Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
what other rules and regulations should be made because people refuse to be responsible for their actions? There are only two reasons why people want training classes and licensing requirements for people to have guns.
1. They don't like/carry guns themselves so they want to make it as difficult as possible for everyone else to carry them
2. they want some sort of 'feel good' insurance policy in the head to help them make it through the day thinking 'if someone is carrying a gun, they at least know how to use it.
nothing more, nothing less.
|
There are two general ways to respond to crime problems:
prevention and
reaction. Prevention is about removing the opportunity to commit a crime. Reaction is about punishment and deterrence via punishment. Either way the problem is addressing and stopping crime. The problem with reaction is that the crime has already occurred, and someone has already been victimized. Things like "give em guns and if they commit crime, then punish the shit out of them" are perfect examples of reactive measures to crime. They may prevent crime by deterrence, but they're mainly punishment and don't protect the victims. My way, prevention, is about preventing the victimization in the first place.
I'll illustrate each of our philosophies using the travesty in the OP as an example.
DK's world: A gunman who was easily able to get a hold of guns despite the fact he may have had warning signs as to mental illness opens fire in a school. Several armed students return fire. The gunman is killed, and one of the students who pulled a gun to respond is killed, and another injured. Before the armed students returned fire, the madman was still able to kill a half a dozen students and injure an additional sixteen.
Willravel's world: A potential gunman applies for a gun license, but is turned down due to a history of emotional problems. He attempts to get a gun illegally, but fails. No one is injured and no one dies.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
I'm not the only person here talking about them, but it's been said numerous times that 'common folk' don't have the training to effectively use guns, like cops or the military do. So if that's the common belief, why shouldn't they be the bar?
requiring classes and licenses to exercise a right, kinda defeats the purpose of it being a right, don't ya think? Not only that, but I believe there is a supreme court case that said no state can charge a license fee or tax for the exercise of a right that is federally protected.
|
You act like "right" has one definition. It doesn't.