SeenItBefore

Three Rivers, MI

#222 Dec 20, 2012
Really wrote:
<quoted text>Question for you? Do you honestly believe anyone who commits murder is sane at the time that they commit murder? I don't. I don't believe a sane person would lose control that way and murder someone. Slap them, yes, murder, no.
Depends on if you are referring to sane in the actual definition or perspective. I absolutely believe there are sane people that commit murder. While they may be emotionally unbalanced they are still sane.

While I am not professionally qualified to make a diagnoses I think this kid was sane. He was too well prepared in committing this act. He was "sane" enough to know what would happen once apprehended by the authorities or he wouldn't have seen any reason to kill himself. My opinion is he was emotionally unbalanced.

Just my opinion of the difference between the definition of not being sane and being emotionally unbalanced.
St Stephen

Grand Rapids, MI

#223 Dec 20, 2012
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text>So you can't address facts so you go to emotions...... won't work.... Did you see the court case from South Haven where a drunk driver killed a 27yo and 2 children in a head on? Yep, laws always work......
Yeah, since drunk driving laws don't work we should just allow everyone to drive shtfaced. Same thing with gun laws, lets make murder legal.
to be announced

Grand Rapids, MI

#224 Dec 20, 2012
you are missing the point SS, you can argue about anything, but the point is, only law abiding citizens follow the law!

Go ahead and be closed minded, but you know making it harder for law abiding citizens to get Guns will not change a thing when it comes to some loonatic, deciding to go on a rampage.

If you dont agree then you are fooling yourself....thats all!
St Stephen

Grand Rapids, MI

#225 Dec 20, 2012
to be announced wrote:
you are missing the point SS, you can argue about anything, but the point is, only law abiding citizens follow the law!
Go ahead and be closed minded, but you know making it harder for law abiding citizens to get Guns will not change a thing when it comes to some loonatic, deciding to go on a rampage.
If you dont agree then you are fooling yourself....thats all!
And drunk driving laws don't do a thing for some drunk who wants to drive drunk. Even so we do have drunk driving laws. Your reasoning basically says since gun laws don't work we should just throw our hands in the air and allow anyone and everyone to carry around any gun they choose.
St Stephen

Grand Rapids, MI

#226 Dec 20, 2012
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>Depends on if you are referring to sane in the actual definition or perspective. I absolutely believe there are sane people that commit murder. While they may be emotionally unbalanced they are still sane.
While I am not professionally qualified to make a diagnoses I think this kid was sane. He was too well prepared in committing this act. He was "sane" enough to know what would happen once apprehended by the authorities or he wouldn't have seen any reason to kill himself. My opinion is he was emotionally unbalanced.
Just my opinion of the difference between the definition of not being sane and being emotionally unbalanced.
I think there is a pattern with these gunmen. They seem to desperately need attention. Society has not accepted them for one reason or another and in this world of reality TV, where mental midgets are placed on a pedestal and made to be stars, they wonder 'why not me?'. They want to be somebody. They want to be remebered. They aren't always loners, just not accepted to the degree that they want to be. These incidents allow them to be somebody, even if it's a horrible, despicable somebody. The more shocking, the more horrible the crime, the more they think they'll be remebered. I don't know this guy's name and don't care to. I know some of the victims names though and that's what we all need to remember.
Jason

United States

#227 Dec 20, 2012
St Stephen wrote:
<quoted text>And drunk driving laws don't do a thing for some drunk who wants to drive drunk. Even so we do have drunk driving laws. Your reasoning basically says since gun laws don't work we should just throw our hands in the air and allow anyone and everyone to carry around any gun they choose.
I think your right!! We should have laws against the drunks owning cars and trucks. Of course druggies are exempt because we want them drugs legalized. There should be a waiting period and a background check for drunks to purchase a car or truck. They should only be purchased from a dealer. If the drunk does something wrong in the process of purchasing then the police should be able to confiscate and destroy it.
to be announced

Grand Rapids, MI

#228 Dec 20, 2012
St Stephen wrote:
<quoted text>
And drunk driving laws don't do a thing for some drunk who wants to drive drunk. Even so we do have drunk driving laws. Your reasoning basically says since gun laws don't work we should just throw our hands in the air and allow anyone and everyone to carry around any gun they choose.
No, that is absolutely not what I am saying.

You just tend to look for a reason to argue.

