Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chuckie" data-source="post: 4011337" data-attributes="member: 42584">- Okay, a &#039;known potential mass shooter&#039; might be someone that is known to have mental problems like anger issues, schizophrenia, or sociopath tendencies&nbsp; (to name a few), is known to possess firearms, and has expressed his/her desire for violent action against someone or something. - But again so many express that it&#039;s okay to defend against this type of person AS LONG AS we don&#039;t restrict his/her right to have firearms.&nbsp; Just seems to me that in some circumstances it makes sense to try to keep these type of people from obtaining the &#039;tools&#039; they would use to &#039;mass kill&#039;.- I am NOT advocating taking away firearms from the vast majority of people, nor even those suspected of mental problems, but only those proven to be a real world threat to others - proven by maybe a panel including doctors, mental health professionals, clergy (of at least half being gun owners themselves), and then only restricted until again, proven to obtain a more society accepted normalcy.- I don&#039;t have the answer, but everything we&#039;ve tried so far has not worked in preventing &#039;multiple-shooting&#039; incidents.&nbsp; Unless workable solutions are found the problem is only going to get worse. There should never be such a thing as a &quot;Gun Free Zone&quot;, all too often criminals get reduced punishments through shady lawyers or by plea-bargaining, and only lip-service is paid to hardening schools with the usual excuse that it cost too much.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chuckie, post: 4011337, member: 42584"] - Okay, a 'known potential mass shooter' might be someone that is known to have mental problems like anger issues, schizophrenia, or sociopath tendencies (to name a few), is known to possess firearms, and has expressed his/her desire for violent action against someone or something. - But again so many express that it's okay to defend against this type of person AS LONG AS we don't restrict his/her right to have firearms. Just seems to me that in some circumstances it makes sense to try to keep these type of people from obtaining the 'tools' they would use to 'mass kill'. - I am NOT advocating taking away firearms from the vast majority of people, nor even those suspected of mental problems, but only those proven to be a real world threat to others - proven by maybe a panel including doctors, mental health professionals, clergy (of at least half being gun owners themselves), and then only restricted until again, proven to obtain a more society accepted normalcy. - I don't have the answer, but everything we've tried so far has not worked in preventing 'multiple-shooting' incidents. Unless workable solutions are found the problem is only going to get worse. There should never be such a thing as a "Gun Free Zone", all too often criminals get reduced punishments through shady lawyers or by plea-bargaining, and only lip-service is paid to hardening schools with the usual excuse that it cost too much. [/QUOTE]

Verification