Let's salvage the VT thread; Gun Control

[Sethomas]

I’d rather not see the Virginia Tech thread derailed into its logical extension: Gun control. I post a lot of gun control threads, most recently three months ago, because although I grew up around them and I believe in the Second Amendment I still feel that perfect liberty with guns is absurd. I earned merit badges for shotgun and rifle, and I have a best friend who thinks that any mention of gun control—no matter how innocuous or common-sense the idea—is a threat to his livelihood. So, I think it’s time we evaluate what, how, and why some kind of weapons regulation should come about.

I think that the most pertinent issue is to allow relatively liberal sales of weapons, but it is pertinent that technology be utilized to create accountability. I hear all the time about forensics identifying bullets to a particular weapon, but I have no idea how this actually works. I can understand matching shells to a signature impression made by each gun, but I think there should be implemented some way to identify both the origin of sale and the weapon of discharge of each weapon by the bullet alone. If technology can’t do this already, it sure as hell should work on it. This would insure that people who buy bullets/weapons should be careful to not to let them fall into the wrong hands, let alone do anything illegal.

Once some system of weapons signature were to be enabled, each signature should be registered digitally. I am totally for gun registration at every level. My friend tells me that registration is bad because it was invented by Hitler as a way to monitor from whom all guns were to eventually be taken. Be that as it may, if weapons seizure becomes a serious problem then the NRA has bigger problems on its plate than who owns what. It’s also logically unsound. Either gun seizure would be legal and subject to the democratic process, in which case gun owners would simply have to face facts and obey the law, or it’d be the motion of a corrupt government in which case the Second Amendment would have to pass its first touchstone and the whole issue is moot.

So, how do we prevent school shootings? I don’t think we can in any practicable sense. I wouldn’t mind having some motion to have a system wherein faculty were trained and provided with arms, but I doubt that this would fix everything even if implemented in the best, most efficient manner.

One paradigm example I think I should bring up is the case when my sister was living in Grenada during Hurricane Ivan. The hurricane created utter chaos, and a local friend of hers was assigned to a grocery store to prevent looting. On an island with virtually no guns at all while every citizen owned a machete so as to harvest spices and coconuts, he was overcome and decapitated. My friend’s father remarked that it never would have happened if the guard had automatic weapons. What this fails to realize, though, is that if their laws were like ours then the looters would have far out-gunned the law enforcement. A middle-class American on a gun-laden disaster site, my sister would by all certainty be dead.

So, what I see as pertinent for our generation is to formalize the gun ownership process that all weapons are accounted for. Anti-registration advocates say that registration has NEVER solved a crime, and I’m not one to disagree. What I do believe, though, is that it’s impossible to calculate how many crimes were prevented by registration. I’d rather see one death prevented than see 100 criminals get away with it.

[kahljorn]

"but I think there should be implemented some way to identify both the origin of sale and the weapon of discharge of each weapon by the bullet alone"

I don't think that would be possible without shooting the gun before it is sold, but I don't know very much about guns.


Registration has never solved a crime? I think that's a lie. And it could be easily proven, I'm sure. let's say there's a MURDER and it was done with a glock and the husband just so happens to own a glock that can't be found in the house anywhere. Suddenly you have a good reason to suspect the husband! And that's just an obvious example. I don't know if they are looking for some situation where the convicting evidence was absolutely related to the registration of the gun or what but it seems ridiculous to think that, just because it hasn't been the convicting evidence, that gun registration hasn't helped in law enforcement at all.
Why would the NRA care that who owns what is registered? lol. That doesn't make any sense. Is it because they think it will cut into their profits?
Even cars are registered.

[kahljorn]

also i dont really see the point of salvaging the VT thread, since it's probably not going anywhere anyway. There's really only so much you can say about it...

[Preechr]

I agree that gun control should not be the central discussion surrounding the Virginia Tech shootings. The two things have no bearing on each other.

On that note:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It says right there that there was always supposed to be a relationship between gun ownership and regulation. In order to guarantee this certain necessity, we have established an inviable right to, in some way, have guns. The necessity referenced was a well regulated militia, not a nation of lone gunmen, loose cannons and vigilantes. If the Founders felt angry, armed mobs were necessary to the security of a Free State, they would have said so.

[Sethomas]

Yeah, but some states such as my own (Indiana) get around this by saying that all adult males are de facto members of the state militia.

