Gun Control: Where are Optometrists on National Issues?

[Mike Cohen]

The Right to Guns vs Gun Control: An important article from the SLC newspaper:

"Memo to gun-rights crowd: Read the Second Amendment

Don Vance

Article Last Updated: 04/14/2007 01:37:03 PM MDT

I am tired of celebrities (pick one), a national correspondent on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" (March 18), Tom Wharton (Salt Lake Tribune, March 22), and legions of private citizens trampling on the Constitution of my country in defense of their "right" to own a gun.
The problem is . . . they're wrong. It's a myth, folklore. The Second Amendment allows states to have their own armies (militias), U.S. military forces notwithstanding. It confers no rights to an individual. Please consider the following arguments:

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. No law may be passed which overturns, supersedes or otherwise contradicts the Constitution, except by the manner as described within the Constitution.

States have passed laws forbidding some people from owning a gun. How can this be possible if the Constitution, the "supreme law of the land," guarantees you the right to own one?

The Second Amendment is exactly one sentence long. In its entirety it says, "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."

In those days "the people" was taken, in proper context, to mean a polity. It doesn't say, and it doesn't mean, a person.
I am unaware of a single decision ever handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court that even addresses the Second amendment. Why? Is it possible that it is not a constitutional question? That your right may be derived from some place other than the Second Amendment?
Why would Utah deem it necessary to specifically endorse it in its Constitution, if it was already guaranteed by the supreme law of the land?
It would help if you knew something about the Ninth and 10th Amendments. I encourage you to read them, but they basically say that you can do whatever you are not prohibited from doing.

Yes. You have the right to own a gun. But you didn't get it from the Second Amendment. That's hogwash. You got it because nobody has said you can't. You have the right to own a bathtub, but that's only because no one has said you can't. You have the right to own property, because no law has been passed saying you can't.

Your desire to own a gun does not make you a militia, regulated or otherwise. Neither does belonging to a gun club, or even (dare I say it?), being a member of the National Rifle Association. Only being a member of the National Guard (i.e., the state militia) allows you that status. And that's the only thing the Second Amendment speaks to. Go on, read it yourself. It's only one sentence.

Quit feeding me nonsense wrapped in the American flag. It annoys me, and it puts your ignorance on public display. Quit believing what you've heard someone else say, and read the document.

There are plenty of copies of the Constitution available in any public library."

 

[Mike Cohen]

What Con Law class did you take?

The author is arguing about the meaning of the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bare arms". According to the author, the right to keep and bare arms was a right conferred only to the state for military purposes, not to the individual citizen.

Using this argument, he ignores the use of the term "right of the people" in the First (freedom of speech) and Fourth Amendments (protection from unwarranted searches and seizures).

Poor excuse of an argument, but what else would you expect?

Stephen - Spoken like a true Texan. However, every Con Law course in the country teaches that, "The People," means the populous and not the individual.

Close...but no banana.

 

[Mike Cohen]

We the People

Stephen - Spoken like a true Texan. However, every Con Law course in the country teaches that, "The People," means the populous and not the individual.

Close...but no banana.

The document starts off with "We the People....," not "Me the Person."

 

[Tom Stickel]

The author is arguing about the meaning of the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bare arms". According to the author, the right to keep and bare arms was a right conferred only to the state for military purposes, not to the individual citizen.

Using this argument, he ignores the use of the term "right of the people" in the First (freedom of speech) and Fourth Amendments (protection from unwarranted searches and seizures).

Stephen,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The only time "the people" are mentioned is speaking of them in aggregrate as assembling. Mike seems right on that one.

But I do want to hear Mike respond to why the fourth amendment uses the phrase "the people" also, instead of something more general like the first amendment did.

Mike, you're not trolling here, are you? You say you want to hear from people but post something you know will stir up trouble.

Not saying where I stand, but the horrible incident at Virginia Tech casts an interesting light on this debate, both pro- and anti-gun control

 

[Mike Cohen]

4th Amendment

Tom - you wrote: "But I do want to hear Mike respond to why the fourth amendment uses the phrase "the people" also, instead of something more general like the first amendment did."

As required content for my master's studies in Forensic Science, understanding the Fourth Amendment was critical for purposes of evidence collecting and chain of custody. The 4th addresses search and seizure. The specific language used, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons." addresses both the whole (the people) and the individual (in their persons). The intent was to maintain the people's rights and too also insure that the rights granted to the populous were not changed or diminished for the individual.

You also asked: "Mike, you're not trolling here, are you? You say you want to hear from people but post something you know will stir up trouble."

