What law or control (short of outlawing a weapon or magazine) would have prevented Dawson College or the Tuscon tragedy? Do you believe it would prevent shootings like this?
There are, of course, no guarantees. But perhaps a stricter evaluation of the mental state of someone when they apply for a licence? Regular re-application?Green Arrow wrote:What law or control (short of outlawing a weapon or magazine) would have prevented Dawson College or the Tuscon tragedy? Do you believe it would prevent shootings like this?
Do any of these constitute a direct threat to other people? No. Fat people who get fatter endanger themselves. Idiots voting get what they vote for. Insane people with guns kill people. Do you see the difference?Green Arrow wrote:Perhaps people over 200 lbs would not be allowed to buy candy, thus requiring mandatory weighing at the grocery? Maybe applying for the right to vote, and requiring civic testing every 10 years to show proficiency in the electoral process? These would definitely incorporate some stricter "guarantees"
Well, auto's, semi-autos, handguns would seem to be good candidates for better controls. Hunting rifles and shotguns would need little control.Curious, though; what kinds of weapons do you wish to legislate?
danivon wrote:There are, of course, no guarantees. But perhaps a stricter evaluation of the mental state of someone when they apply for a licence? Regular re-application?
danivon wrote:Do any of these constitute a direct threat to other people? No. Fat people who get fatter endanger themselves.
The threat is not direct, it is indirect.Green Arrow wrote:Fat people endanger the economy, or so says RickyP. That is why there needs to be legislation on what we eat. Otherwise we will have the costs attributed to obesity inflicted on everyone. [sarcasm] Thus we "MUST" have the Health care bill [/sarcasm]
If idiots are the majority, then you have more problems than how elections go. The electorate 'deserve' the candidate they vote for. If it was about who was best qualified, why have elections, just have a board of experts decide who is the most able? Again the threat is indirect, not direct.Idiots who vote bring a less qualified candidate to power. Do we not deserve the most qualified candidate? If some in the public are voting based upon the looks of a certain candidate, and cannot espouse a view in a cogent manner, perhaps their vote does more harm than good to a wider population than a lone shooter in Tuscon.
The difference is in the directness of the threat to the lives and health of others. You just don't want to see it, because firing a machine-gun makes you feel good, or something.So no, I do not see a difference. Just a variable impact.
Well, whatever floats your boat, Tommy. I was talking about mental state evaluations for firearms, not for cars.GMTom wrote:I have to forgive Danivon for laughing out loud at his recent post. Maybe over in Merry Olde England they have bright, intelligent part time psychiatrists working for the department of motor vehicles? Over here it's, well let's just say it's the opposite. Can anyone imagine a DMV worker evaluating your mental health? ...especially after waiting on line for several hours?
I don't know. All I do know is that it wasn't a problem for him to buy one legally.Machiavelli wrote:Given that Mr. Loughner appears to have violated existing laws against the possession of narcotics, what in the world makes you think he would have complied with prohibitions against his owning a firearm?
I don't think you understand what 'direct threat' means. And your material well being being slightly more hampered by notional taxes is not the same kind of risk as your life being cut short by someone firing a gun.Actually, now that I (and my fellow taxpayers) are paying the fat guy's health care costs, his behavior does constitute a direct threat to my material well-being. Ditto all sorts of risky sexual behavior that Bible-thumpers have been unsuccessful in banning of late due to a lack of a compelling state interest in doing so. For them, Obamacare is a gift from heaven in that it once again allows the government to intrude into the bedroom (and anywhere else, for that matter).
And your material well being being slightly more hampered by notional taxes is not the same kind of risk as your life being cut short by someone firing a gun.
All I do know is that it wasn't a problem for him to buy one legally.
Given that Mr. Loughner appears to have violated existing laws against the possession of narcotics, what in the world makes you think he would have complied with prohibitions against his owning a firearm?
The regulations are intended to compell [sic] those who sell fire arms [sic] to ensure they have done everything they can to screen out unlawful purchases.
Based on that line of reasoning why bother attempting to interdict illegal aliens sneaking acros [sic] the border?
How many Americans will now avoid political events out of fear that some other Loughrn [sic] is there ...carrying..
There was much more to it than taxes, as the 1776 Declaration makes clear. Some of it (the Tea thing) was about pushing lower price goods into the US market, undercutting existing suppliers - bad for some, but lower prices for others. Those taxes were increased in the 1760s in large part to defray the costs of defending the colonies from French and Indian enemies in the recent wars up there - in other words, defending your liberties. The main issue was the crass way in which the taxes were enforced.Machiavelli wrote:And your material well being being slightly more hampered by notional taxes is not the same kind of risk as your life being cut short by someone firing a gun.
Indeed. The former is a threat to my liberty, for which my forefathers were more than willing to undertake a minor risk like being shot. You Brits didn't understand why "notional taxes" were so odious back in 1775 and it appears you still don't.
It's about relative risk, Mach. You want to deal in absolutes, fine, but that's not as realistic as you would like to think. If it were illegal for Loughner to get a gun, there are points at which the risk of him being caught ahead of time are greater than if it were legal. I am hoping that law enforcement in Arizona is not completely absent. He may have been picked up having tried to get a gun/licence and been rejected as a risk. He may have been noticed as he tried to find an illegal dealer. He may have been unlucky enough to try and get a gun from someone being monitored by the police. He may have been stopped for a routine and random check for illegal immigrants and been found to hold an unlicensed weapon. He may have been noticed practising with the gun.I'm disappointed, Dan--I expect you to think more than a move ahead. You seem to be suggesting that if only what Mr. Loughner had done were illegal, five innocent people would be alive today. I've got news for you, my friend: even in wild west Arizona, it's already illegal to step down to the grocery and shoot a couple dozen of your neighbors. Despite that illegality, Mr. Loughner appears to have done just that. Had the gun control legislation you hold so dear been in place, the only difference would be that we'd have one more charge to add to the long list of infractions that will send Mr. Loughner to the gurnery.All I do know is that it wasn't a problem for him to buy one legally.