jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (109 posts)

Will the events in Boston change the tone of debate in America?

  1. mike102771 profile image85
    mike102771posted 4 years ago

    The tragic events that happened in Boston in a way proved the message that no amount of laws will prevent the will of a mad man. Crazy (whether in the name of his/her God or some other reason) follows no law, rhyme or reason expect hurt as many people as possible. Up until now we as a people could find a thing to blame for the shootings (namely the gun) while ignoring the root cause ( the state of mental health today). This recent event cannot be blamed on lax rules on gun control. If this turns out to be some home grown crazy and not the act of a terror cell we will have to ask the real question and find a real solution.

    1. Clint Ward profile image61
      Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It really wouldn't surprise me to hear these nuts did it because they want to affect the gun control debate. Maybe I'm cynical but I absolutely do not trust the anti-gun whackos.

    2. Seth Winter profile image83
      Seth Winterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      And strangely the anti-gun whackos are silent on this issue so far...I'm sure they'll find a way to still blame guns.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Nope... we only blame guns when guns are the cause.

        As opposed to blaming a lack of God in schools when people are shot... or blaming video games for people getting shot...

        To me no gun= no gun violence.  No gun doesn't = no bomb violence.

        But you got to stretch logic an awful lot to tell me that you can have gun violence with no gun.

        But as we can all agree, a bomb isn't a gun.  So why bring it up?

        1. mike102771 profile image85
          mike102771posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The problem is the Violence part of the equation not the method. The criminally insane will find a gun no matter how illegal, just like they will find a hammer, a bomb, or a chainsaw. A bomb is a weapon like a gun. The difference is with the bomb we are talking about the user and with the gun we are talking about the gun when we need to be talking about the reason for the shooting (the one inside the killers head).

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah, I never bought the "They're going to do it anyway" argument. It's like saying we shouldn't treat a patient for a heart attack if he has cancer.

            Each form of violence has a different solution... Better mental health precautions would be nice... but when it comes to gun violence there is a much simpler and straight forward answer.

            As far as IED's... the only precautions we can take is informing merchants... Hey if someone buys 10 lbs of ball bearings, 5 lbs of nails and 30 lbs of fertilizer in the same trip... you might want to let someone know.

            I'm all for mental health screenings.  I'm all for public health organizations and the occasional mental health 72 hour investigations too.

            Of course it could be that the Boston bomber is completely sane and just really pissed off.  I guess we'd have to find out why he was pissed off to figure out where that slice of the pie lies.

      2. Dr Billy Kidd profile image89
        Dr Billy Kiddposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Excuse, me Seth, but the two brothers shot a cop in cold blood. Then they had a running gun battle with the police, injuring another cop. So I think we have to get back to motive.

        My friend specializes in that. They ask him in court whether the person flipped out and it's a one time deal, or whether it's a serial killer, who thrives on murder. When a person becomes a religious or ideological whacko, they are like the latter, thriving on murder. So, the weapon used is irrelevant, as the bombers have shown. But the motive was to kill.

        I joined the NRA at 10. The motive was not to kill but to have fun target practicing. It is a family tradition. My nephew can outshoot me..

        Right, now, I think it's important to not be paranoid and to listen what everyone has to say. We've seen that the U.S. Senate is not going to touch the gun issue this year or the next. But to me, to state as one guy did, that we need to torture the bomber that was caught first thing to get him to talk--we'll, what's the point? The fun of torturing? Let's keep the dialogue going.

        1. Seth Winter profile image83
          Seth Winterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well, Dr Billy Kid our nation has become a sick one. Not only have we become a nation of unhealthy physical bodies, we think that torture is acceptable. Case in point. Gitmo. I think the United States are the bad guys to tell you the truth...

          1. Seth Winter profile image83
            Seth Winterposted 4 years ago in reply to this
          2. profile image0
            Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You'll have to come up with something better than flabby bodies and Gitmo.   Matter of fact, I think you should clarify your statement of America being "the bad guys", period.
            I know you posted that video link, but that doesn't really explain your statement;  and that short video doesn't really even clarify itself;  it's simply a short rant that says some things I agree with but other things that should be elaborated on.

            1. Seth Winter profile image83
              Seth Winterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I think the video I posted sum's it up fairly nicely but I will elaborate. I'll start with Gitmo because I believe it to be more then just an incident. I'd put it on a historical par with Japanese Interment Camps...sure some of those at Gitmo genuinely need to be in prison and some are simple suspects that get to skip any Constitutional protect or the Gieneva Convention moving on...

