NOOOOOOOO -NOT usa bashing.
and NOOOO - NOT attacking that totally stupid and superfluous "right to bear arms".
just trying to find out what not only forum members in the USA think but also the ones all over the world.
once again we read in the news a shocking story:
to me this is absolutely horrible and tragic.
i will hear but YES, that guy had a right to "bear arms". he was robbed and shot before so he made a "mistake".
what about the "right to life" of the kid???
and his family?
and his friends?
what about "reasonable" behaviour in society?
to say that he suffered from "post traumatic disorder" is crazy..
i was beat up as a kid.
i was robbed.
does that mean that i have an excuse to hurt, maim and kill every time i'm pissed off with somebody?
there are rules in society and i eityher abide by them or i bugger off.
now just one question to the gun lobby who always say it's not the guns that are dangerous, it's the people. I AGREE.
but unless WE as a society can NOT guarantee that ALL of us behave in a RESPONSIBLE manner it is the DUTY of society to CONTROL access to guns.
do we say BAN all cars because some people use them to carry out crimes? or are careless enough to maim or kill others? NO. we try to educate and train anybody who LEGALLY can drive a car. we build locks and immobilisers into them so people who are not AUTHORISED can't use them. we clearly mark them with plates so they can easitly be traced and the owner identified and the perpetrator punished. this is CONTROL as good as we can make it.
do we apply this to guns?
i just have finished reading a book by robert a. heinlein, one of the more famous sf writers. in one of his stories he describes a world where "the punishment fits the crime" if the crime was obvious and 100 % provenand it was against a persons welfare - be it economic, physical or mental.
you run someone over with your car and it is proven by FACTS that it is your fault - you get run over in the same way, controlled, as a punishment. no excuse for "i've been in a hurry" - you did harm to another human being.
you burn down somebodys property - your opwn is burned down AND you have to compensate the victim. you burn down the property while a person is inside and is killed - you will be burned down yourself and killed in the same way.
in his novel he describes this world virtually crime free and one where people are considerate and polite to each other.
one can dream
Why did an ex-convict have a fully automatic assault rifle? (Which (by all state laws I'm familiar with) should require not only the normal checks for any firearm, but also a more difficult to procure full-auto firearms license)
I really suspect he obtained it illegally.
If that is so, then whether or not it should be legal for him to have it is a useless question.
The incident is very sadening. I think there should be considerations and rules about who can have a fire arm. Should all security personals should also have firearms? There was once some shoot out at some place and a small boy, terrified with the sound of fires ran for his home. A local security guard, also listening to the fires, got confused with the running of the child and shot him dead.
Once upon a time, a security guard refused to fire on armed robbers that were robbing some people on the road saying that he is afraid.
So when a person request for a license to a fire arm, there should be a medical checkup and atleast four people living in his neghbourhood or his office should testify that this person is highly responsive, alert and sensible in his behavor, even in panic situations.
A medical checkup? What in the world for? "Sorry, you can't buy a gun right now, because it looks like you've got a broken leg."
four people testifying? What if he's a loner, almost hermit type person? He has no 2nd amendment right then?
How about a background check (where you don't sell to convicts) for one thing.
A drug test would also be appropriate.
I'm pretty sure that the person in the article had gotten his gun illegally anyway, so what's the point of further restricting legal firearms sales? That won't affect illegal sales at all!
I would imagine he meant mental health assessment. Which is perfectly reasonable in my opinion.