Gunman Kills 4 in TN
SilverSeed
Posts: 336
Not to start another guns thread, but this is just stupid. It's not that these continue to happen, it's the velocity at which they are happening now. It seems like a few a week is the norm.
http://www.tricities.com/tristate/tri/news.apx.-content-articles-TRI-2008-02-27-0021.html
Can people honestly sit back and think we don't need to change our gun laws? Please don't give the argument that if we were all armed this wouldn't happen. Obviously there are way too many people in this country that can't handle the responsibility of carrying a firearm. Encouraging all to do so would mean havoc.
Is this really what the 2nd amendment protects???
http://www.tricities.com/tristate/tri/news.apx.-content-articles-TRI-2008-02-27-0021.html
Can people honestly sit back and think we don't need to change our gun laws? Please don't give the argument that if we were all armed this wouldn't happen. Obviously there are way too many people in this country that can't handle the responsibility of carrying a firearm. Encouraging all to do so would mean havoc.
Is this really what the 2nd amendment protects???
When Jesus said "Love your enemies" he probably didn't mean kill them...
"Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait, not me, you." -Deep Toughts, Jack Handy
"Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait, not me, you." -Deep Toughts, Jack Handy
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
ebay isn't evil people are
The South is Much Obliged
What specific laws are you proposing that aren't already on the books?
storage of the guns? mental aptitude tests? training by firearms officers? make it harder to buy a gun than it currently is... its harder to buy alcohol.
I can almost accept the concept of a gun killing in an armed robbery or self defense.
totally agree i live in this country and i can't for the life of me understand why we need so many god damm guns it's nuts ,i blame the john wayne mentality of the wild wild west ........
Onsite or offsite storage? I'm a fan of trigger locks, so I have no problem with some tightening of storage requirements. Mental aptitude test is trickier. I would be in favor of an IQ test for guns and voting, but I'm an elitist. Training sound good. I've taken training and think anyone who has a loaded weapon should know how to use it.
BUT - would any of these laws have prevented this particular incident? I'm interested in SilverSteeds call for new measures in light of today's occurrence.
And there is no waiting period or background check for alcohol where I'm from, so I'll disagree with the last statement.
To start, let's bring back that assault rifle ban (lapsed recently didn't it? I could be behind on this though...). Fortunately I'm not a lawmaker. I'm a concerned citizen.
I know where you're going with this. X number of laws already exist. It's too hard to further legislate gun use. Anyone that complies will be a law abiding citizen writing their own death warrant...
None of these are valid arguments. My inability to write legislation concerning gun control does not make it a non issue. Speculation on future anarchy is a slippery slope argument.
How about this. What do you like about these shootings that forces you to defend the aggressor's rights so adamantly? As in the OP, IS THIS REALLY WHAT THE 2ND AMENDMENT PROTECTS?
"Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait, not me, you." -Deep Toughts, Jack Handy
gun laws are complicated simply because the gun lobby is huge and policy is set by lobbyists and corporations ... everything favours industry ... but whether or not there is stricter restrictions for getting a gun - the reality is that these people most likely will find one - one way or another ...
why aren't we looking into the motivations for these shootings ... i don't know the specifics of all the cases but it seems to me that it would be an oversight to not look at what motivates someone to want to go on a rampage ...
Did this incident involve an "assault rifle"? I didn't see mention made. Do you know what incredibly low percentage of shootings involve "assualt rifles"? It is mostly a media creation due to how scary they look.
I understand that you'd rather run around creating new laws against scary looking guns instead of enforcing existing gun laws, or looking at the root cause of the shooters issue. Clearly something drove him to this. But let's ignore that and focus on the gun.
This is the dumbest fucking thing I've heard in a long time. I am not defending the perpetrator of this shooting. I'm quite glad he's dead, and am saddened that whatever troubles led up to this incident were ignored rather than addressed.
And since you are apparently confused I'll go ahead and answer your silly question - No, the 2nd ammendment doesn't protect the rights of an agressor committing homocide. There is nothing in the 2nd ammendment that could be construed to do so. In fact, there are many laws on the books outlawing all sorts of crimes against people, none of which violate the 2nd ammendment. Christ.
enough said...
Besides mental problems, childhood traumas etc. the shooters have something else in common; they choose guns to kill.
Guns are part of the problem.
But you're right too, it's not the only problem.
naděje umírá poslední
i say treat guns like cars. you need a license. to get a gun license you have to complete training and safety courses. you have to pass a psychological test similar to the eye test. you have to inform them of any psychiatric conditions (just like you have to tell them if your vision is no good) and prove you're treating them (wearing glasses).
would it stop all of them? no. but it might make it a bit more difficult for some angsty teen to get a legal gun in a hurry. force him to make a real effort to do this.
id also say guns should be registered. we register fucking cars, why not guns? but i know the paranoid gun owner would scream bloody murder about this. ironic how it's about the right to defend one's home initially, then it's about governmental resistance once registration is brought up, then it's about an abstract right to a gun when it is pointed out that 'arms' should/could mean a whole lot more than guns and shouldn't be restricted to guns.
lastly, strict liability for crimes committed with your gun. you lose it, you tell the cops and it gets top priority. you sell it to a kid on the street or fence it, you go to prison.
it's not about enforcing the laws on the books. the laws on the books are stupid patchwork reactions. we need to scrap the entire code and start over.
