Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Sunday, Dec. 30, 2012 | 2:01 a.m.
Another view?
View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:
• Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.
• Columnists - local and syndicated writers.
• Letters to the editor - readers' views.
Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.
I feel it necessary to respond to a letter from Arthur Cesare in Thursday’s Sun, “A new suggestion for gun control.” He recommends that all people over 12 who commit a crime with a firearm be sent to federal prison for life. Does he realize that we already have a massive problem with overcrowded prisons?
Adding to them would only require new facilities to be built. Where would additional funding come from? The wealthiest don’t want their taxes raised, so it’s the remaining middle class and poor who would be affected. Cutting even more social programs certainly isn’t the answer.
According to the government, the cost of housing just one prisoner is more than $22,632 a year and rising. The answer: stricter gun controls in retail outlets and gun shows.
Richard, the "bad" guys do not purchase their weapons from dealers. They steal them or buy them on the street. So how does your solution stop them? BTW, if we are to free up space in prisons for those who commit crimes with guns, how about letting all those in them for "victimless" crimes out? Those who get caught being stupid and using drugs, for instance? Why should anyone go to prison for smoking dope or shooting up junk? They are stupid, as far as I am concerned, but not criminals. Legalize drugs, regulate drugs, tax drugs, educate the dummies not to use drugs and there would be lots of prison cells freed up to lock up the really bad guys.
At some point one has to ask how many of the folks who want very restrictive gun control measures are unable to legally obtain a gun for themselves?
For that matter, just as many of those on the left shudder at the thought of right-wing fanatics having guns, how scary is the thought of some of the left wing fanatics who post here having weapons, of any type?
And yeah, legalize pot and there would be more room for serious offenders.
Sorry Richard but BAD DERANGED people must be put away
There is no reason to believe that more gun control will cure mentally ill people
According to recent news reports the 24 year old women who purchased the firearms used by crazy Spengler in Webster, NY, who killed his grandmother with a hammer, killed his sister, and two first responders, as well as injured two more and then killed himself, is facing a $250,000 fine and 10 years in prison. THIS PENALTY WAS PROMINENETLY PRINTED ON THE VERY TOP OF THE FORM SHE SIGNED for lying about the purchase of the guns. I suspect even if the form said she would face life in prison, it would not have made a difference.
CarmineD
Closing the gun show loophole makes sense to me. So does banning assault rifles and large clips. That said, neither will make much of a difference in shootings like Newtown.
There are many downsides to legalizing drugs but the drug war also has downsides and is very expensive.
Much as I would hate it, I could support legalizing drug use; but only under certain circumstances. I would not allow public use. It one wants to go to a 'drug club' to partake or use at home, fine, but keep it out of the public spaces I occupy. I would also grant insurance companies the right to surcharge drug users just like you are rated up as a smoker, only it would not just be health insurance, it would be many types of insurance. You want to be stupid and hurt your health and put others at greater risk of harm because you choose to use drugs, fine, but YOU pay the extra costs, not me and the rest of society. If you are caught using in public, you are heavily fined and for multiple offenses you go to jail. I'd also tax drugs to pay for the incarceration costs of those who refused to follow the rules, which would probably be many, since many drugs reduce ones ability to 'reason' properly and make good decisions.
I suspect many that support legalization would not support it under the above circumstances, but I would.
Michael
"The answer: stricter gun controls in retail outlets and gun shows."
Trigg -- S.O.S., different day. This topic has been beat to death the past week-plus.
As the gist of what lvfacts & boftx posted, those strict controls don't matter, since post-restriction, literally only outlaws would have guns. You've also ignored the fact Connecticut already has some of the strictest gun control laws in this country, yet a determined killer got in.
Almost all posters leave one of the most important factors out of these Discussions -- the biggest assault weapons dealer putting forbidden weapons into the hands of the violent Mexican drug cartels is the very same regime We the herd just voted back into office.
"In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy." -- Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), Justice Brandeis dissenting
boftx said:
"For that matter, just as many of those on the left shudder at the thought of right-wing fanatics having guns, how scary is the thought of some of the left wing fanatics who post here having weapons, of any type?"
I amplify:
I think the war on guns is over, lost, kaput.
