Yeah, people always try to put all the gun crimes down to 'flyover' states. Even if they're not flyover states. But fair play, a lot of states in the Midwest and West have little or no gun restrictions. People like to finger point at Chicago for being some kind of murder capitol, but it isn't, and the reason there are so many guns in Chicago is because Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa and Missouri are full of guns, but not full of restrictions on them, so the gunrunners all come to Chicago to sell their wares.
The right to keep and bear arms was meant to be in the context of a national defense that could be called up by the government in case of a threat from the Brits. Or the indigenous people who were here first, of course.
The US court wouldn't let Mexico's lawsuit against them go forward, so... stronger measures might be called for. After all, 70% of the murders here are with US manufacured firearms.
(Children under the age of 12 also must have adult supervision, or at least permission, to handle firearms.)You people are insane if you had to write a law like that
it was also a way to have an army without paying them. Standing armies are expensive to maintain and when that amendment was written the funds weren't available to keep a standing army
Your second line doesn't follow from the first. Look, if you just want revenge, then the least you can do is admit that. Don't go around pretending you want what is best for society if all you want is to condemn a child to life-long suffering.
He murdered five people. He wounded two more. He killed a dog while he was murdering one of the people.
My second line absolutely follows the first. You're concerned with ruining his life. I'm pointing out that he didn't ruin the lives of those he murdered, he ended those lives. They're dead. Shot to death for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, which happened to be in line of sight of him when he decided to kill random people. Of course he's rained down suffering on the people who loved his victims.
He has nothing to contribute to society anymore. He gave that option up when he murdered five people for funsies. Child or not, he's old enough to know murdering people is wrong.
I don't want revenge. Revenge would be to kill him in turn. I want him locked away from society. I don't really care about the bright future he may have had. He murdered five people. He can spend the rest of his days in prison.
I agree. Start charging the parents of Teenage Mutant Schoolyard Shooters as co-conspirators on every single count of murder/GBH/destruction that their child is charged with. I bet if parents were held criminally and financially liable for their crimes, this stuff would probably slow way down, hopefully.
Worked for Australia. And those fuckers are CRAZY.
Yeah, people always try to put all the gun crimes down to 'flyover' states. Even if they're not flyover states. But fair play, a lot of states in the Midwest and West have little or no gun restrictions. People like to finger point at Chicago for being some kind of murder capitol, but it isn't, and the reason there are so many guns in Chicago is because Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa and Missouri are full of guns, but not full of restrictions on them, so the gunrunners all come to Chicago to sell their wares.
The right to keep and bear arms was meant to be in the context of a national defense that could be called up by the government in case of a threat from the Brits. Or the indigenous people who were here first, of course.
The US court wouldn't let Mexico's lawsuit against them go forward, so... stronger measures might be called for. After all, 70% of the murders here are with US manufacured firearms.
As scarce as hardwood forests in the Black Rock Desert.
It's too bad nobody asked the rest of us if that's the kind of society we wanted.
Oh, they don't care. There was a lot of money to be made.
(Children under the age of 12 also must have adult supervision, or at least permission, to handle firearms.)You people are insane if you had to write a law like that
it was also a way to have an army without paying them. Standing armies are expensive to maintain and when that amendment was written the funds weren't available to keep a standing army
maybe he could shoot the potholes for you?
oooh, now there's a thought - can we dress up as facists?
yeah i've seen something similar
Your second line doesn't follow from the first. Look, if you just want revenge, then the least you can do is admit that. Don't go around pretending you want what is best for society if all you want is to condemn a child to life-long suffering.
He murdered five people. He wounded two more. He killed a dog while he was murdering one of the people.
My second line absolutely follows the first. You're concerned with ruining his life. I'm pointing out that he didn't ruin the lives of those he murdered, he ended those lives. They're dead. Shot to death for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, which happened to be in line of sight of him when he decided to kill random people. Of course he's rained down suffering on the people who loved his victims.
He has nothing to contribute to society anymore. He gave that option up when he murdered five people for funsies. Child or not, he's old enough to know murdering people is wrong.
I don't want revenge. Revenge would be to kill him in turn. I want him locked away from society. I don't really care about the bright future he may have had. He murdered five people. He can spend the rest of his days in prison.
I agree. Start charging the parents of Teenage Mutant Schoolyard Shooters as co-conspirators on every single count of murder/GBH/destruction that their child is charged with. I bet if parents were held criminally and financially liable for their crimes, this stuff would probably slow way down, hopefully.
It shouldn't be an option.