[Ant10708]

Why don't women gun owners get to join the militia?

[Sethomas]

I didn't say they couldn't. Whey they aren't de facto probably has something to do with the State Constitution being written around 1820.

[Ant10708]

I think its time for an update

[El Blanco]

Preech, it doesn't say "the right of the militia", or "the right of organized military units". It says "the right of the people". Also, it doesn't say much about "well regulated". What does it mean? Does it end with just the chain of command? Is there training? Communication with other militias?


I'm in favor of someregulation for matters of public safety, but the Second Ammendment doesn't imply regulation of firearms anywhere.

[kahljorn]

"I agree that gun control should not be the central discussion surrounding the Virginia Tech shootings. The two things have no bearing on each other."

Yea, gun control has nothing to do with trying to prevent school shootings and pointless killing sprees.
Nothing at all.
Except the articles I posted about how they could've potentially stopped the killing spree, but the school, VT itself, banned people with concealable permits from bringing them on campus

Instead we should like discuss uhhh what exactly regarding it? What a catastrophe it is? How we need earlier detection of people with psychosis? I think the gun control topic is relevant, because it's an applicable solution to school shootings.

that thread will probably be dead in the next couple of days unless there's some breaking news, anyway, and so will this one.

[derrida]

I think one lesson here is cops suck. The image of fat fucks waddling around laden with body armor hiding behind trees and walls is a cliche. They fucking wait till 33 people are dead, including the shooter, before bravely rushing in and sticking guns in everyones faces screaming at them to freeze or be shot. Or take Columbine, in which the cops are no where to be seen in the school library until TWO hours after the massacre. Compare this to the students at Appalachian Law School who acted quickly and headed off what could have been a real bad situation.

So in lieu of getting better cops (Ha!) we should really go back to the idea of having a militia. Make the second amendment live up to its promise.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

Preech, it doesn't say "the right of the militia", or "the right of organized military units". It says "the right of the people". Also, it doesn't say much about "well regulated". What does it mean? Does it end with just the chain of command? Is there training? Communication with other militias?


I'm in favor of someregulation for matters of public safety, but the Second Ammendment doesn't imply regulation of firearms anywhere.

Ok, but who are "the people" then? Were they including crazy people? Convicts in prison? Don't we regularly infringe upon the rights of some of the broader subset of people as a matter of course? It doesn't have to "say much," as it is very clear already... to me at least.

A "well regulated militia" is made up of regular citizens trained in and trusted with the use of guns, not morons that happen to have access to a Glock. Licensing subject to competence and trustworthiness is clearly implied. I am in no way advocating Gun Control here, don't get me wrong. If a citizen, however, wishes to carry a gun around yet refuses to prove his competence or intentions, then I see no problem with denying him the right to do so.

That being said, I'll freely admit this is a slippery slope, and that something that ain't broke don't need fixin. I'm simply speaking in ideal terms, not realistic ones. In the real world, I support the NRA's hard stance against any new regulation, as such regulation is generally aimed toward eventually trashing the 2nd altogether.

I wouldn't mind, though, living in an America where more people were able to provide their own self-defense, and I see rigorous testing and training as the path to that place. As always, the root of all my ideologies is education. Reality in the USA, however, will likely never get to where I'd like to see it.

[kahljorn]

i like the entire idea of more guns in the hands of responsible people who should have them and less guns in those that dont and that's probably the only thing to it that's why i thought concealed permits being required for a gun that can really only be used as a concealed weapon would be useful. aren't most crimes committed with pistols, because they are concealable?

not that i don't understand the NRA wouldn't want that

[The One and Only...]

Well in any case, the Second Amendment has yet to be applied to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment. No court case has come up yet; States could get by with banning arms.

If you don't know what the hell I'm talking about, the Bill of Rights only applies to the national government. The provisions of the Bill of Rights have only been applied to States post-Fourteenth Amendment through a process known as incorporation.

[kahljorn]

what's with this scientific mumbojumbo u b spekin in dese parts yjung man?

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Well in any case, the Second Amendment has yet to be applied to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment. No court case has come up yet; States could get by with banning arms.

If you don't know what the hell I'm talking about, the Bill of Rights only applies to the national government. The provisions of the Bill of Rights have only been applied to States post-Fourteenth Amendment through a process known as incorporation.

District of Columbia tried to ban arms this year but the court shot it down.
Edit: i swear that pun was unintended