next »

[livefreeordie2]

Livefreeordie2: You have not answered my question about the choices that need to be made regarding registration. Until you do answer that question, there is no point having a dialogue with you.

I made an attempt at a dialogue in attempt to come to a compromise around gun/gun owner registration which is the only logical way to proceed.

I do pity your students if you are as close-minded as you are on these forums.

I've made my views clear.  Thorough check at purchase.  As it turns out, had Virginia followed federal law on reporting mental illness, Cho would have been stopped from purchasing a weapon.  Other than that, no registration or ownership licensing. For carrying a concealed weapon, it's reasonable to require training and licensing as long as the issuing authority is required to issue  the license to people who meet the criteria (of age, trained, pass background check).

I'm only "close-minded" because I don't agree with you. . .  That's a sophomoric tactic might work with your students, but it won't work with me.

[helpful]

Livefreeordie2: You have not answered my question about the choices that need to be made regarding registration. Until you do answer that question, there is no point having a dialogue with you.

I made an attempt at a dialogue in attempt to come to a compromise around gun/gun owner registration which is the only logical way to proceed.

I do pity your students if you are as close-minded as you are on these forums.

I've made my views clear.  Thorough check at purchase.  As it turns out, had Virginia followed federal law on reporting mental illness, Cho would have been stopped from purchasing a weapon.  Other than that, no registration or ownership licensing. For carrying a concealed weapon, it's reasonable to require training and licensing as long as the issuing authority is required to issue  the license to people who meet the criteria (of age, trained, pass background check).

I'm only "close-minded" because I don't agree with you. . .  That's a sophomoric tactic might work with your students, but it won't work with me.

The point I made over and over again is that everyone needs to be licensed or registered because if someone buys a gun legally and then has some sort of "mental illness" there would be no way of tracing them.

So, what about that kind of situation? 

Don't duck the question!

PS. It was the U.S. Supreme Court who dropped the ball. They ruled that there was no requirement for state and federal systems to communicate with each other.

"The Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Brady gun law, ruling 5 to 4 that the Federal government couldn't make local sheriffs run background checks on handgun purchasers."

Secondly, in Virginia, stores were only required to keep records for 30 days, then they could throw out the records!

[livefreeordie2]

Livefreeordie2: You have not answered my question about the choices that need to be made regarding registration. Until you do answer that question, there is no point having a dialogue with you.

I made an attempt at a dialogue in attempt to come to a compromise around gun/gun owner registration which is the only logical way to proceed.

I do pity your students if you are as close-minded as you are on these forums.

I've made my views clear.  Thorough check at purchase.  As it turns out, had Virginia followed federal law on reporting mental illness, Cho would have been stopped from purchasing a weapon.  Other than that, no registration or ownership licensing. For carrying a concealed weapon, it's reasonable to require training and licensing as long as the issuing authority is required to issue  the license to people who meet the criteria (of age, trained, pass background check).

I'm only "close-minded" because I don't agree with you. . .  That's a sophomoric tactic might work with your students, but it won't work with me.

The point I made over and over again is that everyone needs to be licensed or registered because if someone buys a gun legally and then has some sort of "mental illness" there would be no way of tracing them.

So, what about that kind of situation? 

Don't duck the question!

PS. It was the U.S. Supreme Court who dropped the ball. They ruled that there was no requirement for state and federal systems to communicate with each other.

"The Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Brady gun law, ruling 5 to 4 that the Federal government couldn't make local sheriffs run background checks on handgun purchasers."

Secondly, in Virginia, stores were only required to keep records for 30 days, then they could throw out the records!

What are you looking for?  Guarantees in life?  Move to North Korea.  I doubt that there's much in the way of gun crime there. . .at least not on the part of the citizens.  You live in a free country.  Freedom has risks.  You want to be completely safe?  Then let's have the government checking all email. . .monitoring all phone conversations. . .snooping into what books people check out of the library. . .  incarcerating anyone who even makes "us" suspicious that they might be thinking of doing something bad.  I'm sure if we work at it and forget about civil liberties, we can pretty much guarantee a safe, if very restrictive society.

It's not the guns that are the problem.  If someone wants to destroy innocent life and is willing to die in the process, simply removing all guns (or registering them) isn't going to make a difference.  There are evil people in this world.  There are disaffected, violent people. 

There will always be horrible crimes. . .and terrible tragedies.  I'm not willing to give up my freedoms . . . or see the freedoms stripped from my fellow citizens. . .on the bad bet that somehow life will then be "safe."

[aardvark]

There will always be horrible crimes. . .and terrible tragedies.  I'm not willing to give up my freedoms . . . or see the freedoms stripped from my fellow citizens. . .on the bad bet that somehow life will then be "safe."

