I think current laws are adequate to weed out the nutz

They are? Then why was it so easy for the VA tech killer to buy a gun?
As well as for other people who have no business owning one?

As I've stated before, too, I don't think guns should be available to
"just anyone" (whether or not they're "sane") without first having to
prove they're mentally fit to own one and, also, that they're
knowledgeable about how they work and how to safely handle them.

I don't think that's asking too much.

well need to start another subject

yer just repeting yourself now

their are to many unanswered points

for me to continue debating

this subject any further

I agree. I'm repeating myself because my arguments (per usual) are
falling on deaf ears.

So what's for lunch??

have not decided yet

kinda scared to go

to the store

afraid some crazed person

will be there shooting everyone

Well, with any luck, some equally crazed person will be there to defend
you!

Bon apetit!

I have a question. Can anyone truly believe that a person who intends
harm or criminal activity with a gun really cares about gun control or
what the law says concerning gun control?

Army Doc wrote:

" kerry-

your "guns at the work place"

i do not believe that it should be imposed/ mandated for an employer to
allow guns on his/her property."

I agree, but doesn't that seem to suggest Second Ammendment "rights" are
indeed *not* universal and supreme? And that the founding fathers knew
this was a slippery slope? I'd say that's the reason they cast that
right in the context of _regulated_ *militias*.

It's implicit (and explicit in those who have never seen a gun control
law they liked) in many arguments made by people who favor less
regulation that no level of government should be able to pierce the
Second Ammendment veil, that any such regulation is the Root of All
Evil.

I think the 'All or Nothing' rhetoric they use is flawed because, as you
see over and over in the core documents and tenets on which the U.S. is
based, there are many such slippery slopes for which there are
accomodations reached in compromise and on case law decided by
considering all the facts on their relative merits.

And while Black and White reasoning is comforting, there are so many
difficult dilemmas which must be navigated it makes no sense to me to
make blanket declarations based on cherry-picking language from the
Constitution (sometimes even breaking sentences in half to do so.)




Army Doc worte:
"I do not believe everybody should be walking around toting guns on
their
hips like it was the wild west."

Again, I agree. It says a lot about the state of a society where one
feels they need to be armed to the teeth to feel safe. It's my
contention that, given such a breakdown, guns are as much the problem as
they are the solution.

"I simply believe that if I want to own a gun in my home or in the car,
on my person in public, that I should be allowed to do that."

I agree about certain types of arms kept in defense of one's home. But I
also think that the government (as in We the People) has a duty to
judiciously regulate dangerous articles in demonstrably even-handed ways
for the Common Good. If this means that gun collectors are going to be
inconvenienced in the pursuit of their acquistions, well... tough beans.

" There are
several types of people in the world, those who act (flight 93- crashed
carrying another plane to another building it never made it there-
crashed in a field)"

In a world with the very lax gun controls many on this thread are
advocating, it's likely the attackers would have had guns. Would the
passengers have been able to rush the attackers then? I think not.
Scratch target 3.

"and then there are those who dont act (32 dead virginia tech univ.)"

Sorry, but this non-citizen who was adjudicated a danger to himself and
others should NEVER have been able allowed to purchase or ammo in the
first place. The failure to act is the State of Virginia's fault in not
enacting ways to keep this from happening, NOT the people who sensibly
got out of the line of fire. I'm sure had he attacked people with
kitchen utensils during a rampage, he *would* have been subdued.

"I hope to all i find sacred that I will never be placed in a position
to
have to defend my home car or family in public, but if i do or am , i
would rather go down fighting -gun in my hand, than standing there
saying to myself "what the hell was i thinking voting for gun control" "

You *should* be thinking ahead about slippery slope reasoning and
tactics other than Last Stand at the Alamo. You probably also should be
thinking about when to fight and when not to fight, and how, and how if
you do need to drop the hammer on someone, you better be able to prove
they left you no choice.

"washington dc has the most stringent gun control laws in the entire US,
yet they also have among the highest violent crime rates in the US."


...and Baghdad has the least gun control with militias keeping the
government in check. A Second Ammendment paradise, no? But places and
situations are not all created equally, are they?




-Kerry O.

" I have a question. Can anyone truly believe that a person who intends
harm or criminal activity with a gun really cares about gun control or
what the law says concerning gun control? "

Yep, unless he owns all the materials, machines and knowledge to make
his own machine gun. And obviously, these nuts commit suicide so quickly
because they know they're going to face some really serious music.