              Another great example...the Iraq War went to war searching for WMD...didn't find any but managed to kill over 120,000 civilians....great job there.  I'm sure none of those civilians who lost family members won't ever strap a bomb to themselves to blow up a cafe to avenge Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen. And really if you had a government kill (accident or otherwise) a family member wouldn't you be mad and want revenge...or at the very least some Justice. But that won't happen...the justice I mean.

              We'd rather spend money on the War Machine then focus on our country. We'd rather send missiles that literally cost's us million to launch then actually trying to fix things. What if we refocused the entire war effort on ending the war on starvation. Make sure nobody in the world goes home hungry. .....

              I could go on.

              (BTW anyone catch the Star Wars reference?)

              1. mike102771 profile image85
                mike102771posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You are now completely off topic.

            2. mike102771 profile image85
              mike102771posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The link is of actors acting out a script not a real life.

              1. Seth Winter profile image83
                Seth Winterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Thank you Captain Obvious.

                1. mike102771 profile image85
                  mike102771posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You are welcome. wink

                  1. Seth Winter profile image83
                    Seth Winterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Looking for the thumbs up button....can't seem to find it...oops off topic ;-0

    3. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Laws that control the use of explosives will not stop people getting blown up, but that doesn't mean there should be no laws controlling the use of explosives. Likewise, laws relating to the control of firearms will not stop people getting shot, but that does not mean there should be no laws related to the control of firearms. Laws are not created in the belief they will eliminate a crime. They are created as part of a number of measures to try to reduce crime.

      1. mike102771 profile image85
        mike102771posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I agree. The fact the gun laws will end violence should be mentioned. And us law biding citizens with a need for high explosives (gophers)  are being keep away from our right to them. Reducing crime is a good thing. How many rights are you willing to give up to reduce crime. Say a written test to vote? A permit to use your freedom of speech? Permission to be outside after 2 AM (according to a radio host in Kent nothing good happens after 2 am)? If we place a tracking device in everyone we could reduce crime and missing persons. If everyone would submit a blood sample and fingerprint sample we could also reduce crime.  That pesky 4th amendment would be a problem, but like the 2nd if we can justify it by thinking it will make us safer then isn't that what's important.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          There is no "right" to own explosives.

          Rights have always been limited.  Always.  It's nothing new.  The courts have always agreed that public safety usurps individual rights.  In short, the good of the many will always trump the good of the individual.

          Rights aren't limitless...and I believe that pretty much everyone agrees that they shouldn't be. The gun control argument is just a matter of where to draw the limits.

          1. mike102771 profile image85
            mike102771posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            and who (or whom I can never remember) draws them.

        2. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It's about getting the balance right. For example I disagree with immigration checkpoints 50 miles from the border subjecting people to forced seizures and searches without a warrant. But that doesn't mean I think there should be no border controls. Likewise, even if you think a complete ban on firearms is wrong, that doesn't mean all controls on firearms is wrong. I do agree there is a threshold though, at which point common sense controls can become authoritarian. My opinion is that in the case of firearms that threshold hasn't been reached yet. I think there are some common sense measures (like making background checks more useful) that can be put in place that might help reduce certain types of firearm related crimes. In other cases though I think things are very close to that threshold. For example at a DUI checkpoint, try telling the police officers they have no authority to stop law abiding citizens without probable cause. Unless the officers are particularly enlightened, I doubt that situation will end well for you. That is authoritarian in my view and is the sort of thing people should be worried about.

  2. mike102771 profile image85
    mike102771posted 4 years ago

    Really the blame for all of this should be on the state of mental health care in America, but the President fixed that right??????? Unless it was an act of a terrorist group then that is a different type of crazy.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      So Romney could have cured crazy people?

      Cool.

      Wonder what would happen if I sent him a couple of fish and a loaf of bread?

  3. mike102771 profile image85
    mike102771posted 4 years ago

    Romney? who is that?? I kind of remember this rich guy that tried to buy some election but instead had his hat handed to him?? Romney would not of tried to fix it unless there was a company that could profit from it. My problem is that after all the hype true reform was left to the side.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The fact is no politician can cure insanity.

      Prayer can't either.

      So it comes to finding and institutionalizing the insane in our community on the rare chance that medicine can cure it (Which is unlikely)

      So yeah, we're screwed when it comes to do-it-yourself IED's.

