I think that's the BIG difference! Violence is so interwoven into all media, movies, games, MSM, news, TV... It's like a cancer!
So I still believe - limit access and firepower. It'll take 20 years but eventually it'll have an effect. But it's going to be a LONG process IF we choose to start it. More guns won't help. It'll get crazy. If they'd gotten to the school and a dozen parents were running around armed - how do they tell the bad guy ?? By law the bad guy has to wear a black hat ?
MrB thanks for the clarification. Maybe I was thinking of Tombstone.
My point was that since no law can guarantee someone won't break it (or at least try to), using that as a standard for drafting the legislation in the first place isn't terribly realistic
Well, you mentioned murder in your range of comparables as if it were something different from the target crime he was discussing. I understood his standard to be that no legislation should be enacted if it erodes a constitutional right but doesnít deal with the problem for which itís introduced.
Dave I agree with you especially the violent crap coming out of Weinstein and Quinton T should be completely censored and never shown period.They are horrible to view and the language is putrid.Also video games are becoming another disaster in a lot of them just show how much killing and authority you have over your opponent.Most of these manufacturers should be banned from producing this garbage which is poisoning the minds of our children today.
There are voices who suggest arming teachers, citing those incidents in Florida where gun-toting citizens have foiled armed robberies etc. Here in Illinois soon it'll be legal to carry a concealed weapon, just like in numerous (over 20?) other states. Is this where we're headed?
Now our neighbor, Missouri, is thinking about arming teachers. Gov. Perry said it'd be alright for registered concealed weapons carriers to bring them to school. And S.Carolina is discussing this also. Good Lord!
Loc: Alexandria, VA
I understood his standard to be that no legislation should be enacted if it erodes a constitutional right but doesnít deal with the problem for which itís introduced.
I guess that depends on one's definition of "deal with" -- In Mr. B's case, I took it to mean "would have guaranteed this event would never have happened," which I think is an unrealistic benchmark since no law can reasonably provide such a guarantee ...
Also of note (and not necessarily directed at you): the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is already somewhat regulated and not absolute in all cases -- although owning a RPG launcher is legal, actually obtaining one and a live grenade to go with it involves jumping through quite a bit of regulatory hoops. Not impossible, just difficult. Ditto a tank with operable guns, belt-fed machine guns, flamethrowers, field artillery or even a jet fighter (although getting a Sidewinder or a Hellfire for it might be a bit tricky) -- all are legal, but you'd need to go through the proper regulatory and licensing routines to actually own one.
Like I always point out to the gun folks - we have a spectrum.... No guns on one end.... Nukes on the other!! Where do "you" draw the line and why?
I believe the majority of Americans do not like semi- or fully automatic weapons and large clips! So 6-8 shot rifles and pistols is the line! But I'd like to see a detailed study!
We can't guess what the Constitutional forefathers would do, but we do know they had no concept of multiple shot firearms. Those didn't arrive until the mid-late 1800s! I doubt they'd approved of all carrying the firepower we have today. Militia/ national guard -OK but individual - nope!
BTW-in the civil war a soldier could get off 3 rounds per min if he was good. In revolutionary times, I bet 1-2, because powder wasn't pre-packaged; it came from a powder horn! All the Constitutional writers knew was the latter! I believe if you showed them today's firepower they'd be super shocked & dumbfounded !
This is where profit motive overcomes good sense. WHO'D want to sell them in the first place ? Is a few $ really worth putting this firepower into someone's hands ? Sure they're legal- lots of things are legal, but very dumb or unethical. Would they sell nukes, or RPGs if they were legal ??
Now they can rationalize and say it's the shooter's responsibility- and it IS- but they become an accomplice in my eyes. Once that gun hits the street WTF knows whos' hands it might fall into. Why not stick to guns you are pretty sure for sport, or self defense? (sure those get used too, but you KNOW a semi-automatic is made to kill lots of people, not deer or birds !)
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.