jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (51 posts)

Who needs guns? The world is full of mentally ill people, what is going on?

  1. Peanutritious profile image61
    Peanutritiousposted 5 years ago

    Who needs guns? The world is full of mentally ill people, what is going on?

    This tragedy wouldn't have happened if people weren't allowed guns. Why the hell do people need gun's anyway?

  2. fpherj48 profile image77
    fpherj48posted 5 years ago

    peanut.....We are all so devastated and overwhelmed by this completely horrific tragedy.   I have been in a state of shock, disbelief and deep sadness all day.   I do understand your question and comment, peanut.   It is the mentally ill, or otherwise unstable individuals....hard core criminals and terrorists who MUST be denied any and all weapons...most especially guns, assault rifles.  This much is a no-brainer.
    But because we have yet to build the concrete wall between these flawed individuals and weapons/guns......The good, righteous and fierce protectors of life and liberty, must be allowed to have the powers of defense amongst the monsters who would rob us of our lives and of peaceful existence.

    1. Express10 profile image87
      Express10posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I totally agree. I am a law abiding citizen and I am prepared to let loose if a monster tried to harm me or my loved ones. Laws against criminals having them don't work, best to be well trained and have one yourself. Police aren't private security.

    2. Peanutritious profile image61
      Peanutritiousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I strongly disagree. I don't think anyone should be allowed guns. What gives anyone the right to use one? The world is full of 'monsters who rob us of our lives of peaceful existence'. Take the guns away!

    3. profile image0
      CJ Sledgehammerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The only thing stopping the United States from being run by a tyranical dictator is gun ownership. Period!!!!!

    4. fpherj48 profile image77
      fpherj48posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Well, peanut, honey...I know you feel strongly and I respect this.  What gives anyone the right to use a gun?  Do you have children?  Would you not shoot someone holding a gun to your child's head?   
      I could ..I would and never look back an instant.

    5. fpherj48 profile image77
      fpherj48posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Quite frighteningly....the hard core fact of Reality is:  If guns are totally banned, the only people who will have them...is CRIMINALS.  Laws of any kind, do not hinder criminals......only the law abiders.  It's true.

    6. jodeci profile image60
      jodeciposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Even if you take the guns away, there are other methods of destruction that people can use to "hurt" others. Guns, ammunition, other "war" fare are too highly accessible and not regulated. It's going to take more than strict laws for peaceful living.

    7. chef-de-jour profile image97
      chef-de-jourposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      A thief will thieve when the door is unlocked. A mentally ill person may  become a mass killer when the gun is so easily obtained. Deter the thief with a lock. Deter mass killing -deny the gun.

    8. SidKemp profile image95
      SidKempposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you, chef-du-jour, for saying it in such a common sense way. If Nancy Lanza had done this, she, her son, and 26 others would be alive today.

    9. Charlu profile image81
      Charluposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Here's a rude awakening The shooters mother (also now deceased) was a law abiding, second amendment holder who collected guns.  Obviously if her son had not had access, this probably wouldn't have happened!  Now what???

    10. SidKemp profile image95
      SidKempposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Not just a law-abiding gun holder, the mother apparently enjoyed teaching her sons to shoot.

  3. Everyday Miracles profile image85
    Everyday Miraclesposted 5 years ago

    Criminals will always be criminals, and they will obtain guns regardless of whether guns are illegal, restricted, or entirely illegal. Banning guns only serves to take them out of the hands of law abiding citizens who would use them for protection in order to prevent crime.

    Look at it this way; if the teachers at the school had been armed, they could have taken down the assailant and fewer lives would have been lost. In some areas, this is the solution to the problem of gun crimes. There may be less gun crime in areas where carrying a gun is mandated for personal safety.

    The main point here is that no matter whether or not the guns or ammunition are banned, the people who want to get their hands on them for criminal purposes will find a way to do so. They are, after all, criminals. Taking guns away from those who use them for legitimate purposes such as personal protection doesn't stop gun crime.

    As someone who exercises my second amendment right, I'm always saddened when people feel that the answer to the problem of gun crime is to take away my gun.

    1. ChristinS profile image94
      ChristinSposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      that is overly simplistic. Most people with guns do not have training in dealing with violent situations and it's folly to assume most people could just whip out their gun and save the day.