If only there was some way we could find out how many murders take place in them gun control countries!  Hmmm... they've got people, and "people kill people, guns don't kill people"... OBVIOUSLY the countries with gun control have at least as high a murder rate as the countries with a 2nd Amendment.

With deductive logic, I rest my case.

[prytania3]

  Then let's have the government checking all email. . .monitoring all phone conversations. . .snooping into what books people check out of the library. . .  incarcerating anyone who even makes "us" suspicious that they might be thinking of doing something bad.  I'm sure if we work at it and forget about civil liberties, we can pretty much guarantee a safe, if very restrictive society.

Aren't they already doing this?

[livefreeordie2]

There will always be horrible crimes. . .and terrible tragedies.  I'm not willing to give up my freedoms . . . or see the freedoms stripped from my fellow citizens. . .on the bad bet that somehow life will then be "safe."

If only there was some way we could find out how many murders take place in them gun control countries!  Hmmm... they've got people, and "people kill people, guns don't kill people"... OBVIOUSLY the countries with gun control have at least as high a murder rate as the countries with a 2nd Amendment.

With deductive logic, I rest my case.

Perhaps your "logic" would hold if the only two relevant factors were guns and people, but there are others. . .not the least of which is culture.  Mexico, for example, has very restrictive gun laws and a much higher murder rate than the US.  And in countries with restrictive gun laws, there is usually a very active blackmarket so that those willing to disobey the law can easily do so (something that would undoubtedly happen here).

Within our own country, culture, economics, and other factors appears to have a dramatic effect on murder rates.  According to the U.S. Department of Justice, in 2004, Blacks were 6 times more likely to be murder victims and 7 times more likely to commit murders than whites.  Perhaps, if lowering the murder rate is really the goal, trying to solve some of this countries more pervasive social problems might be a good place to start.

[livefreeordie2]

  Then let's have the government checking all email. . .monitoring all phone conversations. . .snooping into what books people check out of the library. . .  incarcerating anyone who even makes "us" suspicious that they might be thinking of doing something bad.  I'm sure if we work at it and forget about civil liberties, we can pretty much guarantee a safe, if very restrictive society.

Aren't they already doing this?

Apparently not or they would have put together all of Cho's internet gun-related purchases and all the whispers of fear from his professors and classmates, and whisked him away.

[aardvark]

  Then let's have the government checking all email. . .monitoring all phone conversations. . .snooping into what books people check out of the library. . .  incarcerating anyone who even makes "us" suspicious that they might be thinking of doing something bad.  I'm sure if we work at it and forget about civil liberties, we can pretty much guarantee a safe, if very restrictive society.

Aren't they already doing this?

Apparently not or they would have put together all of Cho's internet gun-related purchases and all the whispers of fear from his professors and classmates, and whisked him away.

Does this speak to the issue of government intent, or competence, or both?

[helpful]

Livefreeordie2: You have not answered my question about the choices that need to be made regarding registration. Until you do answer that question, there is no point having a dialogue with you.

I made an attempt at a dialogue in attempt to come to a compromise around gun/gun owner registration which is the only logical way to proceed.

I do pity your students if you are as close-minded as you are on these forums.

I've made my views clear.  Thorough check at purchase.  As it turns out, had Virginia followed federal law on reporting mental illness, Cho would have been stopped from purchasing a weapon.  Other than that, no registration or ownership licensing. For carrying a concealed weapon, it's reasonable to require training and licensing as long as the issuing authority is required to issue  the license to people who meet the criteria (of age, trained, pass background check).

I'm only "close-minded" because I don't agree with you. . .  That's a sophomoric tactic might work with your students, but it won't work with me.

The point I made over and over again is that everyone needs to be licensed or registered because if someone buys a gun legally and then has some sort of "mental illness" there would be no way of tracing them.

So, what about that kind of situation? 

Don't duck the question!

PS. It was the U.S. Supreme Court who dropped the ball. They ruled that there was no requirement for state and federal systems to communicate with each other.

"The Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Brady gun law, ruling 5 to 4 that the Federal government couldn't make local sheriffs run background checks on handgun purchasers."

Secondly, in Virginia, stores were only required to keep records for 30 days, then they could throw out the records!

What are you looking for?  Guarantees in life?  Move to North Korea.  I doubt that there's much in the way of gun crime there. . .at least not on the part of the citizens.  You live in a free country.  Freedom has risks.  You want to be completely safe?  Then let's have the government checking all email. . .monitoring all phone conversations. . .snooping into what books people check out of the library. . .  incarcerating anyone who even makes "us" suspicious that they might be thinking of doing something bad.  I'm sure if we work at it and forget about civil liberties, we can pretty much guarantee a safe, if very restrictive society.

