Knives, clubs…whatever. Not nearly as efficient as guns when it comes to killing. You can get away, defend yourself more effectively, and have a far better chance of surviving the attack.
Hah, The NRA is the last entity I’d want to make judgements on sanity and fitness to possess a firearm. When I say “Damn the NRA!” (and it sure seems right to say it yet again…over and over.) the damnation is for the organization’s astonishingly effective policy and efforts to prevent any sort of sensible legislation and control by those who really should have the responsibility and charter to do so.
We can’t really prevent people from “snapping”…but we can certainly do a far better job of keeping those likely to “snap” away from things that exponentially increase death and mayhem when they do.
You clearly aren’t looking at this from the NRA perspective.
Did she have guns?
No - there is no such thing as a ‘gun’. She was armed with a pistol. You are poorly educated and obviously of limited intelligence in suggesting that this person had a ‘gun’ as there is no such classification of weapon.
The NRA is the organization that consistently lobbies to make sure potentially violent, mentally unbalanced people (whether mentally ill or just plain evil) are never prevented from owning guns, even if a reasonable judge would deem them unfit to do so.
Sort of like how prominent republicans never seem to have any upper lip? A good friend of mine pointed this out to me when I was a youngling and ever since then I have found it impossible not to notice this.
Why would you do this just before a long weekend? Keep these kinds of insights to yourself and don’t spread them around where I now can never unsee them.
The first part of your statement does not support your conclusion. Someone that disturbed would probably have found a way to lash out anyway, though perhaps with less lethal means. Which means we will hear, if anyone even notices (only two killed, so maybe not–people only seem to care about ‘mass’ shootings now) the usual blah blah about mental illness, and the blah blah will lead to little actual help for those who need it.
Is there a relationship between mental health and gun violence? Well, we don’t have a good enough answer to that. And why not? Because NRA.
Honestly, mental health is being unfairly demonized here. When you add in the null case (people with mental health issues who are completely harmless) then you’re talking about a pretty massive population and a small subset of that.
If you want a real correlation, then there’s ‘people who can rationalize people being killed when they’re not directly endangering somebody else’ … that’s also causation, of course. Plenty of us don’t think that sort of thing’s okay, and honestly the idea of killing somebody (or shooting to kill if armed) is completely alien to us. You could not put a gun in my hands and get me to shoot somebody in the head or chest.
Ironically, the group that would more than happily kill somebody even when there’s no threat is one of the strongest pro-gun advocates.
That implies an easy answer to the whole gun question: if clubs are as good at killing people as guns, take the gun nuts’ guns away and give them clubs instead. Problem solved.
Very simple. really. By “sanely” I simply mean “in a setting and manner far less likely to result in the finality of homicide and self-destruction”…
…By guns.
No more. No less. The precise interrelationship between mental health and gun voilence is, indeed, open to question. The results of that relationship are not.
So, yes, I do blame the NRA. And damn them for it.