    2. Express10 profile image87
      Express10posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Gun laws don't keep them out of criminals/killers hands. It really is that simple. It's possible that if trained/armed staff were on hand, more lives might have been saved. If you are unarmed & staring down a barrel, you'll wish you had one.

    3. Everyday Miracles profile image85
      Everyday Miraclesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      What's overly simplistic is the belief that banning guns will take them out of the hands of criminals who commit the crimes like the one committed in Conn. If those who carry the guns are trained, then yes, they could have prevented a lot of deaths.

    4. blessedmommyof3 profile image65
      blessedmommyof3posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I have to agree with you everyday miracles. I say that instead of metal detectors we need mental detectors.

    5. Peanutritious profile image61
      Peanutritiousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Criminals will not always be criminals. People do change. That is an incredibly black and white argument. I'm sorry, I don't feel the need to carry a gun for protection. I'm 40 years of age and i've never wished I had one. Why do we need guns?

    6. profile image0
      CJ Sledgehammerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Peanuts...somewhere...out there, someone is carrying a gun that keeps violence from reaching you. I guarantee that once every last gun is collected - you will know the meaning of fear and oppression. Please stop being so short-sighted. Good point EDM

    7. fpherj48 profile image77
      fpherj48posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Peanut, I know you feel strongly and I respect this.....but, what gives anyone the right to use a gun?  Do U have children?  Would you not shoot someone with a gun at your child's head?    I could, I WOULD...and never look back for an instant

    8. Borsia profile image43
      Borsiaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Really? I take a 2 day combat / defensive shootong class every 2 years with a group of over 50 other shooters.
      I shoot at the local range 10 or more times a year.

    9. Charlu profile image81
      Charluposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      He wasn't a criminal!!!  Do you think for one minute his mother (law abiding gun collector) thought that he would  go shoot a bunch of 5 -10 yr olds  up to 10x each?  Look at the rest of these horrific events and the shooters criminal records NONE

    10. SidKemp profile image95
      SidKempposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Facts: Often, people w/no criminal background go berserk & spree kill. Reality: I know of no case of a spree killer was stopped by a citizen with a gun. Chenpeng: 20 children attacked, no gun, none dead. Austrailia controlled guns, no sch. killin

    11. Peanutritious profile image61
      Peanutritiousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Effer, No I don't have children. I wouldn't want a child of mine to live in such an evil, corrupt world. I do however, have nieces and nephews and I would HATE for them to live in a place where people are free to carry guns.

  4. Tusitala Tom profile image62
    Tusitala Tomposted 5 years ago

    It is reputed that around 2400 years ago Siddartha Gautama - The Buddha - mentioned in one of his lectures that there are "right livelihoods," and those that are not.   A "right livelihood" is where one's work, or avocation contributes to the common good of all humanity.  Those that don't can only be regarded as 'wrong' or 'incorrect' livelihoods.   

    So what does this mean?

    Well, in my opinion, any livelihood that exploits human weakness, causes injury to others - or is likely to - is probably fear based, such as our use of the armed forces, swat teams, anti-terrorist people et cetera.  These are coming from fear.
    Fear begets fear.  You arm yourself so I feel I have to, is the way it goes.

    I'm told that the American Contstitution gives the American citizen the 'right to bear arms.'  This would have been placed in there out of fear that the British might have wanted to take back America, I expect.  It's about time it was struck out.

    However, we can't change the world, only ourselves.  So if we do the right thing, and there are enough of us do it, the changes towards non-violence and peaceful living will come. 

    I'm an optimist.   I think that, perhaps a long time from now, people will love themselves and their neighbours and their non-neigbours enough to abhor the very thought of violence.  But to reiterate, all we can do is change ourselves.

    1. Peanutritious profile image61
      Peanutritiousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      According to Buddhism the so called 'peaceful religion', those with learning difficulties or disabilities are judged as a 'wrong or incorrect livelihood', and abhored in society. It would have been difficult to kill 27 people so quickly without a gun

    2. profile image0
      CJ Sledgehammerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Tom...the right to bear arms was not to prevent a British attack...it was to prevent a tyrant from taking over America. The police state is already here...they are just trying to find a way to strip us of our guns, so they can take over.

