Gun Control Vs. Nappy Headed Ho?

Question

Imus made the comment "nappy headed ho" and there was an open dialogue on speech, yet when the VT tragedy happened it seems that the subject of gun control is a taboo subject. I believe in our right to own one but what can we do to better determine who can possess one and who cannot? There were many clues to the disturbing behavior of the VT killer that should have hampered his attempt to purchase a firearm.
Your thoughts? (intelligent comments only / no right left crap)

I agree guns are not the problem the people that are allowed to own them are. There were many clues(granted, all in hindsight) that the killer at Virginia tech had mental issues. This is what I want to know how all of you feel are the steps we can possibly implement to provent another VT.
On a second note, thank you all so far for your intelligent answers.

StupidCaucasian - Great point.

Once again I really must thank everyone that has posted some incredible answers. Thanks

Answer 1

I believe It is taboo for politicians because the majority of people in the US (Primarily older generations) really cherish their right to have guns.

I am an older person and it is difficult for us to understand the need for gun laws because in our generations almost everyone had guns in their house and no one thought anything of it. I don't ever recall someone other than a criminal shooting someone when I was growing up, and I feel laws would not stop any criminals.

It would be good to have a way to keep guns from criminals and unstable people, but I am not sure if it would change anything. Look at the areas where gun laws are very strict and their crime rate is terrible.

I think we must focus on our society and cultural acceptance values more than trying laws. They just do not work. We keep adding laws and our society seems to become more lawless.

I live in Mexico where guns are outlawed. Almost everyone I know has guns. In Washington DC guns are outlawed and their gun crimes are very high. I don't know what the answer is other than a change in culture.

Answer 2

The only problem is the laws are already in place. If the girls he was stalking had pressed charges,he would have had a restraining order. If the Judge who ordered him into counseling had followed up then he would have had a mental health issue on his record. Either one of these things would have caused him to fail a backround check.Against all our better judgement many 2nd amendment advocates have watched as what are sensible restrictions were put in place,but knowing this was only the precursor to a ban. After all there is not one more law that could have been in place,unless you're planning of having every citizen undergo a battery of thousands of dollars worth of mental health exams before the purchase of any firearm.

This event was not a failure of gun laws,it was a failure of the system. The system was in place,he stalked those girls,why didn't they press charges? If they had 32 people would be alive today,as citizens they failed to help protect their fellow citizens.Need I go on really? But those who are on about more gun laws at this point should just admit they are the ones who want a full ban and **** the constitutional rights of citizens,because to try to vclaim you just want reasonable restrictions at this point is a lie,there are thousands of reasonable restrictions in place if the system doesn't fail due to either citizen inaction or Judicial inaction,in this case both.

AD

Answer 3

I firmly beleive in the right to own and bear arms. I think it should be mandatory for every "qualified" citizen to maintain a military grade weapon in thier arm as part of national defense strategy. Hunters and sports enthusiats should also be allowed to pursue thier interests within reason (you don't hunt white tail with an MP5). There needs to be a more in depth back round check (medical, criminal, etc). The problem that I see is how does the medical screening square with HIPPA? The anser might be that if you want to own a weapon then you won't mind subjecting yourself to in depth backround screening.
Keep in mind though. Criminals usually don't get guns thru legal means. Making a thorough backround chekc will only make weapons on the black market more expensive but not unavailable. Cho could still get a weapon, just not legally.

Answer 4

If his mental health court orders had been entered into the database, Cho would have been denied a gun. But does anyone really think he couldn't find a gun illegally?
He seemed very determined to pull this off and gun laws would only have stalled his rampage.
The REAL problem is that all law abiding citizens are disarmed and become easy targets in these so-called "gun free zones".

Answer 5

If the dialogue is to ban guns it doesn't go to the root of the problem. The first thing a few democrats started shouting was "ban guns".
Now if they want a dialogue on mental illness and mental healthcare then I'm sure no sane person would object that that. Even law abiding gun owners and the NRA don't want to see guns in the hands of crimminals or mentally ill people.

Answer 6

The problem is much bigger than merely 'gun control'.
While kids are exposed and inundated with violence in the media and so-called 'entertanment', tradegies like Columbine, VT and Houston will become more commonplace.
Look at the highly irresponsible 'coverage' of the VT tradegy.

Also, once the ownership of a firearm becomes a 'hard earned privilege', and not a 'constitutional right' as it is now, America will be on the right path towards solving this violence problem.
Here is something I cannot understand:
Why is the ownership of a gun a 'freedom' in the US, but a 'hard-earned privilege' in the rest of 'civilised' society?

Answer 7

Cho, barely was able to buy legal weapons in Virgina, a state notorious for it's ease to get guns. The worst part of this tragedy, besides the dead and wounded, is that there are more like him out there and NBC has publicized his rambling so called "manifesto", which could spur some of these nuts into action. That was evidence and they had no right to copy everything in the package and then broadcast it.

Answer 8

Gun Control worked at VT, noticed how the students were unarmed, However the Killer, broke the Law, Guess he didn't
know VT was a Gun free zone. Chalk this one up, for Gun Control, it would have been inconvenient if the students, had broken the Law, and killed the assailant.

Answer 9

Guns are not the problem. Until you can point at someone and say in advance that he/she should not be allowed anything more dangerous than string with 100% accuracy then you are not really attacking the problem. Sick individuals are all around us, but how much freedom are you willing to give up to get all of them identified? This means you would have to be mandatory checked for stability to insure the safety of those around you.

Answer 10

three letters - n r a.

before the bodies were even identified, bush's spokesliar was out there affirming that gun control was something that they still believed in.

it was in fact, the bush administration's first statement regarding this tragic incident.

i don't know about you, but i'm tired of crazy gun toting radicals who think that having automatic weapons with armor piercing bullets (something the police don't agree with) is their god given right.

this guy was mentally disturbed and HE GOT HIS GUN LEAGALLY!

we have to deal with either more indicents like this or figure out a way to close some of these loopholes that the nra is so in love with.

why would the nra want people to be able to get guns without waiting periods or background checks - i've never heard this answered.