Virginia Tech shooting and gun control

[Joss]

Perinova,

Glad that's cleared up.

 

[bright eyed]

Brighteyed:
"so the pro gun people are against having more restrictions? even though you sensible gun owners would not likely be affected? why not wait a month or even more if that means we can put some better controls in place so the lunies can't get them? why not make it mandatory to pass a test that you know how to use the darn thing like a car?"

As you ask, Brighteyed, why not require a "reasonable" test? OK, fine. But who writes the test? Who grades it?

Have you ever heard of tests being misused to deny rights? Some states used to have tests that had to be passed before you could vote. Ultimately that was decided to be illegal. So were the tests of owning property or being a male. There's a lesson there for all of us.

Government is power and it ultimately boils down to force. Given that power corupts we must be very careful where we draw the lines that permit it to protect us.

There is a huge benefit to society to ensure proper use and sales of guns. Your reply does sound paranoid - you wouldn't have to be afraid of losing your right to own/use a gun if you follow the laws - take tests etc.

these polarized debates don't get us far. there is usually a mile of possible solutions in between but if we refuse to discuss or consider the options - for the "greater good" than what can we agree on as a society? do you want to get rid of traffic signals because they restrict your right to go wherever whenever?

There are reasonable restrictions put on all sorts of things, motorcycles, heavy equipment- etc. guns, given their high level of potential hazard should fall in that line.

 

[rw86347]

Something else that confuses me...

How would more laws help?

Today mentally ill are not allowed to own or buy weapons, and this check is includded in a back ground checks.

Today you are not allowed to carry a gun on school property (with the exception of Utah state)

And the biggie ... You are not allowed to murder.

Would 3 more laws get the mentally ill to stop killing? How about 1,000,000 more laws?

Heck, even england (the land of no guns) has faital shootings, and stabings. Maybe they should outlaw knives and stones too.

 

[saluki9]

Heck, even england (the land of no guns) has faital shootings, and stabings. Maybe they should outlaw knives and stones too.

Too late http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/uk/newsid_3937000/3937253.stm

It's really sad to see that the once great empire of Britain has become a bunch of disarmed subjects living in a nanny state.


Bright Eyed - Whats wrong with "sensible" laws? How about that it isn't up to the feds to ALLOW me to defend myself. It really saddens me to see how willing people are to give up their rights.

 

[rw86347]

There is a huge benefit to society to ensure proper use and sales of guns. Your reply does sound paranoid - you wouldn't have to be afraid of losing your right to own/use a gun if you follow the laws - take tests etc.

these polarized debates don't get us far. there is usually a mile of possible solutions in between but if we refuse to discuss or consider the options - for the "greater good" than what can we agree on as a society? do you want to get rid of traffic signals because they restrict your right to go wherever whenever?

There are reasonable restrictions put on all sorts of things, motorcycles, heavy equipment- etc. guns, given their high level of potential hazard should fall in that line.

The solution isn't in the middle ground. The solution deals with the degradation of the family. Where were the parents, family and pastor for this kid. When communities are tight and close people notice these things. If that means moving to a "leave it to beaver" era then I am all for it.

What we really need is fathers that stay with their families.
We need communities which know each other.
We need sitting on the porch not in front of the TV.
We need friends, not watching friends.
We need churches that involve children and the real issues they face.
We need less violence in entertainment.
We need less porn.

I think a good barometer of how screwed up we are as a culture is the divorce rate. When that drops, maybe we will be able to fix these issues before they start.

 

[bright eyed]

Bright Eyed - Whats wrong with "sensible" laws? How about that it isn't up to the feds to ALLOW me to defend myself. It really saddens me to see how willing people are to give up their rights.

ok, so how does requiring someone to pass a test showing they know how to use one safely restrict your right to defend yourself?

 

[Joss]

Brighteyed, I don't mean either of the comments below to be put-downs to you. This is just where we disagree.

Guns don't "fall in that line" because they are specifically separated from more regulated tools in the Bill of Rights. They were held separate because the people that formed our nation were terrified of a government that was better armed than it's citizens.

And from my point of view, I can't see how a person could know history (of our nation and others) and NOT be "paranoid", as you put it, where government is concerned.

 

[justin]

What we really need is fathers that stay with their families.
We need communities which know each other.
We need sitting on the porch not in front of the TV.
We need friends, not watching friends.
We need churches that involve children and the real issues they face.
We need less violence in entertainment.
We need less porn.

I was with you until that last one.

 

[rw86347]

ok, so how does requiring someone to pass a test showing they know how to use one safely restrict your right to defend yourself?

Why are we talking about gun safety? These people were not accidentally killed. More people die from ladders each year than gun accidents. fatal gun accidents are remarkable low. You are solving a non issue.

BTW ... about 1000 people die per year accidentally.

 

[Joss]

Who passes tests is determined by who writes and grades the tests.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test

"Literacy requirements for voting are almost as old as the concept of voting is itself. The theoretical basis for them was that illiterate persons were not sufficiently informed about the candidates and issues involved to be able to make a truly informed decision. In practice, however, the literacy requirement was often used to prevent those determined by the ruling class to be undesirable, such as the poor, racial and ethnic minorities, and other groups that it wished to see disenfranchised, from voting."

 

[bright eyed]

i see there is nothing to be gained in this thread! better go build my trench and sit in it!

 

[Joss]

It does seem rather pointless.

 

[perinova]

What else would you like to talk about?