Nobody's saying that gun control laws are perfect-- but the laws DO make
it a LOT more difficult, and in at least some cases, that may have been
just enough. It seperates the truly criminally insane from the merely
malicious.

-Kerry O.

I would agree with Dave. Murder is illegal everywhere. If they break
that law they won't worry about a gun law.

If gun laws make it that much more difficult for those intent on murder
to purchase one, I'm all for it. At the VERY least, my conscience is
going to rest a lot easier knowing that I wasn't somehow responsible for
the ease with which he could purchase a gun legally.

Updated: 25 minutes ago

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - A shooting at a Kansas City shopping center has left
at least three dead, including the gunman, police said.

Two of the victims were shot about 3:30 p.m. in the parking lot of the
Ward Parkway Center in south Kansas City. The gunman went inside the
mall and is believed to have fired more shots, wounding at least two
people, police spokesman Tony Sanders said.

The man was shot to death inside the mall, but police were still trying
to determine exactly who shot him, Sanders said. His body remained
inside the mall early Sunday evening.
________________________________

from msnbc cover link

wonder how many more would be dead if someone did not end it when they
did

update story
________________________________

MSNBC News Services
Updated: 13 minutes ago

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Four people were shot and killed, including an
assailant, and at least three others were wounded Sunday in two
incidents, including one at a crowded shopping mall in Kansas City,
police said.

Kansas City police were uncertain if the same man was involved at the
two locations and were treating them as two separate incidents.
-------------------------------

i hope these are not all over the news for days

i wonder if related to v t by possible copy shooter

kerryo-

you kinda tried to rip me apart there, no worries....

slippery slopes and all the rest considered, i would like to mention
just a couple of things that you brought up...
"gun control laws work for the most part" "how did the.... va shooter
get a gun..."

talking about 2nd admendment rights and employers property.
who's rights prevail while you are at you home? yours or mine, with in
the confinds of your house your rights supercede mine, right? same would
apply to an employers place of business, he has the right to dictae te
rules that govern his business, if you dont like them, then find another
job- your kinda being the devils advocate which is ok, but your
splitting hairs and not exercising your right to use common since.

as far as i best be aware and know when to drop the hammer, think i got
that covered, been trained by the best and know how to positively
identify the threat.

and another thing/question....who's gona determine in your world who is
sane or not mentally challeged so that they can or can not carry a
weapon, some liberal psycologist or something.

i'll go you one further, statics being what they are take from this what
you will.... more people die in america everyday from vehicle neglegence
than anywhere close to hand guns.... guess we need to reform car
ownership as well, tell you what everybody just take everything you own
to the democrats and let them determine who needs / gets / or wants
what. i dont even have to work any more because our socialist brothers
and sisters are going to take care of me, and when anyone tries to hurt
me or anyone i know while shopping at the mall, a dem in a superman
outfit will magically appear and deflect the bullets, wonderful---why
didnt i think of it first.

and yes the whole last part was me being a sarcastic azz.

previous post

I agree. I'm repeating myself because my arguments (per usual) are
falling on deaf ears.

So what's for lunch??
_______________________________________

not falling on deaf ears

i have not heard a convincing enough
arguement to change my mind

previous post

I think current laws are adequate to weed out the nutz
__________________________________

this statement is correct

it is not the law at fault when they
are not enforsed

maybe those affected by unenforsed law should
take action

just a thought

but hey what do i know

Have you killed a man Robin, ever been in that situation yet?

or is it just the comforting weight of the gun in the holster?

i have neither lee

never killed

do not carry

i do own a 45

but it would take me a while to dig it out

why do you ask

oh yea i do shoot well enough
to carry as a police officer
acording to a police officer
i have went target shooting with

Adj, you haven't heard convincing enough argument to change your mind
about what? I still don't think you understand my point of view on this
matter...not entirely, anyway.

All I'm saying is that guns should not be that easily accessible for
people. I'm not stating that no one should have the right to OWN one.

I AM stating that I don't think the average John Q. Citizen is
responsible enough and has enough self-control to "go armed," i.e.,
carry a concealed weapon. Well, okay, perhaps to CARRY one, but not to
USE one. Or, to keep from using one.

(Many) people have a tendency to panic, to fly off the handle, to make
rash judgments and split-second decisions, especially when faced with an
emergency situation or if in a situation that incites anger and fear.

That's all we need...be in a mall shopping..hear a balloon pop and
"Stable Mabel" will draw her weapon and blow everyone's freaking head
off.