posted
Agreed, this kid should not have had access to his home's guns (assuming that's where they came from.)
Moreover, he should have been better taught than to take something without permission.
A 'I hate everybody' attitude certainly deserved a closer watch.
If 'people are afraid of him' there's probably a reason. And someone should have told his parents that.
------------------ The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
quote:Liberals. Always pessimistic. Yes, six people got shot, but HOW MANY MORE WERE SAVED?
I don't know -- do you? No. Still, if his parents had been responsible gun owners ... maybe no one would've been shot at all. Wow. What a concept! No one getting shot at all! *gasp!*
Forget prosecuting the kid, I want to throw his parents in jail for owning a gun without posessing a requisite brain to go along with it.
quote:El Cajon Police Chief James Davis said authorities believe the 12-gauge Mossberg pump shotgun and the .22 caliber pistol recovered after the shooting came from Hoffman's home,
Safe to assume that the weapons came from his house.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 23, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 23, 2001).]
posted
Given lack of evidence to the contrary, I would tend to agree.
Nevertheless, I still can't resist getting in a jab against "authorities believe."
------------------ The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
Armed security doesn't deter gun violence in schools ...
Armed security isn't effective in stopping gun violence until before it's started.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
Well, no, actually, I don't presume that. It's a blanket negative statement, and thus can not be proven or disproven. It's based on emotion, not rational thought. Thus, it should be ignored.
I would point out, though, that a man with a gun saved lives. This you can not deny, if you wish to maintain credibility.
------------------ "Omega is right." -Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
posted
Well, it's reasonable to assume that the young man wasn't detered by the presense of an armed security guard when he walked into the school and began shooting people. If he'd been detered, he wouldn't have done that, now would he?
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that armed security will not deter shooters. In fact, if you look at the incidences of "suicide by cop" (do I need to explain this sad phenomenom?) it may even attract suicidal shooters.
I would point out, though, that a man with a gun endangered lives. This you can not deny, if you wish to maintain credibility.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 24, 2001).]
posted
It's very possible. When a person commits "suicide by cop", they essentially want someone else to kill them instead of doing the job themselves. It's especially tragic because: a) the person is successful in suicide, and b) a police officer or armed guard has to deal with the emotional consequences of the killing or shooting.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
posted
it's reasonable to assume that the young man wasn't detered by the presense of an armed security guard when he walked into the school and began shooting people.
True.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that armed security will not deter shooters.
False. You draw a generality from a single instance. This one shooter is not necessarily representative of all shooters.
a man with a gun endangered lives.
No, a CHILD with a gun endangered lives. Completely different thing.
------------------ "Omega is right." -Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
posted
Both statements must be recognized to maintain credibility.
A man with a gun endangered lives. A man with a gun saved lives.
The most obvious conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the gun is a neutral object. It is the man, and his nature, that determines whether a gun is used to endanger or to save.
So the question you must ask yourself is: "what is my basic opinion of human nature?"
If you feel that humans are basically evil, malicious and out of control, then you must feel that guns will be used for evil, and you should support their removal.
If you feel that humans are basically good, decent, and capable of self-control, or at least benign, then you must feel that guns will be used for good and benign purposes, and you should support their presence.
------------------ The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching
quote:No, a CHILD with a gun endangered lives. Completely different thing.
Incorrect! Mr. Hoffman was an 18-year old senior at the school. In other words: an adult, not a child. I understand you missed that in the article (even thought it's pretty clear right next to his name), but still!
quote:False. You draw a generality from a single instance. This one shooter is not necessarily representative of all shooters.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I surely hope that I am false, but with "Suicide by Cop" being a rather common place phenomenom (with people with suicidal tendencies seeking out people with guns), I could be very well correct.
quote:If you feel that humans are basically evil, malicious and out of control, then you must feel that guns will be used for evil, and you should support their removal.
If you feel that humans are basically good, decent, and capable of self-control, or at least benign, then you must feel that guns will be used for good and benign purposes, and you should support their presence.
Unfortunatly, humans are both of the above qualities. Therefore, one must seek to support the removal of guns from humans who are malicious and out of control; and not oppose the obtaining of firearms from others more qualified to keep them.
If all humans were "basically good, decent, and capable of self control, or at least benign" no one would need a gun in the first place.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 24, 2001).]
posted
If you feel that humans are basically evil, malicious and out of control, then you must feel that guns will be used for evil, and you should support their removal.
If that's the case, then you must also feel that humans in general should be removed.
And I would point out: who would do the removing, but another human being, and thus another evil entity. Guns exist. Guns will always exist. It's just a question of who controls them.
