puzzled

cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
puzzled

I do not see how we can reasonably limit firearm access to people who are certifiable or less than mentally capable of handling the responsibility.  This article shows that Lanza's mother was involved in the purchases - she paid for all this stuff.  So if the relatives of people are willing to give them all the weapons they want, how can we formulate legislation that limits access to firearms by people who are not mentally capable?  Yeah, his mother was certifiable at that point - as well as dead now.

At least with only a samurai sword, he wouldn't have been capable of doing much more than injuring a few people, maybe one or two seriously, before he was taken down - rather than firing 154 bullets in less than 5 minutes.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/adam-lanza-newtown-search-warrants-released-131056789.html

Quote:

NEWTOWN, Conn.—Police investigating the school massacre here seized a small arsenal of firearms, knives and swords along with medical records and computer equipment from the 20-year-old gunman's home in the days after the shooting, court documents released Thursday reveal.

Also Thursday, Connecticut State Attorney Stephen J. Sedensky III, who's overseeing the case, said that Adam Lanza killed 26 people within five minutes of storming into Sandy Hook Elementary School before turning a gun on himself.

The documents—50 pages of affidavits and search warrants that include a list of items seized from the car and Newtown home Lanza shared with his mother, Nancy—paint a chilling picture of a killer who had been stockpiling weapons in the weeks and months leading up to the Dec. 14 massacre.

[Related: Newtown families appear in Bloomberg anti-gun ads]

Lanza shot and killed his mother at their home before driving to the school, where he forced his way in and opened fire.

Sedensky said in a statement that Lanza killed all 26 school victims with a Bushmaster .223-caliber model XM15 rifle before taking his own life with a Glock 10 mm handgun. Lanza also had a loaded 9mm Sig Sauer P226 handgun with him inside the school, Sedensky said, as well as three, 30-round magazines for the Bushmaster. One-hundred-and-fifty-four spent bullet casings were recovered at the scene.

According to the unsealed documents, investigators found an empty box for "Battle Tested" vest accessories and hundreds of rounds of various gun ammunition inside the two-story Lanza home.

Among the other items seized by police:

Item #71 - Reciepts and emails documenting firearm/ammunition and shooting supplies.
Item #77 - Blue folder labeled "Guns" containing receipts, paperwork and other firearm-related paperwork.
Item #81 - Paperwork titled, "Conncticut Gun Exchange, Glock 20SF 10mm FS 15 round FC," dated 12/21/11
Item #83 - Email re: Gunbroker.com dated 10-12-11.
Item #85 - Printed photographs, miscellaneous handwritten papers, and Sandy Hook report card for Adam Lanza
Item #86 - "Look Me in the Eye—My life with Asbergers" book, "Born on a Blue day—Inside the Mind of an Autistic Savant" book, "NRA Guide to the Basics of Pistol Shooting" book.

Exhibit # 605 - One (1) receipt for Timstar Shooting Range located in Weatherford, Ok and one (1) NRA certificate for Nancy Lanza.

Exhibit #606 - One (1) Paperback book titled "Train Your Brain To Get Happy," with pages tabbed off.

Exhibit #608 - Three (3) photographs with images of what appears to be a deceased human covered in plastic and what appears to be blood.

Exhibit #609 - Seven (7) journals and miscellaneous drawings authored by Adam Lanza.

Exhibit #612 - One (1) holiday card containing a Bank of America check #462 made out to Adam Lanza for the purchase of a C183 (Firearm), authored by Nancy Lanza.

Exhibit #630 - One (1) New York Times article on 02/18/08 of a school shooting at Northern Illinois University.

In addition to several guns inside the home, police also recovered three Samurai swords and a long pole with a blade on one side and a spear on the other. Inside the car Lanza drove to the school, police recovered a 12-gauge shotgun and two magazines containing 70 rounds of ammunition, the documents show.