I'm not opposed to this conceptually. Depends entirely on implementation. I think training and safety are very important.
I won't scream bloody murder, but I will oppose any government registration of guns. That wouldn't solve any of our current shootings and only law abiding citizens by definition would comply. The only thing it would do is create a database of gun owners who followed the law. And, as with the first suggestion, implementation would be important. Guns must be registered. Does the government have the ability to deny registration for any reason? For specific reasons? Do they have to inform you of those reasons? Do they have a time limit on how long it takes to review your registration application? Do they have privacy regulations in place to make your ownership of a firearm a private matter, or is it discoverable through the FOIA, gray metal file cabinets, or unsecured servers?
100% agree with the strict liability. Not sure about the last paragraph. I don't think there is any area of the law on the books that we could entirely scrap and redo with any sort of consensus.
its purpose would solely be to aid in tracking guns that are used in guns and would/should be strictly confidential. most people cooperate with car registration. this way you can hold people that sell guns off the books accountable. and if a gun turns up at a crime scene, you've got one more clue. even if the owner didn't do the crime, it gives you 2 angles... find out where people with motives/at the scene intersect with the path the gun took from that owner. it isn't perfect, but it's sensible. the government tracks your car and everything else in your life. best buy has a record of every purchase i ever made there with my credit card. of all things that ought to be tracked, the sale and possession of dangerous weapons should be at the top of the list. and your argument hurts itself. if all people who would register are such law-abiders, what do they have to worry about?
Hail, Hail!!!
there is truth in that thought process ...
I'm serious. No one is going to do anything but say, "OH GOSH... Those poor people... I pray for them... pass the potatos".
Nothing will be done other than a bunch of hot air filled with empty words getting blown around for a while... til we forget... and move on to the next thing... til it happens again.
This is what America IS... and apparently, what America is willing to accept.
Hail, Hail!!!
BATFE already regulates sales with record keeping, so any new gun sales records exist. Just not in a formal "registration" database where all transfers are recorded. I don't want the government tracking my "car and everything else" in my life, so I try to be consistent. I oppose those things, too.
The last question you have goes back to the reason the 2nd ammendment was initially written. The answer is the government itself. With an ever growing list of erosion of liberties in the name of safety (patriot act, curtailing first ammendment rights, wire tapping, etc...) this is just one more to add that I'm not willing to concede.
like i said, i can bend on the registration becos i know the nutjobs won't accept it. the rest is the important stuff. if you oppose car registration and the like, that's cool. i just think it's insane that we track cars more carefully than guns. that's ridiculous.
as to the second paragraph, i don't buy it. becos the us military could still destroy you if it wanted. i don't buy that ideology unless it also demands the right to own mortars, tanks, anti-aircraft missiles, and fighter jets... a REAL militia to serve as a bulwark against the government. this isn't 1776. a few private citizens with handguns and rifles could not stop the us military.
i didnt know BAFTE was tracking gun sales now. that's interesting. i wonder how it works. but i also have to say i find it odd that on the one hand you talk about strict liability for crimes committed when you fence your weapon, but then think it should be perfectly legal to sell your handgun to anyone you want without any mechanism to review the legality of the sale. it leaves it wide open for abuse... like people who get prescriptions for painkillers and then farm them out to junkies.
Ok first I'll apologize for not having the time to address everything. I typically only come on here at work and for short bursts at a time.
Jeff- I can tell this issue gets you pretty worked up. My only suggestion is when you say "This is the dumbest fucking thing I've heard in a long time" and "Since you are apparently confused" you spell things correctly in the surrounding sentences.
Moving on. No this didn't involve an assault rifle. I was merely giving a specific example of something we should do. I really can't find any rationalization for an assault rifle in our society.
Do I think guns are the sole problem? No. Obviously this guy, and the others, have problems. The issue is that they are able to get guns easily. Do I have the answer to keep guns out of their hands? No. But just because the situation is complex doesn't mean it can't be solved. To trivialize the role of guns ("scary looking guns") in the shootings is to be terribly naive. You think if these guys only had hatchets they'd do the same things? Come on...
I don't believe the 2nd amendment question is the dumbest thing I've said or the dumbest thing you've heard in a long time. The 2nd amendment is the lifeline you and the NRA cling to. Without it we would have seriously different gun laws. The rest of your arguments are only held up by the staying power of the 2nd.