Yes, Tom, I am if trolling means causing people to think and react, then that is exactly what I am doing. But, my intent is not to stir up trouble - my intent is to stir up thoughtful discourse. I would hope that you and our colleagues would not judge that introspection and thinking are synonymous with trouble.

Mike

 

[Tom Stickel]

Tom I'm busy today, and reading fast. But to be sure here, are you interpreting Freedom of Speech to be a group right as opposed to an individual right?

I guess I've never considered Personal freedoms and liberties anything other than an individual right.

Stephen,

Other way around. From what Mike says, the group rights are denoted by the phrase "the people". So it makes sense that the right to assemble and petition the government use the phrase "the people" since assembling and signing petitions take more than one person.

If you read the first amendment closely, the first three rights don't say anything about "the people". It just says Congress can't touch those rights with respect to anyone, so they are individual rights. Since the first amendment includes group rights, the phrase "the people" does pop up when those group rights are listed.

Mike,

Reading more closely, I see your point on the 4th amendment.

What do you think (if any) the practical impact of that editorial is? If you look at other rights like the "right to privacy", there seem to some rights that aren't delineated in the Constitution but have become somewhat embedded, if not enshrined, in our laws. I would say private gun ownership, like the "right to privacy", is one of those.

 

[Paul Farkas]

Thanks for posting this important discussion...

It's time to have this national debate again. It becomes front page material when there is wholesale slaughter using a firearm. It then somehow placed on the back burner thanks to spineless politicians.

A word of caution. This topic is on a public forum. Your comments will be picked up by search engines. If you wish your opinions to remain private, choose your words very carefully.

An important topic such as this, you should stand up and be counted. The National Rifle Association has it's headquartersa in Virginia. I'm certain they will be coming out with statements shortly.

 

[Tom Stickel]

The Right to Guns vs Gun Control: An important article from the SLC newspaper:

Memo to gun-rights crowd: Read the Second Amendment
Don Vance
Article Last Updated: 04/14/2007 01:37:03 PM MDT



I am tired of celebrities (pick one), a national correspondent on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" (March 18), Tom Wharton (Salt Lake Tribune, March 22), and legions of private citizens trampling on the Constitution of my country in defense of their "right" to own a gun.
The problem is . . . they're wrong. It's a myth, folklore. The Second Amendment allows states to have their own armies (militias), U.S. military forces notwithstanding. It confers no rights to an individual. Please consider the following arguments:
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. No law may be passed which overturns, supersedes or otherwise contradicts the Constitution, except by the manner as described within the Constitution.
States have passed laws forbidding some people from owning a gun. How can this be possible if the Constitution, the "supreme law of the land," guarantees you the right to own one?
The Second Amendment is exactly one sentence long. In its entirety it says, "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."
In those days "the people" was taken, in proper context, to mean a polity. It doesn't say, and it doesn't mean, a person.
I am unaware of a single decision ever handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court that even addresses the Second amendment. Why? Is it possible that it is not a constitutional question? That your right may be derived from some place other than the Second Amendment?
Why would Utah deem it necessary to specifically endorse it in its Constitution, if it was already guaranteed by the supreme law of the land?
It would help if you knew something about the Ninth and 10th Amendments. I encourage you to read them, but they basically say that you can do whatever you are not prohibited from doing.
Yes. You have the right to own a gun. But you didn't get it from the Second Amendment. That's hogwash. You got it because nobody has said you can't. You have the right to own a bathtub, but that's only because no one has said you can't. You have the right to own property, because no law has been passed saying you can't.
Your desire to own a gun does not make you a militia, regulated or otherwise. Neither does belonging to a gun club, or even (dare I say it?), being a member of the National Rifle Association. Only being a member of the National Guard (i.e., the state militia) allows you that status. And that's the only thing the Second Amendment speaks to. Go on, read it yourself. It's only one sentence.
Quit feeding me nonsense wrapped in the American flag. It annoys me, and it puts your ignorance on public display. Quit believing what you've heard someone else say, and read the document. There are plenty of copies of the Constitution available in any public library.

Mike,

Even a cursory reading of this Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

shows that since the writing of the Constitution there has been a heated debate about gun ownership in America. The editorial above is one side of the debate. I recommend the above article for what appears to me to be a pretty balanced perspective on the issue.

 

[Paul Farkas]

Time to ask our Canadian neighbors

One more thing. Can you imagine the under ground market that will develop if and whn we outlaw firearms? The organized crime that rose up during Prohibition wouldn't hold a candle to what would occur with outlawing guns.

