Another Fort Hood Shooting

Avatar for cmkarla
Administrator
Registered: 01-03-2001
Another Fort Hood Shooting
4
Thu, 04-03-2014 - 11:01am

Fort Hood was again the location of another mass shooting. According to CNN, a gunman killed himself and three others and wounded 16 people. "On Wednesday afternoon, it happened again.At about 4 p.m., Specialist Ivan Lopez went from one building at the sprawling Texas military base to a second, firing a .45-caliber handgun, killing three people and wounding 16 more.The 34-year-old Iraq vet then put the gun to his head and pulled the trigger, ending his life. " read more

So very sad. Your thoughts?

Karla
Community ModeratoriVillage.com

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-16-2013
Fri, 04-04-2014 - 10:58am

This is very sad but it does cast attention on a very serious topic that our country as a whole needs to address: mental illness. All the time I hear people talking about gun control to prevent these type things but how about mental illness awareness and treatment instead. Anyone who would go out and shoot multiple people has issues beyond access to a gun. We need to work on getting the root of this problem solved.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Sun, 04-06-2014 - 11:31pm

To Phyllisjs1

Mental health is only one factor.  If we can make the assumption that mental health, like physical health, can deteriorate, then gun control remains an imperative.  There is no way to prognosticate how or if an individual with a firearm in her/his possession might become mentally unstable.  

The second amendment makes very clear in its wording that a well REGULATED militia for the SECURITY of a free STATE is the primary purpose of keeping and bearing arms.   The nation has been taken hostage through physical and political intimidation by groups like the NRA which blithely ignore the introductory clause of the second, aided and abetted by conservative judges who care more about their ideology than any true reading of the Bill of Rights.  

We are paying a hideous price in death and injury for the "freedom" of unrestricted ownership and wearing of fireams demanded by the too often probably paranoid!

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-16-2013
Mon, 04-07-2014 - 12:21pm

Anyone who believes that only employees under the control of the government should bear arms needs to wake up and study their history. The right to bear arms for all citizens insures the ability to protect oneself should anyone, including his or her own government, try to take away something that doesn't belong to them.  

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Mon, 04-07-2014 - 11:44pm

To Phyllisjs1

I assume that the comment "Anyone who believes that only employees under the control of the government should bear arms needs to wake up and study their history" was directed at me.  If that's true, you might want to re-read my earlier post.  I never used the word "employees".  I do know my history and the words I used were drawn directly from the Second Amendment  But for the record, here is the exact wording of the Second with the words I used in bold:

 "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 

The young United States did not have, nor did it trust, a standing army.  It relied on citizen soldiers.  There are many who interpret the Second without paying any attention to its introductory clause but I submit that there is a good reason for its existence.  

You can read a brief explanation of the two most prevalent interpretations at http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment  And if you want to delve deeper into an analysis of the semantics and intent of the Second which argues against either individual or collective arming, try this link:  http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1208&context=jcl

People best keep their governments responsive at the ballot box.  Iraq had one of the world's most heavily armed populaces(http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0310/p01s03-woiq.html) but those firearms availed them not at all against a tyrant like Saddam Hussein nor did those weapons hinder the "pre-emptive" invasion of the United States.  

As for "self protection", that path is a domestic parallel of MAD, which turned out to be costly, unstable, and only resulted in a "Cold" War rather than a "hot" war.  Moreover, in societies where there is reliance on force of arms, those who cannot be armed to the teeth tend to be very vulnerable--the old, the ill, the young, etc.  Not a very civil society, in other words.  Civility as a function of intimidation or fear of bodily harm/death because the person you're traveling with, working with, shopping with, whatever,  is carrying a firearm and maybe an attitude, isn't truly civil.  


Jabberwocka