    3. SidKemp profile image95
      SidKempposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Peanutritious The Buddha rejected the idea that people with mental or physical disabilities were "wrong." He worked with them & cared for them. (The prejudice you speak of is in society, not Buddhism.) Tom: Constitution says nada on citizens &amp

  5. profile image0
    CJ Sledgehammerposted 5 years ago

    In some African communities, they may not have guns at their disposal so they must use a machete to kill their neighbors. As they say, "Where there's a will...there's a way."

    In all honesty, this young madman was just doing what he was taught to do. The public school system brings up the children in public schools without a moral code and believing they are evolved apes, and then when one acts like a predatory animal the social engineers pretend to be surprised.

    Please know that the gun didn't kill anyone...it was the 20-year old madman that did. The gun, itself, was just a passive bystander.

    So, shall we collect all the guns from law-abiding citizens, so that only the government, gangs, and criminals have them?

    The problem isn't guns..the problem is raising a society comprised of angry, hostile, godless savages, who have no moral compass or compassion for their fellow man.

    1. Peanutritious profile image61
      Peanutritiousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      'The gun itself was a passive bystander' WHAT? Can't believe what i'm hearing! Noone should be allowed guns. Get real, you can't police the world. the solution, take guns away from everyone. You can't run from a gun.

    2. Borsia profile image43
      Borsiaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Sing-Sing, those executed for murder were 65% Cth,26% Prd, 6% Heb, 2% Pag, >1/3 of 1% godless.
      In Joliet, 2,888 Cth, 1,020 Bap, 617 Met and 0 Ath.
      Connections for godlessness and crime,,, wrong. BTW 90% of gangs are from religious homes.

    3. ChristinS profile image94
      ChristinSposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I resent this remark.  We are atheists and our sons have morals, they love other people and they are taught right from wrong.  Religious fairytales don't make people saints.  MANY have been killed in the name of "God"

  6. profile image0
    JThomp42posted 5 years ago

    Hello Peanut,
    With all due respect, not one gun has ever killed anyone. People kill people. If firearms were illegal, they would still get them illegally, then all who had firearms would be the criminals. There are thousands of gun owners, for hunting, home protection, etc. that you will never hear of. It is the evil in this world we need to be worrying about, not gun control.

    1. ChristinS profile image94
      ChristinSposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Most people who are shot are shot by someone they know - domestically.  What to do about that then? Guns make it too easy to overreact and kill when angry.  I don't think bans are the answer but neither is pretending guns are safe.

  7. Charlu profile image81
    Charluposted 5 years ago

    OK to quote a phrase, "If guns were outlawed then only outlaws would have guns" seems to make sense, but let's face reality and realize that is not going to happen in the US. Honestly I don't think that would be a solution anyway.

    The problem is we have suppressed every emotion known to man in so many children, for so many years, that as adults they have no idea how to cope/deal/handle (whatever you want to call it) with the everyday realities and some devastating events in life. That being said they lash out in rage to try and make a point, or hurt the ones they feel have wronged them or a loved one.

    Sometimes the emotions are suppressed through alcohol and drug abuse, (believe me I know) and sometimes it is done through prescriptions for mental health disorders, (that the government gives parents money for) or all to often a combination of both. Then there are those who have been through a traumatic experience who literally "go off the chain,"  "over the top," or just "loose it", believe me I've been on the fence ready to fall off with all of them.

    We have taken physical activities as a form of stress relief, forms of creativity through music, art, etc,. emotional support with training along with spiritual beliefs and morals out of the picture for our own "time management" and "discrimination" conflicts.  We advertise violence is the answer through movies, video games, abuse and so much more that I don't dare mention, an accepted, and even sometimes rewarded behavior.  We have put the mental stability and education of dealing with emotions and life in general on the back burner and are now paying the price.

    Most people choose to call them criminals as if they had been doing or planning this all their life, when if you look at the past of most of these horrific, unspeakable events, that wasn't the case of the perpetrator at all.

    Am I trying to make an excuse for him? NO!! What I am saying is that divided we will fall and if we don't stop making labels for us all, as if that was an excuse for how we act, (from politics to disorders and religions) and get MILLIONS of people some help I'm afraid this is only the beginning.  Oh yeah and don't let me forget about our veterans who have seen and done things that most of us could not bear to withstand, (sometimes not even old enough to drink),  a pill to make them think that will take care of everything.