Canada has very strict gun control. How is the organized crime market selling illegal firearms doing?

 

[Michael I. Davis]

Gun control/ personal rights, etc.

You can't legislate against crazy.

 

[Tom Stickel]

Canada also had alcohol prohibition without the explosion of organized crime that followed in the U.S.A.. Comparing something here to the Canadian way is like comparing Football to Hockey. NO comaprison at all and a lesson in futility,

It ain't rocket science...follow the $$$$. Something that is in much greater supply here (USA) than there (Canada). If firearms were outlawed in this country, dealing in illegal firearms would be so lucractive, that I'd consider doing it myself. You wouldn't be able to build prisons fast enough to keep all the new criminals locked up.

I was thinking the same thing about following the dollars...

So Stephen, is that a free .22 with complete purchase of eyewear? Buy two pair, get a year of ammo?

I'm not sure anyone is interested in outlawing firearms. One question I have is whether you should be able to demonstrate some competence in firearms in order to own one. I'm thinking along the lines of a state-granted 'driver's' license for a gun. We all recognize that a car can be a 2000 lb. weapon and cars kill a lot of people when used improperly. Why not a gun license? Why not at least a vision test a la the driver's license vision test?

Also, talking about our fractured state-by-state problems, it might be helpful to have a de facto national standard for what it takes to get a gun (standardized waiting periods, rules on felons buying, etc.).

It's been ruled consistently that state, and sometimes local, governments can regulate who gets a gun and what kind of gun (so sorry, Stephen, you can't put that fully functional howitzer in the back yard).

Comments?

 

[Mike Cohen]

AK-47s in Provo

Mike, Reading more closely, I see your point on the 4th amendment. What do you think (if any) the practical impact of that editorial is?

Tom, the editorial stimulated thought and debate. There have been letters to the editor of the newspaper. And, even here in Utah, where most households have guns, where guns are permitted on college campus', where concealed weapon permits are easily available, and where five people were just gunned down and slaughtered in a downtown mall, both liberals and conservatives have spoken out for and against gun control in the paper.

Practical? Who knows? Will it affect one less sale of an AK-47 in Provo; I doubt it. At the local gun shows you can almost buy anything short of a nuke.

Mike

 

[Jeff Guthrie]

Canada has very strict gun control. How is the organized crime market selling illegal firearms doing?

http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/pol-leg/hist/firearms/default_e.asp

With the passage of the 1995 Firearms Act, Canada established a national registry of all firearms and their owners.
The Act required Canadian gun owners to apply for a license by January 1, 2001, from the Canadian Firearms Centre, a branch of the Justice Department, and register their guns with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) by the beginning of 2003. Associated amendments to the Criminal Code in 1996 increased the penalties for using firearms to commit crimes and for the illegal trafficking and smuggling of guns.
The registration of all handguns has been required by federal law since 1934, and since 1968 permits to carry them have been restricted to a few specific circumstances, for example, use in target practice or competition, protection in extreme cases where police protection isn't adequate, and in certain jobs, such as transporting large amounts of cash or other valuables. Fully automatic weapons have been banned since 1977. The new law extends the registration requirement to unrestricted long guns such as shotguns and rifles and adds short-barrelled handguns and those discharging 25- or 32-calibre cartridges to the list of prohibited weapons.

Naturally, with handguns so easily and readily available within a few hours of every major Canadian city, and the impossibility of searching every person crossing the border, the sale of illegal weapons is a huge business for organized crime in Canada. Invaribly, almost all criminal acts involving handguns are traced to weapons smuggled from the USA.

 

[Brad Kardatzke]

The scariest thing I that heard today was an interview with a FBI agent concerning the VT incident. Remember, that this statement comes from an individual that is sworn to up hold the US Constitution.

He stated, "if we could change the law and the Constitution, giving the FBI more power, we could catch these things before they happen."

 

[Paul Farkas]

You want even scarier?

The scariest thing I that heard today was an interview with a FBI agent concerning the VT incident. Remember, that this statement comes from an individual that is sworn to up hold the US Constitution.

He stated, "if we could change the law and the Constitution, giving the FBI more power, we could catch these things before they happen."

In a debate yesterday on CNN, a gun lobby spokesperson advocated all college students be allowed to carry concealed weapons to class.

We could re name the New Optometry College "Wild Western University".

 

[Ken Elder]

Canada has very strict gun control. How is the organized crime market selling illegal firearms doing?