I am saying what makes the most sense? That is where attention needs to be focused.

Now if you and I can agree, tougher Gun restrictions will not stop these type of events from happening, then what is the next logical step to help?

Obviously nothing will stop this entirely, it has been going on since the dawn of time, and rounding up all 300 million guns is NOT an option. We would not tolerate living in a police state and killing would continue, with possibly even larger body counts.

Not all teachers should carry, but a highly trained few would be very helpfull. Wouldn't it be nice if a trained responsble Gun carrying teacher,or whatever the case may be could help in these "Gun free zones"? No one would ever have to know which teacher(s) had weapons. Just that trained teachers were on sight.

After all almost all these shootings are in Gun free zones, that is not by coincidence!

So if we can agree ( I mean come on, common sense should at least make us agree on certain things)Smaller clip size and restrictions on so called "assault weapons" will have little to no Impact, so why spend time focused in that direction? Just for political reasons?...No that doesn't help anyone. Forget all the talking points and propaganda. These are knee jerk reactions to a larger problem.

Focus instead on how to deter (sp) these things and at the very least, minimize the destruction. Because when you need a police officer in seconds, they are minutes away.

By NO means am I or anyone saying hey This won't help so don't do anything. The point is where should we actually be concentrating our efforts.?

So intead of argueing every single logical point, lets hear some viable solutions, You know the ones that will actually help save lives.



After all isn't that the goal here?
SeenItBefore

Three Rivers, MI

#229 Dec 20, 2012
Jason wrote:
<quoted text>
I think your right!! We should have laws against the drunks owning cars and trucks. Of course druggies are exempt because we want them drugs legalized. There should be a waiting period and a background check for drunks to purchase a car or truck. They should only be purchased from a dealer. If the drunk does something wrong in the process of purchasing then the police should be able to confiscate and destroy it.
Here's issue with comparing drunk drivers with cars and people with guns. The sole purpose of a gun is to KILL. That's what it was invented for and all it's advancements since. The sooner we all come to acknowledge that the better the chance of rational (so called) debate.

It's up to the individual to decide how they use this weapon, for target sport or a deterrent from personal harm or to set out to kill. None-the-less from it's inception to present it's intention has been to kill.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#230 Dec 20, 2012
St Stephen wrote:
<quoted text>
And drunk driving laws don't do a thing for some drunk who wants to drive drunk. Even so we do have drunk driving laws. Your reasoning basically says since gun laws don't work we should just throw our hands in the air and allow anyone and everyone to carry around any gun they choose.
Sorry, but i think drunk driving laws are working...just as much as we would like, not so much but, i think people are much more aware of the consequences...If we go out to eat, i may have one drink or a beer, but that's it...like many, i do my drinking strictly at home....Prohibition was a total failure and spawned organized crime, so i don't see the correlation....marijuana maybe, but not guns....
St Stephen

Grand Rapids, MI

#231 Dec 20, 2012
to be announced wrote:
<quoted text>No, that is absolutely not what I am saying.
You just tend to look for a reason to argue.
I am saying what makes the most sense? That is where attention needs to be focused.
Now if you and I can agree, tougher Gun restrictions will not stop these type of events from happening, then what is the next logical step to help?
Obviously nothing will stop this entirely, it has been going on since the dawn of time, and rounding up all 300 million guns is NOT an option. We would not tolerate living in a police state and killing would continue, with possibly even larger body counts.
Not all teachers should carry, but a highly trained few would be very helpfull. Wouldn't it be nice if a trained responsble Gun carrying teacher,or whatever the case may be could help in these "Gun free zones"? No one would ever have to know which teacher(s) had weapons. Just that trained teachers were on sight.
After all almost all these shootings are in Gun free zones, that is not by coincidence!
So if we can agree ( I mean come on, common sense should at least make us agree on certain things)Smaller clip size and restrictions on so called "assault weapons" will have little to no Impact, so why spend time focused in that direction? Just for political reasons?...No that doesn't help anyone. Forget all the talking points and propaganda. These are knee jerk reactions to a larger problem.
Focus instead on how to deter (sp) these things and at the very least, minimize the destruction. Because when you need a police officer in seconds, they are minutes away.
By NO means am I or anyone saying hey This won't help so don't do anything. The point is where should we actually be concentrating our efforts.?
So intead of argueing every single logical point, lets hear some viable solutions, You know the ones that will actually help save lives.
After all isn't that the goal here?
Who is saying we should round up every gun? Not me. You know what I'd like to see? Stiffer laws, with stiffer penalties for those who allow their guns to get into the hands of others. Stiffer and more severe punishments for felons and violent criminals who are found with guns. Better background checks for those wishing to buy handguns. Cutting out the loopholes for certain dealers and gun shows to bypass background checks. There are a few others that I wont go on about. My point? The NRA feels that ANY law that makes it harder for someone to get their hands on a gun is a direct violation of our first amendment. They have their scare tactics on level 10 anytime some legislator wants to work in common sense regulations. They buy politicians left and right(literally)to keep them from proposing such legislation. In the end it's the gun companies that benefit. The more people they can sell guns to the better, who cares about their mental state or their criminal past.

