Below is a quote from the husband of former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords as he is interviewed about this latest tragedy:
"As we mourn, we must sound a call for our leaders to stand up and do what is right. This time our response must consist of more than regret, sorrow, and condolence. The children of Sandy Hook Elementary School and all victims of gun violence deserve leaders who have the courage to participate in a meaningful discussion about our gun laws - and how they can be reformed and better enforced to prevent gun violence and death in America. This can no longer wait."
Am just watching a discussion on news night. Your Washington representative doesn't seem too optimistic. You have to hope it leads to some kind of debate. But why do your lobbyists always win?
The Uk has one of the tightet gun controls laws and as a direct reflection of our laws, we have the least amount of gun crimes. Most police officers do not even carry guns in our country. This was in direct relation with gun massacares and a public outcry to ban guns, There are very strict licensing processes now for guns and I am fully supportivr of these laws.
One thing that many Brits are proud ofis our gun laws. It is never contested or argued as it serves to protect us against horrific cases of gun crimes.
I would love to see our president stand up to lobbyists, the NRA in particular, and take steps to ban guns -- or at least limit them to single shot rifles for hunting (I hate hunting too but that's another story). The Constitution has been totally misinterpreted. The right to bear arms referred to the Militia, not today's gun crazy psychos. As for treating the mentally ill, don't get me started about health insurance. The conservatives have no compassion.
@catwoman2 Amen! I live in a very conservative state, and sometimes feel like such an outsider. It's refreshing to find someone with similar views. Today when the news broke on our lobby televisions, the secretary started ranting that this will only cause the evil Obama to try and take away our right to have guns. I was quite shocked by her response to this tragedy.
the problem with gun control discussions in the US is that 1) tight gun control laws do not curb violence with guns...if you don't believe it, take a look at Chicago, which is becoming one of the most violent cities in the US and it is ranked up around the top for gun control laws and 2) criminals don't obey the law. I forget which city it is where you can't conceal your weapon, but there's a city with very lenient gun control laws and they are one of the safest cities in the US. We need to discuss the root of the problem - which isn't guns, but mental health. This country is horrible when it comes to mental health.
@michelleyoung I am from the UK, People get shot all the time, Guns are still on the streets. Our press coverage is not so good on this issue. Just the other day my bus had to be re routed because someone fired a gun at some local gangster. Every day in London someone is knifed but the press don't cover it, the real statistics are not common knowledge.
@fueast --- The person who has the mental problem is the who has to take the first step and ask for help. No one else has any authority to force anyone to get help. No matter if we are afraid they will do something. There is nothing anyone can do until they hurt themselves or someone else. Until then it is up to the individual. It's very frustrating.
@jsw0109@ayearinthelifeof The statistics show that in the uk fire arm related death in the uk is almost 50 times lower than in the US. There may be multiple reasons but the differences are clear. Which isn't to say we don't have problems with violent crime but there is far less gun related crime. Hopefully we will cling onto the health service....
and i would like to suggest that there is something terribly wrong with the way that we are raising boys. we breed soldiers. we put toy guns in the hands of kids who aren't even able to talk through problems. we glorify and justify acts of violence in the name of patriotism, and expect that only actual soldiers will be influenced by that image of courage and power and bravery. it's a quick progression: men are aggressive. men protect. men shoot guns.
there is something wrong.
current constructions of masculinity do a terrible disservice to boys and men.
there is a difference between physical exertion and violence.
there is a difference between competition and domination.
as a culture, we can barely articulate a difference.
@fueast but the culture in the UK is completely different than here in the US. Its also completely different in Australia and pretty much every other country. I remember not too long ago on the news when they talked about a would be shooter that was caught before he could do anything. He wasn't able to get the guns he wanted to go on his killing spree (he was mentally ill) and so he went to a hardware store and a grocery store and bought what he needed to make dirty bombs... so he was going to kill people with homemade bombs instead - but he got caught, thank God. When a person is so disturbed that they'd go in an elementary school and shoot children.... they're going to do something horrific whether they can get their hands on a gun or not. There are people that drive their cars into buildings, sidewalks, etc to kill people. Even that guy that killed people at the The Dark Knight Rises premiere had bombs in his apartment.... we need better solutions to mental health issues.
@jsw0109 Sorry Jeff but I must object your your theory about Chicago, Chicago does have strict gun laws but you just have to step outside the city limits and you don't have those strict gun laws. This has to be a national debate not city by city or state by state. The US is never going to ban guns but there should be major reforms to gun laws and gun ownership... one of the many things that I wish they would do is put an insanely high tax on bullets and guns, we are so gun crazy in this country and the lobbyists need to loose the power that they hold over our government officials. How many more innocent people have to die in mass shooting before we can have an adult conversation about gun control. It makes me sick...
@jsorensenart but what about the guy that was going to go on a killing spree using dirty bombs because he tried to obtain guns legally but failed the background check? Sick people are going to do sick things by whatever means necessary - and some of them go black market to get their guns when they know they can't get them legally... how will that protect people? We have to do something about the law that prevents people from forcing a disturbed individual into a mental health care facility when they have reason to believe the person will harm themselves or others. Current laws (and this IS federal) require mental health care access to be VOLUNTARY unless the person harms themselves or others. In other words, we have to wait for them to kill people. If we do not start at the ROOT of the problem (which is not guns) we will never put a stop to senseless violence and deaths. Gun control is nothing but smoke and mirrors if we fail to address the problems that lead to people doing horrific things like what happened in CT.
@jsw0109 Totally agree that gun control laws aren't like waving a magic wand over the problem but you must admit that guns make mass killing much easier. I am sure that if high explosives could be bought at Walmart they would be used much more in tragedies, but we have pretty strict laws about high explosives. Sick people will do sick things but maybe it shouldn't be as easy as going to the local Pawn shop and buying an arsenal. It is a complicated problem but better gun control laws are part of the answer. And remember gun control doesn't mean no guns.
This is crazy. How Second Amendment advocates can still claim reality? This man should never, never, have been able to obtain the weapons he had. And if that stopped others from obtaining similar weapons, so what?
We can talk about mental illness and such, but just stop ANYONE from getting such weapons. Why would such weapons be necessary? To revolt against a potentially "illegal" government? Puleeze....
