No, they have proven that they are unable to function in society.Dadtodabone wrote:Once their particular mania is determined they shouldn't be allowed in postions that have inluence or power over the activities of their fellow citizens, but instititionalizing them goes a bit far. Can't we allow their families to care for them ala "Boo"? Have a visiting nurse come by and administer their meds? Provide nice leather trimmed canvas jackets should the need arise?But I can tell you one thing we agree on. The folks who think that knitted baubles will reduce crime, and the ones who think that just telling men not to rape will stop rape, all need to be the first ones locked up
Search found 2 matches
Return to “School shooting problem solved with new UK anticrime tools”
- Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:27 am
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: School shooting problem solved with new UK anticrime tools
- Replies: 15
- Views: 2293
Re: School shooting problem solved with new UK anticrime too
- Sun Mar 10, 2013 11:44 am
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: School shooting problem solved with new UK anticrime tools
- Replies: 15
- Views: 2293
Re: School shooting problem solved with new UK anticrime too
My wife and I had a long discussion the other day, if you can call a conversation between two people who actually agree a discussion, about what we see as a pervasive problem that we see as often leading to "disturbances."
Not too long ago in the general scheme of things, it wasn't uncommon for families with "disturbed" individuals to sequester them in one manner or another. The first time I read "To Kill a Mockingbird" I could relate because in our little town we had two Boo Radley "types" of individuals, the subjects of local legend without much fact. One stayed with his family his entire life and the other was eventually institutionalized in her adulthood.
One of our discussion points was a parallel to the rampant and uncontrolled "gun control" movement these days, as in where do you draw the line, in this case between people who NEED to be institutionalized and those who present little or no threat and can take care of themselves, just like what constitutes the mythical "assault weapon."
We were never able to really establish a good metric, among the two of us, for making the determination, just as it's impossible to make such a determination in the case of what makes an "assault weapon" such, as opposed to just a plain gun.
But I can tell you one thing we agree on. The folks who think that knitted baubles will reduce crime, and the ones who think that just telling men not to rape will stop rape, all need to be the first ones locked up.
And what about women who rape?
Not too long ago in the general scheme of things, it wasn't uncommon for families with "disturbed" individuals to sequester them in one manner or another. The first time I read "To Kill a Mockingbird" I could relate because in our little town we had two Boo Radley "types" of individuals, the subjects of local legend without much fact. One stayed with his family his entire life and the other was eventually institutionalized in her adulthood.
One of our discussion points was a parallel to the rampant and uncontrolled "gun control" movement these days, as in where do you draw the line, in this case between people who NEED to be institutionalized and those who present little or no threat and can take care of themselves, just like what constitutes the mythical "assault weapon."
We were never able to really establish a good metric, among the two of us, for making the determination, just as it's impossible to make such a determination in the case of what makes an "assault weapon" such, as opposed to just a plain gun.
But I can tell you one thing we agree on. The folks who think that knitted baubles will reduce crime, and the ones who think that just telling men not to rape will stop rape, all need to be the first ones locked up.
And what about women who rape?