11-year-old boy shot several times while protecting 2-year-old sister

[Ghostpanther]

In a country with more than 300 millions guns in circulation, gun related violence happens.

Someone in america will one day figure out that society don't need civilians armed to the teeth to exist and thrive.
Most other countries have.

when drafting the second amendment, i'm sure james madison didn't have shooting at toddler's birthday party in mind. The USA now have a regular army to protect its border, in fact, the strongest and mightiest army of the world by a large margin. A "well regulated militia" is no longer necessary.

He had the scums and wild savage Indians on the western front to keep in mind however. They would bash babies heads into trees. And yes, scums still exist today. :P

[Allybeboba]

And now the apparently single mother is stuck with the hospital bill. Yeahp, great country you've got there. If the shooting didn't kill him, the bills will.

She most likely has Medicare since she is homeless. Which means the taxpayers will be footing the bill.
I wonder where the father of the children is. Maybe he could help out.

[Chinese Bootlickers]

Hey guess what, after a mass shooting in Australia and we handed our guns in, tightened laws, and stopped importing them. There were less guns to steal, to become illegal guns! Fancy that. Now getting one is pretty much impossible / prohibitively expensive. It does work.

OT: Any new on why this kid got shot?

Because what worked in a country with 24 million people(Uncertain on the amount of guns they had) would work 100% no problem ballooned up to a country of 320+ million people with 300+ million guns.

[Ghostpanther]

Because what worked in a country with 24 million people(Uncertain on the amount of guns they had) would work 100% no problem ballooned up to a country of 320+ million people with 300+ million guns.

It also worked because they do not have the Constitutional right to own them down there.

[Tonkaden]

It also worked because they do not have the Constitutional right to own them down there.

Yea. Lets keep living on shit that was written going on 300 years ago. Makes sense. Im sure when the constitution was written that the founders were psychic and knew that guns would be used against each other on a daily basis. That was their intent all along!

[Azadina]

That is unlawful in every state. :P

What is? Allowing mentally deranged to buy guns?

Do you need to present a mental health evaluation by psychiatrist to buy a gun?
Do you need to present any reason to buy a gun?

If you answer yes to both, then sure, it's unlawful. But, answering no means it's perfectly acceptable practice.

[Ghostpanther]

Yea. Lets keep living on shit that was written going on 300 years ago. Makes sense. Im sure when the constitution was written that the founders were psychic and knew that guns would be used against each other on a daily basis. That was their intent all along!

They did not have to be psychic. All they had to do was look around. You do know that people murdered people in 1776 also? The Constitution is also the one which gives us freedom of religion, right to free speech, etc.

[Vargur]

https://www.reddit.com/r/GunsAreCool/

[Ghostpanther]

What is? Allowing mentally deranged to buy guns?

Do you need to present a mental health evaluation by psychiatrist to buy a gun?
Do you need to present any reason to buy a gun?

If you answer yes to both, then sure, it's unlawful. But, answering no means it's perfectly acceptable practice.

If a person has been found to be mentally unstable by a degree of say a court or a doctor, mental hospital, etc. They can not legally buy a firearm.

It is not required to get a mental evaluation to buy a firearm. :P
The only reason I need is ; " The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution gives me a right to own one."

And answering no means your opinion is just that. But has no legal legs to stand on. :P

[Tonkaden]

They did not have to be psychic. All they had to do was look around. You do know that people murdered people in 1776 also? The Constitution is also the one which gives us freedom of religion, right to free speech, etc.

Still doesn't mean that it needs to remain the same forever. There is no way in hell they could look around and see Chicago / New Orleans / shitty crime cities type scenarios.

[Ghostpanther]

Still doesn't mean that it needs to remain the same forever. There is no way in hell they could look around and see Chicago / New Orleans / shitty crime cities type scenarios.

Crime rates and gun death's from accidents are actually down. Only in specific areas is there a increase. And the reasons have little to do with guns, but more with drugs and gang mentality. And yeah, the Constitution can be changed. Go ahead and write your congressman to start the process. You have the right to. But until then, it is still a Constitutional right.

[Azadina]

If a person has been found to be mentally unstable by a degree of say a court or a doctor, mental hospital, etc. They can not legally buy a firearm.

It is not required to get a mental evaluation to buy a firearm. :P
The only reason I need is ; " The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution gives me a right to own one."