It's not the guns that are the problem.  If someone wants to destroy innocent life and is willing to die in the process, simply removing all guns (or registering them) isn't going to make a difference.  There are evil people in this world.  There are disaffected, violent people. 

There will always be horrible crimes. . .and terrible tragedies.  I'm not willing to give up my freedoms . . . or see the freedoms stripped from my fellow citizens. . .on the bad bet that somehow life will then be "safe."

And in all that verbiosity, livefreeordie2, you have ducked the question I asked.

Now, answer the question!

[jonesey]

On a related note, California is looking to pass laws on ammunition registration:

Taking aim at bullets could put dent in growing gun violence

[livefreeordie2]

Livefreeordie2: You have not answered my question about the choices that need to be made regarding registration. Until you do answer that question, there is no point having a dialogue with you.

I made an attempt at a dialogue in attempt to come to a compromise around gun/gun owner registration which is the only logical way to proceed.

I do pity your students if you are as close-minded as you are on these forums.

I've made my views clear.  Thorough check at purchase.  As it turns out, had Virginia followed federal law on reporting mental illness, Cho would have been stopped from purchasing a weapon.  Other than that, no registration or ownership licensing. For carrying a concealed weapon, it's reasonable to require training and licensing as long as the issuing authority is required to issue  the license to people who meet the criteria (of age, trained, pass background check).

I'm only "close-minded" because I don't agree with you. . .  That's a sophomoric tactic might work with your students, but it won't work with me.

The point I made over and over again is that everyone needs to be licensed or registered because if someone buys a gun legally and then has some sort of "mental illness" there would be no way of tracing them.

So, what about that kind of situation? 

Don't duck the question!

PS. It was the U.S. Supreme Court who dropped the ball. They ruled that there was no requirement for state and federal systems to communicate with each other.

"The Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Brady gun law, ruling 5 to 4 that the Federal government couldn't make local sheriffs run background checks on handgun purchasers."

Secondly, in Virginia, stores were only required to keep records for 30 days, then they could throw out the records!

What are you looking for?  Guarantees in life?  Move to North Korea.  I doubt that there's much in the way of gun crime there. . .at least not on the part of the citizens.  You live in a free country.  Freedom has risks.  You want to be completely safe?  Then let's have the government checking all email. . .monitoring all phone conversations. . .snooping into what books people check out of the library. . .  incarcerating anyone who even makes "us" suspicious that they might be thinking of doing something bad.  I'm sure if we work at it and forget about civil liberties, we can pretty much guarantee a safe, if very restrictive society.

It's not the guns that are the problem.  If someone wants to destroy innocent life and is willing to die in the process, simply removing all guns (or registering them) isn't going to make a difference.  There are evil people in this world.  There are disaffected, violent people. 

There will always be horrible crimes. . .and terrible tragedies.  I'm not willing to give up my freedoms . . . or see the freedoms stripped from my fellow citizens. . .on the bad bet that somehow life will then be "safe."

And in all that verbiosity, livefreeordie2, you have ducked the question I asked.

Now, answer the question!

I apologize.  Having given you my views in some detail, I thought you would have been able to connect the dots. . .

The idea that the authorities need to be able to trace someone "just in case" they go nuts is an affront to freedom and those who believe in civil liberties.  Shall we do the same for those who buy cutlery?  Murders occur every year by knife. . .  How about gasoline?  Shall we also track everyone who purchases gasoline. . .just in case someone goes nuts and decides to engage in a little recreational arson?  Millions of people legally buy guns. . .the incidence of those legally purchasing a weapons and then going nuts is, I imagine, very, very small.  

So. . .there ya go, helpful.  I'm sure you have what you believe is some kind of profound, thought-provoking, intellectually superior hammer to drop <yawn>. Just remember this.  Twenty years ago, there were very few states with laws that required the issuance of licenses for concealed carry. . .now there are 38 or 39.  The DC gun ban stood since the '70s.  A court just overturned it.  The idiotic Clinton assault weapons ban expired and there's no rush to reimpose it.  And even in light of the recent tragedy at VT, the usual suspects are not coming out of the woodwork demanding more gun control.  You are certainly entitled to your opinion and to vote for those who might bring it to pass, but I'd say the trend lines are likely to continue towards respecting the rights of law-abiding Americans rather than stripping them away.

[kamilla]

Ok, this whole thing is getting too complicated for me. Just tell me one thing: should I pack a gun next to my kid's lunch box or what? He/she has a right to self-defense or not? Come on! Wake up and try to think instead of repeating a sentimental historical blah-blah.

[helpful]

I apologize.  Having given you my views in some detail, I thought you would have been able to connect the dots. . .

