People shoot people not guns?

[Tom_H]

Here's the problem. it's not 'what' weapons should be legal.. it is 'who' should have them.

The Bush administration is supporting a bill which would deny terror suspects the ability to legally buy and posess guns. According to the NRA, even terror suspects should not be denied the right to purchase and carry guns:

NRA opposes bill to stop gun sales to terror suspects - CNN.com

 

[texbaylea]

I agree with the NRA stand. No political appointee should have that kind of discretion. As stated, "suspect" has no legal basis. Like the no fly lists such lists are rife with errors.

Most of the anti-gun laws proposed would give the attorney general the discretion to expand the banned guns later at his discretion. NO THANKS!!!

Vernon

 

[MikePA]

Reading the whole story and not just the headlines usually assists in understanding the issue.

"Right now, law enforcement carefully monitors all firearms sales to those on the terror watch list," said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. "Injecting the attorney general into the process just politicizes it."

A 2005 study by the Government Accountability Office found that 35 of 44 firearm purchase attempts over a five-month period made by known or suspected terrorists were approved by the federal law enforcement officials.

 

[Soundguy]

TomH... I have to agree with Tex and Mikepa. the headline material you quote is just the kind of theing the biased media does.. and like to see done. That is.. throw out a buzz topic that sounds bad. but under scrutiny.. turns out completely different.

I think Mike summed it up pretty good. The no fly lists are 1 step up from a crystal ball.. there have been numberous stores where small children have appeared on them.. ( can't let those 6mo old terrororist suspects fly now can we...?? ).. let law enforcement do their job.. let the political appointies do there's.. they aren't necescarilly the same thing.

Soundguy

 

[Tom_H]

Soundguy,

This isn't meant to be any baited question or anything, just looking for your honest opinion. For the guy at Va Tech, knowing all that the authorities knew up to the point of the shootings, do you think anything should have been done to limit his access to weapons?

I have mixed feelings on it. I've read Eddie's comments that if other students were armed, this guy could've been stopped. I don't agree with the idea that if the campus had been a place where weapons were allowed and anyone who wanted could carry, would have made the place overall safer. My honest feeling is that there would have been numerous other situations when someone would get boiling mad, and what under typical circumstances would have gone no further than a verbal altercation, would result in the angry person loosing it, pulling out the weapon and firing. I realize most all the participants in this thread will disagree with me, and that's fine. I can live with being in the minority as long as our disagreement of opinion can stay civil. My views are what I'd call middle of the road, I'm not drawn to media commentators who get into name calling and personalized attacks from either end of the spectrum.

 

[Harvster]

Tom H- That is the wild west theory that gets mentioned when discussing more people having guns. I think statistics show that that is not the case in states with more CCW permits. However, armed college kids may not be the same scenario and I can see the viewpoint that you may have more such shootings. My favorite thought experiment on the subject is to take an average sized city and require every man and woman to carry a handgun. Now, how many robberies, rapes, store hold ups etc. could be prevented if a criminal knew that every single person in a store, on the street, or riding the bus was armed? The other situation I like to cite is driving. Every one of us operates a deadly weapon probably every day. How often do we run that guy that cuts us off into the ditch or bump him at 70MPH so he looses control? Sure there are some road rage incidents, as there would be if every one had guns, but most folks are decent and responsible.

 

[MikePA]

Far too many people have the ridiculous and naive notion that gun laws prevent criminals from getting guns. They do not.

I also wonder what motivates people who come to the conclusion that if everyone was armed, there'd be OK Corral style shootouts daily when someone loses their temper. Amazingly poor view of people, thinking they'd simply snuff out a life because they got mad. The same people who'd snuff out a life would also beat, stab or bludgeon them to death.

The naive people at VA Tech thought they'd created a utopia by simply declaring the campus a 'gun free' zone and everyone would simply comply. Bunnies and rainbows. All it created was a perfect hunting ground for evil.

People's views on gun laws reflect their views and opinions about people.