@jsorensenart I'm not saying there should be no laws making it harder for people to get things like semi automatic weapons, etc. I'm saying that if we fail to address the root problems, no amount of gun control will solve the problem.... we'll still have mass killings. People will just make bombs (you don't need high explosives... you probably have all you need to make a dirty bomb in your house and garage right now) Everyone cries out for gun control (or banning) immediately upon news like what happened at that school because its such an easy thing to blame. But the guns didn't make that guy kill anyone. Cars don't make drunk drivers kill people. Spoons don't make people fat. For all the problems we face in the world, if we refuse to look at the root problems and only look at the symptoms, we'll never solve a single problem. The first thing any of us should be doing is praying for the families of the victims. The second thing we should be doing is asking "what led to that young man's moral demise that resulted in such a horrific act of violence?" NOT "how did he get the guns?" That's the question we should ask after we've found the answer to the other question and addressed the problems that led to the event.
@jsw0109 - You said it brother! Mental health is the problem. If not a gun these crazies would use a bomb (McVeigh) etc. But I do believe guns should be restricted more in cities. However in the end its criminals and crazies that are the problem and not law abiding citizens.
@dmortega Dorrena, This is not true. If you know someone (friend/family member/etc) and you have strong evidence to believe he/she is an immediate danger to self or someone else (evidenced by threats, actions, behavior, etc), you are welcome to file a petition for involuntary mental health evaluation with your local magistrate. This petition- if approved- takes away his/her right to choose to get help and requires them to receive a psychiatric evaluation.
The mental health field is not perfect. There are many good people in that field doing all they can with the cards they are dealt.
We also have a responsibility to others, not the least of which are the victims of this, and other like tragedies, to be aware of our rights and responsibilities when it comes to mental health.
As I watch the news and see the photos from this horrific tradgedy I find myself unable to comprehend how this can happen to tiny little kids and how can those parents and families cope?
Listen up everyone. I am in a unique position for everyone on 365. I was raised in Sandy Hook and attended that school the first year it opened. Now I have lived in rural Idaho for 13 years, a very strong gun rights state. I also lived in the San Francisco Bay Area for 29 years, which is strongly anti-gun. First - the comments many of you have had on mental health are right on. We need to drastically improve our mental health screening and care. Second - the answer on gun control is somewhere in the middle. We need gun registration and improved screening, despite what the NRA says. We also need to eliminate most assault weapons. BUT don't even think about taking away all guns. It sure as hell won't work here in rural Idaho or most of rural America. City folks just don't get that. Guns are a way of life here, for hunting, stock protection, and target sports. They aren't going to go away. By the way, if you are interested in what Newtown and Sandy Hook are like, I was there last June and posted this on my blog at the time: http://rosswalkerphotos.blogspot.com/2012/07/my-home-town-in-connecticut.html
@michelleyoung Yes, gun crime is down in the UK but the prevelence of knife crime is exceptionally high. We've not necessarily solved the problem, just shifted it (although, I admit, it's not as easy to kill such a number of people in one go with a knofe as with a gun)
@jsw0109 No offence, but I object to you calling these people 'sick'. We don't know whether the shooter had a mental health problem (as far as I'm aware?), but it's likely that he did. Depression can make people do horific things, as can other illnesses. If does not mean that these people are 'sick' or 'psychos' it means that they got to a point in their life where they felt unable to cope as the rest of us would and it led to this horrific traedy.
I do a lot of work in the mental healt field (UK) nd am a service user myself. It's really not as easy as it may seem to sort out this kind of thing. Firstly, a huge number of the cuts are targeting MH areas, probably largely because they're a more 'hidden' problem. Also, you have much more of an issue with revolving door patients and with people who need to cling onto someone for a long time. With physical care, there is a set expected time for treatment. Ie, you have cancer, you know your chemo will be 6 months followed by 1 month radiotheraphy, for example. But with mental health it's a different story, your health can change at a moments notice and a professional can't be with you 24//7. You need the support of family anfd friends and if you've not go that then you're in a much weaker position then someone who has. There isn't a time limit, as such on MH treatment as there is on physical health treatment, so it is much harder to fund and can be an awful lot more expensive. Finally, sometimes people can show no signs of mental illness at all and then one day they will have a breakdown and just snap. How would professionals know to interfere in this case?! It's an awful lot more complicated then you initially think and there is still a heck of a lot of stigmas surrounding the issue.
@naomi it wasn't intended to be offensive... but it is a sickness. When you have the flu you aren't well, you are sick and need to do certain things to cope with the symptoms and get better. Its no different when what is wrong is mental instead of physical.... you won't get better without treatment. You don't treat someone who is well, you treat someone who is sick.
I hardly have the energy to join in the debate, other than to say how horrifically saddened I am by these dreadful tragedies that continue to plague our country. . .but I personally even find it difficult to understand why someone would want to hunt a deer. My heart wrenches with the shared pain of the school, the community, and the families who lost loved ones. May all of our collective prayers and blessings be with them. . .
I think there should be a ban on assault weapons AND better checks on who can purchase a gun. A knife-wielding maniac can't kill so many so quickly as someone with a gun - the attack in China resulted in injuries but no deaths.
I am probably going to get blasted... but I will not apologize for my opinion. You can claim gun control . But the sad true fact is.. those guns were registered. The guns did not jump up out of bed and decide to kill. It was human.. not a gun. Yes he made the choice of weapon a gun. But the gun did not decide. He did... plain and simple... The gun did not kill. The person did. I am utterly and totally devastated for those parents. Sisters brothers grandparents aunts uncles. And even total strangers. This was an unnecessary violent act..
@jsw0109 Jeff, I believe you've stated the fundamental issue very well. I hate to state the obvious, but guns don't kill people, it is people that kill people.
yes, but people with guns kill a lot more people than people do with knives. That seems pretty obvious too. People should be allowed to have their hunting rifles, but not all these handguns. .
Also, what is with this "Don't think about A before B" argument? Why can't we think about root causes AND put some gun control laws in place? Some people seem to be wanting to stall the issue by throwing up a giant social issue that may or may not have anything to do with particular shootings. Like Naomi said, this shooter may not have been mentally ill, or he might not have had any symptoms of mental illness.
I like junk food sometimes. There is no place near my work to get it. Therefore, I don't eat it very much. I pack my lunch and I can't pack french fries as easily as I can a yogurt and some tangerines. The point is restricting access to something would make a difference. Of course there are those people who will blow themselves and hundreds of others up on a plane and there is nothing anyone can do about it, but there are situations we can prevent.