The idea that the authorities need to be able to trace someone "just in case" they go nuts is an affront to freedom and those who believe in civil liberties.  Shall we do the same for those who buy cutlery?  Murders occur every year by knife. . .  How about gasoline?  Shall we also track everyone who purchases gasoline. . .just in case someone goes nuts and decides to engage in a little recreational arson?  Millions of people legally buy guns. . .the incidence of those legally purchasing a weapons and then going nuts is, I imagine, very, very small. 

So. . .there ya go, helpful.  I'm sure you have what you believe is some kind of profound, thought-provoking, intellectually superior hammer to drop <yawn>. Just remember this.  Twenty years ago, there were very few states with laws that required the issuance of licenses for concealed carry. . .now there are 38 or 39.  The DC gun ban stood since the '70s.  A court just overturned it.  The idiotic Clinton assault weapons ban expired and there's no rush to reimpose it.  And even in light of the recent tragedy at VT, the usual suspects are not coming out of the woodwork demanding more gun control.  You are certainly entitled to your opinion and to vote for those who might bring it to pass, but I'd say the trend lines are likely to continue towards respecting the rights of law-abiding Americans rather than stripping them away.

So, in other words, if Cho had not been referred for mental health counselling, etc. and had bought a gun, and then later he was referred to mental health counselling etc. then the state/federal would have no right to ask for his gun back? (In Virginia they wouldn't have known he had a gun because of the 30 day period elapsing and so no records!).

If that is true, you aren't being consistent. You say people diagnosed as being potentially harmful to themselves or others shouldn't be able to purchase a gun, so some form of government intervention is ok, but it isn't ok to do this to people who LATER ON are diagnoses as being potentially harmful to themselves or others?

[aardvark]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and to vote for those who might bring it to pass, but I'd say the trend lines are likely to continue towards respecting the rights of law-abiding Americans rather than stripping them away.

I love your moniker, particularly since this discussion is occasioned by 32 Virginia Tech students/ faculty who courageously died so that others might have the freedom to own guns.

Freedom is a tradeoff.  You have the freedom to own a gun; I have the freedom of knowing that when a local Cho character goes wild on my campus, he'll be holding a cleaver rather than a gun.  You like your freedom, I like mine.  Personally, I like my chances of running from a gunless Cho better than your chances of successfully shooting down a gun-toting Cho.

I also enjoy, as an American living abroad, having the freedom to invest in the weapons manufacturers and earn money off of your freedom, without having to worry about the consequences.  This is a good tradeoff for me, and you obviously think it's a good tradeoff for you, so it's win/ win.

Quick question:  if, God forbid, another Cho bursts onto your campus today, are you actually carrying your gun so that you can fight firepower with firepower?  Or would your gun be sitting at home?  Are you prepared, or are you just taking your chances like those poor VA Tech victims?

[livefreeordie2]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and to vote for those who might bring it to pass, but I'd say the trend lines are likely to continue towards respecting the rights of law-abiding Americans rather than stripping them away.

I love your moniker, particularly since this discussion is occasioned by 32 Virginia Tech students/ faculty who courageously died so that others might have the freedom to own guns.

Freedom is a tradeoff.  You have the freedom to own a gun; I have the freedom of knowing that when a local Cho character goes wild on my campus, he'll be holding a cleaver rather than a gun.  You like your freedom, I like mine.  Personally, I like my chances of running from a gunless Cho better than your chances of successfully shooting down a gun-toting Cho.

I also enjoy, as an American living abroad, having the freedom to invest in the weapons manufacturers and earn money off of your freedom, without having to worry about the consequences.  This is a good tradeoff for me, and you obviously think it's a good tradeoff for you, so it's win/ win.

Quick question:  if, God forbid, another Cho bursts onto your campus today, are you actually carrying your gun so that you can fight firepower with firepower?  Or would your gun be sitting at home?  Are you prepared, or are you just taking your chances like those poor VA Tech victims?

First of all, those who perished at VT died because a mentally defective person, one who was caught by the system and then allowed to go on his way, went berserk.  They no more died to insure the freedom to bear arms than the victim of a drunk driver dies to allow you to have a glass of red wine with your dinner.  Your words make nice drama and a swell appeal to emotion, but they have little to do with reality. 

And no.  If a madman went berserk on our campus, I would be as powerless as everyone else.  We, too, are a free fire zone for criminals and the insane (and like other law abiding citizens, I have respect for the rules set down by the institution, even if I disagree).  The local newspaper went out of it's way (in a VT related article) to point out that only two NH campuses (Dartmouth and UNH) even have armed security personnel.  I felt bad about that until I saw the President of George Washington University bragging about the fact that there is no armed security on that campus either. . .and he did it on a national Sunday news show. 

As for my "moniker," it has been an on-line name for many, many years. . . and you know what?  For me, at least. . .it's true.