And answering no means your opinion is just that. But has no legal legs to stand on. :P

It means that specific law is in practice spineless and useless. Unless you require mental health evaluation to buy a gun, then you are specifically allowing mentally deranged to legally buy them. There's no two ways about it. Some rare exceptions where you might find someone by accident, and ban that individual from buying, doesn't mean much of anything on any scale.

[Puupi]

If a person has been found to be mentally unstable by a degree of say a court or a doctor, mental hospital, etc. They can not legally buy a firearm.

That's a huge IF. What percentage of mentally unstable persons do you think are officially diagnosed as such and have a stamp in all government databases to indicate so?

Multiple studies suggest that about 25% of population have mental illnesses.

Also, in the US, 19 states private sales don't require any kind of background check.

And, things like PTSD and alcoholism don't count as mental illness for firearms ban. Both of them being very high up on the list of reasons for shooting at people.

[Ghostpanther]

It means that specific law is in practice spineless and useless. Unless you require mental health evaluation to buy a gun, then you are specifically allowing mentally deranged to legally buy them. There's no two ways about it. Some rare exceptions where you might find someone by accident, and ban that individual from buying, doesn't mean much of anything on any scale.

In your opinion. Which you have a right to express of course and I do respect it to that extent. But I am also glad opinions, even if it is of the majority, do not in themselves change the Constitution.

[Vankrys]

The constitution was drafted by men, just out of a bloody independence war, looking toward harsh time ahead and a country to build.

I think it is fair to say that time has changed, situation, context has changed, the united states of america is not the same as it was in 1789.
I have always been a believer that laws should evolve as society evolve to fit the world.

The constitution is an important document of the past, but it's a 200+ years documents, it need to be actualized, modernized.
America has its own army, it's own law enforcement agencies, it's own government, it's not at risk to crumble under exterior threat.

I'm sorry, the more i see it, the less need for guns i see for a modern western society to have (for its civilian). If i have to choose between a gun or a master's degree, what will help me more in the current society?

I am not against armies or local armed law enforcement agencies, just against firearm sale to civilians. It is not needed and causes insecurity.
I know the argument, protecting oneself, against stronger aggressors. And in some occasions, guns save life. But in so many more guns take lives.
It basically creates much more problems than it solves.

[Tonkaden]

In your opinion. Which you have a right to express of course and I do respect it to that extent. But I am also glad opinions, even if it is of the majority, do not in themselves change the Constitution.

Hiding behind the same ole "its in the constitution" doesn't change the fact that allowing retards and mentally challenged / deranged people is absolutely insane.

What will it take for you to see it? Does one of these deranged people have to kill one of your loved ones with a gun they bought , you know, cause "LULS CONSTITUTION" , before you see that some shit is just ignorant to keep around?

Are you gonna say "well a mentally challenged guy shot and killed my little brother, but its okay, because the constitution stats that its alright"?

[Ghostpanther]

That's a huge IF. What percentage of mentally unstable persons do you think are officially diagnosed as such and have a stamp in all government databases to indicate so?

Multiple studies suggest that about 25% of population have mental illnesses.

You have to prove if a person is of the 25%. :P And what other Constitutional right do we insist people show first they are mentally stable to exercise? It is not that you have to prove you are. The Government has to. This is in the background checks which are run when you buy a firearm. At least here in Ohio. A full mental evaluation before buying a firearm would come at a very high cost and a lot of time to do. Who is going to pay for that?

[Wiyld]

'Blew cover'??

Is this an action movie?

Who says 'my son blew cover...'?

[Ghostpanther]

Hiding behind the same ole "its in the constitution" doesn't change the fact that allowing retards and mentally challenged / deranged people is absolutely insane.

What will it take for you to see it? Does one of these deranged people have to kill one of your loved ones with a gun they bought , you know, cause "LULS CONSTITUTION" , before you see that some shit is just ignorant to keep around?

Are you gonna say "well a mentally challenged guy shot and killed my little brother, but its okay, because the constitution stats that its alright"?

You are going off the deep end dude. Of course it is not alright a little kid is killed. They also die every year in the thousands from automobile accidents. We do not propose we do away with automobiles, but we do insist on more safety standards are in autos and laws . Same for guns. There are safety features added to weapons. There are background checks which have to be done. But no law is going to stop people from abusing anything or making stupid mistakes. :P

[Puupi]

You have to prove if a person is of the 25%. :P And what other Constitutional right do we insist people show first they are mentally stable to exercise?

Driving license for example. At least here. I assume a health check is required there for a driving license as well.

A full mental evaluation before buying a firearm would come at a very high cost and a lot of time to do. Who is going to pay for that?

The person buying the gun, of course. Who else?