While I do understand the gun opponents viewpoint, I ask this...if someone breaks into my house when I'm home, how am I supposed to prevent them from harming me? Even if they don't have a gun, they can still do plenty of damage to me (including murder) considering I'm 5ft 4in and about 120lb. I couldn't fight him off hand-to-hand.
I DO own a gun and if someone breaks into my house and tries to do me harm, I'll do my best to ensure he leaves in a body bag. It's called self defense.
@vase Well put Carla. There are gun controls in Australia and this doesn't prevent farmers or others having access to rifles for shooting feral species like rabbits or foxes, or from hunting. What it does mean is that gun owners, including sporting shooters have to be trained, and keep weapons properly secured. here there are also controls on carrying knives as well.
Weapons in the wrong hands, or within unfettered access when a person is feeling impassioned or angry can lead to dangerous situations. This is not just at the individual or local level but also seems to be the basis for a considerable amount of international policy aimed at arms control. although arms races, sales and buildups seem based on promotion of insecurity. (It reminds me a little of survey questions which ask whether people think that the police do a good job and whether they are corrupt. Most people will answer yes to both wuestions even when they are in same questionaire).
The idea that there is a "right to bear arms" is an entitlement that seems unique to the United States. Elsewhere there is no such right, and the notion applied elsewhere often seems to be considered an aberration. The right to bear arms is an historic precept arising from a different time, place and context which seemed aimed at allowing a citizenry to protect a nascent revolution following a war of independence. Today in other countries such a right is likely to be geopolitically condemned elsewhere.
The United States has a proud tradition of protecting and supporting rights, particularly rights of individuals. Much more so than many other coutries. I suspect that the right however not to bear arms, and the protection of innocents needs consideration also.
I loved visiting the USA, 18 months ago and plan to visit again next year. It amazed me for example how courteous most drivers were, particularly to pedestrians, and much more than here. As an outsider I fear guns when i travel, and was amazed at seeing armed guards with sub-machine guns in Paris and outside banks in South America. I think that @meisen325 should be congratulated for starting this debate and allowing others to share their views.
'the mental will find a way to cause violence regardless of what weapon they have in their hands'
I, too, would like to know what you mean by this. Firstly, 'the mental', who do you mean by this? Anyone with mental health problems? 1 in 4 people will experience a mental health problem at some point in their lifetime. If we all 'found a way' then I doubt there'd be many people left on this earth and there'd be more prisons then houses!
Sorry for nit-picking this, it's an issue very close to my heart! Mental health probelsm are common but stigmatised, and I firmly believe that the use of language such as 'sick', 'psyco', and 'mentals' only further this stigma.
@cheribug I agree 100%, thought I would post the below borrowed this from a friend on Facebook.
"I don't want to hear about guns, how they caused it, or how they could have prevented it. And I don't want to hear about public schools, or private schools, or homeschooling. Stop, right now, and think about the families that hugged their kids this morning and sent them to school for the last time. And for the loved ones of teachers and other staff who watched them head off to work because they wanted to make a difference for someone else's child. And consider for one minute how you would feel if you were in their shoes right now, and how someone made it about guns, or schools, or some other hot button issue of the moment. Because at this moment, what it IS about is that those people are never coming home to their families & loved ones! And those families have to grieve their children, their loved ones, and think about what their last minutes were like. And other families have to hug their children and tell them their friends or classmates or teachers are never coming back and try to help them make sense of that. There's no agenda to that, no politics, and no way to try and rationalize it. It is purely evil and vile ugliness and unbearable tragedy that transcends any political argument that can be made".
@rvwalker Hi Ross, your post is the only one I read so far in this thread. I am Canadian and our citizens do not have right to bear arms in the same sense as yours do. I agree there is no need to eliminate all guns such as rifles and shot guns for hunting etc. But the average citizen in your country can easily access assault rifles, semi-automatic weapons and hand guns. Sure if you want an illegal gun here you can find it...but that is usually within the hands of organized crime, gangs etc. Their agenda is scary enough, but you don't have the average citizen whom may lose their mind for whatever reason getting their hands on an assault weapon and wreaking havoc on it's fellow citizens. It's obscene. Yup it's happened here, but the incidents are far and few between. If this isn't a wake up call for gun law legislation, I don't know what is!
@hollandcrew your friend has got to the heart of the only thing that matters at this time. Namely, those who lost their lives and their families and friends, and those unfortunate enough to witness it but fortunate enough to survive. This is heartbreaking.
@hollandcrew I love your post from your friend. It's exactly what I was thinking. It's so unfortunate and tragic, and I can't even begin to understand what those families are going through. I have to agree with Jeff @jsw0109 about the root of the problem. My family lives in a rural area in the middle of the country. Guns are very prevalent here...a part of a lot of people's lives...ours included. We target shoot as a family; my husband, his dad, and my son all hunt together; my son is a competitive shooter with a chance at the jr. olympics in January; and my husband and I are licensed for concealed carry. I don't choose to carry my handgun on a daily basis, but don't think for a second that I wouldn't use it if it came down to the safety of my family. My son has a chance to go far in his competitive shooting, even earn scholarships for college through it. There is so much more to guns that just what people see on the news. I hate to see the attention from this to focus on just guns. Taking away the guns won't solve the problems that led to this. In the news reports I read, this young man did suffer from a mental illness of some kind. He should have never had access to these guns in the home. If there had been a better control on the guns in the home, this tragedy may have been prevented.
I know people feel very strongly about this, and I'm not trying to get into a debate with anyone. I am really just heartbroken for all these families. We need to be praying for everyone involved in this tragedy.
@vase because we have plenty of gun control laws on the books already. You have to wait 2 weeks to purchase a gun because you have to get a permit first and there's a background check (that includes FBI background check which is as thorough as it gets) and yet criminals still get their hands on guns. How? Easy, criminals disregard the laws. You could outright ban all guns and take away the right to bear arms and criminals will still get them. Gun control laws only affect law abiding citizens. This event should never have been used as fodder for a political agenda. There were victims in this event, and loved ones of those victims. The first thing anyone should be doing is praying for those people - not going all political on gun control. I personally do not own a gun, because one of the people under my roof suffers from depression and I fear for what could happen if I did have a gun. But that does not mean that no one should have guns. It just means people need to start in their own homes and protect their families, and sometimes protection means not having a gun, but sometimes protection means having one. But this tragedy is NOT about guns. Its about what led to that young man feeling the need and desire to harm others. If everyone focused on the root causes when things like this happened, it would become easier to find the signals that result in these tragedies so that people would know what to look for and then and only then could these events be prevented.
