Virginia Tech.

Elijah

There was no documentation that this guy was a fugitive from justice or that he had ever been hospitalized in a mental institution or that he had ever been institutionalized for drug abuse. That's why the guy across the counter selling him that Glock had no recourse but to sell to him as he filled out the green form and did a background check. He looked just as legitimate as anyone else.

How many "bad apples" are behind the wheel of a car? They kill a lot more in a year than guns ever thought about. One idiot, licensed and registered, in a vehicle can wipe of several families in a heartbeat because of his deranged mind or the influence of drugs or alcohol and affect a multitude of people involved. Time after time someone will be arrested for DUI several times and still get out and drive even though their license had been revoked. I don't see the Highway Patrol demanding all cars be turned over to local authorities because hundreds of drunks kill people with cars every year and public outcry certainly would be heard if they were banned.

You can't punish everyone in the class because no one will tell that little Johnny is the one that shot the teacher in the butt with a rubber band while her back was turned. However, that's exactly what Gun Control is all about...hit them all over what a few have done.

If Hillary Clinton gets in office backed up by the Brandy Bunch, we best all coat our pistols and rifles with cosmoline and hide them as they will be searched for eventually and taken. That's their ultimate goal.

RonE

Specifically, his mental history could not be made available to the database (where it would show up in a background check) because that would violate his privacy rights. That's a problem.

I'm not preaching the disarming of America. I own guns and sometimes even use them. I've been shot, and I can't say I enjoyed it, but I don't think that makes guns themselves evil.

I just think it was too easy for the shooter to get them, considering his history.

Elijah

I don't recall the specifics of his case I heard about on TV but, there must be more to it than that because a felon could claim the same thing.

RonE

The issue here involved medical confidentiality, HIPAA laws and doctor/patient privileges.

It's a bit different than making a criminal background available for database checks.

Advocates for the mentally ill would, and do, argue that they should have the same right to buy guns as the rest of us since, in most cases, they have not committed any crime.

Mr. N

As far as I know (I haven't done any recent research on the issue) anyone who passes a background check can legally purchase a gun.

Which is why I don't understand the concern with allowing gun owners to carry them. It's evident that not everyone owns a gun... and not all gun owners want a concealed handgun license... which means that not everyone will be carrying one even if the law changes to where you can carry a gun anywhere.

As for the concealed handgun license, I'm not sure the stipulations on that.
I agree... sort of.
The reason I don't fully agree is because that guy was determined to take out as many people as possible before killing himself. He was trying to make a point (as we can tell from his videos that he sent to the media). If he was unable to legally purchase a gun, there is no doubt in my mind that he would've either bought one illegally or just stolen one.

And that is one of the main reasons I don't like the thought of banning guns or making them next to impossible to purchase legally. By banning them or making them next to impossible to acquire, all you're doing is making it difficult or impossible for law abiding citizens to get a handgun. A criminal (especially one who is intent on harming/terrorizing/killing others) will still get one and still use it for the reason he/she desires. (I know you're not advocating this, RonE, but it seems like many (not necessarily on this board) are so I just felt like specifying.)

Puppy & Dog Forums

 

AndyVetra

Thank you for making the point for me. There are many many deaths because so many people own cars. Apply that to guns and the same cause and effects and there would/will be carnage.

As far as DUI causing death goes there should be no difference between a sentence for that and any other murder. The problem is in the sentencing for this as it is with gun control.

Mr N. I did answer the last half of your post. Arming everyone so we can "put more holes in bad people that pull guns" is just insane. Sorry, but it is insane.

You keep mentioning the Constitution. Please show me precisely where it says the right to bear handguns. I read it gives the right to bear arms. Why then can I not possess semtex or other plastic explosives? Grenades, RPGs, flamethrowers. These are all arms.

Plainly the Constitution was written at a time of completely different circumstance. As you hate statistics, I hate twisted interpretations of the Constitution to suit political agendas. If we want to say it gives the right then fine. Lets all arm ourselves with flintlocks and black powder rifles. Though actually, by your philosophy, if we all arm ourselves with flamethrowers we'll all be safe as we'll be able to torch all the bad guys.