      1. mike102771 profile image85
        mike102771posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Maybe one day we will find a way to map the human mind and or genome  to demine who has the possibility to be crazy or sick and........ wait a minute isn't that the plot to Gattaca?  Never mind.

  4. Petra Vlah profile image60
    Petra Vlahposted 4 years ago

    In my opinion, the root of the problem is that violence is the result of frustration as a result of the enormous inequity in our society; desperate people do desperate things! And that goes for domestic and international terrorism alike

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That's an interesting theory. I don't think a plausible one, but interesting nonetheless.  Historically, however, poor people reduced to desperate measures tend to do things that make them money... or at least target organizations that they blame for their own problems. The point is they have predictable targets.  Socialist groups tend to be trouble-makers and annoyances... they aren't random terrorists.  They are WAY too preachy to not teach "the man" a clear lesson.

      But it might be because some college kid can't afford a phablet. I guess crazier things have happened.

    2. mike102771 profile image85
      mike102771posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There can be many reasons for violence. In the past we did see riots with social causes such as the Watts riot or the riots after the Rodney King trial. Many terrorist groups will use the abject poverty within a country to recruit. The social inequality of the middle east does breed a lot of terrorists. Today we are seeing a more militant side to the social inequality argument from the 99%ers to the nuts up in Cleveland that tried to disrupt commerce by blowing up a bridge. However it could be argued that these people would find any reason to do what they want to do. If not this than because it was Monday or the dog next door told them to do it. True motive is usually not as trendy.

    3. Seth Winter profile image83
      Seth Winterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'd agree with Petra that inequality would be part of the problem...with the exception being terrorists. I think the number one terrorist recruitment agency is the US military. How many civilian's did the US kill during the Iraq War? 120, 000-122,000 I think those are the numbers

  5. Mitch Alan profile image85
    Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago

    MelissaBarret, you stated "Nope... we only blame guns when guns are the cause."  Gun are never the CAUSE. Guns are inanimate object that can be used for good or evil, just like a pressure cooker. We blame the drunk driver and not the car or the alcohol. We should blame the killer not the gun.
    As to your point about rights being limited. They are limited, to a point, in the Constitution. But, the part of the 2nd Amendment that states "shall NOT ne infringed" does not give the FEDERAL government the ability, short of an amendment to the Constitution, the ability to change the Constitution or it's Amendments. Furthermore,  the 10th Amendment place all power and law making in the hands of the people and the States that is not specifically given to the Federal government in it's enumerated powers without a Constitutional amendment.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Unfortunately, the SCOTUS does not agree with you - denying some gun rights is acceptable under the constitution.  It may be political, it may ethically based, it may be a lot of things but it is also something we'll have to live with.

      The far larger problem is when people decide to ignore reality and believe (based on about as much evidence as a belief in God) that removing guns will save lives.  The end result is predictable, and we've already seen quite a few laws being floated about in various efforts to see just how far the people will allow their rights to be denied.  To date it's not a large amount, but years worth of such efforts will, one day, inevitably result in laws prohibiting any gun at all.  There are too many people, citizens as well as politicians, that would like to extend govt. control over that particular facet of our lives.

    2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, guns don't kill people, people kill people yada yada yada.

      It's a cliche and a ridiculous argument.  Of course guns kill people.  You may like them a lot, but they are still weapons and weapons are made to hurt other living things.

      If an individual cannot show that he can act responsibly within his "rights" he does not deserve them.  Simple concept that our entire legal system hinges on.

      But, regardless... this entire topic is moot because no one used a gun at the Boston incident, so it has absolutely nothing to do with gun rights.

      1. mike102771 profile image85
        mike102771posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I think what you mean is that guns are used to kill people.
        "If an individual cannot show that he can act responsibly within his "rights" he does not deserve them.  Simple concept that our entire legal system hinges on" .

        We are not given our rights the government is given guidelines on how they can limit them. The guideline for the limitation of rights is you breaking of the law not the breaking of the law by someone else. If your neighbor drives drunk you don’t lose your license they do. So why if a person with mental issues uses a gun you should loose your right to own one.
        The point of this topic was how the actual issue behind the shootings was overshadowed by the talk about gun control. A person who will use a gun to shoot-up a school will use a bomb if the gun is not available. A locked door will not stop a criminal. A ban will not stop a criminal.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Guns occasionally kill people all on their own, but I digress.  Yes, guns are used to kill people. I don't buy the "finding another way" theory... I think sometimes they would find another way, sometimes they wouldn't, sometimes they would blow themselves up trying... etc.  Regardless, the limitation of their access to a gun would be a barrier to them and barriers to killing other people are a good thing.  Yes?