Lanza in an undated photo (AP/File)

According to the search warrant, when officers arrived at the school, they discovered Lanza "dressed in military style clothing, wearing a bullet proof vest lying deceased on the floor in the middle classroom." He "was in possession of several handguns as well as a military style assault weapon."

When police arrived at the Lanza home, they found Nancy Lanza "lying in supine position on a bed in the 2nd floor master bedroom" with an apparent gunshot wound to the head. Investigators located a rifle "on the floor near the bed."

On Dec. 14, according to a warrant released Thursay, FBI agents interviewed an unidentified resident who described Lanza as a "shut in" and "avid gamer who plays Call of Duty" and rarely leaves the house. The witness said Lanza had a "gun safe containing at least four guns." Lanza had attended Sandy Hook Elementary School, the person told the FBI, and "that the school was Adam Lanza's 'life.'"

 

Superior Court Judge John Blawie ordered parts of the documents redacted after state prosecutors requested that the identity of a key witness not be revealed for another 90 days. The judge also approved blacking out some phone, credit card and serial numbers of some of the property confiscated from the Lanza home.

Connecticut State Police briefed family members of the Newtown shooting victims on Wednesday on what was recovered inside Lanza's home and car. About 50 family members attended the briefing, according to the Connecticut Post.

Thursday's release came after state lawmakers, media and Newtown residents criticized police officials for leaking details of their investigation at a convention of police chiefs in New Orleans back in March, which were then published by the New York Daily News.

[Related: Images from Newtown, Dec. 14-21, 2012]

"If state police officers can leak details of the Newtown investigation at conventions, surely that information can be shared with the Connecticut public," the Hartford Courant wrote in an editorial. "It has more of a right to know than out-of-state police chiefs do. ... This isn't information to be hoarded and shared only at the state police water cooler. The longer information is kept under wraps, the more questions there will be about why. Most important, the details will inform the debate about gun control, mental health and violence in society. There's no reason to fear an informed public."

Connecticut's General Assembly has been considering gun-control legislation in the wake of the Newtown shootings, including a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. State lawmakers said on Monday they would delay a vote on gun control until after search warrants related to the school shootings were unsealed.

The final police report on the massacre is not expected to be released until June.

 

 

PS - I am not interested in the discussion about what a particular firearm is as in the comments to this article.  I suppose some of you will be interested, but then you will lose me - WTFC

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
True, but...

 We live in a litigious society and privacy laws alone prohibit accurate information on mental health issues from reaching those responsible for handing our permits or approving sales.  

I struggle with this one because my husband is a huge gun enthusiast.  He is also very careful with his guns and supports weapons safety.  He is most likely in the majority of gun owners and it is the few who are intent to cause harm that have turned this into a national concern.  Sadly, the incident at Sandy Hook doesn't even break the record for school violence and the worst did not involve the use of a gun.  Basically, banning the weapons will not keep children safe.  

If there is an answer for this - a reasonable answer - I would love to hear it.  To date, nothing I've heard sounds even close to working and both sides of the issue are so incredibly passionate about it I'm concerned that their passion will prevent progress.  

PS - I will not start a discussion on a particular firearm.  The type of weapon used at Sandy Hook was not the problem anyway.  (FWIW - I am a good shot and will follow Mr. Biden's advice.  If my home is broken into, I will fire two blasts from the shotgun.  At the assailant.)  


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The more of these that

The more of these that happen the more it is apparent that the US mental health system needs a complete overhaul. In the current scenario, many gun regulations are inefficient and unenforceable in regards to the segment of the population most likely to discharge firearms into crowds.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
The only way to solve this

The only way to solve this is to give every one guns, make every one learn how to shoot, and then require that every one shoot every one else if they get angry about the most minor of incidents.

 


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
No...that's no good either

 Digital, I'm pretty sure you're being facetious - that's a major leap of logic.  The majority of gun owners do not shoot anyone if they get angry about major incidents.  Not that it hasn't happened, but like so many other aspects of life we do a crappy job about educating people about gun ownership and safety.  

