http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/07/us/lapd-attacks/index.html?eref=igoogledmn_topstoriesIf the cops are right and this suspect is the perp, then what could have been done? These questions pertain just as well to the ex-SEAL who was killed by a fellow vet suffering from PTSD last week.
In retrospect it's easy to see...these dudes were crazy and should not have been carrying guns. But they were, and legally.
We all agree (well, all of us except for the NRA) that background checks should be mandatory for all handgun sales, that's an easy one.
How does a background check get used to keep a crazy dude from getting a gun?
And second, and perhaps even more important after this incident and the one last week...how does someone who's legally carrying get his guns taken away when he's clearly become unstable and not a responsible carrier any more?
Everyone agrees that crazy people shouldn't have guns, but who would support checking to see if people are crazy before giving them guns, or even harder, who would support checking in on folks to see if they've become crazy?
And...in spite of saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people!" for decades, who thinks that the NRA would do anything other than scream bloody murder if any proposals addressing either of these possibilities were drawn up?
We can ignore them for a while, as we all know that the answer to crazy people with guns is more guns when we're talking the NRA...let's talk actual possibilities.
Fish on...
Todd
Previous Topic
Index
