View Single Post
Old December 19, 2012, 06:09 PM   #120
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,169
Like terrorists they want a easy target. If you secure one area they will go to a less secure to carry out the shooting. You can't guard every area were children gather. Why has it got to the stage in America that people are talking about turning schools into armed compounds. People are always talking about crime rates in the UK and Europe. It hasn't got to the stage that we have to have armed guards at our schools. PS Any thoughts on why.
The differences between what security is needed in the UK and what is needed in the US is much more complex than gun laws. The US and UK are different cultures with different problems and different levels of diversity. Also, to clarify, I'm not suggesting that we should turn our schools into fortresses, but rather that stationing a police officer in a school and simply allowing the people who are licensed to carry elsewhere carry in schools as well would go a long way towards preventing or at least minimizing the damage of deranged mass murderers. In all fairness though, I seem to recall that the impetus for the very stringent gun control laws throughout most of the UK was a highly publicized school shooting in Scotland, so the UK isn't immune to it either.

Its not so much that the police approve if i can have a firearm. There are checks if someone wants a firearm. Criminal record checks. Allowing the police to check with your doctor for mental health issues. With all the talk of gun control in America baning certain firearms etc. Checking for mental health issues securing your guns so only you have access to them could help. Banning certain firearms and mag cap limits won't.
So what mental disorders would barr one from owning a gun, how are they diagnosed, are there objective or subjective criteria? Also, what sort and how much information can your doctor disclose? As I said before, mental health is an extremely complex issue that needs to be dealt with carefully to ensure that people's rights are not abridged unneccesarilly or unjustly. Afterall, an irrational fear of spiders and psychotic hallucinations are two very different things even though they can both be classified as mental illness. Likewise, suppose someone is seeking treatment for a mental illnes that was caused by sexual abuse as a child as opposed to someone undergoing treatment for a mental illness that causes them to torture and kill small animals. Obviously some details and background information is more private or relevant than others, and we must be careful not to betray the patients' confidence unnecessarily.

You have to understand that here in the US, we view keeping and bearing arms not as a special privelage reserved only for those who can show good cause, but a fundamental right of a citizen. As such, abridgment of that right is subject to the same scrutiny as abridgment of any other fundamental right such as freedom of speech, trial by jury, or freedom of religeon in that it is the government that must show cause to deny the rights of a citizen rather than the citizen showing cause not to have his rights denied. The government bears the burden of proving that one is too dangerous to have a gun rather than the citizen proving that he isn't.
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar

Last edited by Webleymkv; December 19, 2012 at 06:14 PM.
Webleymkv is offline  
Page generated in 0.03530 seconds with 7 queries