Posted on 06/12/2014 5:48:12 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Because they're gun free zones. Guns are not allowed. The law-abiding abide by those rules.
That's why we have gun-free zones.
Well, that goes unsaid...Where there is not a “gun free” zone setup...
That was the question...
Most know all the stats on overall defensive gun usage in the country, where defensive force was used and used successfully, or just the presentation of the firearm to an assailant, burglar, home-invader(s), convenience store, liquor store, etc etc etc...
Places obviously off limits, schools, colleges, political functions (I dunno why unbalanced people don’t take more advantage of that soft target, ‘cept the Giffords’ incident) etc etc etc
Before anyone gets their panties in a wad that I wrote that, be aware, that is not a call for violence or opportunity to incite violence against elected officials...I’m just surprised in today’s social environment, where passions are at an all time high on both sides of the political spectrum, why more politicians at any level are not being confronted with these imbalanced people...
Could it be that the mentally challenged folks that do manage to get their hands on firearms are really the extreme of the extreme, and cannot be intercepted (in time) before they do something horrible???
I see a pattern with most of these instances, but I am curious to know why people who are paid to do what we “game out” in these discussions, why they cannot have an effective safety net to throw out and catch these people before they are able to fulfill their derangements...
The problem obviously is larger than the gun free zones, accessibility to firearms, sales of firearms of all types and the ammunition to support those acquisitions...
Is their a purposeful ignoring of the mental health of some people in this country, because like your Right to Keep and Bear Arms, is an inalienable right; that if some people are mentally challenged, for whatever reason, do they have a right to be that way and a right to not be treated, evaluated, monitored because of the potential of their imbalances???
I kinda know what the answer to that is, but since the trend of mental health is somewhat tied to the gun ownership and usage issue...
Why not steer the question away from the gun free zones, restrictions of gun/ammo types, age, criminal history, etc etc etc, and wonder why this particular aspect of shooting incidents in not resolved to some extent...
Maybe because it is not as politically sexy to discuss or debate the merits of the tie of some mass, or smaller shooting incidents to the mental health of the shooter...It may make for good play on the news...But they are more focused on the guns themselves, who was shot and killed, and all the candle light vigils after these sad events...Makes for better TV, than a bunch of suits talking about the root cause of “some” of these incidents...
Just my expanded take on it...
One more thing, (like Columbo used to say before cracking a case)...
If you have a right to be mentally challenged and unstable in this country (which I believe you do), does that make it right for the government, at any level, a caretaker for your life???
Restrict/regulate your activities, force those of us who are not impaired to pay for that treatment trough their revenue generating mechanisms??? Think why doesn’t the government do what they do in other aspects of our lives, and force those of us who are not effected, to pay for others’ instabilities???
I believe we are paying for it already, when at any moment, YOU could (very well) be caught up in the next shooting incident??? Almost anywhere you go these days...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.