stilltrucking wrote:One of the issues involved with the Virginaia Tech killer is "crazy people" have rights too.
Crazy people have a right to take creative writting classes Crazy people got a right to bear arms too. So it seems.
While I find the idea of "rights" problematic, so long as they are the mechanism we use to designate who can do what, "crazy people"
should have the right to arm themselves. Since the state determines both your psychological status and what rights you have, every exception for rights becomes an obvious, convenient excuse any time the state wants to shield itself from the exercise of rights by its subjects.
Because a felon apparently isn't subject to the Constitution (can't vote, can't own guns, and so on), not only have felony prosecutions skyrocketed, but felony offenses have mushroomed to include basically every offense imaginable. There is a reason prison is a growth industry, and it's not because "crime" has gone up.
I wonder what an application for a gun license says. Does it ask you if you have had any psychiatric problems.
I imagine it depends upon the state. You might be surprised to know how easy it is to get a gun in some places. For instance, when I bought my SKS, not only did I walk out with it about 45 minutes after I walked in, but my SSN was optional. There is no registry of rifles or shot guns in my locale, either, so my gun isn't registered. (I did provide my SSN, but only because I have a relatively common name, and I wanted to avoid being denied on the basis of a denial for someone else who shares my name.)
What are you saying, that they
should ask? I can imagine that seeming nice to someone who doesn't understand "psychiatric problems" (and someone who for some reason doesn't object to living under a government with more firepower than its citizenry is even allowed, which is terrifying), but frankly it sounds like a recipe for fascism.
Diagnosis of mental illness, and psychological and emotional disorders is out of control already. Fear and paranoia of our fellow countryman is also out of control already. Both are completely out of proportion with reality. I mean, the potential for abuse is just outstanding.
And really, having depression doesn't make you unable to responsibly use a gun (or not use a gun you own). Being antisocial doesn't either (which sounds like Cho's mental condition, if anything). Instead of trying to stop a flood by patching holes slower than they're formed, we should be addressing real problems.
Symptom: media-driven fervor over one atrocity in a sea of atrocities.
Real problem: we live in a violent society.
Symptom: some guy shot up a few privileged college students.
Real problem: we honor mass murderers and slave drivers.
Until we can get over this kind of hypocrisy, it's basically moot. You can pass whatever law you like, but until these real problems are addressed, we'll only have more atrocities and more fascism.
And really, if you're going down the dead-end road of passing laws, at least ask for good laws: ban colonialism. Ban police. I can't believe people talk about why "they" didn't "stop" this guy sooner. Cops do more violence than non-cops (excepting soldiers, who are just cops we send to other countries). If you're supporting gun control, control it from the top down (ordered by level of power or by level of atrocities committed [the list would be more or less the same, anyway]).