Bob Costas Anti Gun Rant on Sunday Night football last night

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... l/1770345/

SC, I think requiring citizens to be "approved" by a psychologist/psychiatrist (or any psy-person) fundamentally changes the right to bear arms to a privilege. It is a very difficult problem...if you restrict "mentally ill" from owning a gun, what is the criteria, for how long, can a person "get better", or is their right sacrificed for life based upon someone else's assessment? That's a dangerous situation in it's own way.

My own opinion, as a hunter liberal, is I would accept some contols on the guns themselves...such as limited capacity. Is it possible to discuss whether we could legislate the technology itself? Could we control the function, the design of the gun, so it's potential destructiveness can be mitigated? Hunting rifles/shotguns effectively serve a specific purpose, as do assault weapons...but the assault weapon's only purpose is killing people...as effectively as possible. Personally, I find it disturbing that anyone would want to own such a tool, but I can't go so far as to tell them that they can't. I would never take anyone's gun from them, but I might support controlling the kinds of guns that can continue to be manufactured and sold.

There is no reckoning for many of these people because they are planning to die in the act. They have moved beyond the responsible for their actions world.

Would people sign on for taking personal responsibility for the weapon they purchase? When do parents stop becoming responsible for their children's actions?

There are calls for more gun control, but shouldn't there be a call for a more comprehensive plan for mental illness? These shootings are getting closer and closer together in time. They are targeting many places we traditionally consider safe. Schools seem to be a frequent target. Today we got the sum of all fears, a mentally ill man who used legally purchased weapons to kill his mother and then, for reasons not yet known, went to an elementary school and did what he did. No returning to the job he was just fired from to take out the boss and a couple of coworkers he didn't like.

Something's got to give. It's getting hard to live when you consider everyone around you as a potential menace.

As George Carlin puts it, "In 1942 there were 110,000 Japanese-American citizens, in good standing, law abiding people, who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That's all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers, no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had was...right this way! Into the internment camps.

Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most...their government took them away. and rights aren't rights if someone can take em away. They're priveledges. That's all we've ever had in this country is a bill of TEMPORARY priviledges; and if you read the news, even badly, you know the list get's shorter, and shorter, and shorter."

Martin Ent Inc wrote: www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/1...gun-control/1770345/

:thumbsup:

Yep, the ignorance of attempting to change human behavior by regulation of an inanimate object.

We have a ton of laws on the books. Does it stop some?
No What makes you think anything added to them is going to change anything?

The restictive laws in China did not stop the person from slashing and killing school kids with knives.
It's not the gun nuts I worry about, it's those that don't own them or want to take them away from those that do.

Ban the media.

I don't support taking anyone's guns away, but I think we can have better control of the sale of existing and new guns. With new guns, I think we can legislate what kinds of guns can be manufactured and sold, and perhaps show the gun to be a tool, rather than an instrument of violence. People see my trap gun and say, "wow, that's pretty". People see an AK-47 and recognize it as a tool of violence. The gun market has fashioned many guns to appear more militaristic, more aggresive, more violent. There is no hiding it...they are known as 'assault weapons', and sometimes just based on how they look, despite what they're capable of. I think we can change the impression of what the gun is for, and in doing so, can change how people use them. I also believe the citizenry can be armed with 'heavy' weapons that ensures we do not become contolled by force by our government...bring back the armory system. So called 'heavy' weapons, or assault weapons can be registered with your local community and secured in the armory, while you may still possess your 'light' arms and non-assault style weapons at home. I do recognize there are security issues to this system too, but believe they can be resolved.

I think just because we can't change how things have been doesn't mean we can't change how things will be from this point on.


*I agree with points about the media, but as long as the audience will pay to be entertained by violence, is it the media's fault, or the audience's?

Don't agree at all. But you are welcome to your opinion.

Charles Whitman killed 16 people from the 28th floor observation deck at the UT clock tower on Aug. 1, 1966. Dozens more were injured.
With an antique gun.

Your trap gun can kill as amny if not more if you were so inclined.
A revolver could cause as much carnage as well.
As the masses cower in fear of evenyour trap gun you can reload many many times before confronting an officer or a person willing to take you on.

As for "assualt style weapons"
People are afraid of what they don't understand.