Airman, I’m responding to you because I genuinely respect much of what you have to say. I think you’ve shown yourself as someone who looks at the evidence and responds accordingly.
My intent in the OP wasn’t to get into another debate about guns and gun laws. Frankly, I’m tired, too. And there are others better equipped than I to take on those campaigns. That shouldn’t prevent me, or anyone else like me, from stating plainly that I think there’s something wrong when a disturbed invididual can easily buy a weapon capable of killing 32 people and wounding a score more in the matter of a few hours. Really? Is that the price we have to pay-- over and fucking over – to assure a Consitutional right to own a firearm?
Can I tell you about the momentary fear I felt recently when I heard that some nut had killed a woman and himself on the University of Washington campus where my stepdaughter attends?
Believe it or not, I don’t actually want to see laws that would prevent most people from owning a gun, whether their purpose is for protection or sport. But c’mon. There have got to be some answers beyond shrugging one’s shoulders and saying “Well, whadya gonna do?”
No, my intent was to vent some frustration at what I saw as yet another pablum-filled speech by Bush that did nothing to assuage the grief of students and faculty and was just another example of his bumbling through the last six-plus years.
Because, basically, the upshot of Bush’s speech yesterday was to shake his head and declare: “Well, whadya gonna do? Hey, you got yourself a nice campus here.”
I thought my comment was reasonable, and you respond with both barrels of over the top nonsense. Then you add that you hate hyperbole. Nice.
I think the implicit question is how much “not” relative to the “more often” is acceptable.
My thinking on the incident at Virginia Tech and gun control is that handguns appear to be something that either everyone has or nobody has (excluding police/security and armed forces personnel). My feeling is that if we went the former route, we would end up with far more than 34 people dead on a regular basis, just in the form of one or two people at a time.
If we go the latter basis, we will have a few models from which to make predictions, in the form of other countries with severe restrictions of handguns. I do think that there is something else about America, in general, that makes us particularly bad at being able to handle weapons without undue problems (and I think our problems with weapons are undue and intolerable).
I know that there is no way we are going to do either one, but I would like to talk more clearly and rationally about these issues than we typically do, without resorting to tu coques about Ted Kennedy or the specter of a police state where we rescind, for some unknown reason, every civil right we have. I don’t think that’s possible either.
Not the retailer’s determination. In this case, we had numerous people who recognized the potential problem, but there was nothing that could be done.
As the law is now, a prior criminal act triggers an extra level of scrutiny. This is good, but doesn’t help much in a case like this. Being able to compel a psych exam would be a start.
Exactly my point. Virginia has a whole bunch of gun laws, but they are in no way indicative or exemplary of anything anyone would confuse with “gun control.”
So the contention/rant that we already have plenty of gun laws, so just how many will it take to satisfy gun control proponents anyway, is just bullshit. It’s the appearance of an argument without actually being one.
I agreed that your comment was reasonable. That wasn’t sarcasm.
Sure, but what is the remedy? My hyperbolic statement was intended to illustrate how difficult it would be to ban guns, which is really the only rational alternative. It has been said that criminals do not care about gun restrictions, so how do we prevent them from gaining access to them? To a certain degree, it is impossible without damaging the rights of others, so my thinking is that we are going to have to continue to live with the possibility that this will happen again.
I would, too, and with the exception of the above hyperbolic statement I have refrained from making wild claims. I’m trying to make my argument in good faith. It’s often hard to do, on both sides.
In what respect? I can’t think of an aspect of my ownership of weapons that is not controlled. From the moment I buy a weapon I am bound by a myriad of laws, Federal, state and local.
I am told what I may have, I am told where I may have it, I am told what dimensions it must be, what capacity it may have, and under what circumstances I may use it. That, sir, is anything but a lack of control due to a paucity of laws.
I weep for your being prevented from having a sawed-off shotgun, that you can’t have an infinite number of bullets in a clip, that you can’t just shoot the gun off for the hell of it in areas with a lot of people around, and that you need an (easily obtained in most states) permit to carry it with you wherever you go, except maybe in government buildings or on private property.
As a car owner, I suffer under analogous restrictions, so I feel your pain.
Well, Washington, DC has gun control as well, in theory. Of course this is a complete joke, as that control does not extend to criminals who actually use guns in crime, and then typically get lighter sentences than Virginia gun criminals get.
So the contention/rant that gun control proponents have a system that works is bullshit, from what I can see.
Richmond had a nightmare of gun crimes until they stepped up enforcement and prosecution of the existing laws under both Project EXILE and Virginia EXILE. That is what got the situation there under control. Of course, that depends on prosecuting crimes and to a great extent controlling people who aren’t inclined to follow rules. It is hard work, much harder than passing yet another gun control law, which is why most lawmakers don’t press for it, lazy bastards that they are.
So you decide what works for you, gun control or prosecution of gun crimes. As for myself, I’ve seen the evidence, and it leans in favor of the approach we’re taking here.
But they are pretty much the same as for cars. Just this AM there was a news story about the police handing out citations for people who left their car running while they weren’t in it.
Are you talking about reasonable or constitutional? I’d support an amendment that said something like “the right to bear arms applies to individual citizens for use in self defense and the preservation of liberty, but the govt may place reasonable restrictions on the possession and use of arms to preserve public safety”.
There’s a reality show in there somewhere that could make you very rich. Flesh it out. (Maybe each week the crazy people are given something else- badminton rackets or cherry bombs or crazy glue- and the contestant who loses the immunity challenge has to run a gauntlet- and since it employs the mentally ill you get major tax breaks- throw in a washed up celebrity host and some easy trivial questions and you’ve got a hit.)
Well that’s rich. Especially after Hentor being jumped-on by some twat because he made slight of what a .22 can do.
What? You’d like to carry a concealed howitzer and they just won’t let you? Boo fuckin hu.
As my respected compañero, 'luc, said, I’d like to see that asshole try the same thing with a nerf bat.
But go ahead, keep hanging on to a dated and obsolete document – in so far as the “right to bear arms” goes and its original intent – so you can continue to have tragedies like these on a regular basis. You guys are like fundies and the Bible in that respect.
That’s what they did to me for my security clearance. More or less.
You may argue that this would be expensive – charge the buyer. You may argue that this would be cumbersome and slow down the rate of acquisition of guns – so what?