Not true. Many people in Canada have guns, though most people don't feel the need to carry their guns around in most parts of Canada. Just standard background checks etc. etc. just as is here. Technically you're not supposed to carry them concealed but people do anyways.

I do think however that there is much less of a "gun culture" in Canada than here. Walk into Barnes and Noble and look at the magazine rack. The section on "guns and ammo" is HUGE and is FILLED with not just guns for personal protection, but what essentially amounts to heavy artilery.

For some reason, the so called "gun nuts" (no offense meant, but you know who they are) aren't really looking for the right to bear arms for personal protection, or for hunting. They want to carry heavy artilery. Like its really sporting to shoot a dear with a high powered scope and laser equiped elephant gun.

 

[Brad Kardatzke]

Forgive my selfishness, but it seems that when something goes bad, there are too many people in powerful positions that quickly stand up and say, "let me protect you, and oh, by the way, you have to give up some rights for me to do my job." At some point, there won't be any rights to give up because they will all be gone. We will then be the "Land of the Protected" and not the "Land of the Free."

I believe it was Ben Franklin said, "individuals that sacrifice freedom for safety, deserve neither one."

 

[Ken Elder]

Forgive my selfishness, but it seems that when something goes bad, there are too many people in powerful positions that quickly stand up and say, "let me protect you, and oh, by the way, you have to give up some rights for me to do my job." At some point, there won't be any rights to give up because they will all be gone. We will then be the "Land of the Protected" and not the "Land of the Free."

I believe it was Ben Franklin said, "individuals that sacrifice freedom for safety, deserve neither one."

NOt only that, but I think the biggest problem is that we act too hastily. Peoples sensibilities get outraged at the horror of something like VT, 9/11, Katrina, Columbine etc. etc. and the (understandable) gut reaction is to "just do something quickly." Rarely does this ever work out well. Laws need to be carefully considered and thought out and not generated in a quick emotional response because even the best planned law has uninteneded consequences and an ill conceived one will have a whole lot of them.

One of my favorites was that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, they banned virtually everything on airplanes. They were confiscating baby spoons and forks for God's sake. But of course, as the trash bins at the metal detectors in the airport filled up with hundreds of non-lethal items, once you passed through security you could dine at any one of a number of restaurants in the airport that served REAL cutlery which could then be easily smuggled onto a plane.

That's a funny example and we can roll our eyes at the absurdity of it now but it just goes to show that as outraged as we are, this is not the time to make snap decisions about anything.

 

[Tory Moore]

Would there had been a Holocaust if Hitler had not outlawed guns in the 1930's?

Where were the police to protect store owners and individuals in the LA riots?

There will always be a dictator or group of people that want to control you or worse yet kill you. History has proven that. It also has proven that governments who start with some gun control lead to total confiscation, ie Pre-WWII Germany and more recently Britain, Canada, Australia, Washington DC. And yet their crime rates steadily rise.

The 2nd amendment is the first Amendment. If you lose the 2nd, there is no way to keep the 1st, 4th, etc..

 

[Tom Stickel]

Tory,

Welcome to the debate.

I do have to say that yours is the kind of post that doesn't add much substantive to the debate. I think you'd have a hard time finding anyone on this board who wants to repeal the second amendment. OTOH, you'd have a hard time finding anyone on this board who thinks that the right to bear arms includes privately owned Specter gunships. I'm not saying your post is pointless, it just doesn't add anything substantive. Of course, I make some dumb posts sometimes because I've always been too lazy to find the "subscribe to thread" button.

The debate is what kind of arms people can bear, and which people can bear them, and how long people have to wait before they can bear them.

 

[Patrick Shorter O.D.]

The Right to Guns vs Gun Control: An important article from the SLC newspaper:

Memo to gun-rights crowd: Read the Second Amendment
Don Vance
Article Last Updated: 04/14/2007 01:37:03 PM MDT

I am tired of celebrities (pick one), a national correspondent on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" (March 18), Tom Wharton (Salt Lake Tribune, March 22), and legions of private citizens trampling on the Constitution of my country in defense of their "right" to own a gun.

"right" is in quotation marks? Yeah, this is clearly an impartial, unbiased article... reader beware.

The problem is . . . they're wrong. It's a myth, folklore. The Second Amendment allows states to have their own armies (militias), U.S. military forces notwithstanding. It confers no rights to an individual. Please consider the following arguments:

Wrong. The Constitution does no such thing. In reading documents in support of the Constitution, the 'militia' was considered to be made up of every able bodied man.

