Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66
1) "hardly tested" vs "no testing" for gun ownership.
"Hardly tested" is incredibly subjective. I don't agree with your assessment of "hardly tested".
|
Okay. And there is more risk in car ownership. I think your risk comparison is skewed.
Quote:
2) Along the lines of "driving", in addition to driving testing / licensing / renewal and car registration => gun owner testing and licensing guns...
There is another angle of car drivers being required to carry insurance. I think something similar could be in order for gun owners, especially if they insist on carrying.
|
In this case carrying isn't at issue since we are protect OUR property of our neighbors.
Quote:
We have laws that require people drive on the streets. They can't drive on the sidewalks.
It doesn't matter if the driver doesn't hit anybody on the side-walk. He still can't drive there.
|
And we have specific incidences where deadly force is authorized. You can't just shoot your gun in public for no reason.
Quote:
|
Likewise, just because an injured party can sue doesn't excuse poor use when the shooter gets lucky and his (hypothetical!) carelessness doesn't hurt others.
|
It works for cars.
Quote:
No.
The basis of the law and its boundaries are evaluated through potential scenarios. I'm simply evaluating the legal situation by examining the boundaries of what the law allows.
|
And I'm pointing out that there are other laws framing that law that limit it.
Quote:
In at least 38 states, they disagree.
I suspect that the number of states that allow people to do what Horn did in Texas to be incredibly small.
Unfortunately, the informative resource you gave earlier links to "legalese" of the individual state laws, so I can't narrow it down further...
(but it was a lot better than nothing.)
|
And I suspect that even in those states, many prosecutors would probably elect not to press charges. It's his call.
Quote:
I've read stories where a kid was punished because another kid saw the first kid with a weapon, like a knife or a gun.
But in your scenario, the first kid is allowed to. While a metal detector could have prevented or discouraged him from bringing that gun onto school grounds, you would declare he has a right to do so right up until the moment he first squeezes the trigger.
|
Are you talking about colleges or high school? I doubt I'd agree with letting high school students carry. College students maybe. High school teachers maybe.
Quote:
And nobody can say a damn word about it. Another person seeing the gun wouldn't prevent it, cause the other person has no recourse.
Your argument is like arguing for the legalization to CARRY drugs, but actually USING them would be illegal...
|
No it's not. Drugs are not guns. Another questionable comparison.
Quote:
Allow me to make plain that I am not arguing against "some people should have guns". I agree with you here.
I can't think of anything in my personal opinion which would have prevented Horn from having the gun.
I object to how he used it.
|
Well why did you move to schools? That's another whole issue.