You are correct. Guns and gun laws should certainly be examined and included in any discussion of possible solutions for the problem. No reason that they should be excluded. I think that the problems occur when 'solutions' are suggested that would have had no affect on the shooting and/or when rights are infringed upon, and I don't just mean gun rights. There are privacy issues with health records, including mental health records. Those are not available for examination. This is a problem in book, but am I willing to allow any health records to become part of a national government controlled database? I am just not there. We are not now, nor should we be, able to incarcerate someone for something someone might do nor should you be able to deny someone a right for a potential future issue. Under existing law you must commit a crime AND be convicted by a jury before you are put in jail. I think that it is a great idea. Frequently we know who is going to cause trouble. One problem is where do you draw the line? Over 30% of black males have been covicted and incarcerated by the time they were 29 years old. Black males make up about 6% of the total US population yet account for over 40% of the US prision population. If we are using a criteria for preventing potential future crime do we start incarcerating black males at age 12? No, that is a violation of their rights, but where do we draw that line when charging people for crimes that they might commit?
You are correct, all options need to be examined for effectiveness. One BIG problem that I have had is that the shooting was on Friday morning. By Friday evening the media and some politicians were calling for gun control. Diane Feinstein made an announcement on Monday that she was going to reintroduce her 1994 gun control legislation. THEY HAD NOT EVEN BURIED THE FIRST VICTIM!! They were just waiting in the wings to dance in the blood of children to promote their political agenda. For some reason the media contacted the NRA for comment. As far as I know the shooter was not an NRA member, but the NRA response was basically our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. No politcal content or comment, just sympathy. It was not the time for political commentary despite the media baiting.
True, just like the majority of cops never find themselves in a life or death situation and they intend to go in harms way. Just like I have home owners, auto, and health insurance, but I never intend to use them. Sure was nice to have health insurance last year when my hospital bill was $315,000, not including doctors, just hospital. Bette to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
The Bill of Rights DOES restrict state governments. If fact it restricts any government entity even at the city level. A state nor city may restrict your rights.
I am afraid that you are not familiar with any of the Supreme Court rulings in the 20th or 21st century regarding the 2nd Amendment. First, if you use the 'militia' as the basis for your argument you need to know what the militia is. 10 USC 311:
'(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.'
So you may be a member of the militia and now even know it. It really doesn't matter be cause Heller vs DC (2008) decided that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms for lawful purposes. If you read the Bill of Rights the word 'people' or 'person' is used throughout. How could it possibly mean an individual in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendments, but a collective group controlled by the government in the 2nd Amendment? It has to mean the same thing everywhere it is used. If guns are controlled by the government then so is the press, speech, and religion.
Why six? Why not two, eight, eighteen? You need to see a guy I know shoot a six shot revolver. I have met Jerry, I do not know him, but he seemed like a nice guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw
That is going to put a crimp in shooting sports for alot of people. When I was shooting IPSC in the 1980's I knew guys shooting 1000 rds a week. That can get expensive so reloading was very popular. Now Walmart has gotten so cheap for the amount I shoot it is easier to buy it there.
In fact conflict resolution is taught as part of the concealed handgun licensing class in Texas. I think it is a good idea.
So you admit that the problem is more on the mental health side, but we should do something about the guns. None of the recommendations would have changed last Friday. All the assault weapons ban did was banned cosmentic features. Bayonet lugs, flash hiders, pistol grips, folding stocks, and others. Nothing addressed the function of the gun, so compliant guns were made. Magazine capacity is not an issue when you are unopposed. Just change using mulitple mags. There is no gun show loophole. The federal laws apply to gun shows. Individuals can sell guns at gun shows or in the newspaper locally. The federal government has no authority to something that I own to keep me from selling it to a neighbor provided that neighbor is not a prohibited owner.
Interesting. The teachers would pay for their own guns and licenses as they do in Texas, but the opt out is interesting. If a parent opts his child out of an armed classroom, is the child then not under the protective umbrella of the armed teachers? Maybe isolate those children in less secure classrooms or in modules outside the main school?
Good news in Oklahoma City. The Deer Creek School district in far NW OKC and NW Oklahoma County will now be protected by armed Oklahoma County Sheriffs Deputies until further notice.
Larry has been a friend of mine for many years and I always make time for he and the wife when I am in Salt Lake City. I look forward to meeting with him in Las Vegas in January. Good stuff.