I had a friend who's brother is a felon. He was pulled over for a DUI a couple years ago with an unregistered gun underneath his seat. He got 9 months in jail for the DUI and 30 days for the gun. 30 DAYS! I'd risk the 30 days if I were a felon and wanted to keep a gun under my driver's seat. How about 2 years? Would I risk two years to have a gun in my car? Don't think so. It's time to crack down on the laws we have and quit slapping the hands of offenders.
EyeOnYou

Rochester, MI

#232 Dec 20, 2012
It's going to be different this time. This nation is already divided to the point of cracking and now we hear of death threats made against NRA members as well as a possible presidential "executive" decision on the matter if Congress won't act. What does that mean? Surely Obama can't be thinking about any form of confiscation now could he? Why go down in history as the president that presided over the 2nd American Revolutionary war. I don't think this nation will survive for much longer, but again, I've always been a pessimist.
St Stephen

Grand Rapids, MI

#233 Dec 20, 2012
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, but i think drunk driving laws are working...just as much as we would like, not so much but, i think people are much more aware of the consequences...If we go out to eat, i may have one drink or a beer, but that's it...like many, i do my drinking strictly at home....Prohibition was a total failure and spawned organized crime, so i don't see the correlation....marijuana maybe, but not guns....
I am not implying that we get rid of alcohol or that drunk driving laws don't work. What I am saying is---just because a law doesn't work all the time, everytime doesn't mean we should chuck those laws to the wind.
St Stephen

Grand Rapids, MI

#234 Dec 20, 2012
EyeOnYou wrote:
It's going to be different this time. This nation is already divided to the point of cracking and now we hear of death threats made against NRA members as well as a possible presidential "executive" decision on the matter if Congress won't act. What does that mean? Surely Obama can't be thinking about any form of confiscation now could he? Why go down in history as the president that presided over the 2nd American Revolutionary war. I don't think this nation will survive for much longer, but again, I've always been a pessimist.
Settle down and put your copy of NRA Monthly down. Obama is not going to confiscate your .30/30. More than likely he will tighten up laws already in place.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#235 Dec 20, 2012
St Stephen wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not implying that we get rid of alcohol or that drunk driving laws don't work. What I am saying is---just because a law doesn't work all the time, everytime doesn't mean we should chuck those laws to the wind.
You are not gonna see anything major happen with gun control laws....they may go after some assault-type rifles, but that is all....the media just has to overkill every topic they can....
to be announced

Grand Rapids, MI

#236 Dec 20, 2012
St Stephen wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is saying we should round up every gun? Not me. You know what I'd like to see? Stiffer laws, with stiffer penalties for those who allow their guns to get into the hands of others. Stiffer and more severe punishments for felons and violent criminals who are found with guns. Better background checks for those wishing to buy handguns. Cutting out the loopholes for certain dealers and gun shows to bypass background checks. There are a few others that I wont go on about. My point? The NRA feels that ANY law that makes it harder for someone to get their hands on a gun is a direct violation of our first amendment. They have their scare tactics on level 10 anytime some legislator wants to work in common sense regulations. They buy politicians left and right(literally)to keep them from proposing such legislation. In the end it's the gun companies that benefit. The more people they can sell guns to the better, who cares about their mental state or their criminal past.
I had a friend who's brother is a felon. He was pulled over for a DUI a couple years ago with an unregistered gun underneath his seat. He got 9 months in jail for the DUI and 30 days for the gun. 30 DAYS! I'd risk the 30 days if I were a felon and wanted to keep a gun under my driver's seat. How about 2 years? Would I risk two years to have a gun in my car? Don't think so. It's time to crack down on the laws we have and quit slapping the hands of offenders.
there now we found "some" common ground. I agree the penalty should fit the crime. Stifer penalty's is a start but not exactly a solution, it will deter some, but not those that end up taking their own lives anyway.

