Here's an interesting approach to gun rights.

[normiss 806]

Some people know what's right.
Arizona


"I don't think it really changes anything," Republican state Sen. Ron Gould said of the mass shooting. "I don't see how gun control could have prevented that shooting unless you take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens."

[davjohns 1]

It doesn't and shouldn't change anything. To restrict the rights of many due to the actions of one or a few would be anathema to the democratic process.

What happened was tragic. But people drink, drive and kill others every day. I don't see anyone claiming we need to get rid of alcohol. And it has no constitutional protections or even a utilitarian purpose. Using this event to further political agendas against public rights is disgusting.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[billvon 3,009]

>But people drink, drive and kill others every day. I don't see anyone claiming
>we need to get rid of alcohol.

Right - and no one is saying that we need to get rid of guns.

But drivers today face very stiff penalties if they are caught DWI - even if they do not do anything else wrong, like cause an accident. Bartenders can be liable for serving someone who is clearly intoxicated. Our legal system can strip someone of their right to drive if they merely refuse a breathalyzer test.

And yes, those measures do work; DWI deaths have dropped significantly over the past 30 years as laws have gotten tougher.

So there are legal remedies that can reduce the incidence of innocent deaths without banning cars, alcohol or guns.

[rushmc 23]

So there are legal remedies that can reduce the incidence of innocent deaths without banning cars, alcohol or guns.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

>But people drink, drive and kill others every day. I don't see anyone claiming
>we need to get rid of alcohol.

Right - and no one is saying that we need to get rid of guns.

But drivers today face very stiff penalties if they are caught DWI - even if they do not do anything else wrong, like cause an accident. Bartenders can be liable for serving someone who is clearly intoxicated. Our legal system can strip someone of their right to drive if they merely refuse a breathalyzer test.

And yes, those measures do work; DWI deaths have dropped significantly over the past 30 years as laws have gotten tougher.

So there are legal remedies that can reduce the incidence of innocent deaths without banning cars, alcohol or guns.

You are absolutely right. And as soon as someone does something wrong, those remedies kick in against that person. We don't take away everyone else's quiet enjoyment of their rights because of the actions of one or a few.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[billvon 3,009]

>I would like to see your sugestions

Had one a while back. Have a "secure area" CCW permit. Require extensive and regularly updated background checks, a psych test, recurrent training, insurance and registration of the gun to be carried. In return the holder can carry the weapon in airports, at political rallies, in schools etc. Pilots who want to carry weapons have to get this rating. It accomplishes two things:

1) Provides a higher bar to better evaluate people who carry weapons in sensitive places.

2) Allows more weapons to be carried by carefully evaluated people in secure locations; these additional weapons can help thwart crimes that take place in those areas.

[Airman1270 0]

If someone wants to cause trouble by misusing a gun, the only effective remedy is more guns.

[billvon 3,009]

>You are absolutely right. And as soon as someone does something wrong,
>those remedies kick in against that person.

Even if they don't. You can be driving home without meandering, tailgating etc and get pulled over at a random alcohol checkpoint. Even if you have not done a single other thing wrong, if your BAC is over the limit, you will go to jail.

[billvon 3,009]

>If someone wants to cause trouble by misusing a gun, the only effective remedy is more guns.

Giving Jared Loughner more guns would have remedied the situation?

Adding guns to solve the problem is like adding alcohol to solve the drunk driving problem. The problem is not either guns or alcohol; it is the people using them. Giving guns (or alcohol) to the wrong people is a very, very bad idea.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

>You are absolutely right. And as soon as someone does something wrong,
>those remedies kick in against that person.

Even if they don't. You can be driving home without meandering, tailgating etc and get pulled over at a random alcohol checkpoint. Even if you have not done a single other thing wrong, if your BAC is over the limit, you will go to jail.

And you can walk through a metal detector at the airport with a gun and go to jail...without doing anything else wrong. What's your point?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[billvon 3,009]

>And you can walk through a metal detector at the airport with a gun and go
>to jail...without doing anything else wrong.

Exactly.

[Shotgun 1]

>Giving Jared Loughner more guns would have remedied the situation?

From what I can tell, there doesn't seem to be any reasonable changes that could be made to the gun laws that would have prevented the Loughner incident. Sounds like he demonstrated some bizarre behavior, but nothing that necessarily should have put him in a database to prevent him from buying a gun.

[kawisixer01 0]

Jared was a deranged violent person. When you take the gun out of a violent deranged persons hand you are still left with a violent deranged person. When are we going to start dealing with the sources of the problem instead of the inanimate tool they use to carry out their deranged issues? Someone hell bent on killing a group of people standing outside a store can do it with a pipe bomb (atlanta olympics), driving a vehicle into the group (culver city CA 3/16/06), or any other means of ending peoples life. Judging by whats been released of this guys writings he would have found a way to carry out his attack even if he didn't have a gun.

[normiss 806]

Unless more people were carrying at the scene of the crime...it may have reduced the fatalities.