It's clear the Nation should be watching a ton less fear based media. Get out of gated communities and guns under bed mentality and perhaps just go and talk to people. I do not want my children around ANYONE with weapons - concealed or otherwise thank you in public places. I barely trust law enforcement with them (and my wife is a sheriff) let alone the random people I meet daily. I do enjoy legal firearm ownership, namely a hunting rifle and shotgun. I have no inherent problem with ownership of weapons. I do have a problem with a mentality of arming all college kids, school kids, general public on the basis that they are sitting ducks without handguns strapped to them.

I have been held up with a gun once. I have absolutely no doubt that had I also had one and tried to use it, under the circumstances I was presented with I would be dead. No doubt whatsoever.

How are you Stan? I've been trying to earn my corn and look after the newborn!

Mr. N

Oh, well in that case, since you think it's insane for everyone to be allowed the opportunity to carry a handgun then it only logically follows that you think it's insane to allow everyone access to a drivers license.
Next question... how do you suggest we decide who should and shouldn't be allowed to get a drivers license?
I completely agree.
Eh, we're each entitled to our own opinions.
You may think it's insane... but don't forget, my view on the issue will never become a reality because not everyone will own (much less carry) a gun.
I just want the law to make the option available to carry our legal/licensed handguns where ever we go.
You are correct. It does say "right to bear arms."
According to one of Websters definitions, "arms" is defined as:

"a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : FIREARM"

Therefore, I believe it could be argued that we should be allowed to possess rocket launchers, grenades, etc...
However, I can also see the argument (and a more logical one) for the interpretation to be taken as guns and rifles.
But don't worry... the weapons/explosives you listed above aren't legal (and not really practical) so the ordinary, law-abiding citizen (including me) will never have those things in their possession.
Oooh. Good point. ZING!
The Constitution was written at a time with completely different circumstances.
Therefore, yes, "the right to bear arms" should most definitely only mean flintlocks and powdered rifles.

Also, the "freedom of press" should mean that we should only be able to get our news and other forms of information via the ancient printing press. Therefore, free speech via computers or any other modern device should not be allowed.

Also "cruel and unusual punishment" should mean that public hangings and other various forms of public punishments should still be allowed.

After all, technology hasn't advanced at all over the past 231 years...

Yeah, my logic's off... says the guy who thinks we should only be allowed to own muskets since that's the only weapons available when the Constitution was written.
I don't watch the news.
I don't live in a gated community.
I don't have a gun under my bed.
I do talk to a lot of people.
Hmm... I still want to be allowed to carry a licensed and legally owned hand gun anywhere I want.
Let's see...
You don't want your children around ANYONE with weapons.
So... you don't want your children around you wife?
And your answer to this will help me to understand where you're going with this.
Let me clarify my position.
Even though I wouldn't have a problem IF everyone who was capable of legally owning a handgun carried it on them at all times...
Arming the entire American populace is never going to happen. Plain and simple. I just want the government to give the option to carry your licensed and legally owned handgun anywhere you want.
And I won't doubt that as being true. Even if I were to carry my gun anywhere, that doesn't mean I'd always use it in any given circumstance. Using it isn't always a valid option... But this is completely beside the point and has nothing to do with allowing the option to carry your licensed and legally owned gun anywhere.

AndyVetra

Mr N.

I really cannot do the quote think like you do as it doesn't work for me in terms of making a point. Please, therefore, if I miss a point, please do not assume that it is because of avoidance as I don't do that, it is simply because I haven't the patience to do the quote by quote thing that you do.

That said, my beliefs or thoughts in response are:

1) The right to bear arms needs revision. If ever there was a point from the Constitution needing amendment, it is it. You mentioned ONE definition of arms and there are indeed many. It needs updating badly. My comments on flintlocks were sarcastic but highlight the anachronism. The British are here! I am one!

