Here's my honest opinion.
1, I'm really not in favor of allowing any aliens to own guns here on our soil.. whether legal or illegal aliens ( i don't want a fight about aliens and rights... just staing my opinion ). While I understand the difference between constitutional rights and civil liberties, and the way our BOR views gun ownership as an endowed issue.. i do believe we as a country can and should limit non citizens from enjoying those rights here ( they can enjoy them somewhere else.. and that's fine with me.. If they want to enjoy them here.. become a citizen.. not a resident alien.. )
2, It appears he had some mental issues. I don't know the full story on his medical status.. but i do believe thare are provisions for limiting people of questionable mental status from owning guns. Again... I'm not sure exactly what his condition was.. or IF it would have prevented him from owning a gun if everything was on the up and up.. etc.
Bottom line.. it was a tragedy. Assuming he legally obtained and owned the guns. this is one of those situations here a law abiding gun owner turned into a non law abiding gun owner. No amount of laws or rules will prevent that. Same with any other crime.. .. it's a fact that society has to live with. You can't legislate all our rights and freedoms away in the name of security... mainly because you will never be able to ensure that security due to willing criminals.. and you will also destroy the quality of life for everyone else. in other words.. Would i rather live in an isolated 'safe' bubble cut off from everyone else for the rest of my ligfe.. but fell more or less 'secure'? or would I like to live and interact as i am now.. but knowing there was some measurable risk involved that any given moment I may be in danger.. Well.. I chose #2... I'll take the risk.. otherwise life isn't worth it. besides.. the -risk- makes the good times that much more special if you think about it.
And no.. I don't believe if everyone who was allowed to legally carry did, that it would create any problem.
Look it up for yourself... People who are legally licensed to carry a gun are among the -MOST- law abiding citizens on the books.. that doesn't change with the number of those citizens in a room.
For some strange reason anti-gunners thing if you take 10 good people that are licensed to carry guns and put them together that you will get a gunfight over an argument!?! I've never understood that reasoning.
I go to the range alot.. and to many gun shows / gun stores. Lots of people with guns at all of those places.
I don't think i have ever witnessed an incident at any of those places.. whereas.. see my point? 40 people at a gun range.. all vieing for limited resorurces.. yet no gunfights??????? why? Cause the vast majority of law abiding licensed responsible gun owners are just that.. responsible gun owners. We realize that by exercising our liberties/rights to carry that we must be on extra good behavior and think our decisions and actions out just a bit more in order to prevent 'rash' issues from arising.
Gun free zones? I think they accomplish 2 things:
1 They give gun-scared and anti gun people a false sense of security. Why? The licensed guns carriers are not the ones that they should be worring about.. yet we are the only ones obeying that gun free zone. The ones they should be worrying about are the criminal element who don't obey the gun free zone.. so in reality.. the gun free zone safety is false..
2 Gun free zones let criminals have a large area where they know they can come in and attack people without threat of armed retaliation...
put it another way..
if you were hungry and had a fishing pole.. and had to choose between 2 places to fish... one was a 100 gallon tak full of fish.. the other was a lake.... where would you throw your line in hopes of cathing something to eat real quick?
I'm still of the opinion that had there been armed citizens in the area during the attack.. that at least there would have been more OPTIONS for defense..
Soundguy
Tom_H said:
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.
