Nashville school shooting: Woman ‘armed with assault-style rifles’ kills six

konfab said:
Great stuff, then have that same qualification to vote.
Click to expand...

Or maybe just limit it to men. Or landowners. Just like the good old days, hey?

konfab said:
Why do you agree with the notion that someone who is too irresponsible to own a gun is allowed to elect a politician who can take your money and spend it?
Click to expand...

Because it never crossed my mind. I'm not sure why would you equate guns with voting, it's an entirely different issue. I'm thinking no taxation without representation.

konfab said:
If you cannot trust them with a firearm, you cannot trust them with the right to vote.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. I mean how far do you want to stretch that? I mentioned a car for example. By your logic is it okay to endanger yours and others lives driving a car with no lessons or tests to prove you know the laws of the road or how to handle a car? What is different about a gun? Prove you can handle it and know what you are doing, then sure, go get one.

konfab said:
So lets play this out in reality using the US constitution. You have the right to vote at 18, and you cannot vote if you have a criminal record. The horror. You want to make it more strict than that? Well then you have to be comfortable with the government creating legislation limiting the right to vote based on their mental health.
Click to expand...

Again, why? And at what level of gun do you stop in this free for all gun society? Is a Howitzer allowed on your front lawn? If so why not?
 
Spizz said:
Or maybe just limit it to men. Or landowners. Just like the good old days, hey?
Click to expand...
Woman need firearm ownership more than men do.

Spizz said:
Because it never crossed my mind. I'm not sure why would you equate guns with voting, it's an entirely different issue. I'm thinking no taxation without representation.
Click to expand...
Both are constitutional rights in the US. Both are protectors of freedom.

Spizz said:
Nonsense. I mean how far do you want to stretch that? I mentioned a car for example. By your logic is it okay to endanger yours and others lives driving a car with no lessons or tests to prove you know the laws of the road or how to handle a car? What is different about a gun? Prove you can handle it and know what you are doing, then sure, go get one.
Click to expand...
Works for me, prove that you won't endanger other people with your vote by being able to display a certain level of political understanding and you can vote. For example, if you agree with the statement: "Democracy means the majority can do whatever it wants", you are objectively a danger to other people.


Spizz said:
Again, why? And at what level of gun do you stop in this free for all gun society? Is a Howitzer allowed on your front lawn? If so why not?
Click to expand...
At what level of voting do you stop in this free for all democratic society? Should the majority be able to confiscate the wealth of anyone they deem fit?
 
konfab said:
No. It is like saying anorexia made a person shoot up a McDonalds

Mental illness as a defence is when the person lacks the capacity to have understood what they were doing was wrong.

Someone believing they were born in the wrong body wouldn’t work towards that type of defence. They would need to raise reasonable doubt that being a tranny makes a person sufficiently incapable of moral decision making.
Click to expand...
Ok great we agree, despite the mental illness this person was still fully able to tell right from wrong?

This is what I don't get maybe you can help me. The US gun lobby always says that the guns are not the problem but rather it's mental illness. This has been a strong theme running through this thread. Am I correct that this defense implies nothing needs to be done about "guns" rather we need to address mental illness to solve these mass shooting events?

But you already agree that the mental illness played no effect on this person's ability to tell right from wrong so why do you think treating the mental illness will address the problem?
 
To my earlier post, I found another view with similar views

28dIqnc.jpeg
 
Gyre said:
Yep, we're a sick society.
Click to expand...
Been at it for a good few years it would seem...

History of School Shootings in the United States​

1700s​

The earliest known United States shooting to happen on school property was the Pontiac's Rebellion school massacre on July 26, 1764, where four Lenape American Indian entered the schoolhouse near present-day Greencastle, Pennsylvania, shot and killed schoolmaster Enoch Brown, and killed nine or ten children (reports vary). Only two children survived.

History of School Shootings in the United States | K12 Academics

1700s The earliest known United States shooting to happen on school property was the Pontiac's Rebellion school massacre on July 26, 1764, where four Lenape American Indian entered the schoolhouse near present-day Greencastle, Pennsylvania, shot and killed schoolmaster Enoch Brown, and killed...
www.k12academics.com www.k12academics.com
 
When Uvalde happened, I said the police responded poorly.

I was told I was wrong.

It has been shown the police responded poorly.

I am glad thr police responded as swift as was possible. Many children were saved by their actions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X