1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Multiple deaths, including children, at Connecticut school shooting

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Uncle.Ruckus, Dec 14, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    85% of gun owners favor stricter background checks.

    www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/most-gun-owners-favor-background-checks-for-private-gun-sales/
     
  2. dog eat dog world

    dog eat dog world New Member

    Just goes to show you that guns aren't the problem, it's people with mental health issues who have guns.
     
  3. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Lots of self congratulations being offered for the "bi-partisan efforts" and "cooperation" to prevent the mentally ill from committing gun violence:

    But, with all of this talk of "background checks" there is no talk of expanding the criteria for putting the mentally ill on a list of people ineligible to purchase guns:

    Both the shooters in Newtown and Aurora were known to have mental health issues. The Aurora shooter's own doctor had warned the police that he was a threat.

    Yet, this proposed legislation would not change a thing as far as their ability to purchase a firearm.
     
  4. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    I await the flowering of a new national mental health apparatus. Fully funded, of course, now that it's suddenly so important.
     
  5. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Is there evidence the shooters in Newtown and/or Aurora were not getting "proper treatment"?

    We're going to legislate background checks that would not prevent Adam Lanza from purchasing a gun, and that's supposed to stop these kinds of mass killings?

    Really?

    If we're going to do this, don't the Adam Lanzas of the world need to be on a list?
     
  6. YGBFKM

    YGBFKM Guest

    SYMBOLISM OVER SUBSTANCE!
     
  7. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Yup - anyone catch the opening of SNL this past week. They had it just about right.
     
  8. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    It's always best to do nothing.

    www.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/us/politics/party-rifts-complicate-chances-for-gun-bill-passage.html?hp
     
  9. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    The only thing this bill does it make it look like Washington has done something. It would be best if they stopped trying to sell it as a landmark of Washington once again coming back together and put politics aside.
     
  10. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    What special interest group could be standing between all these politicians and a few common sense solutions to gun violence?
     
  11. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Wouldn't common sense dictate that we create a system to identify a James Holmes or Adam Lanza, and restrict them from purchasing firearms?

    Why aren't we doing that? Who/what is preventing it?
     
  12. Bob Cook

    Bob Cook Active Member

    See earlier posts about failure to fund effective mental health treatment. Also, it's the same difficulty as rooting out teachers or coaches who end up molesting students/players -- unless there is a criminal record in place or some documented, public evidence that a person is dangerous, you're not going know there is a problem until one happens.

    However, to me that isn't an argument against background checks. You also need a mechanism to catch straw buyers working on behalf of those barred from buying guns for themselves. And, at the least, you can snuff out those who indeed would fail a background check in the first place. In the molester example above, generally ones with a record are smart enough to realize they can't be part of an organization that does a check, or the organization at least will be able to toss out that low-hanging fruit.

    Finally, it's not an either/or -- regulation of purchasing OR background checks. It's some combo of both, for the benefit of those who are law-abiding, and the detriment of those who are not.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page