Letters to the Editor
-
One sided?
One sided? The debate here yesterday didn't seem one sided at all. People from both sides of the debate were present in large numbers; and on boards with a commitment to the second amendment's broadest interpretation, the debate was completely one-sided except for the trolls who set themselves up to be bashed and belittled.
So what then do we make of Grieve's willingness to repeat something that based on his own comments section was demonstrably not true, i.e., that this was a one sided debate yesterday because gun rights advocates were apparently ... I don't know, what are we supposed to think? ashamed? chastened? reluctant? to speak up yesterday?
It was disgusting yesterday when antigun people immediately tried to make political hay out of a tragedy. It is as bad as when pro-death penalty people asked Dukakis how he would feel about capital punishment is Kitty was raped and killed.
Last week people on the left rightfully mocked Bill O'Reilly for trying to turn a drunk driving tragedy into an illegal alien problem. Similarly, the left today wants to turn a crazy criminal tragedy into a second amendment problem.
These are subjects for reasoned debate, but that is seemingly impossible these days and it is not all the fault of the rightwing nut jobs and the Fox news people. Grieve is just as bad from the other side.
If people want to ban guns, then they should commit themselves to repealing the second amendment. Go ahead. Try to gather that much support, because it is not going to happen.
-
Buff...dude, chill
Tim reported on what the LA Times said, he wasn't commenting on what went on here in particular. Read the actual post, don't just re-imagine it as a gun-luvin' victim of those mean ol' gun control folks in the Salon letters section. Gracious!
-
gun purchased legally
"it was revealed the presumed suspect recently purchased a handgun at a firearms store in Roanoke, Virginia."
So read the request for a search warrant.
From time to time, a sane person will become enraged and want to kill. The waiting period for a handgun is there to help protect society by allowing a "cooling off" period for somebody who is temporarily out of control.
But a waiting period won't stop someone who is seriously and chronically mentally ill. This kind of sicko will just wait out the waiting period.
I don't think there is a person reading this who at one time or another hasn't had contact with someone at college, or in the workplace, or maybe even had a neighbor, who they suspected of being a little unhinged, capable of violence.
On the campus of Virginia Tech, I believe time will reveal that there were a number of people who knew this shoot and that he made them very uncomfortable for the above reasons.
It's always after the horror that people who knew some nut case finally puts two and two together. In addition to better purchasing restrictions, it is incumbent on people to be vigilant and to realize that they could be the only one who could avert the next tragedy.
-
Re: Buffalonian
You're right, Buffalonian, without repealing the 2nd Amendment we can't really change the gun laws in this country. But it's mainly because gun freaks get up in arms any time even reasonable gun control is suggested.
The gun lobby is set on this all or nothing, black or white idea of gun control and refuses to budge. They view any restrictions as someone coming to take away all of their guns, and that's simply never going to happen.
I don't like the 2nd Amendment. It was written in a different time, under different circumstances. That said, it does not need to be repealed. Gun nuts need to just meet somewhere in the middle and submit to placing the line between what is legal and what is illegal in a reasonable place.
I don't understand the psychology of people who think the ultimate in freedom is ownership of a tool that exists ONLY for the purpose of killing something.
-
Lunatics don't care about life or laws
No law would have stopped this man. I'm with Garry, only people who realized this guy was a nut case could have. If he couldn't use guns, he would have found some other (possibly worse) weapon. People who are lunatics don't care what the law says, and they will use any means possible to kill (McVeigh used fertilizer).
-
What Gun?
Does anyone know what kind of gun the shooter used? I fail to beleive that he got 33 people with the above-mentioned handgun...
-
Yesterday's Posters were One-sidedly PRO-GUN
I thought yesterday's posts were consistently pro-gun. It seemed to me that NRA footsoldiers had their marching orders and talking points locked and loaded, ready to pre-emptively fire into the crowd in order to control the message. The most asinine arguments I saw yesterday were repeated with remarkable precision, suggesting a "talking points" strategy:
(1) If the other students had guns, the shooter would have been taken out earlier.
Moronic. It's not certain that anyone would have stopped at least some shootings. It's not certain that people would have remembered their guns. It's not certain that other innocents wouldn't be shot in the confusion. It's really dubious that having a much more broadly armed society would IMPROVE the levels of gun violence.
(2) The Bill of Rights guarantees the right to bear arms.
Yes. But the Constitution and Bill of Rights may not always be right. And the Constitution may be amended or modified for policy reasons. I argue there is no need for the private citizen to have handguns or assault weapons. These aren't used for sport. Guns are designed to injure, and laws may further circumscribe those rights when policy dictates, such as waiting periods. This is more of a policy debate than a legal debate, and many forget that.
(3) Guns are necessary for self-defense, against individuals or a tyrannical government.
Maybe. In a cost-benefit analysis, I don't support this view, as guns seem to save fewer lives than the number of death's they cause. And the government, if so inclined, would be able these days to withstand a portion of the public armed with rifles. 1st amendment rights and Voting rights are still better ways to stand up to the government.