Remember history class when you learned about prohibition? People thought alcohol was bad and condemned alcohol and laws were passed banning it. Prohibition gave the mafia a lot of power (and money) and violent crime skyrocketed. But alcohol is an inanimate object. It can't be bad. Oh sure, there are people that abuse it. They're called alcoholics. And some of them drive and kill innocent people because they are drunk. But if we went back to prohibition, violent crime would skyrocket again. We've learned from our past so we don't entertain the thought of prohibition now. What about cell phones? Cell phones kill people now because of people texting and driving. Should we condemn the phones? No, we condemn the act of texting while driving. History has shown us that treating an inanimate object as "evil" gets us into more trouble.
If you look back to the recent mass murders in the USA, they all happened in places that do not allow firearms. The only real solution is to arm all employees and train them to use that firearm. Prohibiting firearms will only allow violent crimes to increase just look at England and Australia.
Guns did not initiate these crimes any more than a car causes you to get drunk.
To all those who say "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", I respond "Guns in the hands of unstable people kill many many people". Of course other weapons can kill, but guns are the most efficient killing machines available to the average civilian in the U.S.
Gun control doesn't mean abolishing all guns. There's no reason, for example, why a law-abiding citizen needs an assault rifle. Yes, if a person bent on mass murder is determined enough, they could probably get their hands on a gun despite regulations. But why make it so easy?
Is your right to bear arms more sacred than a child's right to life?
I'm sorry folks but there were 51 gun-related deaths in the UK last year. and 32,000 in the USA. Of those 32,000 20,000 were accidental. I just cannot understand why anybody would think those numbers are acceptable. Many of these crimes and accidents seem to be perpetrated by teenage boys. One thing we all know is that teenage boys like to experiment and act big and mess around - it's part of growing up. Sometimes they are unwell and disturbed. In this country if they are 'lucky' they may be able to get their hands on an air rifle and shoot a few cans. They will not get their hands on their parents' pistols or high velocity rifles or, god forbid a semi-automatic weapons because the parents don't own them. As a result they do not accidentally or deliberately shoot each other except in very rare circumstances. Of course there are criminals who will get their hands on guns and use them but to do that here you have to enter the criminal underworld. What about the human rights of those children - are they not protected by the constitution? You can never completely prevent tragedies like this but you don't have to make it so very easy.
I feel if someone wants a gun bad enough, they will find a way to get one. Many drugs are illegal but people can find them, too.
Something has gone terribly wrong. I'm wondering what we can do to help kids grow up in a healthy environment and in healthy families so they do not become so troubled that the only answer is violence.
Should schools be able to teach morals and the value of life and maybe have parenting classes even in elementary schools so children can learn to cope and be more responsible people when they grow up... something to give them the tools to bring up loving and healthy children? Do video games play a part in how our teenagers are thinking? I don't know. I just wish there was a way to change things so everyone can feel valued and not grow up into a life of violence and rage. I'm sorry if I'm not very good with words.
@mittens But a lot of the accidental deaths are not even people who particularly want a gun. My American friend's neighbour was killed by his schoolmate because they were playing with a gun that was readily available. We also have inadequate mental health services (which mostly leads to harm for the poor people who are sick) but when people get paranoid or whatever they don't reach into a bedside table and find a gun. Of course criminals will get one if they make enough effort but they don't tend to do these horrendous multiple attacks. Easy access particularly to powerful weapons makes no sense at all to me.
@jsw0109 the shooters mother made the decision to "start in her own home" and own some ridiculously dangerous weapons. Now she and 28 others are dead.
The government takes away freedoms all the time. I cannot drive on the sidewalk or through red lights..I'm forced to drive in these lanes and obey signals. As a society we agree that those restrictions actually give us more freedom.
I see your point about cells phone and alcohol and I agree that those things should not be banned. There is an area of debate about what things and substances should be legal and which not. We don't have free access to cocaine, meth and uranium production. In areas where sudafedrine is restricted, meth addiction goes down, for example. I think many agree that that law is worth it. We don't just sit back and say "It's people who do bad things, not things" because we know that substances and things influence people's behavior and can hurt others unfairly.
I'm glad you brought up the word "evil" because it is being thrown about in the news here in a most unintelligent way. The networks keep saying "Evil visited Sandy Hooks." This is really problematic since it's dehumanizing the shooter, abstracting him into something demonic, dark and random. This move is the opposite of what you are doing, Jeff, which is asking us to think about root causes. And I agree with you about the need to look at root causes and treat the shooter as a person who needed more attention. We also need to look at access to guns in this country and how that is leading to deaths. We disagree on that point.
@vase
While I do not have specific statistics at the moment, I would say that both @jsw0109 and I can disagree with the numbers of meth incidents going down due to restrictions on sudafedrine, at least where we live in Indiana.
When I first read this posting, I didn't know about Sandy Hook -- found out on Facebook. What puzzles me is why the mother would have a gun collection with an apparently disturbed son living in the house. It's so horrible and disturbing. I cannot understand why the government can't stand up to the NRA and do something about the proliferation of guns in our society. Lobby groups have way too much power and need to be regulated.
@mej2011 definitely. meth is a huge problem here, and just north of here is essentially the meth making capitol of the world. The criminals just pay people to buy the Sudafed and keep track of them to make sure they don't buy too much. Law abiding citizens don't necessarily know the limit, and just attempting to buy more than the law allows will cause the pharmacist to stall you so the police can come arrest you - just for ATTEMPTING to buy more than what is allowed. I know this for fact because I have a client with a large family that has a class D felony due to trying to buy 3 boxes of Sudafed because the entire family got sick at the same time. Apparently 2 is the limit within a 30 day period.