I will agree that it 'confers' no right to the individual. Absolutely correct. The Constitution CONFERS no right, its purpose is to place limitations on the powers of the FEDERAL government. It merely RECOGNIZES the rights. Consider this quote:

The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records.
They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of
the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.

--Alexander Hamilton, 1775

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. No law may be passed which overturns, supersedes or otherwise contradicts the Constitution, except by the manner as described within the Constitution.
States have passed laws forbidding some people from owning a gun. How can this be possible if the Constitution, the "supreme law of the land," guarantees you the right to own one?

Because as a populace, we have become complacent and look to the .gov to fix all of our woes, at the expense of personal liberty. The same reason we have a Patriot Act and "no-knock" warrants. It isn't that the gun control laws AREN'T unconstitutional it is that the American people don't care that they are. Remember, it's all about "feeling" safe.

The Second Amendment is exactly one sentence long. In its entirety it says, "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."
In those days "the people" was taken, in proper context, to mean a polity. It doesn't say, and it doesn't mean, a person.

As mentioned before, it IS the same "the people" used in other parts of the Constitution. "The People" is inclusive, in that it is a right recognized to belong to everyone, not in the sense that it belongs to a collective.

I am unaware of a single decision ever handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court that even addresses the Second amendment. Why? Is it possible that it is not a constitutional question? That your right may be derived from some place other than the Second Amendment?
Why would Utah deem it necessary to specifically endorse it in its Constitution, if it was already guaranteed by the supreme law of the land?

For the same reason that state Constitutions recognize other rights in the Federal Constitution. There was a time where the Federal government was small, and the States desired to remain relatively independant of Federal affairs. Typically every state in the Union has language recognizing the armament of its citizens, free speech, assembly, etc etc.

It would help if you knew something about the Ninth and 10th Amendments. I encourage you to read them, but they basically say that you can do whatever you are not prohibited from doing.

Wrong. It does not. It merely states that the rights enumerated in the Constitution are not all inclusive, and that if it wasn't recognized by the Constitution, 'the people' (there's that tricky phrase again) still retain those rights, and that whatever powers have not been granted by the Constitution to the Federal government of the United States, are left for the states (and those pesky 'people') to delegate and delineate.

You cannot 'do what you are not prohibited from doing'. There are still laws that must be followed, whether they be local, state, or federal. The 9th and 10th Amendments were the concessions to the groups who argued AGAINST a Bill of Rights, fearing (perhaps accurately) that if you took the time to put in writing what our rights consisted of, with time and the growth of the Federal Government, the words would be twisted, meaning argued and changed, and rights stripped away.... gosh, maybe they were right.

Yes. You have the right to own a gun. But you didn't get it from the Second Amendment. That's hogwash. You got it because nobody has said you can't. You have the right to own a bathtub, but that's only because no one has said you can't. You have the right to own property, because no law has been passed saying you can't.

*annoying buzzer sound* WRONG!
I agree I didn't 'get' the right to own a gun from the Constitution, it is merely RECOGNIZED by the document. Our rights were believed to be from a higher power, and inherent to man.

Your desire to own a gun does not make you a militia, regulated or otherwise. Neither does belonging to a gun club, or even (dare I say it?), being a member of the National Rifle Association. Only being a member of the National Guard (i.e., the state militia) allows you that status.

The National Guard as we think of it, was 'founded', or at least formed, in 1792, by The Militia Act of 1792, which essentially:

clarified the role of the militia; required all able men to serve, be armed, and be equipped at their own expense; also, standardized unit structure.

The National guard, as we know it, was not an entity at the time of the Founding Fathers, and its modern makeup was established in 1903.

And that's the only thing the Second Amendment speaks to. Go on, read it yourself. It's only one sentence.
Quit feeding me nonsense wrapped in the American flag. It annoys me, and it puts your ignorance on public display. Quit believing what you've heard someone else say, and read the document. There are plenty of copies of the Constitution available in any public library.

Ah, and I would suggest that the author step back and analyze MORE than just the Constitution. This is a biased and horribly arrogant display of the disdain this individual holds the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Patrick Shorter O.D.]

In a debate yesterday on CNN, a gun lobby spokesperson advocated all college students be allowed to carry concealed weapons to class.

We could re name the New Optometry College "Wild Western University".

I take exeption to this. Every time concealed carry comes up, there is always the argument that it will turn into "the wild west", and there will be "blood in the streets", and every traffic altercation will lead to a shoot out.