As far as The NRA that is a political quagmier(sp) although from what i've heard lately they are willing to compromise in some areas.

I was a member, and I know what their stance is. They feel once they open that door it opens it up for even more bans and restrictions. I think we can agree that is probably not the case.

nitpicking but I believe you meant the 2nd amendment, and the NRA is not evil they do alot of good too, but they were not getting any more of my money for their political agenda, even though I think they do need to protect our 2nd.

Now back to highly trained and scrutinized cpl license. They are much much harder to get than a ccw, and only those type of License are or would be allowed in the "Gun Free Zone". Only a very small percentage of ccw holders would even qualify.

You don't see that as another step towards safer schools/GFZ's ?
to be announced

Grand Rapids, MI

#237 Dec 20, 2012
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>You are not gonna see anything major happen with gun control laws....they may go after some assault-type rifles, but that is all....the media just has to overkill every topic they can....
How is that even going to work though? There are millions out there and you can buy one from an Individual without it being registered! There is no paper trail, Maybe that is something that will be addressed.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Walled Lake, MI

#238 Dec 20, 2012
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>Okay... so how many CHILDREN do you think he would have killed with a rock before the police showed up? Or for that matter before an adult would have stopped him? Do you believe he could have killed himself with a rock when he heard the police arriving?
Instead of so many jumping off the deep end on all sides of the issue why are we calling for calmer heads to prevail for a rational conclusion on the best chance to curb this kind of incidence.
Also what needs to be at the forefront of this is how to handle the mental health issue in this country. These are not cases of sane people committing these atrocities.
Define Assault Weapon SIB. Seems I was not wrong in my descriptions.... Insane people can grab any tool to kill.....
SeenItBefore

Three Rivers, MI

#239 Dec 20, 2012
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text>Define Assault Weapon SIB. Seems I was not wrong in my descriptions.... Insane people can grab any tool to kill.....
Where did I say assault weapon? I didn't.

But if you want to go there; ANY weapon used to "assault" someone is an assault weapon. If you use your rock to assault someone the rock is an assault weapon. You'd just better hope those in power don't decide to define it that way.
Jason

United States

#240 Dec 20, 2012
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>Here's issue with comparing drunk drivers with cars and people with guns. The sole purpose of a gun is to KILL. That's what it was invented for and all it's advancements since. The sooner we all come to acknowledge that the better the chance of rational (so called) debate.

It's up to the individual to decide how they use this weapon, for target sport or a deterrent from personal harm or to set out to kill. None-the-less from it's inception to present it's intention has been to kill.
The sole purpose of a plate or bowl is to hold your dead item. So if need be you can cut it with your knife that has the sole purpose of cutting. You can hold your dead item with your fork that has the sole purpose of stabbing your dead item that you are about to eat. You could also use your spoon that has the sole purpose of aiding you to eat your dead item. They were all invented and all the advancements since were to help you with dead items. The sooner we all come to acknowledge that the better the chance of rational (so called) debate.
None-the-less from their inception to present their intention has been to eat killed stuff.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Plymouth, MI

#241 Dec 20, 2012
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>Where did I say assault weapon? I didn't.
But if you want to go there; ANY weapon used to "assault" someone is an assault weapon. If you use your rock to assault someone the rock is an assault weapon. You'd just better hope those in power don't decide to define it that way.
Good response...... Now if we can get MSNBC to understand that composite stocks does not make a weapon anymore powerful than a woodstock of the same caliber.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Old things and places we remember from the Gran... (Feb '09) Thu Roger 1,101
Crooked Hillary's Tax Return Challenge To Donald Thu Batch 37 Pain Is ... 6
Local News Women (Apr '09) Thu Bronco 2,686
Lets Chat (Mar '08) Aug 23 Gville Jim 40,226
News Kent County Detectives: Teen homicide suspect k... Aug 22 HillJack 1
News Pay your utility bills or lose service (Dec '08) Aug 19 Shimake 160
Days of Yore Aug 18 Gville Jim 2

Grand Rapids Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Grand Rapids Mortgages