[billvon 3,009]

>Unless more people were carrying at the scene of the crime...it may
>have reduced the fatalities.

There were people carrying at the scene. One of them almost shot an innocent person in all the confusion.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>I would like to see your sugestions

Had one a while back. Have a "secure area" CCW permit. Require extensive and regularly updated background checks, a psych test, recurrent training, insurance and registration of the gun to be carried. In return the holder can carry the weapon in airports, at political rallies, in schools etc. Pilots who want to carry weapons have to get this rating. It accomplishes two things:

1) Provides a higher bar to better evaluate people who carry weapons in sensitive places.

2) Allows more weapons to be carried by carefully evaluated people in secure locations; these additional weapons can help thwart crimes that take place in those areas.

This would have prevented the Arizona killings, how? How many killings are done in the secured area of the airport?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rhaig 0]

Quote

>Unless more people were carrying at the scene of the crime...it may
>have reduced the fatalities.

There were people carrying at the scene. One of them almost shot an innocent person in all the confusion.

almost.

well that right there is enough to repeal concealed carry in all 50 states...

this place really needs a sarcasm tag.

I hadn't read that account Bill... have a link handy?

--
Rob

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

>Unless more people were carrying at the scene of the crime...it may
>have reduced the fatalities.

There were people carrying at the scene. One of them almost shot an innocent person in all the confusion.

almost.

well that right there is enough to repeal concealed carry in all 50 states...

this place really needs a sarcasm tag.

I hadn't read that account Bill... have a link handy?

Probably not the exact web site bill got the story from, but it does cover the story.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/armed-bystander-shot-hero-disarmed-az-shooter/

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rhaig 0]

thx

--
Rob

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Unless more people were carrying at the scene of the crime...it may
>have reduced the fatalities.

There were people carrying at the scene. One of them almost shot an innocent person in all the confusion.

almost is a gross overstatement here. "Almost" would be the guy shooting and missing. Or scoring a grazing shot. No, the guy still had the mental capacity to avoid that outcome.

If this is the entirety of the case against CCW as a defense mechanism, then I guess we better start counting all the collateral damage when SWAT and other police forces charge in on a bad situation. (Can we start with Waco?)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>I would like to see your sugestions

Had one a while back. Have a "secure area" CCW permit. Require extensive and regularly updated background checks, a psych test, recurrent training, insurance and registration of the gun to be carried. In return the holder can carry the weapon in airports, at political rallies, in schools etc. Pilots who want to carry weapons have to get this rating. It accomplishes two things:

1) Provides a higher bar to better evaluate people who carry weapons in sensitive places.

2) Allows more weapons to be carried by carefully evaluated people in secure locations; these additional weapons can help thwart crimes that take place in those areas.

Ok
not really a problem with the CCW requirments but
these would not have stopped the lastest nut from getting a gun


would have it?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[tkhayes 348]

yes, but to drive, you have to prove that you are competent to drive, you have to be educated in driving and then tested in driving....albeit minimal. Al lot of people argue for ongoing testing for drivers, like pilots to keep people's skills up.

For guns, there is no such test. I am all for a requirement to own and use a gun, the user must have taken and passed gun handling, gun safety programs. Along with recurrent training to maintain that rating.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

If someone wants to cause trouble by misusing a gun/alcohol/drugs/child molestation/rape, the only effective remedy is more......

that is about the lamest argument I have ever seen. It could only possibly work if everyone were FORCED to carry a gun and were willing to use it in such time of an emergency. I doubt that 10% of the population meets that standard (my guess)

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

How many killings are done in the secured area of the airport?

Careful Mike, one could construe your comment to mean that you are all for banning guns......

I said it years ago - if there were no guns, then there could be no gun crime.....it's an extreme idealism, but it it also a true statement.

I no longer advocate that, but if this country thinks that it does NOT have a gun problem, then the battle is already lost.....what's the solution? I give up.

When you see laws being loosened up even more after some nut opens fire in a crowd, I can only assume that the lawmakers have no idea what the solution is either....

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Unless more people were carrying at the scene of the crime...it may
>have reduced the fatalities.

There were people carrying at the scene. One of them almost shot an innocent person in all the confusion.

almost.

well that right there is enough to repeal concealed carry in all 50 states...

this place really needs a sarcasm tag.

I hadn't read that account Bill... have a link handy?

Probably not the exact web site bill got the story from, but it does cover the story.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/armed-bystander-shot-hero-disarmed-az-shooter/

From your story:

Quote

"More guns do not equal less crime." Maddow concluded flatly. "The statistical evidence on this, in aggregate, does not support the fantasy."

Obviously an objective reporter with no axe to grind.

I walked by a guy with a gun the other day and he didn't shoot me. Are we going to call that one a near miss too? I feel lucky to be alive.

The man was a responsible gun owner. He didn't go in guns-a-blazin'. Calling this a near miss is like crossing the street in a cross walk with traffic stopped and then running the story "I almost got ran over today." Maddow's take would have been "it's statistically proven that most Americans think red lights mean "go".

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything