Thread: Gun laws?
View Single Post
  #113  
Old 01-06-2013
biggles1's Avatar
biggles1 biggles1 is offline
Always niggling about his title and May birthdays
 
Gender: Kroze
Location: Your pants
Blurb: Some blurbs just like to watch the world burn
Posts: 16,527
Send a message via MSN to biggles1 Send a message via Yahoo to biggles1 Send a message via Skype™ to biggles1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat1Fared View Post
A never said they could pass it in one day, but this is clearly an issue which the USA has been trying to dodge and duck its way around for the last ten to twenty years and it is now reaching boiling point and something needs to start happening. If the USA had dealt with properly in the first place, maybe we would not be in this place right now, but as it is, we are, so we have to do with what we have. That is why you elect representatives, so they can take affirmative action. Note, affirmative is not the same as rushed.

In answer to your previous question, the truth is crime with death trolls of up 10...etc has been very common in the USA since the 80's (the same time it Liberalised its gun laws...hmmm.) However, now it is white middle American's who are dying and not those doomed to a life in the slums of the big cities. This means people in the media, and thus soceity at large, take more notice. I know that is a cruel thing to say, but it does not make it less true.



The Aussie system is actually a tri-parte system with a hybrid mix between common law and federalism so it is a very good comparison to the USA.

Also, there is a difference between rushed and quick, as I said. An example of rushed law is the Dangerous Dogs Act, which was simply passed without full consultation, another example however is the Theft Act, now this went through the full parliamentary review process and took a long time to get sort, but unfortunately those given the job of drafting it rushed their final draft for reasons I cannot disclose and so what we were left with was one of the worst pieces of law ever made. A law which meant that a man who took an battered door which someone was going to fell out anyway got arrested for theft, while the judiciary were left tying themselves in nots to try and sentence obvious fraudsters and thieves. This shows that something can be rushed and still take a long time.

I think she means that just because you are a criminal or do a bad thing does not mean you are mentally unwell, which if that is what she means, I agree with.
Australia may have a similar system, but the US government is notoriously inefficient. Especially the current one.

obviously there are exceptions, but it seem to me that such a wide-reaching and important law needs more than 12 days to be shown to be the best course of action.

Of course not all criminals are mentally unwell, and not all the mentally unwell are criminals.
BUT, the people who commit mass murders, have you ever found one who wasn't a sociopath? Didn't have some kind of unstable mental background? As I have said before, the people who commit such crimes are never sane people. Criminal or otherwise. Because sane people know such action is certain death, one way or another.
Reply With Quote