Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
I would say the current laws work quite well given the limitations of determining when someone is likely to do harm to themselves or others.
I don't know specifics of the time leading up to these various shooters committing these acts but I'd not be surprised to find that their families, friends and neighbors did not consider them to be a threat to anyone. If that is true, by what law would you predict such a thing?
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
It's mostly because this society developed a very weird relationship with cars, so it tolerates their massive carnage. It also let it's cities near be destroyed by cars, not to mention horribly polluted by them. It's children endangered by them. It gives them priority over pedestrians (in city planning, not talking "right of way") and destroyed much of a pedestrian centered way of life etc.. And hey, it will sacrifice the whole planet on their alter in the end. They are what one uses to get around now, but that doesn't mean that this post is sarcasm, or that choosing cars was not itself a decision to sacrafice a lot of other values to their primacy, that somehow might not exactly make sense.I blame the drivers. The police blame the drivers. The community and society blame the drivers. No one blames the vehicle. No one wants to ban either it or alcolhol.
Trees don't grow on money
Not at all. The law recognizes the priniciple of implied consent. Just as when you walk into a business establishment wearing shoes you are not doing that without the owners consent, the owner has by virtue of operating a public business invited the public in and you are not trespassing by walking in wearing shoes. Every state I know of also allows that business owner to prohibit persons from coming into the esatablishment, and if they want to ban Air Jordans they can do that. Thus the no firearms signs- they are exceptions to the general consent granted to the public to enter the establishment. Different states require different steps to enforce that, but I don't know of any state that denies the property owner control over the property on that basis.
It looks like the gun lobby/NRA was wrong again.
"JERUSALEM—Israel's policy on issuing guns is restrictive, and armed guards at its schools are meant to stop terrorists, not crazed or disgruntled gunmen, experts said Monday, rejecting claims by America's top gun lobby that Israel serves as proof for its philosophy that the U.S. needs more weapons, not fewer.
Far from the image of a heavily armed population where ordinary people have their own arsenals to repel attackers, Israel allows its people to acquire firearms only if they can prove their professions or places of residence put them in danger. The country relies on its security services, not armed citizens, to prevent terror attacks."
Edited to add source: http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-wo...s-its-security
I wonder how they tell the difference?
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
+1
Interesting. How many people should be able to own guns? Would there be a limit to the number of guns an "approved" owner could have at any one time? Should you have to demonstrate proficiency with a weapon before you are permitted to purchase it? How would this be administered? At purchase or periodically thereafter? Perhaps if you were not "approved", you would not be allowed to take it off your property akin to having an unregistered automobile. Would any of this be more effective than revisiting the so called assault weapons ban or banning high cap magazines? If I already own a gun, do I have to demonstrate my competency with it in order to be able to keep it?
Doing it for a political objective and even more so if you claim credit for the act of terrorism as that cause is usually how.I wonder how they tell the difference?
Trees don't grow on money
I understand the definition of terrorism and I'm pretty sure the Israeli's don't bother checking mass killer's motivations prior to stopping them. The quoted statement that their security measures are not intended for "crazed or disgruntled gunmen" doesn't make any sense.
If the Israeli's are acting pro-actively, I'm pretty sure protection against "crazed or disgruntled gunmen" is a large part of their defense posture.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Why worry about Israel? From what I've read the NBC host who mocked the idea of having armed guards in schools sends his kids to a private school in DC with 11 guards. Same for Obama. Where's that SLN egalitarianism when it comes to somethings as basic as child safety?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...h-Armed-Guards
Repeat after me, "all animals are equal, but ..."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote