Quote:Original post by LessBreadSo you don't know what the word reactionary means either?

Apparently not. I meant that raising the issue of gun control was a reaction specifically to the event. If "reactionary" doesn't describe something that is primarily in reaction to something else, then I confess ignorance on that point.

Quote:#1 United States v. Miller The Supreme Court declared that no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established,writing ... we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument[sawed off shotgun]. The National Firearms Act imposes a statutory excise tax on the sale of machine guns among other weapons. The transfer tax of $200 placed on the transfer of firearms controlled by the Act was roughly equivalent to five months' salary in 1934.

That was exactly my point; in deciding against Miller, the Court stated its opinion that the Second Amendment specifically protected military weapons. Hence: handguns and shotguns, not so protected; assault rifles and .50-cal, protected. I happen to disagree with the court's narrow interpretation of what constitutes military small arms, but for what it's worth it's the closest thing we have to a Supreme Court interpretation of the second amendment.

Quote:#2 Anything coming from this corrupt DoJ isn't worth the paper it's written on. What's damned is this DoJ and it's crooked AG. For all we know, the NRA wrote that memorandum for the DoJ.

I did point out that the memorandum has no legal status - however, having read it carefully, I believe the argument presented is valid. Regardless of how much I despise the Attorney General (and in large part, recent actions of the DOJ itself), the memorandum seems like a convincing argument to me. Maybe you'd like to raise some specific issue with it that could be debated?

Quote:#3 10 U.S.C. 311 is there to facilitate military conscription. From U.S. v. Miller: These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. So when you're drafted, don't forget to bring your shotgun with you to the service examination! [smile]

Will do! [smile]

Quote:The reactionary measure is to continue business as usual (and that's what it would be a continuation of business) regarding guns and to instead clampdown on the first amendment, which is what shifting the blame to "cultural problems" amounts to. It seems to me that not focusing on guns amounts to sticking our heads in the sand. After each of these massacres we don't seriously focus on guns and soon enough another massacre and another massacre and another massacre happens. As I keep saying, asserting that the problem is cultural is to admit that our culture does not produce enough sufficiently mature adults to allow any random citizen to own guns.

To a certain extent, I agree, which is why I think better education is very important as well. However, I feel that the top priority (as regards gun control laws specifically) is to keep firearms available to responsible, law-abiding citizens. Requiring training and permits for handgun ownership seems to me like a good way to attempt to screen out those who are not responsible.

Quote:I think it depends on what you mean by crime. Here's a list of incidents: Criminal Use of the 50 Caliber Sniper Rifle. Many of these are technical crimes, that is, a suspect was arrested for some other crime and these guns turned up during a search of their vehicles or homes. However, note the case of Donin Wright: In February of 2004, Donin Wright of Kansas City, Missouri, lured police officers, paramedics, and firefighters to his home where he shot at them with several guns including a Barrett 50 caliber sniper rifle. Also note the case of Albert Petrosky: Petrosky, who was known to his friends as "50-cal Al," fired all four weapons, including the 50 caliber rifle, during his murderous rampage. And let's not forget this: Branch Davidian cult members at a compound in Waco, Texas, fired 50 caliber sniper rifles at federal ATF agents during their initial gun battle on February 28, 1993. And lastly, the account of an attack on an armored truck in Chamblee, Georgia in 1992 where the two guards were shot with a Barrett.

Ah, thank you for bringing that to my attention; I hadn't been aware of those incidents. Still, .50 caliber rifles are so infrequently (and relatively ineffectively) used in crime, I think they're hardly worth even batting an eye at. More effective and well-enforced handgun laws will go a very, very long way towards curbing gun violence, so I would say that should be the focus of any reasonable gun control effort.

Also, it simply must be pointed out that .50 caliber is the most effective round for hunting dangerous game like squirrels. (...Actually, I'm morally opposed to hunting, but I just can't say the phrase "exploding squirrels" in my head without giggling. Tee-hee! [grin])

Quote:Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
With that little tangent being said, the fact that this kid was a loner, parents allegedly sent him to a mental institution, a girl called the police on him for stalking, and the teachers were allegedly revulsed by his writings gave no one any clue about his capabilities?