@judithg but its not "easy access". To stay within the law, no matter what your state requirements are for buying a gun, there are laws regarding transporting them and owning/carrying them. You have to have a license, and that involves a 2 week wait while a background check is done. It also requires a permit from the local police to be able to carry the weapon. What we probably need is better enforcement of the gun control laws we already have. And maybe a medical background check so that people who are bipolar, autistic, or have a history of depression or sociopathic tendencies don't get them. BUT, not everyone would have a diagnosis on the books, even once "Obamacare" is fully implemented, because some people don't want a diagnosis like that on their record because of the social stigma that goes with it. The solution will never be so easy as "gun control". Look at Canada, the UK and Australia.... when the numbers went down on homicides with guns, the numbers went up on homicides with knives and other instruments. The homicide rates didn't really change much, just the method of killing. Homicide rates will never improve significantly until the root causes of what drives a person to kill are addressed.... and that is a very complex problem. Gun control means nothing. Societal attitudes, family units, education, economic health, spirituality etc mean everything.
@mej2011 well, that would be a silly conclusion to draw, although from what I've seen on FB some people are drawing that conclusion. The sad thing is the fact there IS a social stigma on things like depression.
"More Americans die in gun homicides and suicides in six months than have died in the last 25 years in every terrorist attack and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined."
@chapjohn Actually, being from Australia, I have to disagree - Australia's violent crime rates are far lower than those of the US. In fact, the last mass-shooting to have happened here was in 1996 (as @kamb mentioned), and it prompted our government to institute a gun buy-back program, which has been successful if you consider the fact that no such event has happened since.
@jsw0109 You'll never convince me that there can ever be a justification for anybody having a semi-automatic rifle in their home. And whatever you say about knives (and we have very strict knife control here as well) you can't wipe out people nearly as fast as you can with a gun. And I used to enjoy target shooting at university (0.22 rifles - nothing fancy) - I know that it takes real calm and almost meditation to do that well - it's not about aggression but the guns were stored at the club - a powerful weapon would frighten me to death.
Pretty much any hunting rifle is semi automatic. Semi automatic simply means each time you pull the trigger, one projectile is fired. People use the term "semi automatic" to invoke fear. But I'm not arguing in FAVOR of people like the shooter's mother having the types of weapons she had knowing she had a son with issues. I'm just saying to simply go after guns will not significantly reduce the rate of violent crimes. I've done plenty of research and both the UK and Australia actually have a higher rate of violent crime than the US - granted, in the UK and Australia you are WAY LESS likely to be SHOT, but you are MORE likely to be a victim of a violent crime than here. (@pocketmouse your violent crime is only lower if you only factor violent crimes where a gun is involved - if you factor in ALL violent crimes, including rape, Australia leads the world in violent crime)
So just going after guns does not make us safer because it ignores the underlying causes of violent crime.... all it does it shift the ways in which people attack others. When do we start changing our attitudes and the way we treat others to combat the underlying causes and create real change? When do we stop turning a blind eye to child neglect and abuse? When do we stop turning a blind eye to bullying and ostracizing? When do we stop turning a blind eye to treating any citizen like a second class citizen? What happened Friday morning - not just in the US but also in China (where a knife wielding man stabbed 28 children) should be a wake up call that it is time we stop minding our own business and start looking out for one another, even if it means reporting a loved one to the police or child protective services. People are so caught up in not offending others that they allow these things to happen by staying out of it.
I am huge on compassion and using compassion and tough love to make lives better. If everyone would be more compassionate and use tough love when needed, we'd see significant drops in all forms of violent crime. If we stay apathetic to what goes on around us and let people do whatever they want because we don't want to get involved, then even a total gun ban will not reduce violent crime - only violent crime by firearms. I think some people have been missing my point and think I'm arguing in favor of owning whatever guns you want. My point is, we need to change our cultures and ourselves to create conditions that do NOT contribute to people feeling the need to harm others. For example, childhood neglect makes a person much more likely to act out aggressively than growing up in a home where a parent or parents are nurturing and involved in their child's life. So why does society constantly turn a blind eye to child neglect and say things like "its not my problem" or "I'm staying out of that, its none of my business"?
All around the world, that has to change. Its not just the US. Why aren't people equally appalled by what happened in China? All violence against a child should appall us, all violence against a child should get the same reaction from us as what happened in CT. Seeing a parent yell at their child and call them stupid should make our blood boil. We cannot tolerate any form of abuse on a child. When we do, they grow up and in too many cases, act out aggressively and attack others. We are equally at fault when these things happen if we ever turned a blind eye and figured "its none of my business"
Can you tell I'm a huge advocate for children? We all should be - it can prevent bigger problems in the future, like what happened at Sandy Hook.
@jsw0109 Well that is all true and it's obviously a complex problem which needs a multi-pronged approach - none of these things are mutually exclusive.
@judithg exactly. Any reduction/prevention of violent crime will always begin with how we treat children - and that, in and of itself, is a very complex issue since each child is unique. But we have to strive for doing right by each child because failing to do so results in things like the tragedy at Sandy Hook.
@pasadenarose I am with you 100% on homeowners needing protection. I too have guns, none of which have ever harmed anyone, because they're owned by someone who has a strong moral code and a deep appreciation for the sanctity of life.
There have been many cogent points made within various posts, and some promoting a reactionary posture. I don't believe extreme reactions are the solution. What will banning automatic weapons do about the millions that are already out there, many of which are in the hands of criminals? Banning guns won't stop killing; however, getting young people who may be predisposed to such behavior into a better environment might help.
I strongly believe that young kids need to get off the computer, away from exposure to pervasive violence, and out in nature where things make sense. They need strong and loving adult role models. I was raised in a rural setting, where hard work, personal responsibility, and knowledge of nature helped my siblings and me forge strong and positive identities, and develop depth and self-confidence. Our parents and other adult role models were loving but intolerant of nonsense and whining. We learned to become problem solvers, and that has served all of us beautifully to this day.
I think the best thing parents can do for their kids is get them outside as often and for as long as possible, and expose them to projects involving hard work and thus, the potential to learn and succeed and have a sense of self-sufficiency and confidence. Guns don't need banning - they didn't do anything wrong. Rather, how kids are raised in this country is what needs a serious look. I don't ever agree with Hillary Clinton, but when she said, "It takes a village", that notion does appeal to me where helping our kids is concerned. I believe there is a reason, when babies are baptized, that the congregants are commanded to help raise that child. This is all our responsibilities.
After the Dunblane massacre in Scotland we introduced very very strict guidelines, the police had an amnesty in which guns could be handed in, last year in the Uk they're was eight dieaths by shooting compared to 11000 in the USA. Banning guns is a no brainer. It wont stop all violence but it will send out a very strong message that sociaty has to change its views on violence. This cowboy approach that "we have the right to bear arms" belongs back in the pioneer days, stop peddaling the lie that 'guns dont kill people, people do' and change your whole attitude to this rediculous gun toting mentality. The lives of children should come before the NRA.
