Where did the OP say that?
In his imagination.
Yeah, she could have strapped her kids in the car and driven into the reservoir like a good mother.
SottoVoce:Anecdotes are fun. Especially when theyâre about a mother killing herself and her three kids. Letâs use that as a reason to abandon gun control measures. Sounds reasonable.
Where did the OP say that?
What does this statement mean?
Sad case here but a lack of access to firearms could not have prevented it.
Anecdotes are fun. Especially when theyâre about a mother killing herself and her three kids. Letâs use that as a reason to abandon gun control measures. Sounds reasonable.
At least you didnât say âreasonable gun control measuresâ so thatâs progress.
Why donât you call it what it really is: people control?
Whatâs to prevent her from stabbing them in their sleep or beating them to death? It has happened. Where there is a will there is a way.
I think it would depend on the mental illness, and how homicidal/violent they were. There are some mental illnesses (and manifestations of mental illness) that would rather hurt themselves than other people.
What it shows is the absolute imperative that gun laws reform is desperately needed in the USA. Also, what is desperately needed in the USA is universal health care.
Would you like to provide a precis of your comments in the aftermath of the MSD High School mass shooting and March for our Lives movement?
One of the salient points that you are missing is the near certainty that when guns are involved they will be fatal and the immediacy of that action and result.
The other salient point you are missing is that there may have been either a change of heart or an intervention that may have meant that the childrenâs and motherâs lives were saved.
One of the salient points that you are missing is the near certainty that when guns are involved they will be fatal
Well thatâs not true at all. Itâs downright wrong.
SottoVoce:Anecdotes are fun. Especially when theyâre about a mother killing herself and her three kids. Letâs use that as a reason to abandon gun control measures. Sounds reasonable.
At least you didnât say âreasonable gun control measuresâ so thatâs progress.
Why donât you call it what it really is: people control?
You guys want people control.
Whatâs to prevent her from stabbing them in their sleep or beating them to death? It has happened. Where there is a will there is a way.
And maybe changed her mind while looking. Or do people never change their minds?
You are confusing control by the people as being control of the people. We want the former and you (royally) want the latter.
Speaking of royalty, you appear to be using the royal we.
You are confusing control by the people as being control of the people. We want the former and you (royally) want the latter.
Nope you guys are the oneâs that say its the person not the tool thatâs dangerous so yep you want people control.
It means with or without access to a firearm she still could have easily killed her kids and committed suicide.
No it hasnât. We could easily solve up to 90% of our violent crime quite easily without ever passing a new gun control law.
We also have more guns than people in the US so gun bans will never stop criminals from getting them.
Most people survive being shot and only half of all suicides are committed with firearms.
Failed premise.
No, we want criminal control and for you folks to leave the rest of us the hell alone.