Baloney. According to FBI statistics, CCW (Carry Concealed Weapons) permit holders commit crime at a rate LESS than that of LEOs (Law Enforcement Officers). Those that go through the process to legally carry their weapons concealed are the good guys. They are typically upstanding members of the community, and often train more and shoot better than many LEOs (some who NEVER shoot except for qualifying).

I am a concealed carry permit holder. I take the responsibility I have very seriously, and would never pull my weapon unless my life or the life of member of my family was in jeopardy.

I'll tell you what. If my brother or sister were a victim in the buildings at VT that fateful day, I'd have given any sum of money to have them armed with a firearm. Would they have been successful? Who knows. Maybe not, but their odds of survival sure would have improved.

 

[Patrick Shorter O.D.]

Tom, the editorial stimulated thought and debate. There have been letters to the editor of the newspaper. And, even here in Utah, where most households have guns, where guns are permitted on college campus', where concealed weapon permits are easily available, and where five people were just gunned down and slaughtered in a downtown mall, both liberals and conservatives have spoken out for and against gun control in the paper.

Practical? Who knows? Will it affect one less sale of an AK-47 in Provo; I doubt it. At the local gun shows you can almost buy anything short of a nuke.

Mike

And that mall shooting was stopped by an off duty LEO concealed carrying a weapon in a "Gun Free" zone.

EDITED TO ADD:

Here's the mall's posting... you mean the criminal didn't read the sign and go away? I'm glad the off duty LEO didn't leave his weapon behind.

 

[Patrick Shorter O.D.]

For a breakdown of the grammar behind the 2nd A., I would suggest reading the following link:

WORDS OF FREEDOM *warning, logic and big words to follow link clicking*

 

[Mike Cohen]

Just announced

[FONT=arial,sans-serif]High Court to Hear D.C. Gun Ban Case[/FONT]
Supreme Court says it will decide whether the District of Columbia's ban on handguns violates the Constitution, a choice that will put the justices at the center of the controversy over the meaning of the Second Amendment.

 

[Jeffrey D Phillips]

Gun-Mind Control

Perhaps we should think of controlling the undesireable use of firearms as more than just controlling the mechanical gun itself. It takes a gun and a willing individual to create the killing sprees that most of us would like to prevent. Perhaps we should be talking about "crazy control". The real problem is how to identify and somehow restrain the individual who is a danger to us all. As we begin to study the types of individuals who have been responsible for unprovoked mass shootings, certain character traits emerge. Is there a way to predetermine who is a danger? I'm not sure. But it seems like this avenue might be worth exploring.

The idea of using a gun seems pervasive in the American psyche. From the time we are old enough to speak, we see people murdering each other on television and in movies using guns. We now practice this on the internet and in video games. Whether we admit it or not, most of us think of using a gun in retaliation at one time or another. Why don't we do it? Because something tells us it is not the solution, killing is wrong, or another alternative behavior would be better. We are inhibited.

For the people who pull the trigger, there is no inhibition. They usually have never killed another person before, so we can presume that there was an inhibition at one time, but not any more.

How to get to these folks, calm them down, bring them back from the edge? Any ideas? Or should we continue to argue about the homicidal machinery?

 

[J Martin]

Whether we admit it or not, most of us think of using a gun in retaliation at one time or another.

I think you should speak more carefully on this point!

I have not, nor do I believe, that most of us have ever thought of doing this.

While I am sympathetic to the rest of you post, and it does bear investigation, upon what study or statistic did you base this opinion? Or was it just good prose to support an argument that was otherwise eloquent and could stand on its own?

 

[Jeffrey D Phillips]

Some things don't need statistics

I think you should speak more carefully on this point!

I have not, nor do I believe, that most of us have ever thought of doing this.

While I am sympathetic to the rest of you post, and it does bear investigation, upon what study or statistic did you base this opinion? Or was it just good prose to support an argument that was otherwise eloquent and could stand on its own?

With all due respect, I think you probably fall into the category of "doesn't wish to admit it." If you have lived in the US, you were raised in an environment that would include guns in pretend play and in the television you watched. If you ever felt that you "really wanted to get even with someone" the option of gun use would be on your private mental list, though it would likely be dismissed by your inhibitions, perhaps even to the point of deniability. Although we may never act on our temptations, they are always there.

 

[Brad Kardatzke]

It will be interesting when the Sup. Ct. hears arguments and rules on the this second ad. case. I have heard several people speak on "what the court" will do and the consensus is that there will be some give and take on this
issue.

