even though the Connecticut shooter was from an affluent family which could afford any health care it wanted.
Justice system focused on violent criminals? Absolutely, though the Connecticut shooter, from what I've read, had no criminal record, certainly no record of criminal violence. Besides which, he somehow obtained his weapon from his mother--again, as far as I know, no criminal record.
So I don't see how either of these proposals would have been effective here.
But one thing that genuinely puzzles me is the narcissism implicit in your comment.
If I were engaging in an activity, with a "tool" or a "toy" or whatever you want to call it, that had any possibility whatsoever of being used to slaughter children, I'd at least consider whether my enjoyment of this activity was anywhere near as important as the preventing of that possible harm. Especially if the activity was simply a matter of fun. By that I mean, I really do try to take that "no man is an island" stuff to heart. But I guess this isn't usual, or at any case I often run across folks who seem not to be concerned at all about others, not a bit.
I'll give you an example. I used to, in the summer, go to a small community in upstate New York located around a lake. It isn't a huge lake, just big enough to scoot around in a power boat, or on a jetski. Some of the locals wanted very much to ban power boats and jetskis--aside from the noise there was, they contended, an element of risk to other people wanting to enjoy the water. The power boat folks said, no way, it's too much fun, we can be responsible. Eight years ago a kid swimming in the water got caught up in the blades of an outboard, and bled to death before help could arrive.
Guess what? The power boat folks STILL insist on their right to their fun. This one accident has nothing to do with them. They're "responsible" boat owners, why should they all "suffer" because of one accident?
Me, I'd think long and hard after an accident like that. I'd wonder if my fun was worth the added risk to the people around me. But these folks, not so much.
Of course, the analogy isn't perfect. And I'm trying not to sound holier than thou--but as I said I'm genuinely puzzled. Really, the response of gun owners, many of them anyway, to this atrocity in Connecticut has been astonishing. Not a shred of self-examination. Not a scintilla of self-doubt. Nope! It's fun! Good for the kiddies. Great bonding experience. And if, by some small chance, my toy SHOULD fall into the wrong hands and be used to slaughter a dozen or more innocent folks, well.... Well what? It's worth it? Them's the chances we take? Or, as one DU'er posted, we "just accept" that "that's life?"
Like I said, single payer--sure, though that to me is less likely to happen any time soon than an assault weapon ban.
Focus on violent crimes (and dismantle the prison-industrial complex)--no brainer, and I'm on it.
But how about SOME thought on whether or not your fun is really all that important, compared to the risk it poses to others? Like, maybe, isn't there some other way you can bond with your kids?
= new reply since forum marked as read