2) I do not wish to be at a restaurant where all around me and my family are armed. That applies to malls, freeways, grocery stores, basketball games etc etc.

I am aware that bad people obtain firearms and other weapons. I do not believe that everyone arming themselves to counter that is the answer. I believe in severe jail punishment for those caught with unlicensed weapons. By severe, I mean a minimum of five years for possessing an unlicensed firearm. If that firearm is used, whether fired or not, in the process of a crime, then that should mean a minimum of 25 years.

3) You may not watch media, but sadly millions do. It is designed to sell products by instilling fear and showing commercials that sooth those fears. End of.

4) As far as my children go, re-read what I wrote and I think 2) above answers that.

5) The right for us all to carry guns is something that belongs in the history books. Again, no problem with owning weapons and using them in ranges or for hunting, but the image of all Citizens being legally allowed to carry handguns is too frightening to contemplate.

6) Far from being beside the point, my experience of being on the wrong end of a gun absolutely highlights that we need to focus on other forms of problem resolution such as the proper sentences rather than arming all. It has left me with less desire to carry a handgun rather than more.

Mr. N

Not a problem.
I just do the quote thing because I believe it helps others (as well as myself) understand exactly what I'm commenting on. It's just a personal preference of mine. I don't expect everyone to do the same.
I'll agree that they might want to clarify what the term "arms' means since it does mean just about any weapon. Obviously, not all weapons are practical for the home and/or personal protection. For instance, a rocket launcher. If our country is invaded to the point that we need rocket launchers to protect ourselves, we may as well admit defeat.
I'm sure you are on a daily basis and aren't aware of it. Even if everyone in the restaurant had a gun on their body... how would you know? As of right now, that is a possibility (with the exceptions to post offices, sporting events, and places of the like). I don't see why allowing it in the other places I just mentioned would make a difference to those who are worried about it.
I completely agree with you. I'm all for harsher/stricter punishments. However, since stricter/harsher punishments aren't going to stop all gun related crimes, I do not want the government telling me that I do not have a right to carry a gun on me for my own protection.
I completely agree with you on this. However, the reason I mentioned that I do not watch the news is because I don't believe that it's the cause for people to want guns in their house or on their person. Now, I'm not naive, so I won't deny that it doesn't manipulate some into having the desire to own/carry a gun. But, think about it... you say later in your post (which I'll address momentarily) that you being on the wrong side of a gun gave you less of a desire to carry a handgun. The media is going to effect people different ways. For some, yes, they'll want to go get a gun and carry it. However, there will be others who's desire for a gun will be diminished because of the media.
The only reason I mentioned that is because you said you didn't want your kids around "anyone" that carries a gun. Yet you stated that your wife is a sheriff, so I assume she carries a gun. I was pointing out that by what you said, you wouldn't want your kids near your wife.
All of that was said because I'm assuming you are perfectly fine with your wife and your kids being in the same room together. Which means that there is someone that you're ok with having a weapon while around your kids. If your wife is ok, then why isn't Billy's or Sam's wife? Why not Billy and Sam?
But, right now all citizens (who pass a background check) are legally allowed to carry handguns... so long as they get a license. Why would it be so much more terrifying if gun carriers were now allowed to carry their guns to places that they were not formerly allowed to carry them?

I disagree with the right to carry guns is something for the history books for the same reason that I would disagree with anyone who says purchasing insurance for their house was a bad idea. I'm going to pay a lot of money for my house simply because the house cost a lot of money. My life is worth more to me than my house is... I want to protect it in case I am ever in need of protection.
Again, I completely agree that we need harsher/stricter punishments. I do believe that would solve some problems. However, it won't solve all problems... which is why I believe we should all (all who pass a background check) be given the option of carrying a handgun if we so choose.

ilovemychihuahua

Okay, this thread is now Handgun talk. Te he.......