I do agree with Vastet that mental health issues in this country are becoming more and more of a problem.  Now, how do we reconcile privacy laws and gun ownership?  Like CJ, I don't see how we can either.  Furthermore, how do we protect the constitutional right to own a gun?  The NRA seems to think "all guns, all the time, for everyone" is the only way to go.  Since we have placed limits on the first amendment, I think we can and should place limits on the second.  Yes, we have gun laws.  Unfortunately those gun laws suck almost as much as the NRA policy and they aren't enforced.  Plus there are major loopholes.  I am not licensed to own a gun.  However, I can purchase one from another gun owner in my state and I do not have to be registered as the owner and the gun doesn't have to be registered.  To me, that seems ridiculous.  While I don't want more government involvement, I cannot purchase a car from anyone without a title transfer and if that car is to be driven, it needs to have current plates and I need to be a licensed driver.  Naturally, owning a gun is a bit different from a car - guns are not waved around on the highway (usually) and are kept inside homes (usually).  Still, I truly believe there are better ways to balance gun ownership and preventing the wrong people from having them.

 

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
people can be so weird

Cars are a case in point.  You generally voluntarily follow the speed limit.  You stop at stop signs and traffic lights.  You have to have a vehicle that is "street legal" whatever that may mean in your area.  Auto insurance is a requirement everywhere I have heard of.  We agree that running a military tank over the highway generally ruins that highway for everyone else.  Licensing, driver's tests, taxes, emissions tests in some areas, on and on.  Yet most people agree these laws are for the good of all - even those who break them.

Yet guns are a "right" unlike cars.  And so we can't regulate them.  We regulate speech.  We have laws about religion.  (In Oregon is is against the law to refuse to take your children to the doctor even if it is against your religion to do so.)  So why not guns as well?  And why not enforce those laws as rigorously as we do the laws governing automobiles?  Which, granted, is not as rigorous as we could, but also granted, it is a lot more than guns.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Cars are a case in

cj wrote:

Cars are a case in point.  You generally voluntarily follow the speed limit.  You stop at stop signs and traffic lights.  You have to have a vehicle that is "street legal" whatever that may mean in your area.  Auto insurance is a requirement everywhere I have heard of.  We agree that running a military tank over the highway generally ruins that highway for everyone else.  Licensing, driver's tests, taxes, emissions tests in some areas, on and on.  Yet most people agree these laws are for the good of all - even those who break them.

Yet guns are a "right" unlike cars.  And so we can't regulate them.  We regulate speech.  We have laws about religion.  (In Oregon is is against the law to refuse to take your children to the doctor even if it is against your religion to do so.)  So why not guns as well?  And why not enforce those laws as rigorously as we do the laws governing automobiles?  Which, granted, is not as rigorous as we could, but also granted, it is a lot more than guns.

 

There are dozens of laws regulating guns. Even if you have a carry permit you are restricted in how you carry it, how the gun must be handled in a vehicle, where you can carry (a carry permit is not carte blanche to carry anywhere, you can still go to jail if you walk in front of a school or go into a post office for example), how you address a police officer if questioned, where you can discharge a firearm, when you can draw etc. For hunting guns you are limited on what time of year and what types of guns you are allowed to carry in the woods and even what kind of ammunition you are carrying. These laws are in place in one form or another in pretty much every state, and yes they are enforced.

For example, one common law is that you cannot discharge a firearm X yards from a road or residence, which might vary based on what kind of road it is (highways usually have long distances whereas on rural routes it might be legal to shoot from the road). The penalties for those laws are can be very high, often several thousand dollars and probation, plus in some states they will seize your firearm. As a general rule of thumb, rural states with high levels of hunters have less severe penalties than more urban areas. It isn't something you want to fuck around with- make sure you know the laws of every state AND city you plan on even driving through. Until recently, it was illegal to even drive through Chicago with an unloaded and cased firearm in your trunk without having a permit- even if you had a permit for whatever state you live in.  

