That's where my bias comes in. I'm biased against the dummies who might make mistakes and don't want them having guns.
lead to a high murder rate. Wide availability of guns happens to be one of them. That doesn't mean
gun ownership should be abolished, not anymore than it means all the liquor stores should be shuttered.
It means only what it is. These are contributors to a high murder rate. Obviously when a crime occurs,
whether it is a gun crime or a DUI, the responsibility is or ought to be solely on the person who
did the crime. Prohibition clearly never works, whether it is booze, drugs, guns. I'm not arguing for
blanket prohibition as was tried with alcohol and with certain drugs, and what Scalia approved
of in Heller--- reasonable regulation. We do have the latter with all of our dram shop laws. See?
We have some of the regulation with existing laws in each of the states and for some items with the
Feds. Between prohibition and doing nothing there exists a wide universe of options.
Personally, I'd say it's a heck of a lot more rude, disruptive and dangerous to make false accusations based on personal bias or lack of reading comprehension... I know it's a heck of a lot more dangerous to think that the rights of the people should be legislated away from all of the people simply because it would provide a false sense of security to some of the people.
The problem with the world is grown-ups behaving like unsupervised children.
we do regulate the sale of liquor.
While as a general matter I don't think your LGS should be liable for the use of what they have
sold, I think there certainly could well be situations in which a reasonable person would have
and should have known to not sell to the buyer, and if they have done so in a particularly aggravated
manner, I have no problem with hold them responsible for the consequences.
I'm fairly certain some gun shop owners regularly turn down an occasional customer who
could pass the NICS but who just makes them feel uncomfortable completing the sale.
This of course has nothing to do with Lanza as he didn't buy the guns he used.
For crying out loud, how many threads and posts do we have on our board talking about how just owning a gun or just having a CHL is insufficient; that additional training is important. Do you really think you can take that 23 year old young woman teaching 2nd grade and get her additional training without all manner of additional problems cropping up? Let's see-- liability, collateral damage, accidents, a teacher or principal gone bad. Plus, dealing with the mass murder issue from the perspective of a school shooting omits the numerous incidents which occurred away from the classroom.
Do we really want 23 year old woman driving nuclear submarines, piloting some of the most sophisticated aircraft that mankind has ever seen or even driving an M1 Abrams tank? How about the ones with their hands on the controls of our nuclear missiles?
Yet they do. And they have less education than most teachers.
Thought no. 2.
Not the same you say. It can be. Its not about 23 year old teachers that don't meet YOUR expectations or standards, its about MINDSET.
Given the proper mindset, I would rather have an armed 23 year old second grade teacher that was able to meet a threat than to have some liberal utopian think that by laying in the fetus position in a corner of a dark classroom, thinking she was somehow being a good citizen by not offering resistance.
Thought no. 3.
I know and have trained many teachers to carry a handgun. I would not hesitate to let them carry a gun in school if they were able to do so. It beats the liberal idea of playing dead and hoping that your attacker passes you by.
Thought no. 4.
Any one that thinks NICS is a deterrent or even a good thing ought to be excommunicated for being too silly to be an American.
And with that.....this old thread is now closed.