@dalboy Society has to change its views on violence all right, beginning with getting rid of gratuitous violence in movies, on TV and in video games, and getting kids outside to interact with their families and friends. Going to church wouldn't hurt either. As it stands, there is immense desensitization to the consequences of behavior, and a near-complete abandonment of taking responsibility for one's actions. Guns are symptoms, not causes. I'd be interesting in knowing if you've ever been the victim of violent crime. I have, in the form of a brutal rape at knifepoint. Maybe we'd better ban all knives too...I guess we'll have to use our bare hands to tear apart the Thanksgiving turkey.
All of your arguments make sense if you believe that the people in government can be trusted. Our founding fathers understood that this is not always the case and they wanted to make sure that the citizenry had the means to fight back against the government if that became necessary.
I just deleted a lot about personal self reliance and not relying on a government to protect us diatribe because my point above is all that is necessary. Our second amendment is not about the right to hunt, to sport shoot or anything else. It is the right to have arms to form a militia if that becomes necessary. No country where the citizens have the right to own arms has ever taken over by a dictator.
By putting this into the constitution, our founding fathers made sure that no congress, without an overwhelming majority of the population, would have the right to trade our liberty for a perceived security that the government surely cannot guarantee.
Our country was founded on freedom. Not freedom from crime but freedom to live our lives with minimal interference from a central government. Our state and local governments are supposed to hold the most power. That way you can live in a community that shares your sensibilities.
@coastandcactus Cissy I am so sorry that you were involved in such a horrific crime. I agree that there is such a horrendous prolifiration of violence in society. In Scotland we have just introduced a law where you can get five years in prison just for carrying a knife. Gun crime is very very rare here, all handguns were banned after dunblane, but knife crime is rife. Society has to change from top to bottom in it's attitudes to crime, there has to be zero tolerance. However banning guns sends of the strongest message that killings have to stop.
Those of you who sound fanatical about the right to keep guns sound to me as fanatical as those who might believe in a religion..!
Both wrong in my opinion but you're set in your belief and nothing in the world will sway you from that.!
I'm over 40, lived in London 24 years AND have never seen a gun... apart from a few on a copper (which I feel uneasy about & disagree with).!
People also mention the increase in knife crime in the UK.. And band about figures like 60-80% increase.. But that really ought to be quantified with numbers as the increase starts from a very low base figure.
@jwlynn64 "The purpose of the Second Amendment was to prevent the new Federal Government established in 1789 from disarming the state militias and replacing them with a Federal standing army. It was a concern that was relevant perhaps for a few years around the birth of the country. It is irrelevant today. Americans do not rely on state militias in 2012 for our freedom from the federal government."
And, FYI, when a dictator takes over a country it is always with the full support of that country's established armed forces. The assault weapons you may have stashed in your basement would be of no help.
@meisen325 The facts stand. No country where the citizens are allowed to own weapons have ever been taken over by a dictator. You can argue the cause all you want, that is just the facts.
The founding fathers were very worried about an oppressive federal government so they wisely put the right to bear arms into our constitution. So your argument is that they put the 2nd amendment into the constitution only to prevent the federal government from infringing on the states right to have a militia? Right....
I think that it can be argued that they were not putting limits on the type of arms you could own. The law of incremental-ism is why we are not allowed to own tanks or rocket launchers.
The argument about dictators having the support of the army prior to taking over a country only works in third would countries where being a soldier is the best way to increase your standard of living. That doesn't apply in this case.
I'm embarrassed that you you would argue that our constitution is outdated. The implication is that they didn't really think it through very well.
@andycoleborn Thanks for classifying all people who believe in a religion as fanatical. Just to think... we might believe in a religion!!! How fanatical!
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
One thing that many Brits are proud ofis our gun laws. It is never contested or argued as it serves to protect us against horrific cases of gun crimes.
there is something wrong.
current constructions of masculinity do a terrible disservice to boys and men.
there is a difference between physical exertion and violence.
there is a difference between competition and domination.
as a culture, we can barely articulate a difference.
@jsw0109
We can talk about mental illness and such, but just stop ANYONE from getting such weapons. Why would such weapons be necessary? To revolt against a potentially "illegal" government? Puleeze....
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2012/12/2012121481220620325.html
Same day, different continent... this one with a knife. What possesses anyone to harm children? I just don't get it.
The mental health field is not perfect. There are many good people in that field doing all they can with the cards they are dealt.
We also have a responsibility to others, not the least of which are the victims of this, and other like tragedies, to be aware of our rights and responsibilities when it comes to mental health.
@fueast @catwoman2 @jsw0109
@jsw0109 No offence, but I object to you calling these people 'sick'. We don't know whether the shooter had a mental health problem (as far as I'm aware?), but it's likely that he did. Depression can make people do horific things, as can other illnesses. If does not mean that these people are 'sick' or 'psychos' it means that they got to a point in their life where they felt unable to cope as the rest of us would and it led to this horrific traedy.
I do a lot of work in the mental healt field (UK) nd am a service user myself. It's really not as easy as it may seem to sort out this kind of thing. Firstly, a huge number of the cuts are targeting MH areas, probably largely because they're a more 'hidden' problem. Also, you have much more of an issue with revolving door patients and with people who need to cling onto someone for a long time. With physical care, there is a set expected time for treatment. Ie, you have cancer, you know your chemo will be 6 months followed by 1 month radiotheraphy, for example. But with mental health it's a different story, your health can change at a moments notice and a professional can't be with you 24//7. You need the support of family anfd friends and if you've not go that then you're in a much weaker position then someone who has. There isn't a time limit, as such on MH treatment as there is on physical health treatment, so it is much harder to fund and can be an awful lot more expensive. Finally, sometimes people can show no signs of mental illness at all and then one day they will have a breakdown and just snap. How would professionals know to interfere in this case?! It's an awful lot more complicated then you initially think and there is still a heck of a lot of stigmas surrounding the issue.
Sorry if I've offended anyone, just my 2 cents!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/09/usa.usgunviolence
Not all mentally ill people are violent, far from it and why would they find a way to cause violence?
I work in a prison and I'm seeing that there are a lot more violent crimes committed by the normal prisoners than there are by the mentally ill.
