next »

[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?

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.

No, they didn't die "to insure" freedom; simply as part of the acceptable cost of freedom that the "collective American we" has decided is a worthwhile tradeoff.  In that sense it is certainly correct to say they died so that others may enjoy that freedom. Original Sin may be part of the human condition, but that particular tradeoff is an American choice, not a human necessity. 

And within the context of the real world-- i.e., acknowledging that of course you aren't going to be happy with all the details of the way things work out, namely the high American gun murder rate-- congratulations, you win, you get the side of the tradeoff you obviously think is best.

But I win, too, because I get the gun control I want, by exercising my freedom of relocation.  Hence, win/ win.

[rodentmind]

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!
[/quote]

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.  

[/quote]

These are specious arguments. I'm being polite by limiting myself to the word "specious." You can't kill 32 people with a knife.

You're welcome to your slow-loading musket, by the way. Have at it.

[newbie]

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.

I don't like the blame you seem to be putting on the mental health system. It sounds like you don't understand it.

There are no perfect tests to be 100% certain that someone who is institutionalized against their will is either crazy or not crazy. And the extend of people's symptoms of mental illness can vary over time. It's not a black or white issue.

One of my relatives has worked for an insurance company trying to provide quality mental health care to those who needed it. As you might imagine, the insurance company wants to spend as little money as possible so it can have more profit, and yet enough money so it doesn't get sued.

So the requirements for being institutionalized against one's will are strict. And the insurance companies basically try to allow as little time as possible for patients to get treatment before sending them on their merry way, still suffering.

If you want to blame something related to mental health, blame that our priorities are on making money (and not necessarily at the level of the social worker or psychologist), not helping people.

[aardvark]

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.

So the requirements for being institutionalized against one's will are strict.

Speaking as someone who doesn't want to be institutionalized, jailed, executed, or in any other way deprived of my liberty by the state, I think the requirements for being institutionalized against one's will SHOULD BE strict.

[sciguy]

82-Year-Old Ex-Beauty Queen Stops Intruder by Shooting Out Tires

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267540,00.html

Here's my idea of Gun Control: "She had to balance on her walker as she pulled out a snub-nosed .38-caliber handgun."

Just thought I'd add a little humor to the discussion

[livefreeordie2]

These are specious arguments. I'm being polite by limiting myself to the word "specious." You can't kill 32 people with a knife.

You're welcome to your slow-loading musket, by the way. Have at it.

I may be mistaken, but the only mass killings larger than this were Oklahoma and 9/11. . . you don't need guns when you have fertilizer or a box cutter.   You make the mistake of thinking that a person like Cho wouldn't find a means to accomplish his task. . .

As for being polite. . . well . . . I'm being polite, too.  Isn't that the norm when people debate?  Or do disagree and feel that anyone who disagrees with your point of view is worthy only of scorn and insults?

[livefreeordie2]

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.

I don't like the blame you seem to be putting on the mental health system. It sounds like you don't understand it.

There are no perfect tests to be 100% certain that someone who is institutionalized against their will is either crazy or not crazy. And the extend of people's symptoms of mental illness can vary over time. It's not a black or white issue.

One of my relatives has worked for an insurance company trying to provide quality mental health care to those who needed it. As you might imagine, the insurance company wants to spend as little money as possible so it can have more profit, and yet enough money so it doesn't get sued.

So the requirements for being institutionalized against one's will are strict. And the insurance companies basically try to allow as little time as possible for patients to get treatment before sending them on their merry way, still suffering.

If you want to blame something related to mental health, blame that our priorities are on making money (and not necessarily at the level of the social worker or psychologist), not helping people.

Uh. . . how am I blaming the mental health system?  If anything, I'm saying that there are problems with Virginia's legal system . . . and the extraordinary lengths we go to prevent reporting when someone with a severe problem is identified.   He was apparently identified by a judge as being a threat to himself and others, but put into outpatient treatment, allowed to return to class and the campus, and not put on the prohibited list for purchasing a gun because Virginia requires it to be an *immediate* threat or words like that. . . at least that's what was in the media. 

I find your last comment to be fascinating. . . do you live or work in an environment where those around you never lift a finger to help others? 

[livefreeordie2]

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.

So the requirements for being institutionalized against one's will are strict.

Speaking as someone who doesn't want to be institutionalized, jailed, executed, or in any other way deprived of my liberty by the state, I think the requirements for being institutionalized against one's will SHOULD BE strict.

Completely agree. . . but it shouldn't be so strict that someone like Cho doesn't qualify.

[newbie]

Uh. . . how am I blaming the mental health system? 

You said "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."