To sum up: I believe your issue is with the general statements that we against guns make. Maybe it sounds like pie in the sky craziness to you. Maybe you're next in the clock tower. Who knows? But you don't put forward any argument that guns NEED to be legal, or need NOT be more heavily legislated. You merely poke detailed, minute holes in more general arguments, without reaching a conclusion on your own. You seem very pro guns but I still can't see why.
Going forward: I'm all for a frank discussion on guns, as you and soulsinging seem to be able to have. I don't why I earned your ire, I didn't say anything as outlandish as half the things I read here. Anyway you can write back with angry bullshit or you can put together a coherent argument. Either way, I probably won't be back on til tomorrow. Peace I'm outta here!
"Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait, not me, you." -Deep Toughts, Jack Handy
You earned my ire for suggesting that I was somehow defending the aggressor’s rights so adamantly, and that the 2nd amendment somehow leads to this sort of behavior. Just the opposite is true. I am a big proponent of prosecuting crimes used with weapons (of any kind) to the fullest. I am a big proponent of prosecuting to the fullest anyone who violates anyone else's rights.
And the scary guns comment is true. Long guns that are semi-automatic in nature and hold more than one round aren't anything new. But if they bear any resemblance to something that looks like it could belong in the military, it is immediately assumed to be scary, dangerous. In many cases those weapons are lower caliber and with the shorter barrel, less accurate than my hunting rifle. But simply because of its looks the gun banners capitalized on fear and called for their banning. They are used so infrequently in crimes as to be a non-issue, yet they consume so much time in congress and the media. That's why I called them "scary looking guns", because ultimately, that is all they are regardless of how Chuck Schumer might portray them. That is also why I jumped on your call for re-instating the ban on them. Again, they weren't involved in this particular incident, they aren't involved in any significant level of crime, and they aren't any more dangerous and powerful then the average hunting rifle.
One final comment regarding something you said in a different thread today (surveillance in schools) that I found interesting:
I happen to completely agree with you. As a civil libertarian I am passionate about this. I just happen to think that all of my rights deserve protection from government encroachment.
I apologize for lashing out, but didn't appreciate having any point I made misconstrued to mean that I support or condone in any what that shooter did. Lastly, I retract my comment about your post being one of the dumber things I've read. I'll save that category for the crazy conspiracy theorists around here.
Well, I suppose it depends on the government's objective. If their objective is to flatten a state, then you are correct. But as we can see from our Iraq experience, if their objective is more political in nature, rather than military, millions of armed citizens could have quite an impact. If the full force of the government wanted to destroy any particular individual's home, then I agree with you, having a couple of handguns will be completely ineffective.
Well, perhaps I should have been more clear. There are well defined record keeping requirements on every holder of a federal firearms license. The BATF has access to those records anytime they desire. In addition. the FBI was for years illegally keeping results of national instant background checks. They were supposed to destroy the records after 180 days, but weren't doing that for many years until they were caught. I talked about privacy earlier, and the DoJ exempted the FBI's NICS (national instant check system) from provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 pertaining to identifiable personal information. I have no faith that any registration system would be protected. In fact, I have a pretty strong suspicion that it would not be protected, and that it would be too easily accessible.
unbelievable
East Troy 2003
Chicago x2, Summerfest x2, 2006
Chicago THE VIC, Lollapalooza, 2007
bonnaROOOOOOO 2008
Chicago x2 2009
(EV chicago 2008 night 2)
Or is the State of our Mental Facilities the Root Problem???????
I wonder what it really is that they are coming in such rapid succession.....
I saw a story about a G.I. back from Iraq who tried to get help and they wouldn't help him. He ended up committing suicide. He probably needed help he couldn't get..... (even he knew he was gonna snap)
Nowadays, the Government houses the Mental Cases (alot anyway) as Criminal Cases. How can they get the help they need there???
My condolences go out to the families of these sensless victims.........
btw I'm voting Hillary March 4th
PEARL JAM~San Antonio, TX. 4~5~03
INCUBUS~Houston, TX. 1~19~07
INCUBUS~Denver, CO. 2~8~07
Lollapalooza~Chicago, IL. 8~5~07
INCUBUS~Austin, TX. 9~3~07
Bonnaroo~Manchester, TN 6~14~08
In universe A, that object is a block of tofu. In universe B, it's a gun.
A reporter looks on. In universe A the news item would be quite funny and become one of those stories that gets spread around on chain emails. In universe B, the guy is dead, but that's ok because he's just a statistic.
I'm supposed to have a point, but there's really no way to tell pro-gun rights Americans just how idiotic all these gun deaths without a serious debate on access to guns comes across to the rest of us. Can't even be bothered to argue anymore- it's like watching monkeys behind a cage throwing faeces around.- it's stupid, and there's nothing you can do about it.
they are a part of the problem... if he didnt have a gun then it would just be a mentalist shouting *bang* at people... and that wont kill 35 kids in a school.