If you are drunk with a firearm, in most (all?) states it is a felony and generally treated far more severely than a DUI, even if the gun is properly cased and unloaded in the trunk. Which is why if I am having even a single beer, I am not going to have a gun in my car. 

Even in the case of a clear cut self defense situation, there are a bunch of laws that determine when you can shoot. Some states you can shoot anyone who has forcibly gotten inside your house. Other states you have to be very careful to make sure they are armed, you have to warn them and you can't shoot them in the back. When outside your home, most states have stricter regulations which can vary a lot. 

So yeah, there are a ton of regulations that anyone who plans to have a gun outside of their private property have to follow meticulously. And the NRA doesn't fight most of them. In general, I think law enforcement tends to be more strict with firearms laws than traffic laws. If you own a gun, you need to know the laws of your state inside and out. "I didn't know" is not an excuse, and if you are forced to use a gun in a self defense situation, knowing the law could be the difference could be a murder charge. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:There

Beyond Saving wrote:

There are dozens of laws regulating guns. Even if you have a carry permit you are restricted in how you carry it, how the gun must be handled in a vehicle, where you can carry (a carry permit is not carte blanche to carry anywhere, you can still go to jail if you walk in front of a school or go into a post office for example), how you address a police officer if questioned, where you can discharge a firearm, when you can draw etc. For hunting guns you are limited on what time of year and what types of guns you are allowed to carry in the woods and even what kind of ammunition you are carrying. These laws are in place in one form or another in pretty much every state, and yes they are enforced.

For example, one common law is that you cannot discharge a firearm X yards from a road or residence, which might vary based on what kind of road it is (highways usually have long distances whereas on rural routes it might be legal to shoot from the road). The penalties for those laws are can be very high, often several thousand dollars and probation, plus in some states they will seize your firearm. As a general rule of thumb, rural states with high levels of hunters have less severe penalties than more urban areas. It isn't something you want to fuck around with- make sure you know the laws of every state AND city you plan on even driving through. Until recently, it was illegal to even drive through Chicago with an unloaded and cased firearm in your trunk without having a permit- even if you had a permit for whatever state you live in.  

If you are drunk with a firearm, in most (all?) states it is a felony and generally treated far more severely than a DUI, even if the gun is properly cased and unloaded in the trunk. Which is why if I am having even a single beer, I am not going to have a gun in my car. 

Even in the case of a clear cut self defense situation, there are a bunch of laws that determine when you can shoot. Some states you can shoot anyone who has forcibly gotten inside your house. Other states you have to be very careful to make sure they are armed, you have to warn them and you can't shoot them in the back. When outside your home, most states have stricter regulations which can vary a lot. 

So yeah, there are a ton of regulations that anyone who plans to have a gun outside of their private property have to follow meticulously. And the NRA doesn't fight most of them. In general, I think law enforcement tends to be more strict with firearms laws than traffic laws. If you own a gun, you need to know the laws of your state inside and out. "I didn't know" is not an excuse, and if you are forced to use a gun in a self defense situation, knowing the law could be the difference could be a murder charge. 

 

You missed the part about "street legal."  And military tanks running treads on the highway, making a mess that no one else wants to drive on.  Can't find the article on line now, but some years ago some nutjob ran a surplus tank he bought over the local county asphalt road - it wasn't cheap to repair.

There are no requirements for demonstrating competency.  There are no insurance requirements.  I'm thinking insurance requirements may be a reasonable solution.  For every weapon you own, for every magazine over and above <20?> rounds, you have to have at least liability and theft coverage.  Maybe more than that, don't know.  Would have to have someone more expert in insurance than I am to review that idea.

And if we don't know by now that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" then we are in trouble.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I don't much like the idea

I don't much like the idea of expanding the control and influence of insurance companies.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:You missed the part

cj wrote:

You missed the part about "street legal."  And military tanks running treads on the highway, making a mess that no one else wants to drive on.  Can't find the article on line now, but some years ago some nutjob ran a surplus tank he bought over the local county asphalt road - it wasn't cheap to repair.