The reports that I've heard have talked about how a mental health provider evaluated Cho and decided he did not need to be institutionalized against his will, even though the judge had sent him that direction.

I find your last comment to be fascinating. . . do you live or work in an environment where those around you never lift a finger to help others?

I don't understand the question. My comment referred to the problem in mental health that the focus at the business level is on making as much money as possible and providing enough care that they don't get sued.

[aardvark]

These are specious arguments. I'm being polite by limiting myself to the word "specious." You can't kill 32 people with a knife.

You're welcome to your slow-loading musket, by the way. Have at it.

I may be mistaken, but the only mass killings larger than this were Oklahoma and 9/11. . . you don't need guns when you have fertilizer or a box cutter.   You make the mistake of thinking that a person like Cho wouldn't find a means to accomplish his task. . .

An organized terrorist group not only can figure out things like hijacking airplanes, but could probably figure out how to get illegal guns.  But a lone crazed gunman should be turned into a lone crazed knifeman, if at all possible.  I doubt Cho could have operated at the same level of sophistication as Osama b L's folks.  But I may be wrong, of course.

[rodentmind]

These are specious arguments. I'm being polite by limiting myself to the word "specious." You can't kill 32 people with a knife.

You're welcome to your slow-loading musket, by the way. Have at it.

I may be mistaken, but the only mass killings larger than this were Oklahoma and 9/11. . . you don't need guns when you have fertilizer or a box cutter.   You make the mistake of thinking that a person like Cho wouldn't find a means to accomplish his task. . .

You don't know that Cho would have done that. Depends on his psyhology. Maybe he got something out of shooting people that he wouldn't have gotten from a bomb or hijacking a plane (or from poisoning, for that matter). IN FACT, he COULD HAVE made a bomb. Instead, he bought two guns. At it was all too easy. Sorry, I think your argument's quite specious.

[rodentmind]

 He was apparently identified by a judge as being a threat to himself and others, but put into outpatient treatment, allowed to return to class and the campus, and not put on the prohibited list for purchasing a gun because Virginia requires it to be an *immediate* threat or words like that. . . at least that's what was in the media. 

I hope you won't be offended by this, but I find it ironic that your moniker is livefreeordie. Yes, he was allowed to return to campus. You can't lock someone up and throw away the key just because they're weird, rude, antisocial, and angry. That's not how it works...in the USA...I hope. Now, if you want to complain about gun laws and the availability of guns, and of all kinds, and of ammo to put in them, to almost anyone who wants them, go right ahead. That's where your posting leads you, whether you like it or not--he was allowed to buy a gun.

[oldadjunct]

I stayed away from making this point when this thread was fresh.  Though I was pretty certain that it was, in fact, possible to buy a gun while on the terrorist watch list, I was reluctant to bring it up.

Anyway, it is true that someone on the DOJ/DHS Terrorist Watch List can, as the law presently stands, buy a gun.

At least two ironies here.  First the list that can prevent an American's freedom to travel, or conduct person financial transactions, does not prevent gun ownership.  Second, the NRA is call for the dismissal of a highly compromised attorney general not for his troubling Senate testimony but for his willingness to take guns away from suspected terrorists.  Huh?!?

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200705/CUL20070502b.html

[helpful]

I stayed away from making this point when this thread was fresh.  Though I was pretty certain that it was, in fact, possible to buy a gun while on the terrorist watch list, I was reluctant to bring it up.

Anyway, it is true that someone on the DOJ/DHS Terrorist Watch List can, as the law presently stands, buy a gun.

At least two ironies here.  First the list that can prevent an American's freedom to travel, or conduct person financial transactions, does not prevent gun ownership.  Second, the NRA is call for the dismissal of a highly compromised attorney general not for his troubling Senate testimony but for his willingness to take guns away from suspected terrorists.  Huh?!?

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200705/CUL20070502b.html

Yes, extremely bizarre behaviour by the NRA. You would think they would be the organization that would be in favour of such a measure, given their conservative leanings and support of many in their leadership for the Patriot Act. It just goes to show you that any reasonable discussion is impossible with NRA types.

[acrimone]

Quoth the Scavenger Oracle:

"We know a place
Or we know its name.
Sometimes these two they are the same.

And while some names sweet might garner fame,
Others are stupid, deserving shame.

So within the meet and greet,
Find the thread where we all beat
Upon the places we declaim
Have sh*tty sh*tty stupid names.

He gives a slew, and knows there are more,
But from his list we count but four,
Then take the fifth, you hunting lifer,
And place it third within the cipher.

Then after that dirty word you score
Within this forum find some more
The Oracle will tell what is in store
While she laments her least favorite chore."