    We have the money and the ability, just refuse to face the facts.

  8. ChristinS profile image94
    ChristinSposted 5 years ago

    Perhaps the sensible answer lies somewhere in the middle - but people get so caught up in sides they won't listen to reason. 

    No one needs assault weapons and military grade weapons.  Period.  For those who hunt, more power to you - I could care less if hunters or even average citizens keep guns in their homes.  HOWEVER, you should have to register all firearms, you should have to complete competence and safety training and you should be help accountable if your guns end up in the hands of a child or someone mentally unstable who is in your care. 

    A ban on assault weapons does not take away your freedom. 

    Conceal carry laws are absolutely frightening and I don't even know where to start.  How many people with ccw permits have had adequate arms training? It's a fallacy that more guns equals more safety. It is also a fallacy to believe that in a situation of rapid fire you would have the capacity as an untrained civilian to pull your gun, hit the target without inflicting more casualties yourself, as you yourself are shaking in fear and are in shock and terrorized.  Any cop will tell you that it is difficult to hit a human target period, even with hours of training and preparation.  Your video games and backwoods shooting don't give you those skills.  I am more concerned about would be superheros who are ill prepared causing more harm. 

    "Guns don't kill people" ... YES, actually they do - that is what they are intended to do, that is what they are made for - killing.  They have no other purpose.  I get the people that pull the trigger do the actual killing by the way, but to insinuate somehow that guns are not more dangerous and don't make the killing much easier is ridiculous. 

    The loopholes that allow people to get guns without thorough background checks have to stop.  The ability to buy a gun same day on site at a gun show must stop.  People must be put ahead of profits of gun sellers and NRA! The ability of the mentally ill to so easily gain access to weapons has to stop.   What is so hard about this for people to grasp? Why can we not come to a middle ground consensus here?

    I grew up around guns.  My father is ex-military and he is a collector.  That being said, he had proper training, guns were never stored loaded, and ammo/guns were locked in separate locations at all times.  I grew up with a healthy respect for guns and although I don't feel the need to own one I know others can be responsible. Controls are NOT bans.

    1. profile image0
      CJ Sledgehammerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with some of the things you said, but if I can use one of your arguments against you...why allow anyone to have firearm training? Would it not be just as difficult for the criminal element to hit moving targets if no training was provided?

    2. ChristinS profile image94
      ChristinSposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Having a bunch of untrained vigilantes is far more dangerous CJ

    3. Borsia profile image43
      Borsiaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      CJ very few criminals have any training, that is why you see so many bystanders hit.
      Proper training saves lives, it is the reason that today gun accidents are at an all-time low despite the increased numbers of guns.

  9. SidKemp profile image95
    SidKempposted 5 years ago

    Let's look at the specifics of the case. In this case, the mother legally owned the guns. She enjoyed shooting, and, apparently, teaching her children to shoot.

    One of her children, for reasons unknown so far, used what his mother taught him, but decided to shoot his mother, 20 children, 6 other adults, and himself.

    So, the mother didn't need guns. She wanted them. There was no wall at all between legal gun ownership and use and insane, criminal use of the same guns, just as there is no wall between mother and son.

    The son needed guns. He needed them to kill as many people as he could before he took his own life.

    And this mother and son are my brother and sister. And all who were shot are my brothers and sisters.

    I must have a crazy family! All 7 billion of us. What is there to do but cry and laugh, dance and live?

  10. Catherine Deslipp profile image61
    Catherine Deslippposted 5 years ago

    I think we have seen too much of what guns can do to such innocent people, I truly feel lets put an end to them. I live in Canada and the community we live in are all in shock, huddled by the TV, praying for the families of those we lost and those who survive. Wishing there was something we can do, for now, only prayers.  Hugging our loved ones even more than ever.

  11. chef-de-jour profile image97
    chef-de-jourposted 5 years ago

    You in the USA must start to think about limiting ownership and accessibility to guns, and to start a sensible debate on the use of weapons for self defence. Start it now and give yourself two years to come up with a package of measures that will for the first time seek primarily to protect the innocent before the selfish rights of individuals, gun lobbies and the NRA.