As far as I know driving any vehicle that is not street legal on the street is illegal and punishable, which is why large trucks have to go through weigh stations. I would be stunned if he didn't have a huge fine and probably jail time. I don't know what tanks have to do with firearms though. 

 

cj wrote:

There are no requirements for demonstrating competency. 

If you carry in public or hunt in public there are in most states- you must have a carry permit or a firearms safety card, both classes teach firearm safety. Plus, most firearms ranges require you to demonstrate basic safety knowledge whether they are public or private. There are a few gun ranges in rural areas that are self serve and don't have any staff, so those don't have similar safety requirements. However, you are generally the only person there and if any regulars do happen to be out, we will quickly correct anyone who is doing something stupid.

Now whether people will continue to maintain safe habits after the classes is another question entirely. As we know, a lot of people with drivers licenses still drive with their heads up their butts. A certain number of gun owners are those same people who think texting while driving is a good idea. I daresay that the majority of gun accidents happen among people who at one time in their life had a safety class. If you do anything other than shoot in your backyard or leave your gun rusting in the closet you are going to get one.  

You are allowed to possess a gun on your private property and do whatever you want, assuming you own enough land that bullets are not putting your neighbors at risk. You can also drive a car without a license on private property as well. Licensing and insurance is only required on public roadways. 

 

cj wrote:

There are no insurance requirements.  I'm thinking insurance requirements may be a reasonable solution.  For every weapon you own, for every magazine over and above <20?> rounds, you have to have at least liability and theft coverage.  Maybe more than that, don't know.  Would have to have someone more expert in insurance than I am to review that idea.

I'm all for billing people for whatever damage their firearms do. Doubt that would have any effect on crime or nutjobs who shoot up schools, they are not likely to purchase insurance. But in the case of accidentally shooting someone other than yourself, the guilty party should have to pay full reparations. I don't really care if they use insurance, pay cash or have to take out a second mortgage on their house.

Are there a significant number of cases where people are not paying the judgments rendered against them in accidental shootings? I honestly have no clue what the percentages are. I know most accidental shootings are self inflicted so insurance is pointless there, and of the others the largest group is family/people you know. Accidental shootings of strangers is extremely rare. Maybe if I get bored sometime I will try to find some data on that and see if it is a problem.  

As far as insurance for theft, most homeowners insurance policies cover firearms up to $2500 from theft or destruction, which means that those of us who are gun nuts need to have additional rider policy to specifically cover our guns and equipment. I have my collection insured. Under Ohio law, such a policy also covers liability if my property injures someone through negligence, even if it happens away from my home, say at a shooting range. What is covered by homeowners/renters insurance varies by state and company, so all gun nuts should know their policy. It would be a shame if your most valuable assets were destroyed in a fire and all you get reimbursed for is all the stuff that doesn't matter.  

The NRA, US Concealed Carry Association and many other gun groups offer liability insurance that will cover you in the case of intentional discharge (such as self defense) that causes injury/death. Such policies will cover your lawyer costs, court costs, medical costs etc. in both civil and criminal court. They are available for $100-$200 per year. It is a good idea, because even a clear cut self defense case can run you $10,000+ and if it isn't so clear cut and you have to go to a murder trial it is easy to run up tens of thousands in lawyers. 

Not sure how that solves the crime problem, but it is smart for gun owners to protect their collections and their financial health. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Question

As far as I can see there are two issues here:

1.  Psychopaths have or get access to guns and go on killing sprees

2.  Criminals have or get access to guns for the purpose of committing non-killing spree crimes and for intimidation. 

Both of these have been going on for a long time. Psychopaths have proven they don't really need guns to carry out their intent to harm. Guns, in that situation are simply convenient tools. Criminals, however, consider them tools of the trade. Neither group is going to be deterred by gun laws. If laws are to be made they should protect citizens, not criminals or psychopaths.