JK:
Mr. Hoffman was an 18-year old senior at the school. In other words: an adult, not a child. I understand you missed that in the article
No, actually, I noticed that. I still qualify him as a child.
Therefore, one must seek to support the removal of guns from humans who are malicious and out of control; and not oppose the obtaining of firearms from others more qualified to keep them.
Exactly. The real question is how one might do this.
So... any ideas?
------------------ "Omega is right." -Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
quote:And I would point out: who would do the removing, but another human being, and thus another evil entity. Guns exist. Guns will always exist. It's just a question of who controls them.
Yes, which is why we should keep them away from crazy people.
quote:No, actually, I noticed that. I still qualify him as a child.
Why? Why do you still qualify him as a child? He's old enough, where he could easily have walked into a K-Mart or Walmart and purchased the shotgun himself without the need to steal it from his folks (the handgun is a seperate matter). Nope, sorry Omega, he's an adult.
quote:Exactly. The real question is how one might do this.
So... any ideas?
Of course. You're not going to like them, however.
1) Anyone purchasing a firearm must purchase either a gun-safe or a trigger lock* for their weapon. These will serve the purposes of keeping the weapons out of the hands of children and of robbers breaking into the house to steal the weapons.
*Speaking purely for myself, I can get the combination lock off my gym-locker in about a second. There's no reason why a gun-owner couldn't be able to remove a combination trigger-lock from his rifle or handgun in the same amount of time. Combine this with a gun-manufacturer wide effort to produce a sturdy, reliable trigger-lock which aren't as easy to break, and this should work wonders.
2) Mandatory gun-training classes given by the local or state Police Department. Doesn't matter if you've just bought your first gun and ain't fired one yet or if you've been firing a gun since you were six. The class will make sure you know how to use, clean, and operate the gun properly, plus make sure you're up to date of local, state, and Federal gun-laws.
3) The local or state government will fire one round from each weapon purchased. The fired casing will be sent to a national registry -- if you use your gun in the commission of a crime and a shell is recovered, that shell can be matched to the shell fired by the government and they can trace the weapon back to the owner.*
*As I understand it, the "rifling marks" inside each gun barrel are different, sort of like a human fingerprint. Thus, just like the FBI's fingerprint directory, police agencies will be able to identify the type of gun and it's owner if ever used in a crime
4) Any report of a stolen or lost gun will be investigated thoroughly -- "straw" purchases are one of the easiest ways for guns purchased legally to be sold illegally to those who couldn't otherwise purchase them. If the police suspect and have evidence (direct or circumstancial) that someone is engaging in straw purchasing, they'll have the right to seize that person's weapons, arrest them, and make certain they never have the right to buy or own a gun again ever.
5) When conducting background checks, police agencies will have access even to sealed juvenile files. While argueable a breach of personal privacy, the agencies will recieve no specific information of the crime or offense committed, but will simply be informed* "yes" or "no" for eligibility based on juvenile record.
*When someone applies for a gun-license, if they have a "red-flag" in their file (indicating a juvenile offense), a board of psychologists will meet and (without being told the person's name, only the relevent information) will determine whether or not the offense is serious enough to warrant refusing to allow a firearm
These are, of course, just a few ideas.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
posted
Anyone purchasing a firearm must purchase either a gun-safe or a trigger lock* for their weapon. These will serve the purposes of keeping the weapons out of the hands of children
Again, no, it won't. In the case that someone was so negligent as to leave the gun where a kid could get to it, trigger locks and safes would do no good, as we've pointed out in manifold instances.
Trigger locks would do no good, even if you could design one that would not break, and would not impede the use of the weapon. They still have to be locked by the owner, and that requires forethought. The lack of forethought being the problem you're trying to combat, your logic escapes me.
If the police suspect and have evidence (direct or circumstancial) that someone is engaging in straw purchasing, they'll have the right to seize that person's weapons, arrest them, and make certain they never have the right to buy or own a gun again ever.
Too broad a power. Needs to be proven guilty in a court of law, as always. Unreasonable search and seizure's unconstitutional, remember?
When conducting background checks, police agencies will have access even to sealed juvenile files.
They should anyway. I've never seen any reason why crimes commited while you were a kid should be your private business.
The local or state government will fire one round from each weapon purchased. The fired casing will be sent to a national registry
Why not just fire them as they're leaving the factory? I'd like the idea, BUT, the idea of the government knowing who owns every gun in the country bugs me. Historically, that's been a prelude to the guns being confiscated.