Also, what is with this "Don't think about A before B" argument? Why can't we think about root causes AND put some gun control laws in place? Some people seem to be wanting to stall the issue by throwing up a giant social issue that may or may not have anything to do with particular shootings. Like Naomi said, this shooter may not have been mentally ill, or he might not have had any symptoms of mental illness.
I like junk food sometimes. There is no place near my work to get it. Therefore, I don't eat it very much. I pack my lunch and I can't pack french fries as easily as I can a yogurt and some tangerines. The point is restricting access to something would make a difference. Of course there are those people who will blow themselves and hundreds of others up on a plane and there is nothing anyone can do about it, but there are situations we can prevent.
I DO own a gun and if someone breaks into my house and tries to do me harm, I'll do my best to ensure he leaves in a body bag. It's called self defense.
Weapons in the wrong hands, or within unfettered access when a person is feeling impassioned or angry can lead to dangerous situations. This is not just at the individual or local level but also seems to be the basis for a considerable amount of international policy aimed at arms control. although arms races, sales and buildups seem based on promotion of insecurity. (It reminds me a little of survey questions which ask whether people think that the police do a good job and whether they are corrupt. Most people will answer yes to both wuestions even when they are in same questionaire).
The idea that there is a "right to bear arms" is an entitlement that seems unique to the United States. Elsewhere there is no such right, and the notion applied elsewhere often seems to be considered an aberration. The right to bear arms is an historic precept arising from a different time, place and context which seemed aimed at allowing a citizenry to protect a nascent revolution following a war of independence. Today in other countries such a right is likely to be geopolitically condemned elsewhere.
The United States has a proud tradition of protecting and supporting rights, particularly rights of individuals. Much more so than many other coutries. I suspect that the right however not to bear arms, and the protection of innocents needs consideration also.
I loved visiting the USA, 18 months ago and plan to visit again next year. It amazed me for example how courteous most drivers were, particularly to pedestrians, and much more than here. As an outsider I fear guns when i travel, and was amazed at seeing armed guards with sub-machine guns in Paris and outside banks in South America. I think that @meisen325 should be congratulated for starting this debate and allowing others to share their views.
'the mental will find a way to cause violence regardless of what weapon they have in their hands'
I, too, would like to know what you mean by this. Firstly, 'the mental', who do you mean by this? Anyone with mental health problems? 1 in 4 people will experience a mental health problem at some point in their lifetime. If we all 'found a way' then I doubt there'd be many people left on this earth and there'd be more prisons then houses!
Sorry for nit-picking this, it's an issue very close to my heart! Mental health probelsm are common but stigmatised, and I firmly believe that the use of language such as 'sick', 'psyco', and 'mentals' only further this stigma.
"I don't want to hear about guns, how they caused it, or how they could have prevented it. And I don't want to hear about public schools, or private schools, or homeschooling. Stop, right now, and think about the families that hugged their kids this morning and sent them to school for the last time. And for the loved ones of teachers and other staff who watched them head off to work because they wanted to make a difference for someone else's child. And consider for one minute how you would feel if you were in their shoes right now, and how someone made it about guns, or schools, or some other hot button issue of the moment. Because at this moment, what it IS about is that those people are never coming home to their families & loved ones! And those families have to grieve their children, their loved ones, and think about what their last minutes were like. And other families have to hug their children and tell them their friends or classmates or teachers are never coming back and try to help them make sense of that. There's no agenda to that, no politics, and no way to try and rationalize it. It is purely evil and vile ugliness and unbearable tragedy that transcends any political argument that can be made".
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008002/article/10518-eng.htm#tphp
['] for all involved.
I know people feel very strongly about this, and I'm not trying to get into a debate with anyone. I am really just heartbroken for all these families. We need to be praying for everyone involved in this tragedy.
Remember history class when you learned about prohibition? People thought alcohol was bad and condemned alcohol and laws were passed banning it. Prohibition gave the mafia a lot of power (and money) and violent crime skyrocketed. But alcohol is an inanimate object. It can't be bad. Oh sure, there are people that abuse it. They're called alcoholics. And some of them drive and kill innocent people because they are drunk. But if we went back to prohibition, violent crime would skyrocket again. We've learned from our past so we don't entertain the thought of prohibition now. What about cell phones? Cell phones kill people now because of people texting and driving. Should we condemn the phones? No, we condemn the act of texting while driving. History has shown us that treating an inanimate object as "evil" gets us into more trouble.
Guns did not initiate these crimes any more than a car causes you to get drunk.
Gun control doesn't mean abolishing all guns. There's no reason, for example, why a law-abiding citizen needs an assault rifle. Yes, if a person bent on mass murder is determined enough, they could probably get their hands on a gun despite regulations. But why make it so easy?
Is your right to bear arms more sacred than a child's right to life?
Something has gone terribly wrong. I'm wondering what we can do to help kids grow up in a healthy environment and in healthy families so they do not become so troubled that the only answer is violence.
Should schools be able to teach morals and the value of life and maybe have parenting classes even in elementary schools so children can learn to cope and be more responsible people when they grow up... something to give them the tools to bring up loving and healthy children? Do video games play a part in how our teenagers are thinking? I don't know. I just wish there was a way to change things so everyone can feel valued and not grow up into a life of violence and rage. I'm sorry if I'm not very good with words.
The government takes away freedoms all the time. I cannot drive on the sidewalk or through red lights..I'm forced to drive in these lanes and obey signals. As a society we agree that those restrictions actually give us more freedom.
I see your point about cells phone and alcohol and I agree that those things should not be banned. There is an area of debate about what things and substances should be legal and which not. We don't have free access to cocaine, meth and uranium production. In areas where sudafedrine is restricted, meth addiction goes down, for example. I think many agree that that law is worth it. We don't just sit back and say "It's people who do bad things, not things" because we know that substances and things influence people's behavior and can hurt others unfairly.
I'm glad you brought up the word "evil" because it is being thrown about in the news here in a most unintelligent way. The networks keep saying "Evil visited Sandy Hooks." This is really problematic since it's dehumanizing the shooter, abstracting him into something demonic, dark and random. This move is the opposite of what you are doing, Jeff, which is asking us to think about root causes. And I agree with you about the need to look at root causes and treat the shooter as a person who needed more attention. We also need to look at access to guns in this country and how that is leading to deaths. We disagree on that point.