Privacy concerns kept the various agencies from sharing information. Every agency and institution had a legal, but not a moral, excuse for not doing anything. 32 people paid the price.

What would have constituted declaring this guy too nuts to buy a gun? His writings? Read the script of Natural Born Killers. Should the screen writer be declared nuts? His under developed social skills? His hatred for the rich? This comes up every time raising taxes comes up in the media. His hatred for women? No one delves into this. Why did he hate women?

Even if he was not allowed to buy a gun, what evidence is there this would have stopped him? This guy was evil and filled with hatred. He was a bomb waiting to explode. The only thing that would have stopped him was involuntary commitment. His parents didn't do it before he turned 18 and the authorities didn't want to risk the lawsuit.

 

[EddieWalker]

I have mixed feelings on it. I've read Eddie's comments that if other students were armed, this guy could've been stopped. I don't agree with the idea that if the campus had been a place where weapons were allowed and anyone who wanted could carry, would have made the place overall safer. My honest feeling is that there would have been numerous other situations when someone would get boiling mad, and what under typical circumstances would have gone no further than a verbal altercation, would result in the angry person loosing it, pulling out the weapon and firing.

Hi Tom,

I think I understand your reasoning here, and will try to offer a reply.

Nobody is suggesting the everyone be allowed to carry a firearm. What I am suggesting is to allow those who are certified to legally carry a firearm be allowed to do so in all areas. There are numerous stories of students and even teachers at Virginia Tech who are licensed to carry a conceled weapon. They were not allowed to do so when Virginia Tech passed the law that made them a gun free zone. The law abiding citizens who can legally carry a weapon in other areas obeyed this law and didn't carry there weapons.

If this law on the school didn't exist, then the odds are pretty fair that at least one of those people with a legal permit to carry there weapon might have had a chance to fight back and maybe save some lives. We know for a fact that unarmed people don't have much of a chance of defending themselves from a suicidal murder.

I also wonder if there is any evidence that those who carry conceled weapons have used them to settle an argument or dispute? The odds and human nature would indicate that this must happen from time to time, yet I don't remember seeing it in the news.

Odds are good that you know a dozen people that have a permit to carry a firearm. Allot of women are licensed, but it's so common that you never know who it might be. Unfortunatly, they obey the law and don't carry thier firearms into areas that they are not allowed to. Virginia Tech.

Eddie

 

[cp1969]

Soundguy,

This isn't meant to be any baited question or anything, just looking for your honest opinion. For the guy at Va Tech, knowing all that the authorities knew up to the point of the shootings, do you think anything should have been done to limit his access to weapons?

I have mixed feelings on it. I've read Eddie's comments that if other students were armed, this guy could've been stopped. I don't agree with the idea that if the campus had been a place where weapons were allowed and anyone who wanted could carry, would have made the place overall safer. My honest feeling is that there would have been numerous other situations when someone would get boiling mad, and what under typical circumstances would have gone no further than a verbal altercation, would result in the angry person loosing it, pulling out the weapon and firing. I realize most all the participants in this thread will disagree with me, and that's fine. I can live with being in the minority as long as our disagreement of opinion can stay civil. My views are what I'd call middle of the road, I'm not drawn to media commentators who get into name calling and personalized attacks from either end of the spectrum.

That is the argument that the folks against concealed carry have used over and over. And once concealed carry gets passed, they are proven wrong, over and over. EVERY time.

Can anyone name just one instance of concealed carry permit holders conducting a shooting rampage? Of all the thousands and thousands of concealed carry permits, the percentage of misuse has to be infinitesimally small, if not zero.

What people need to realize is that gun owners are their FRIENDS and protectors, not a threat to them.

 

[Jstpssng]

TomH, I hear what you're saying. However, in that scenario at least others would have the opportunity to defend themselves.

I also believe that anyone who carries for protection should undergo (voluntary) periodic training similar to what a law enforcement officer is required to do.