On the news, in washington it is illegal to own a gun. I think they should be allowed I mean Murderers are going to be able to get them anyway they're always black markets for them but what about the citizens who can't pro tect them selves???
Well, while we're going on about constitutional rights, this would imply that the rights of those who are defined as "not sane" should been restricted.
Yes, what exactly is 'sane', for that matter? I suppose one would have to officially/legally define that term, before denying someone access to a firearm. Although, different people may have different definitions for the term insane, and it might be hard to tell whether a person is really sane or not; most insane people (in a traditional sense of the word) seem normal in almost respect, hiding their issue deep within.
On the subject of a tazer, that is not really the best weapon to defend yourself with. Maybe, if you are physically skilled as well, but it just is not on the same level as a pistol. With a tazer, you might have a two foot radius for using say weapon, but with an actual gun, well you can do the math.
The state would have to declare who was and wasn't mentally fit to own a gun before one could gain a license. It would be kind of like selective service, except for all people (not just women) and an actual in-depth psychiatric session. But this would be like license plates or certain other public services - you have to have it, but it still costs money. Also, re-evaluation would need to be completed every 10 years or so.
And yet, people would STILL find access to guns who weren't supposed to. But them finding access to guns and attempting to use them would end up in death, since everyone else had one. It would keep the peace through fear. And there's nothing wrong with that if it keeps people alive.
Okay Mammon, then I'll go on in the same vein, using the same premises that I outlined in my previous post (on page 5):
Although I retain cautiously skeptical of any standardised system (it invariably being subject to exploitation), let's say that we should determine who is 'sane' and therefore have the rights to holding a firearm. That said, I don't like using the word 'sane'; being a psychiatry buff (as opposed to psychology- I study medicine), I'm aware of just how loaded a term this tends to be.
First, I would say that it makes sense that we would feel it justified if a person who was denied the right to bearing arms was a person who could be proven to constitute a greater risk of improper use of said firearm. That is to say, simply, if they were more likely to break firearms laws.
Then, let's take definitions for "sane". Sane is inherently a normative term, because it is dependent on standards set by people, relating to people. The least arbitrary, most fundamental definition I can therefore come up with would be something like "sanity is the ability to relate to and cohabit with people without violating basic human rights" (presuming basic human rights are in effect). Persons who cannot be understood or demonstrate an inability to understand other people and get along with them can be called insane (more specifically these are termed sociopaths). Other 'classes' of people who may be deemed insane will have tendencies to behavior patterns that will lead down this path one way or another.
As you say, though, the problem is determining "who is sane and who is not sane", and "who will pose a risk". The definition I've offered above comes with a slew of diagnostic tests that will rule out obvious cases, which may curb risk but some (most) will probably feel that this alone is insufficient.
Technically, insanity is classified as 'doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results'. This is not the bottom line in deciphering one's sanity, obviously, but I believe that is a broad definition of the word.
But more to the point, even a person that has complete control over their mind could still be deadly with a firearm. Take terrorists. Most probably are in a stable state, they are simply pursuing the course of action they find to be correct.
I agree with you on that point, Strop, that to determine if someone should/should not wield a weapon, that person should be evaluated on previous actions and, furthermore, what exactly the risk of that person doing a violent crime really is. However, this can only go so far. I have nothing against my name, no real crimes/violations of the law that an official could hold against me. But, nevertheless I could one day go on a violent rampage; no one could have had any clue that I would turn so violent.
So, like you said, where do we really draw the line? Hard topic to discuss.
If the students at VT had weapons on them, Kichi, then the shooter would have been stopped dead before he could have killed so many people. I don't really care, though. Those people aren't me. I want to be able to defend myself, my family, and my property by any means necessary. My country as well, but that's a different story.
Guns actually help otherwise defenseless citizens defend themselves. My dad actually gave me a gun for my 13th birthday and taught me how to shoot and clean it. Another thing I stress is knowledge on how to use a gun. otherwise a civilian may accidentally hurt themselves as well as the criminal attacking them.