I live in missouri. Recently a homeowner heard his house being broken into. He took his gun and went out to investigates he found two young men outside trying to break in. He yelled at them, warned them that he had a gun and one of the decided to attack. He shot the young man who died. The young man was 15. The homeowner will not be charged. The co-criminal is being charged with second degree murder. Missouri has had that particular law on the books for over 30 years. (Side note-the 15 year old was part of a gang and was one of the members who recently participated in beating up a 70 year old man who nearly died. They did this for fun.). I'm not fond of 15 year olds being killed but this law does protect the innocent and I'm glad the homeowner isn't being charged. 

I honestly don't know if shooting incidents are on the rise or if its proportional to population growth and we hear more about them as news stations vie for ratings. If that's the case the really nothing needs to be done. If not, then smarter laws need to be written and better awareness and help for the mentally ill needs to be provided. 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
JCE wrote:I honestly don't

JCE wrote:

I honestly don't know if shooting incidents are on the rise or if its proportional to population growth and we hear more about them as news stations vie for ratings. If that's the case the really nothing needs to be done. If not, then smarter laws need to be written and better awareness and help for the mentally ill needs to be provided. 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

 

Our homicide rate at 4.7 per 100,000 is lower than it has been since 1963 when it was 4.6 per 100,000 the peak was 10.2 per 100,000 in 1980. Combined violent crimes which includes aggravated assault, violent robbery, rape etc. are still higher than the 60's, but much lower than throughout the 80's and 90's. When you consider that reporting of such crimes is probably more accurate today than it was in the 60's, there really has not been a much safer time to live in the US during any of our lives. 

As for the psychos, there has been a rash of mass shootings the last couple of years, but they are so rare and count for such a small percentage of gun deaths or crime that you can't really say whether they are getting more likely. In the 90's we had many back to back and then years with none. It is hard to say if psychos are motivated/inspired by the news coverage or if it is just happenstance that they such shootings seem to happen in groups. Even with the number of mass shootings the last year, it remains one of the least likely ways for you to die. 

I don't think doing anything different for the mentally ill is going to make a statistically significant difference in gun deaths. However, our mental health system in the US is a mess, so if we can provide better care for people who are incapable of caring for themselves and have no family helping them I would consider that a worthy goal in and of itself. If it also happens to prevent the occasional nutjob from killing people by the dozens, that is icing on the cake. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
 Yeah that's sort of what I

 Yeah that's sort of what I suspected in regards to crime rate. I recently read the book 'Feakenomics' and based on the author's research, crime had been on a steady rise throughout the 80's and 90's leading to alarming predictions of "super predators" when crime rates suddenly started dropping. When the author looked into it he was able to trace it to the legalization of abortion - essentially the people most likely to commit violent crimes simply weren't being born and those who would have reached their peak crime time (late teens/early 20's) weren't committing crimes because they didn't exist. Do what you will with that nugget of information.  Lol. 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
JCE wrote:When the author

JCE wrote:

When the author looked into it he was able to trace it to the legalization of abortion - essentially the people most likely to commit violent crimes simply weren't being born and those who would have reached their peak crime time (late teens/early 20's) weren't committing crimes because they didn't exist.

Wow.... aborting unwanted pregnancies solves the problem with crime? They should legalize the morning after pill. Maybe crime would drop ten fold?


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
JCE wrote: Digital, I'm

JCE wrote:

 Digital, I'm pretty sure you're being facetious

No, I'm not.

JCE wrote:

The majority of gun owners do not shoot anyone if they get angry about major incidents

P! - Guns kill people

P2 - People own guns

C1 - People with guns kill harmless, innocent babies.

JCE wrote:

I do agree with Vastet that mental health issues

Vastet is mental and has health issues.

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
*rolls eyes*

*rolls eyes*

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:*rolls eyes*

Vastet wrote:
*rolls eyes*

Sticking out tongue