Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety [View all]treestar
(82,383 posts)22. Adam Lanza had no previous history of violence
Most of the people who commit these suicidal shoot-outs don't.
There is no reason for the mentally ill to have guns. They can be as dangerous as criminals - that's why we have an entire defense of mental health issues - John Hinckley should never have a gun either - and he was deemed not criminally responsible.
Other people have the right not to be killed by people who are mentally ill - once you are dead, you don't care whether it was a criminal or a mentally ill person.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
36 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety [View all]
Fresh_Start
Dec 2012
OP
Actually that map says nothing. What it does is take violent crime per 100,000 and divide it by the
Flabbergasted
Dec 2012
#34
No our Constitution does not give us that right. Rights exist with or without words on paper.
jody
Dec 2012
#16
But it's not giving up "our" freedom...it's giving up THEIR freedom for OUR security
HereSince1628
Dec 2012
#3
You say generically "mental illness" do you mean many / any MI should disqualify a person?
HereSince1628
Dec 2012
#25