    Reading some of the answers to this question is hard enough - some even deny that guns kill!! Come on, these modern weapons can wipe out hundreds in minutes. Guns have to be controlled if these senseless killings are to be stopped. Don't try to blame mentally ill persons - it's the ease of access to guns, simple.
    The young man in Connecticut would not have thought of carrying out a similar act with a knife or a baseball bat in his hands! It had to be a gun!!! Only a gun.

    The second debate has to be around security of schools and campuses. Fences? Gates? 24/7 security? It's a thought. Temporary measures like this could save lives and it isn't that costly.

    Worldwide we all need to think about the next DVD /video nasty we purchase for our young Sammy or Jimmy or Kevin or whoever, to make sure it doesn't contain a series of mindless slaughterings through the eye of an automatic weapon.

    It is a terrible worldwide phenomenon this shooting of innocent sweet children and carers - but the USA seems to always be the focal point because of the history and passions relating to the damn gun.

    1. profile image0
      JThomp42posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Guns will be obtained by those who want to obtain them legally or illegally in which most criminals do. Giving upstanding citizens who have to go through a lengthy background check to obtain a gun. GUNS AREN'T THE PROBLEM. Society and the criminals R

    2. profile image0
      CJ Sledgehammerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I hear you, Chef, but I agree with Jeff. Abolishing firearms only allows for a tyranical government to force its will upon a disarmed society. This is why the 2nd Ammendment exists...to safeguard the citizenry against a tyranical government not thugs

    3. chef-de-jour profile image97
      chef-de-jourposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The debate has to be focused on restriction of firearms, not abolishment. Let the psychologists do their work on the whys and wherefores of mass shootings of innocent children BUT society as a whole (represented by politicians et al) has to ACT.

    4. Borsia profile image43
      Borsiaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Private citizens with legal guns thwart over a million crimes every year, yet very seldom fire a shot.
      In the US there are probably more guns than people. We have over 2500 gun laws.

  12. stanwshura profile image73
    stanwshuraposted 5 years ago

    Yes, there are plenty of people in this world who suffer with and from mental illness, brain disease and trauma, neurological and developmental disabilities, mood disorder and instability.  But please be careful in your (pl.) analyses:  correlation is a LONG way from statistically valid and clinically reliable causation.  The fact remains the the vast, vast, vast majority of violence, with or without guns, is done by "normal" people - Bulger, McVeigh, and innumerable drug kingpins and their underlings, as well as gang and inter-racial conflict, not to mention domestic violence and child abuse.  EVERY one of those categories is dominated by supposedly "normal" people.

    1. profile image0
      CJ Sledgehammerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      At the very heart of the matter is immoral, selfish, violent, and malicious people. Indeed, murderers may not have a diagnosed mental illness, but their deficiency is the absence of heart and soul. Our government is Godless and so are its operatives.

  13. AnnaCia profile image84
    AnnaCiaposted 5 years ago

    I think the issue about having or not having guns in the USA is one the government or authorities, for that matter, do not take this into consideration seriously.  It is like drugs.  If there was a real effort, no drugs would be a problem in this country.  But there is this need of "lets give freedom" instead of lets see where a right of one individual ends when the right of another one starts.   I would not have my child go to a school where a teacher has a gun… I would not have an assault rifle in my house either.  There are people who will respect and value human lives; but there are some who will not care for any human being.  Look at the sensationalism in the news and other programs, advertisements, ideas, etc.  Put together these elements with a rotten mind and we end up with disaster. What happened in Conn. as in many other times, is horrendous and difficult to take.

  14. profile image49
    hooziposted 5 years ago

    we have to rethink the law that would give guns to every one,may this terrific incident could show the reality

  15. phillippeengel profile image79
    phillippeengelposted 5 years ago

    Perhaps the unfettered media has a part to play in this tragedy. There are a plethora of games and videos that depict sanguinary violence, and all of them do not emphasize explicitly that the actions showed must not be mimicked. Teenagers, especially, may be too obsessed with these that they lose their conscience. The government has also not set up stringent laws that restrict what the media can show to the viewers.

    As people said, the crux of the problem lies not with the possession of guns, but rather, it is the person's mental health that needs analyzing.

Closed to reply