Jump to content
It didn't know CT was in the south. I sure as heck didn't know CO was in the south. Is CA in the south? I didn't get to far in school, but I don't think it is. What I am saying in my MD (as in medical doctor) talk is the argument you present is a non sequitur; it lacks logic. Chicago celebrated its 500th murder last year, is Chicago in the south...You get my point.
All three candidates received their doctorate degrees from Nova Southern. I heard this "university" was nothing more than a diploma mill. You pay the fee, get your degree plus the raise that comes with it (from being in public education).
“Of all of our studies, history is best qualified to reward our research.”—Malcolm X
In light of the CT shootings, gun control debates are in full swing. As usual, these debates underscore the lack of critical thinking that permeates society. Let me begin by saying that I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment. Further, I am a card carrying member of the NRA. However, having said that, I would be willing to support some form of gun control if a viable argument was presented to me. So far, I haven’t heard one. So far all I have heard are the same hackneyed positions from gun-control activists they always posit. For example:
We need to ban assault weapons. This sounds good but let’s examine this position critically. First, what is an assault weapon? How will these weapons be defined? Will it become a ban on scary looking weapons? Second, and more importantly, we have tried this already (remember Columbine). Further, CT already has an assault weapon ban in place; a ban that was in place at the time of the shooting. Sadly, the ban didn’t work.
We need to ban high capacity magazines. What does a person need with a weapon that can shoot that many times? This goes to Mr. Fletcher's argument. Sounds good, but let’s dissect this critically. Excessism is a part of American culture. For example, what does a person need with a Lamborghini of Ferrari? The speed limit (in the US) is only 70MPH (in some places 75MPH). Why have cars that can travel over 200MPH? Or, a house can only provide shelter. What does a single person (i.e. athlete or celebrity) need with a 20,000 Sq. ft. mansion? The point I am making is that we all have things that go over and above what is required for basic functioning. Second, and more importantly, it won’t work. Let’s suppose there was an assault weapons ban and there was a limit on high capacity magazines. A person could legally possess a 9mm handgun and unlimited amounts of 10 round magazines (Remember VA Tech).
I am saddened by what happened in CT. I think we as a nation should respond with sensible legislation. However, the legislation should (at least) address the problem and provide realistic solutions. For example, how to address the mentally ill needs to be re-examined. Further, the violence that permeates society via movies, television, video games, etc. needs to be addressed. Violence in America is a multi-faceted problem. To only talk about gun control is short sighted and downright foolish.
We need to ban high capacity magazines. What does a person need with a weapon that can shoot that many times? Sounds good, but let’s dissect this critically. Excessism is a part of American culture. For example, what does a person need with a Lamborghini of Ferrari? The speed limit (in the US) is only 70MPH (in some places 75MPH). Why have cars that can travel over 200MPH? Or, a house can only provide shelter. What does a single person (i.e. athlete or celebrity) need with a 20,000 Sq. ft. mansion? The point I am making is that we all have things that go over and above what is required for basic functioning. Second, and more importantly, it won’t work. Let’s suppose there was an assault weapons ban and there was a limit on high capacity magazines. A person could legally possess a 9mm handgun and unlimited amounts of 10 round magazines (Remember VA Tech).
From what I understand CT has an "assault weapon" ban. This ban has been in place for years.
The 10-ton elephant in the room is that what makes America great, the freedoms we enjoy, also makes us vulnerable. No one wants to feel helpless or powerless. We don't want to feel as though we are at the mercy of our fellow man, but we are. History has shown us that gun control will not solve the problems we face as a nation, but it makes "some" feel better. They "feel" safe. But it is a false security. With freedom comes risk. We as a nation must come to grips with this. Case in point, all of the DUI, speeding and other traffic laws will not prevent dozens of people from dying on the highways this holiday season. Neither will all of the gun control laws prevent the next tragedy from happening.This is a reality we must come to grips with.
Thiis is what I am trying to figure out. I am all for solutions, but the solutions should (at least) address the problem and not be knee-jerk reactions because the public is demanding that somebody "do something."
Will someone please tell me what an "assault weapon" is? Let us suppose the assault weapon ban (back in the 1990's) was still in effect. The gun that was used in CT was not on the list of banned weapons. So in other words, the solution to the problem is to enact a ban on weapons, that does not include the weapon used in the incident that causes us to need a solution in the first place. Confusing, isn't it. I can't follow the logic either.
This commentary sums up my thoughts on gun control...
As keenly interested as I am in preventing the next mass public shooting, I see little reason to find comfort in gun control.
Consider the high school rampage in Columbine, Colo. The year was 1999, amid a decade-long ban on “assault weapons,” those firearms defined by nothing more than the minds of legislators who drafted the ban on them. (Indeed, the main characteristic common to the weapons banned then seems to be the likelihood one might have seen a similar weapon in a shoot-em-up, kill-em-up movie — an implicit nod to the overriding impact of our entertainment culture.)
One of the Columbine killers was armed with a pump-action shotgun (not exactly a semiautomatic weapon) he fired 25 times. He also fired 96 rounds from a 9-mm carbine while using 10-round magazines — the limit of choice for those who say 30-round magazines are the problem.
When New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg introduced his ban on sugary soft drinks larger than 16 oz., most observers recognized the folly of limiting the size of one drink when a person could simply buy two or more of them. Does no one else find it similarly illogical to think a person bent on mass murder won’t just carry multiple weapons with smaller mags, or that lives will be saved in the few seconds it would take an experienced gun handler to change magazines?
I raise these objections not to defend specific weapons or magazines with any number of bullets. Neither I nor anyone I know owns an “assault weapon” (as far as I know), and I have no particular affinity for bullets that come in sets of 20 or 30 or 40 rather than 10. While I generally support gun-ownership rights, I’m open to practical suggestions that can reasonably square with the Second Amendment.
Nor do I think the situation is hopeless, or as good as it gets. I do think we can make our communities safer. But I think the most effective solutions will be less comfortable — such as asking when it’s OK to invade the privacy of those who are dangerously mentally ill — and more expensive — such as ensuring there are armed guards or designated weapons-carrying citizens even at schools and other “gun-free zones” — than merely banning particular weapons and ammunition.
The lives of innocents deserve the fullness of our thought and attention, not old ideas that have been sitting on the shelf, waiting for a crisis.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Blaming guns for the violence we have just witnessed makes about as much sense as blaming a knife and fork for the obesity problem in America. However, I do understand that for the intellectual lazy, it makes sense to over simplify complex issues into a quick fix; something that can be easily pointed to. "if we only had more gun laws, we would be safe." If only there were less knives and forks people wouldn't be fat.
Mass shootings are not common in the United States. However, when they do occur, they garner so much media attention that the intelluctual lazy believe they are common.
Last login: Monday, May 20, 2013