Hindsight is 20/20. For the sake of argument, let's take the allegations to be true: What do you propose that we do with everybody who meets the criteria of 1) loner, 2) accused of stalking, 3) spent time in a mental institution, and 4) writes disturbing essays (or whatever the writings in question are)? Who did you expect to "evaluate his capabilities" and what action could they have taken to prevent him from doing what he did, or something similar? What about the people who meet these criteria (or matches the profile of any other shooter) who will never commit a crime in their life? Is it right to single them all out (by implementing whatever action your hypothetical evaluators should have taken) as potential criminals?

Quote:Original post by LessBread

Quote:Original post by Way Walker

Quote:Original post by LessBread

Quote:Original post by Megaman_22
It's the people that make the difference. Crazies will find a way to live out their twisted dreams, one way or another. You're not going to find a way to stop somebody who's really determined to do something. More laws will weed out a few of the dumb ones, but those that are really determined will jump through the hoops and get what they want. Meanwhile, that segment of the population that's mostly rational, and using firearms for legitimate purposes, will be unnecessarily inconvenienced.

I agree that it's the people that make the difference and the people will make the difference when they get tired of shooting incidents like this one. I also agree that crazies will find a way to live out their twisted dreams but that doesn't mean that they will find a way to do so using guns or violence for that matter. By your admission tougher laws weed out the "dumb ones" and that would seem to mean fewer gun deaths, so why insist in the futility of such laws? Is the ease of access to guns worth those lives? Should we spare legit gun owners the inconvenience so that the families of gun victims can bear the inconvenience instead? It's this kind of thinking that makes me angry.

It seems to me that the thinking isn't so much, "You can't beat them all so why bother beating any of them?", as it is, "If you give a random American a gun, then they're more likely to want to shoot people than a random Canadian". The problem isn't that people can get guns, it's that people want to shoot people with the guns they get. I don't think stricter gun control will effect the sort of changes needed any more than the prohibition prevented drunkeness.

If people want to shoot people with the guns they get, then shouldn't we make it more difficult for them to get guns? We'd still have people wanting to shoot other people, but fewer of those people would be able to get guns to carry out their murderous intentions. Guns are not like alcohol. People don't gather together every day to shoot guns do they? There's no gun shooting disease is there? Does shooting a gun go well with a meal?

Or fix society such that people are less inclined to shoot people with the guns they get. I assert that this is a possibility because there are other cultures that are less inclined to shoot people with the guns they get. Unless, of course, this inclination is an ok thing for people to feel, in which case we shouldn't change it. However, if this is considered an inappropriate feeling, perhaps it should be classified as a disease.

Quote:

Quote:Original post by Way Walker
But maybe you want it as a stop-gap measure while we work on those changes? That leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Why punish "me" (I don't own a gun and don't have a strong inclination to) for the sins of others, especially when all you're doing is treating the symptom and not the cause?

I'm not interested in stop-gap measures. This wouldn't be the first time that a few "spoiled" things for the many. If you're not interested in owning a gun, how would these kinds of imitations constitute punishing you? As for treating the symptoms and not the cause, I'm sorry but these symptoms leave dead bodies behind so it seems clear to me that they require immediate treatment.

But is it right that a few spoil things for the many?

As for asking how it's punishing me, that seems like asking me why I care if my phone's been wire tapped if I have nothing to hide.

And, yes, we do treat symptoms, but we only do that to save the patient while we're curing the disease. Once the disease is cured, we stop treating the symptoms. If a person gets a terrible fever, we make sure to lower their temperature so that the fever won't cause harm, but we don't pretend that lower the fever has fixed the problem. Since this increased gun control would only, theoretically, be a temporary fix while we're solving the bigger problems, then I say that it is a stop-gap measure.

Or do you think it is sufficient to treat the symptoms in this case and leave the disease to be? Or do you think treating the symptoms will cure the disease? Do you think the treatment can ever be stopped? Can things ever be unspoiled for the many?

@Alpha_ProgDes:
I don't have too many problems with psychiatry/counseling/etc. I don't consider it a too-easy answer.

So nothing coercive? Perhaps his teachers should have recommended counseling? The police and/or the stalking victim should have recommended counseling? I would assume that release from a mental institution comes with a recommendation for continued out-patient help. For all we know at this point, several people could have intervened in this manner in this case, so I don't think your'e justified in assuming that nobody saw and/or acted on these signs.