Whether and how they will balance the rights of the gun owner and the state to protect society (in post 9/11) has yet to be seen? Unfortunately, the Court has been more than willing in recent cases to side with the government on many constitutional issues going to the heart of what it means to be an American. The second ad. is certainly viewed by most Americans and being one of those unique American constitutional rights.

 

[J Martin]

With all due respect, I think you probably fall into the category of "doesn't wish to admit it." If you have lived in the US, you were raised in an environment that would include guns in pretend play and in the television you watched. If you ever felt that you "really wanted to get even with someone" the option of gun use would be on your private mental list, though it would likely be dismissed by your inhibitions, perhaps even to the point of deniability. Although we may never act on our temptations, they are always there.

Your title: Some things don't need statistics

That sure is convenient.

I think its sad. I've never been so angry with anyone I'd want them dead. I think you're speaking for yourself, and "don't wish to admit it."

I'm sure it would be much more comforting for you if we all just "admit" we're the same as you, with blood lust in our hearts, but....

not gonna happen.

 

[Jeffrey D Phillips]

Your title: Some things don't need statistics

That sure is convenient.

I think its sad. I've never been so angry with anyone I'd want them dead. I think you're speaking for yourself, and "don't wish to admit it."

I'm sure it would be much more comforting for you if we all just "admit" we're the same as you, with blood lust in our hearts, but....

not gonna happen.

Guess we don't agree on this one. I'm pretty easy going, and I've never been so angry with anyone that I'd want them dead either. I think it's pretty normal to be aware of the behavioral examples retold in centuries in literature, television, movies and even cartoons. If someone stands between you and your goal, you might want them eliminated. This classic motivation used over and over, so I think it is fairly representative of human behavior, both real and fictional. Simply considering it doesn't make you a bad person. It might even make you a good novelist (Michael Connely).

The point of my earlier commentary was not to focus on what is clearly normal ideation, but on what is not -mass killings of real people.

 

[Gary R. Bell]

This subject may heat up again following the 9 deaths in Omaha. This is the fourth shopping center shooting this year. And, of course, there was Virginia Tech. Nothing ever seems to get fixed in America anymore.

 

[Paul Farkas]

The US needs sensible gun control laws

This subject may heat up again following the 9 deaths in Omaha. This is the fourth shopping center shooting this year. And, of course, there was Virginia Tech. Nothing ever seems to get fixed in America anymore.

Not a single presidential candidate will tackle the gun control issue and say "This cannot continue in a civilized society!". Now that a solidly conservative state such as Nebraska has seen what happens when there is easy access to fire arms maybe we can hope to see some changes.

Here is the full story as reported in the 12/6/07 edition of the New York Times...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/us/06omaha.html?th&emc=th

 

[Patrick Shorter O.D.]

Not a single presidential candidate will tackle the gun control issue and say "This cannot continue in a civilized society!". Now that a solidly conservative state such as Nebraska has seen what happens when there is easy access to fire arms maybe we can hope to see some changes.

Here is the full story as reported in the 12/6/07 edition of the New York Times...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/us/06omaha.html?th&emc=th

Let's at least wait until the dead have had their services before we use this for political fodder.

 

[J Martin]

Not a single presidential candidate will tackle the gun control issue and say "This cannot continue in a civilized society!". Now that a solidly conservative state such as Nebraska has seen what happens when there is easy access to fire arms maybe we can hope to see some changes.

Here is the full story as reported in the 12/6/07 edition of the New York Times...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/us/06omaha.html?th&emc=th

Yet, had even one concealed carry gun owner been there, we might be looking at many less dead, or no dead.

Not a single presidential candidate will tackle the gun control issue and say "Pandering to the gun control crown cannot continue - too many unarmed Americans are being slaughtered by wackos!".

 

[Paul Farkas]

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure

Yet, had even one concealed carry gun owner been there, we might be looking at many less dead, or no dead.

Not a single presidential candidate will tackle the gun control issue and say "Pandering to the gun control crown cannot continue - too many unarmed Americans are being slaughtered by wackos!".

Patrick said in a previous post...

"Let's at least wait until the dead have had their services before we use this for political fodder."


Is it now time to discuss?

A 12/8/07 news report in the New York Times summarized said...

"From ‘Troubled’ to ‘Killer,’ Despite Many Efforts

By ERIC KONIGSBERG

Robert A. Hawkins made a five-year journey through a maze of juvenile services before killing eight people and himself in a mall."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/08/us/08gunman.html?th&emc=th


The complete report included the fact that the shooter was among thousands of troubled kids being treated by the juvenile system. He was able acquire a semi-automatic weapon and walk into a shopping mall carrying it under his arm without setting off alarms of concern by shoppers?