Cassie Nova

LOL! A rocket launcher!! Haha....that would be so funny. "Hey, look, a missile!! Everyone get out your rocket launchers and blow it up!!" LOL!!! Yeah, I think at that point my vote would be to surrender, lol!

xoxluvablexox

I was just reading through some of the post and realized that cars and guns were being compared wich is kind of a scary though. If you can compare a weapon meant to kill with a traveling devise then you have a very good imagination. Besides that though. The age to be able to drive has risen in my state, the age to buy cigarettes, and ofcourse the age to get alcohal is at 21 still. It's harder for teens to get into as many accidents as they used to because the laws have changed and it has shown to be less of a problem since then. So they are obviously doing something about the problem with drunk driving. They are obviously taking away the right of those that are 17 and should be able to drive but can't because of the change in laws, but what must be done, must be done. Just as laws have changed for driving it is now harder to get onto a plane since 9/11. You can't smoke inside at bars or anywhere for that matter in the City either. Those laws are taking away rights but yet more people are happy about it then not. So obviously since guns are such a problem they need to be delt with in the same manner and should be much harder to get too. If your going to take away my ability to smoke in a bar then I would think it's okay for me to want your ability to own a gun to be harder to have. (Not speaking to anyone in particular, just speaking in the general sense.) If my smoking in a bar is causing damage to another persons lungs and I'm forced into going outside to smoke then I should have the same right to want no one around me to have a gun at any time wether they have it legally or not.

Mr. N

Actually, it doesn't take a good imagination at all.
A baseball bat is designed for hitting a base ball.
A crowbar is designed to pull nails and pry things apart.
A brick is designed to be a part of a house.
A billiards ball is designed for the use of a game.
A knife is designed to cut meat/rope/packages/etc...
However, all of these things can be used as a weapon rather than what they were designed to be used for.
The problem with your statement is that a gun's only function isn't to kill people. Guns can be used for hunting, target practice, pest control, and self protection. Yes, the use of a gun can be abused and used to intentionally harm people, but that is not the purpose (for most) to own/carry a gun. The fact that some people use this instrument to rob/kill others is more of a reason to carry a gun yourself.
It matters not the weapon of choice, if someone is going to attack you, they're going to attack you. Each of us should be allowed the opportunity to protect ourselves from a possible attack.

The reason the car is being compared to guns is because when a car is abused, people will most likely be killed. When guns are abused, people will most likely be killed.

I honestly don't see how it takes some amazing imagination to see the similarities in the two.
And there used to not be age restrictions on handguns. However, the age was raised to 21. Then, a law was passed that required a future gun owner to pass a background check and sit through a 5 day waiting period. Laws have been changed to help regulate the legal distribution of firearms, so I fail to see the point you're trying to make.
Just because a lot of people are happy about something doesn't necessarily make it right. Passing a kid through high school may make the kid and his parents happy, but if the kid can't read any better than a third grader then you have not done the right thing by allowing the kid to graduate.
Please don't take this as me meaning that we shouldn't regulate our airports as well as taking other safety precautions... I just wanted to point out that just because something makes a lot of people happy doesn't mean that it's right.
Why? If you make it too hard to get a gun, all it's going to do is keep legal/responsible gun owners from getting firearms. It's not going to keep criminals (the ones who are going to use them to hurt/kill others) from getting them. All they've got to do is go buy one on the streets or steal one. If a criminal wants a gun... he/she's going to get one. Someone who's wanting to obey the law isn't going to break the law.
There's an old expression which I think applies to this statement:
Two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't think smokers' rights should be taken away like they have been. (This is another issue I have with the government, but it's a completely different topic so I won't go into it here.)
Therefore, just because one of your rights was taken from you does not mean that we should then take away other rights just to "make things even."

Your statement here is like saying "Well, they took away my freedom of speech, so I think it's only fair that I take away someone else's freedom to believe any religion they choose."

If you want stricter gun control laws, you're going to have to come up with a much better reason for it other than "Well, one of my rights has been restricted... so someone else's rights should be restricted too."

Puppy & Dog Forums