On 12/15/2012 11:27 AM, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Peter" wrote in message
...
On 12/15/2012 10:57 AM, Harvey Specter wrote:

The damage done by the occasional nutcake with a gun ain't
nothin' compared to the daily deaths and injuries caused by cell
phone distracted drivers.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafet...ing/index.html



Taking your reasoning to it's logical conclusion, you also believe
that we should abolish our entire system of laws, courts, prisons,
etc. because all the criminals "ain't nothin'" compared to
majority of citizens who are law abiding. Sorry, a wrong behavior
doesn't justify (much less relate) to a bad policy that addresses a
different behavior.


So the question is. According to you how do you address the "wrong
behavior" of the CT shooter ? Do you find a way to catch such people
before they act out ? Or do you try to take away guns from everyone
else ??


I expected to get flamed for my comment and will certainly attract more
flames for what follows. Just remember, all you who claim to believe in
our Constitution, that before you get vicious, accept that I'm simply
exercising my 1st Amendment right of free speech in what follows and I
have as much right to express my opinion as you do. My comments below
are not personal, mean, hateful, etc. Your disagreement with my
position will be more convincing if it is reasoned and dispassionate.

I personally believe that the Supreme Court misinterpreted the 2nd
Amendment (plenty of precedent for even this distinguished group of
humans to err) when they interpreted it to allow personal ownership when
the text of the Amendment describes "militia" in the context of arms.
Personally, I favor a policy that would disallow almost all personal
ownership of all firearms except under strict registration and
background checks for those in the most rural areas where dangerous
wildlife can routinely threaten local residents. ALL sales of firearms
should be accompanied by sufficient waiting periods to enable meaningful
background checks and registration. Let qualifying hunters and sport
shooters purchase and own firearms but be required to keep them secured
at their local police, sheriff, national guard bases, licensed target
shooting schools and galleries, hunting clubs etc. and check them in and
out for planned use.

As far as the argument that guns are needed in the home for personal
protection, all the crime statistics agree that firearms in the home are
brandished and fired more frequently in shooting accidents and in
moments of anger against family/friends than are used to successfully
thwart a criminal home invasion. It would take years to fully control
all the firearms currently "out there", but the savings in lost lives
will be worth the effort. Our current laws preclude ownership of
machine guns, bazookas, and nuclear weapons and seem to be doing a
pretty good job of minimizing their unauthorized availability, even by
the majority of the "bad guys". I realize that my vision is not
politically achievable at present, but I believe it is a worthwhile
objective. We're devolving into a social setting not far removed from
present day Afghanistan, Mali, and several other places in the world
where unregulated or insufficiently regulated firearms have become
ubiquitous.