Anonymous said:
Gun Laws are not the problem in Arizona. We have more good guys with guns here than bad guys! That is how it should be! The problem is careless and uneducated gun owners. I would say the majority of people that live in states like Arizona are gun savvy and aware of how you should store your gun. It is very sad that this happened, but gun laws would not change a damn thing about it. Except when gang bangers or other unlawful gun owners have kids visit or live in their homes they would have to ask that the guns be locked up, good luck with that! It is our right as Americans to protect ourselves and our families with whatever means necessary, education is a means, so is vigilance.
I responded:
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.Anonymous, Thanks for visiting this old post and sharing your ideas.
I respectfully disagree with the part about laws not being helpful in stopping things like this.
This part I found interesting.
It is our right as Americans to protect ourselves and our families with whatever means necessary, education is a means, so is vigilance.
I would agree that we all have the right to use education and vigilance to protect our families, but not guns. In spite of what the Supreme Court said recently, I don't think gun ownership is an individual "right." That's not to say guns should illegal and banned, not at all. I just don't accept the 2nd Amendment arguments for justifying gun ownership.
Well when you make it to the Supreme Court, your opinion on what the 2nd Amendment means will actually count for something.
ReplyDeleteYou sure do a lot of posting. It makes conversations difficult. This is a continuing commentary on the Veterinarian that engaged in pre-meditated murder.
ReplyDeleteJadegold said..., "But if the vet--and this applies to MDs as well--had been found to, say, be a domestic abuser or have DUIs or have psychiatric issues, it's very likely there be no sanction to practice vetinary medicine."
If those applied to him, he couldn't legally buy a gun.
It's a Federal issue, not a state one.
I think you're saying that he could do things that would strip him of his right to purchase a handgun, but still be a veterinarian.
What could he do to get stripped of his veterinary license that doesn't involve a Class B Misdemeanor or worse?
You say I'm wrong, while agreeing with me, and without addressing my arguments. I'm a bit confused here.
I'm not sure we even addressed the question in how do you prevent, good law abiding citizens that are going to commit murder, from buying guns, while allowing law abiding citizens that aren't going to commit murder to buy guns.
ReplyDeleteI don't see how you can predict that a person with no record of wrongdoing, will commit a crime in the future.
Weaseldog, You can post comments on the same thread, that would make the conversation flow better.
ReplyDeleteAbout how do you prevent people who haven't done anything yet from buying guns, you can't. But, the way it is now, many people who can legally buy guns could be easily screened out. We could look at mental health records and histories of violent and eratic behaviour, which in some states are not considered at all.
Jim, Around here my opinion does count. Didn't you know?
ReplyDeleteMike said, "I would agree that we all have the right to use education and vigilance to protect our families, but not guns. In spite of what the Supreme Court said recently, I don't think gun ownership is an individual "right." That's not to say guns should illegal and banned, not at all. I just don't accept the 2nd Amendment arguments for justifying gun ownership."
ReplyDeleteAfter reading a number of your posts and comments, I really not clear at all on what your positions is. Perhaps you're not entirely sure yourself?
It seems you're saying that people shouldn't be allowed to have guns, but people should be allowed to have guns.
In case of the Veterinarian, you seem to be arguing that people with a clean criminal history should not be able to buy guns, in case they might commit a crime in the future.
If people are not allowed to have guns, how would you allow people to have guns?
Mike said, "Weaseldog, You can post comments on the same thread, that would make the conversation flow better."
ReplyDeleteI understand that, but tomorrow that post will be several pages behind.
"About how do you prevent people who haven't done anything yet from buying guns, you can't. But, the way it is now, many people who can legally buy guns could be easily screened out. We could look at mental health records and histories of violent and eratic behaviour, which in some states are not considered at all."
The FBI screens prospective gun owners. It's a federal process, not a state one. People who have been arrested for domestic violence, Class A Misdemeanors (might be Class B) or higher, or have been admitted to a Mental institution cannot buy guns in the USA.
Here is a link to the FBI web page on this.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics
Weaseldog said, "After reading a number of your posts and comments, I really not clear at all on what your positions is. Perhaps you're not entirely sure yourself?"
ReplyDeleteBullshit. But I'll help you understand my position so you don't have to read too much to figure it out yourself.
In my ideal world, people can own guns if they qualify. What they can't do is claim that the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with it.
That's the brief version. As you can imagine there a lot to the "qualifying" bit, and there's a lot to that "2nd Amendment has nothing to do with it" bit.
Biblical justification is also not acceptable.
Thankfully for the rest of us, your ideal world does not extend beyond your own front door.
ReplyDelete