An individual caring a firearm in public should set off more alarms than someone walking naked! In our society that has a love affair with firearms that does not seem to be the case.

Jeff suggests that people going into shopping malls and I assume into college classrooms should be carrying concealed weapons. He feels that might stop a motivated suicide oriented individual before they did any damage. Maybe... but more likely by the time anyone would arrive on the scene with a concealed weapon the damage would have been done. If a citizen took matters into his own hands, possibly bystanders could be killed by panicked friendly fire. Would a concealed weapon owner assume that responsibility?

These are difficult issues with many sides to the story. No one wants to control the sportsman from have access to firearms for their hobby. Automatic assault weapons and concealed firearms in my opinion should be strictly controlled. Make it impossible for those disturbed individuals to acquire these weapons!

 

[Gary R. Bell]

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Democratic led Congress pass bills to ban assault rifles again. This was an assault rifle case, and showed the weaknesses of current restrictions.

If there was ever a person who didn't warrant access to an assault rifle it was Hawkins. He was certifiably mentally ill. But, he merely had to swipe his father's rifle and the current restrictions were easily overcome.

There's another issue here, and its the neglect of the mentally ill in the U.S. The system seems to say,"If you'll take the responsibility of finding the proper place for treatment and take your medication responsibly, we can help you as an out patient." The big problem in this approach is that the mentally ill can't behave responsibly. So most of them wind up being neglected, endangering themselves and others..

 

[Richard Hom]

If gun control can be so easily obviated by intentional acts of others, then why isn't the father on the hook for "letting" the perpetrator steal the gun? Was the gun secured? Shouldn't the owner of the weapon be on the hook? We seem to want to get all of those who may contribute to a crime to suffer. Or is it mainly along racial or ethnic lines that we apply the concept of contributory liability by the felony murder legal principle? (Source, click here)

 

[Paul Farkas]

Point of information ...

If gun control can be so easily obviated by intentional acts of others, then why isn't the father on the hook for "letting" the perpetrator steal the gun? Was the gun secured? Shouldn't the owner of the weapon be on the hook? We seem to want to get all of those who may contribute to a crime to suffer. Or is it mainly along racial or ethnic lines that we apply the concept of contributory liability by the felony murder legal principle? (Source, click here)

Many of our members choose not subscribe the New York Times on line. to understand the point, this Florida Afro-American niw 25 years old is serving a life sentence for loaning his car. This is a small excerpt...

"The friend used the car to drive three men to the Pensacola home of a marijuana dealer, aiming to steal a safe. The burglary turned violent, and one of the men killed the dealer’s 18-year-old daughter by beating her head in with a shotgun he found in the home.

Mr. Holle was a mile and a half away, but that did not matter.

He was convicted of murder under a distinctively American legal doctrine that makes accomplices as liable as the actual killer for murders committed during felonies like burglaries, rapes and robberies."

 

[J Martin]

Many of our members choose not subscribe the New York Times on line. to understand the point, this Florida Afro-American niw 25 years old is serving a life sentence for loaning his car. This is a small excerpt...

"The friend used the car to drive three men to the Pensacola home of a marijuana dealer, aiming to steal a safe. The burglary turned violent, and one of the men killed the dealer’s 18-year-old daughter by beating her head in with a shotgun he found in the home.

Mr. Holle was a mile and a half away, but that did not matter.

He was convicted of murder under a distinctively American legal doctrine that makes accomplices as liable as the actual killer for murders committed during felonies like burglaries, rapes and robberies."

What does it matter what the color of his skin was?

Do you believe accomplices (your word) should not be held to account?

Is it your opinion it was not proved in a court of law that he had fore knowledge of the pending crime? Did they skip his trial? Was he denied counsel?

I would agree he should not be as liable as the direct participant. Is that your only point of contention?

MORE FROM THE ARTICLE PAUL QUOTED:

Mr. Holle, who had given the police a series of statements in which he seemed to admit knowing about the burglary, was convicted of first-degree murder. He is serving a sentence of life without the possibility of parole at the Wakulla Correctional Institution here, 20 miles southwest of Tallahassee.


A prosecutor explained the theory to the jury at Mr. Holle’s trial in Pensacola in 2004. “No car, no crime,” said the prosecutor, David Rimmer. “No car, no consequences. No car, no murder.”



Again, overly strong sentence? Probably. Innocent man, persecuted for his race? Hardy.