic does." They are normal not in what may be called the absolute sense of the word; they are normal only in relation to a profoundly abnormal society. Their perfect adjustment to that abnormal society is a measure of their mental sickness.

- Aldous Huxley
 
No one has demonstrated any sort of link between “Mental illness” and gun violence. I assert that the most dangerous people are in fact thought to be mentally well, EG the US government that incinerated two Japanese cities with nuclear bombs. Or the Israelis genociding the Palestinians. The problem lies in one’s definition of “Mental illness.”

Then who is killing people? If guns don’t kill people, what does?
 
Then who is killing people? If guns don’t kill people, what does?
I don’t think you can categorize like that. Humans kill humans. It’s like asking why do chimpanzees kill other chimpanzees. It’s just how it is, there’s no fixing it, unfortunately. Hopefully we can elevate our collective consciousness and reduce killing. We live in a culture of violence and should change that.
 
I don’t think you can categorize like that. Humans kill humans. It’s like asking why do chimpanzees kill other chimpanzees. It’s just how it is, there’s no fixing it, unfortunately. Hopefully we can elevate our collective consciousness and reduce killing. We live in a culture of violence and should change that.

Chimpanzees have nothing to do with societal norms.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top