While I do not have specific statistics at the moment, I would say that both @jsw0109 and I can disagree with the numbers of meth incidents going down due to restrictions on sudafedrine, at least where we live in Indiana.
And that ladies and gentlemen is the problem with the U.S. government.
It should also be noted, that even IF a person is diagnosed that does NOT mean they will become homicidal or suicidal.
"More Americans die in gun homicides and suicides in six months than have died in the last 25 years in every terrorist attack and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined."
I agree, regarding the stigma and facebook opinions.
Pretty much any hunting rifle is semi automatic. Semi automatic simply means each time you pull the trigger, one projectile is fired. People use the term "semi automatic" to invoke fear. But I'm not arguing in FAVOR of people like the shooter's mother having the types of weapons she had knowing she had a son with issues. I'm just saying to simply go after guns will not significantly reduce the rate of violent crimes. I've done plenty of research and both the UK and Australia actually have a higher rate of violent crime than the US - granted, in the UK and Australia you are WAY LESS likely to be SHOT, but you are MORE likely to be a victim of a violent crime than here. (@pocketmouse your violent crime is only lower if you only factor violent crimes where a gun is involved - if you factor in ALL violent crimes, including rape, Australia leads the world in violent crime)
So just going after guns does not make us safer because it ignores the underlying causes of violent crime.... all it does it shift the ways in which people attack others. When do we start changing our attitudes and the way we treat others to combat the underlying causes and create real change? When do we stop turning a blind eye to child neglect and abuse? When do we stop turning a blind eye to bullying and ostracizing? When do we stop turning a blind eye to treating any citizen like a second class citizen? What happened Friday morning - not just in the US but also in China (where a knife wielding man stabbed 28 children) should be a wake up call that it is time we stop minding our own business and start looking out for one another, even if it means reporting a loved one to the police or child protective services. People are so caught up in not offending others that they allow these things to happen by staying out of it.
I am huge on compassion and using compassion and tough love to make lives better. If everyone would be more compassionate and use tough love when needed, we'd see significant drops in all forms of violent crime. If we stay apathetic to what goes on around us and let people do whatever they want because we don't want to get involved, then even a total gun ban will not reduce violent crime - only violent crime by firearms. I think some people have been missing my point and think I'm arguing in favor of owning whatever guns you want. My point is, we need to change our cultures and ourselves to create conditions that do NOT contribute to people feeling the need to harm others. For example, childhood neglect makes a person much more likely to act out aggressively than growing up in a home where a parent or parents are nurturing and involved in their child's life. So why does society constantly turn a blind eye to child neglect and say things like "its not my problem" or "I'm staying out of that, its none of my business"?
All around the world, that has to change. Its not just the US. Why aren't people equally appalled by what happened in China? All violence against a child should appall us, all violence against a child should get the same reaction from us as what happened in CT. Seeing a parent yell at their child and call them stupid should make our blood boil. We cannot tolerate any form of abuse on a child. When we do, they grow up and in too many cases, act out aggressively and attack others. We are equally at fault when these things happen if we ever turned a blind eye and figured "its none of my business"
Can you tell I'm a huge advocate for children? We all should be - it can prevent bigger problems in the future, like what happened at Sandy Hook.
Your last statement might just be the most intelligent thing I've read on the internet. Very well stated!
There have been many cogent points made within various posts, and some promoting a reactionary posture. I don't believe extreme reactions are the solution. What will banning automatic weapons do about the millions that are already out there, many of which are in the hands of criminals? Banning guns won't stop killing; however, getting young people who may be predisposed to such behavior into a better environment might help.
I strongly believe that young kids need to get off the computer, away from exposure to pervasive violence, and out in nature where things make sense. They need strong and loving adult role models. I was raised in a rural setting, where hard work, personal responsibility, and knowledge of nature helped my siblings and me forge strong and positive identities, and develop depth and self-confidence. Our parents and other adult role models were loving but intolerant of nonsense and whining. We learned to become problem solvers, and that has served all of us beautifully to this day.
I think the best thing parents can do for their kids is get them outside as often and for as long as possible, and expose them to projects involving hard work and thus, the potential to learn and succeed and have a sense of self-sufficiency and confidence. Guns don't need banning - they didn't do anything wrong. Rather, how kids are raised in this country is what needs a serious look. I don't ever agree with Hillary Clinton, but when she said, "It takes a village", that notion does appeal to me where helping our kids is concerned. I believe there is a reason, when babies are baptized, that the congregants are commanded to help raise that child. This is all our responsibilities.
Amen.
I just deleted a lot about personal self reliance and not relying on a government to protect us diatribe because my point above is all that is necessary. Our second amendment is not about the right to hunt, to sport shoot or anything else. It is the right to have arms to form a militia if that becomes necessary. No country where the citizens have the right to own arms has ever taken over by a dictator.
By putting this into the constitution, our founding fathers made sure that no congress, without an overwhelming majority of the population, would have the right to trade our liberty for a perceived security that the government surely cannot guarantee.
Our country was founded on freedom. Not freedom from crime but freedom to live our lives with minimal interference from a central government. Our state and local governments are supposed to hold the most power. That way you can live in a community that shares your sensibilities.
Both wrong in my opinion but you're set in your belief and nothing in the world will sway you from that.!
I'm over 40, lived in London 24 years AND have never seen a gun... apart from a few on a copper (which I feel uneasy about & disagree with).!
People also mention the increase in knife crime in the UK.. And band about figures like 60-80% increase.. But that really ought to be quantified with numbers as the increase starts from a very low base figure.
And, FYI, when a dictator takes over a country it is always with the full support of that country's established armed forces. The assault weapons you may have stashed in your basement would be of no help.
The founding fathers were very worried about an oppressive federal government so they wisely put the right to bear arms into our constitution. So your argument is that they put the 2nd amendment into the constitution only to prevent the federal government from infringing on the states right to have a militia? Right....
I think that it can be argued that they were not putting limits on the type of arms you could own. The law of incremental-ism is why we are not allowed to own tanks or rocket launchers.
The argument about dictators having the support of the army prior to taking over a country only works in third would countries where being a soldier is the best way to increase your standard of living. That doesn't apply in this case.
I'm embarrassed that you you would argue that our constitution is outdated. The implication is that they didn't really think it through very well.
@andycoleborn Thanks for classifying all people who believe in a religion as fanatical. Just to think... we might believe in a religion!!! How fanatical!