          Since everyone keeps using the tired drunk driver analogy... I'll run with that.  To operate a car you need a license.  You must prove to the government that you have the capability to drive a car. You must prove that you have the knowledge of car safety. You must prove to the government that you have no disabilities that would interfere with your ability to operate a car safely. In many states you have to prove that you have no psychological problems that would increase the risk of accidents. You have to have insurance so that anyone you hurt with your automobile is financially compensated....

          To get a gun, you gotta go to Walmart... Throw it in the cart beside the beer and the deer corn.

          1. mike102771 profile image85
            mike102771posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Driving is not a right it is a privilege granted by the government. As of right now owning a gun is a right. although to be fair I could see some of these restrictions being helpful. All rights come with responsibilities.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Granted... neither are explosives smile

              Yet owning a 14 bullet clip isn't a right granted by the government either.  Owning a semi-automatic weapon isn't a right granted by the government either. 

              If we want to be purists about what our founding fathers granted us as "arms" everybody gets a musket.

              So, once again where do we draw the line? 

              Edit:  The right to keep firearms is restricted on a regular basis to certain individuals.  Those merely accused of the potential of domestic violence get their guns taken.  As a matter of fact, restraining orders without a history of violence also require you to turn your guns in.  Convicted felons loose their guns... even if it wasn't a violent offence.

              Are these "infringements" ok?

              1. Mitch Alan profile image85
                Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Rights are NOT granted by the government. The Constitution is set up to set the parameters for the government to PROTECT our rights. The "musket" argument is moot. The founders set up the 2nd Amendment, not for hunting and not so that it would be a static "stuck on musket" right, but that the people and the States cold effectively fight back against enemies, both from abroad and from within. They are on record, in their own writings, as establishing the fact that WE THE PEOPLE should be able to defend against the federal government if it becomes needed due to tyranny. History is fun and if you do your due diligence you can find out the truth.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm fine with guns for protection. I'm fine with guns for hunting.

                  That doesn't mean buy as many as you want of whatever type you want with no limitations whatsoever.

                  There need to be boundaries put in place to keep idiots from being given instruments of death.

                  1. Clint Ward profile image61
                    Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    There are already boundaries, and it hasn't stopped anything!

                  2. Mitch Alan profile image85
                    Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    There are already boundaries. It is already illegal to shoot people. What part, and be specific, of the recently (thankfully) defeated federal gun law would have stopped the Newtown shooting or any of the mass shootings that are being used for political expediency? Give me a specific part of the bill...

          2. Mitch Alan profile image85
            Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            As to your driver's license and auto insurance scenario...Each State determines the amount of, or whether their State requires auto insurance. Some States do not. It is because according to the 10th Amendment any powers not specifically granted (enumerated) the federal government or specifically denied the States is to reside with the people and the States. It is supposed to be this way for everything, but the federal government has usurped (and the people have abdicated) this power.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I'm fine with state's rights...it's a bit more complicated than that. Guns are manufactured and transported through different states. That puts them squarely within the province of the Federal government.

      2. Clint Ward profile image61
        Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "Of course guns kill people"

        I must have the laziest gun ever it wont do anything unless I manipulate its functions.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          O.K.

          So let's say you sleep with another guy's wife. He's coming across the parking lot at you. Since guns don't kill people there should be no difference at all in your reaction whether he has a gun or just has his sleeves rolled up.

          If there is any difference at all in your reaction, then the "guns are completely blameless" argument is crap.

          1. Clint Ward profile image61
            Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Nice try, the person operating the gun killed me. The gun wont be prosecuted.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I guess it was a nice try of explaining the difference between gun violence and good old fashioned getting your ass beat. 

              I knew you wouldn't concede the very obvious point.  2nd amendmenters rarely do.

              That's why these conversations are useless.

              1. Mitch Alan profile image85
                Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The gun by itself could not kill him...only a person can kill with the gun.
                Your argument is lacking in any form of logic.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No it doesn't lack logic... unless being beat up is the same as being shot in your mind.

                  The point I'm making, which I doubt you'll acknowledge, is that guns are far more deadly forms of violence than fisticuffs. 

                  Guns make killing someone else easier. So therefore, some of the fault of the death is the gun.

                  This is why arguing with the "Pry the gun out of my cold dead hand" people doesn't work.  They will stubbornly refuse to acknowledge any point.  Even when it's valid.