As for your list:
A) Can you be sure these things are feasable? The trigger lock, specifically. I'm reminded of the suggestion someone made a while back about tranquelizer darts.
B) Can you be ABSOLUTELY SURE that the government would not abuse the sweeping powers that would have to be granted it to accomplish this?
C) It's still unconstitutional.
The only way I can see to avoid "B" and "C" would be an EXTREMELY carefully worded constitutional ammendment, with ABSOLUTELY no room for some liberal activist judge to come in and rewrite it, as they are wont to do. IF you can meet these qualifications to my satisfaction, I might be with you on certain things. But NOT done through legislation or judical fiat.
I'd also prefer that the system itself be administered on a state or local level.
Oh, and a line that says that if anyone tries to confiscate your gun without a warrant, you can shoot them.
And that the ammendment can't be changed on the floor of Congress, but must be voted on as is.
------------------ "Omega is right." -Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited March 25, 2001).]
quote:Again, no, it won't. In the case that someone was so negligent as to leave the gun where a kid could get to it, trigger locks and safes would do no good, as we've pointed out in manifold instances.
I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to design a lock which would "snap" locked again after a short period of being un-locked. As all gun-manufacturers will be building the trigger-locks into their guns in the next few years, this combination would ensure that the accidental useage of guns would drop.
quote:Too broad a power. Needs to be proven guilty in a court of law, as always. Unreasonable search and seizure's unconstitutional, remember?
Easily remedied. Police furning evidence and get warrant from judge to sieze suspects' weapons and prevent further gun purchases. The warrant holds until either the evidence is found to be not valid, the suspect makes a plea, or is aquited or found guilty by a trial.
quote:They should anyway. I've never seen any reason why crimes commited while you were a kid should be your private business.
Not in every case. It certainly depends on many factors, including the age of the child at the time, the offense or crime committed, etcetra.
quote:Why not just fire them as they're leaving the factory? I'd like the idea, BUT, the idea of the government knowing who owns every gun in the country bugs me. Historically, that's been a prelude to the guns being confiscated.
That might work. If the police had a recovered shell, they could take it to a catalogue maintained by the various gun manufacturers who could figure out which gun fired it, and who bought it. In this case, the gun manufacturer's association would know who owns the guns.
Also, as sad as it is to admit it, the government would have a very hard time confiscating everybody's guns even if they wanted to. This is a nation founded on gun violence, and I suspect even law enforcement agents might balk at that step. Hopefully someday in the future ...
quote:A) Can you be sure these things are feasable? The trigger lock, specifically. I'm reminded of the suggestion someone made a while back about tranquelizer darts.
If we can build an International Space Station, we can build guns with built-in trigger locks which automatically "re-lock" and are hard to break. I'm not saying it'll be real quick, but it can be done. Perhaps the "re-lock" could be engaged by some sort of pressure sensor in the grip, which when released, would "re-lock" the weapon?
Tranq-darts are a ridiculous suggestion, however non-lethal weapons are in wide use. Everything from paintball guns, to rubber bullets, to "expand-a-net" and "beanbag" shotgun shells. In fact, these are so effective, the military used them in Kosovo. Now, granted, I'm not saying that these would neccessarily be preferable to a 9mm round in every instance, but non-lethal methods are certainly an option.
quote:B) Can you be ABSOLUTELY SURE that the government would not abuse the sweeping powers that would have to be granted it to accomplish this?
With enforcement power divided equally between local, state, and Federal government (sort of like the checks and balances in the Fed. gov't.), it's an extremely reasonable plan.
quote:C) It's still unconstitutional.
One word for ya'. It also actually happens to be the third word of the Second Ammendment. Regulated. Gives the government the power to regulate the "militia" -- as modern interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment says that anyone capable of owning a gun is a "militia" member, the government thus has the right to regulate.
quote:The only way I can see to avoid "B" and "C" would be an EXTREMELY carefully worded constitutional ammendment, with ABSOLUTELY no room for some liberal activist judge to come in and rewrite it, as they are wont to do. IF you can meet these qualifications to my satisfaction, I might be with you on certain things. But NOT done through legislation or judical fiat.
Or, on the other hand, some conservative activist judge coming in and rewriting it -- as some seem wont to do.
quote:I'd also prefer that the system itself be administered on a state or local level.
It would be administered on all levels of the government.
quote:Oh, and a line that says that if anyone tries to confiscate your gun without a warrant, you can shoot them.
And ya'll thought RedQuaker was paranoid ...
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 25, 2001).]
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic