Shooting at Johnson Space Center

Another "Gun Free Zone". So what would have happened if one of those hostages had been allowed to carry their gun onto the NASA campus. Gunman turns to focus on something else for a second. BLAM. Hostage situation over.

It ends when people try and rid us of our Constitutional right to bear arms.

That's where it ends.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DocVijay @ Apr 20 2007, 04:51 PM) [snapback]427057[/snapback]</div>

Gun free zones are perfectly legal. They have been repeatedly upheld by the courts; the majority of the federal appellate courts are dominated by Republican appointed judges. I work in a courthouse and my colleagues and I have to go though weapons screening each time that we come to work. Reasonable regulations of gun ownership, possession and use have always been upheld. The Second Amendment right to bear arms is within the context of a "well regulated militia."

What exactly are you advocating, shootouts at the OK Corral?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Apr 20 2007, 09:45 PM) [snapback]427107[/snapback]</div>

Never said gun free zones are illegal. They are perfectly legal (although there is a challenge in court right now about employees being able to keep their firearms in their cars when they go to work). I just think that sometimes they are a bad idea. In a courthouse I have no problem. There is a heavy criminal element, and plenty of people who want to "get even" with a judge, prosecutor, or law enforcement officer. Same thing with jails. No, I'm not trying to suggest that you should be able to take a gun anywhere you want. However, in many of the shootings that are so vividly portrayed on the evening news, if one person had a firearm the whole thing may have ended sooner, and without the level of tragedy that resulted.

The militia thing is YOUR interpretation. So far the Supreme Court has said that it is a right that belongs to each and every citizen. You won't be able to convince me that your interpretation is the correct one, and no one has convinced the Supreme Court of that either.

Ah, the old shootout in the streets argument. That same argument was put out every single time a state wanted to implement a concealed carry permit system. So far, even though about 2/3 of states have one, this hasn't happened.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DocVijay @ Apr 20 2007, 06:58 PM) [snapback]427115[/snapback]</div>

You made a good argument why the public and litigants should be prohibited from having guns in the courthouse. Would you care to explain to me why courthouse employees, including the prosecutors, defense attorneys, court clerks and the court reporters, to name but a few, have to be screened for weapons?

And the other interpretation is yours and the NRA's. The second amendment is one sentence, as quoted above, without a period separating "well regulated militia" from the rest of the verbiage. I don't believe that there has been a Supreme Court interpretation on that issue as both sides are not sufficiently confident in their positions to have them tested by the ultimate authority. If I am wrong, I'd appreciate a citation to the court's opinion, not the NRA spin and talking points on what the court meant.

I have no problem with a concealed weapons permit system as long as the licensees are properly trained in tested and pass background checks including their psychiatric well being.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Apr 20 2007, 10:18 PM) [snapback]427126[/snapback]</div>

And, those checks should take a few weeks to process.

Thanks, IsrAmeriPrius. I agree with you. However, when any sensible people take this stance, they're immediately branded as "gun-grabbers."

We have to pass a test to prove that we can drive; why on earth do we not have to pass tests to prove we know how to handle weaponry, both physically and mentally?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DocVijay @ Apr 20 2007, 06:58 PM) [snapback]427115[/snapback]</div>

Actually, as I'm sure you know, the "militia thing" is from ther very specific wording of the amendment.

Would you care to cite some cases? Most of the cases I know of where someone tried the second amendment defense they lost.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Apr 20 2007, 11:18 PM) [snapback]427126[/snapback]</div>

I agree with the idea of making sure someone is properly licensed and trained.

However, what would be an acceptable measure of someone's psychiatric well being? Sure it is can be easy to pick out those who may be actively crazy. Should the person who has been diagnosed with depression (1 in 5 lifetime prevalence) be able to get one?

Who is qualified to determine if you have good psychiatric well-being? The mental health field has been trying to predict suicide for many years, and it is till not perfect. While we know many general predictors, but being able to accurately predict or stop aggression is still not even close to 100%.

Sure, it sounds good to have a check on a person's psychiatric well being, but it opens up a whole bag of worms into what defines wellbeing and who gets to decide. I do think it is ironic that an individual who is determined to do harm seems to be able to easily bring in a gun to a "gun free zone." Just my 2 cents.

 

There are certain areas that are and should be "gun free". Universities, for example, are supposed to be havens of research and learning, of exploration and enlightenment. It's pretty hard to develop new ideas and new theories when you're afraid of ticking off the person sitting next to you. The same is true for any location where opinions may differ on subjects on a regular basis.

Simply put, we have no adequate method for psychological screening. We have no way to know that someone with a gun won't choose to use it to end an argument out of frustration or anger at the others point of view. It's best to ensure that certain environments where people work and learn are kept gun free to prevent this type of incident.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Apr 23 2007, 08:20 AM) [snapback]428253[/snapback]</div>

That worked well at VT.

 

Stupid questions...

How many people are killed in the US as a result of gun use?
How many people in the US are killed by drunken drivers?
How many are killed in the US by second hand smoke?
How many people are killed in the US by distracted drivers?
How many people are killed in the US by contaminated food?
How many children in the US are killed by their parents?
How many people die in the US from being over weight and poor physical conditioning?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 23 2007, 09:44 AM) [snapback]428270[/snapback]</div>

Check the other gun control thread. It's titled "A guy who makes Al Gore look normal" or somehting similar. I list most of these numbers along with a link to the source.

All are greater than lives lost to guns, but that is irrelevant I'm told.

--------------------------------------

Anyway, it turns out that this guy at NASA did this because he was getting a poor employee evaluation. He was worried he was going to get fired, so he killed someone and himself.

I think I see the problem, and it has nothing to do with guns at all.

Let me repeat:

THIS GUY WAS GETTING A POOR EMPLOYEE EVALUATION, SO HE KILLED HIMSELF AND ANOTHER PERSON!!!

The problem, people, is not firearms or access to firearms. the problem is people in this country are f****d up beyond belief! I mean can anyone rationalize this guys reaction? No, it's impossible. That is the problem, not the gun he used.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DocVijay @ Apr 23 2007, 01:42 PM) [snapback]428455[/snapback]</div>

i agree - it is not the gun, it is the person making the decision who has the gun - and getting a gun will ALWAYS be easy for those that want one.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DocVijay @ Apr 20 2007, 06:51 PM) [snapback]427057[/snapback]</div>

Educate me, please: which countries allow significant numbers of 'ordinary' citizens to carry concealed weapons, and what has been the effect of this on the crime rates in those countries...?

Clearly we don't have enough guns in the U.S.!

How else can we explain all the violent crime we experience here?!?

So, you're saying that if put more guns into circulation, things will get LESS violent? I guess that's like sending more soldiers to Iraq, in the name of peace...?

Uh, oh, there I go, bashing America again.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Apr 23 2007, 04:42 PM) [snapback]428594[/snapback]</div>

It's not necessary to compare to another country. You can easily compare from state to state. Simply compare a state where citizens are allowed to carry to a state where citizens are not. Of course you have to try and factor out any other differences, as well as normalizing for population.

Also, you can do a retrospective study and see how the crime rate was affected by implementation of concealed carry laws. I know that in Florida crime rates dropped significantly after it adopted such a law in 1984.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DocVijay @ Apr 23 2007, 09:42 AM) [snapback]428455[/snapback]</div>

I'm staying up all night and changing my employee's evaluations to "Excellent" in all areas!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pogo @ Apr 20 2007, 06:25 PM) [snapback]427129[/snapback]</div>

The Supreme Court has decided very little on gun control issues. There have been only five or six that have made it up the chain that far, but there are some more where the Court struck down gun laws because of other reasons. Most of them are very old. The most recent one was one Congress passed in the 1990s for "gun free school zones". They smacked down the federal government as over-reaching in saying that schools should be gun free zones (see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getc...p;invol=U10287), I think this case just says that Congress cannot enact a gun law like that as it is the province of the states to do that (Congress' only authority to make gun possession illegal in a school zone is under the Interstate Commerce Clause in the Constitution.) But other decisions show that Congress can regulate certain aspects of guns used in or affecting interstate commerce, such as gun barrel length, etc.

The most recent case I can find that mentions the second amendment in the majority opinion, and that also gives some insight into the court's thinking on the issue is a case about 4th Amendment rights, U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), where the court, in the majority opinion, said this about the phrase "the people" when used in the Constitution:

The Second Amendment is consistent with the rights given to "the people" to peaceably assemble (we don't require you to get your legislators out there to assemble for you), and we ... "the people" or individuals ... vote for our representatives directly (where we don't for the President).

My understanding is the court has ruled several times that weapons can be regulated for form and function as if they are for a 'well regulated militia", meaning not a state army, but a citizen militia that can be called upon in cases of mutiny of the armed forces or overreaching of the government (such as when President Bush suspends all civil rights and declares himself king right before the 08 elections).

There is a case winding its way through the courts now on the legality of the DC gun control laws, and it may hinge entirely on the Federal government's ability to regulate firearms under the Second Amendment, rather than equal protection or other civil rights. There's no state government sitting between the Constitution and the people of DC.

 

For a serious resolution of these kinds of shootings - why do killers do it?

I'd say more isolated people that lack family, friends, that turn bitter and self-centered. I say people have less restraint than in the past, although some of this has always happened.