                  1. Mitch Alan profile image85
                    Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No one is arguing that guns are generally a better way to kill than punches. The point is that guns, on their own, do not kill anyone. And, that making it harder for law abiding citizens to own legally acquired firearms, as per their rights, would do nothing to stop the very crimes that are being used to support the legislation in Washington. Just to "do something" for the sake of doing something is not the answer.

              2. Clint Ward profile image61
                Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You did not make a very obvious point, my fear wouldn't be of the gun but the man wielding it.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Would you fear him more with a gun or without?

                  If you fear him more with a gun, then that is an admission of partial responsibility of the gun.

                  If you don't fear someone who is angry with you and has a gun more than someone that is angry with you and doesn't have a gun, it's not MY logic that's faulty.

                  1. bBerean profile image61
                    bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    It is the person, not the gun.  If there is a policeman, or someone I know is not nuts, who is mad at me and he happens to be carrying, I am not concerned.  If I don't know if they are nuts or not, of course I would be more nervous if they had a gun...or knife...or hammer...or bat...or pickle fork, etc.  It is all about the person with the gun and their mental status.  Just because someone is carrying and angry, does not make them a threat.

                  2. Mitch Alan profile image85
                    Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No, there is no RESPONSIBILTY to the gun at all. The responsibility is 100% on the one using the gun. The fact that the gun makes the job easier does not in any way shift the responsibility. You need to think through your answers better and apply some reasoned logic to them.

                  3. Mitch Alan profile image85
                    Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I would fear him more with a baseball bat than with nothing as well...should we ban those as well? You do know that more people are killed each year with baseball bats than with rifles, right?

    3. peoplepower73 profile image84
      peoplepower73posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Let's look at this from another angle.  How many people fired an AR15 at these guys?  Those that believe they can protect themselves from an enemy or our government by owning firearms are blowing smoke up their own behinds.  My point is guns don't protect us from terrorism. 

      Guns don't kill, but people firing guns do and mentally unstable people usually do mass killings.  The idea that background checks inconvenience innocent gun buyers and the criminals are going to do the killings anyway is pure B.S.

      The TSA makes it inconvenient for innocent passengers to board an airplane.  Why don't we use the same logic on that scenario? Why have the TSA, the terrorists are going to blow up an airplane anyway?  The reason is the TSA is putting out a net that can prevent the bad guys from boarding the airplane.  The same goes for background checks. We inconvenience many to prevent a few mentally unstable people from committing mass killings.

      Right now there are HIPPA laws (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) that was passed by Congress in 1996. Those laws provide confidentiality of information during business transactions, including mentally unstable people.  Why don't they pass laws that allow that information to be obtained by guns sellers? It would at least create net to prevent the mentally unstable from getting those weapons. But no gun people don't want that because it's an inconvenience.

  6. Hollie Thomas profile image60
    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago

    This is what I really don't get about the gun debate. If people kill people and not guns, why are so many reluctant to ensure that the people with guns are responsible enough to have them?

  7. peeples profile image89
    peeplesposted 4 years ago

    "Will the events in Boston change the tone of debate in America? "
    The answers to this thread show that nothing will change. Everyone will still hold tight to their own beliefs without even giving them any extra thought.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There is no reason to give gun control any extra thought due to the Boston incident... as guns weren't used. It would be like reevaluating my views on birth control because of the Boston bombings...

      1. peeples profile image89
        peeplesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        While I am not big on the topic of gun control, I am big on national safety. Anytime something like this happens all matters of national safety should be rethought out. Guns, bombs, poisons, all of it!

  8. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    It appears the events in Boston will not change the tone of he debate one iota.
    It will further entrench the "sides" on their positions on gun control.
    And also immigration.
    Either coincidentally bad timing of his bombing or deliberately bad timing.

    Another "Patriots' Day" act of violence. Like the Oklahoma City bombings.
    And how ironic the 19-year-old became a US citizen on September 11, 2012.
    roll

  9. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    You know the problem is always been the human being but for whatever reason we don't want to talk about that. We'd much rather find a scapegoat such as mental illness, they were upset and single out these people as if they are the only ones responsible for thousands if not millions of deaths in America and around the world. Focusing on the instruments that some of these people use in order to kill is an attempt to cut down on some of these murders, if a pyromaniac is loose in society one doesn't say let's give out free matches. We have to do more than say oh well there is nothing we can do about that.

 
working