I call on women, black folks, other non white people, liberals and progressives to arm themselves so the playing field has the gun nuts much more hesitant to get in peoples faces.
there is no way to control the gun nuts, just need to shoot em more often,
Casler @ 5:21 - You didn't blame both sides and made a bit of sense, are you OK?
Jeff,
In my opinion, and that of others who have commented on what I write from time to time, I make 'a bit' of sense quite often. You don't see it that way, but oh well!
Michael
JeffFromVegas wrote "I call on women, black folks, other non white people, liberals and progressives to arm themselves so the playing field has the gun nuts much more hesitant to get in peoples faces.
there is no way to control the gun nuts, just need to shoot em more often".
Really Jeff? Calling on minorities and women to arm themselves and "shoot em more often"?? Your call for violence against your fellow Americans is despicable. Please ratchet your rhetoric down a little Jeff.
Michael said:
"You don't see it that way"
I say:
My political vision is 20/10, yours and most other right wingers that post here have 20/200 political vision, But at least you aren't rabid, and for this I appreciate you.
Motorsports,
Virginia Tech has over 130 buildings on campus. 24 police officers on staff wouldn't cover the campus footprint to proactively prevent any attack. The same situation holds true with a majority of universities. I believe so far the suggestion for a trained armed officer is for K-12 schools, not universities. Universities do typically have their own on-campus police departments. Should we disband on-campus police departments due to the resulting deaths at the hand of a deranged individual at Virginia Tech a few years ago?
Freeman says:
"Really Jeff? Calling on minorities and women to arm themselves and "shoot em more often"?? Your call for violence against your fellow Americans is despicable. Please ratchet your rhetoric down a little Jeff."
It is my survivors method of getting the gun nuts to be victims as often as gun control advocates that will make the gun nuts finally have an epiphany.
Asking them hasn't worked. Shooting them has a better Chance.
they are ready to accept 20 six and seven year olds as a price for their guns. I am ready to lose a few of the gun nuts.
The gun show loophole is killing us. What good are laws designed to stop criminals from acquiring firearms when anyone can purchase assault weapons at a gun show?
Closing the loophole would be a good start to ending the daily carnage caused by gun violence.
"Asking them hasn't worked. Shooting them has a better Chance.
they are ready to accept 20 six and seven year olds as a price for their guns. I am ready to lose a few of the gun nuts."
Unfortunately I have to agree with JeffFromVegas. It's impossible to reason with paranoid gun nuts.
Jeff,
In my opinion, I am much closer to having 20/20 vision than ribald right wingers .... or people like you. Again, in my opinion, most of us would be much better off if most people were closer to where I am and fewer were where you are or where ribald right wingers are. I could and really would compromise but just as many Conservatives talk about core beliefs and sticking to principal, I see the same attitude in Progressives such as you, who sit on the other side.
If we are to ever right our course, people like me will have to lead the way and get people like you and those ribald right wingers to compromise and move to the center.
I can appreciate everyone and their points of view, their principals, etc, but unless people are willing to see something good and worthwhile on the opposite side, consider that their side could be wrong in some areas and be willing to change, little good can happen.
You criticize me because as you correctly see it, I won't totally take one side or the other. I see that not as a problem, but as the place from which we all can make the most progress that benefits as many of us as possible.
Have a great 2013...and keep communicating...
Michael
Oooops,
Make ribald, rabid, in my last post...
Michael
Michael says:
"If we are to ever right our course, people like me will have to lead the way and get people like you and those rabid right wingers to compromise and move to the center."
I say:
People like you are unnecessary to the process, although a constant reminder to what made Monty Python so funny.
What is necessary is getting someone like yourself to join the democratic party temporarily so that the republicans realize they will become irrelevant to the political process because they have temporarily lost you, and I mean you join the democrats at the local level. Your ideas on occasion have merit. Mostly you are just an enabler of a broken party. The "you" includes millions of "you's" it is not a personal attack.
And I will be there with you to switch to the republican side when the democrats, and they will, get abusive like this batch of republicans you excoriate here, but ultimately side with every time.
make things illegal and the prisons fill up. Drugs for example. How many people will end up in prison over new gun laws? david Gregory?
Maybe we need to stop and look at the practicalities (if any...) of the NRA proposal. Trained, armed guards did nothing to prevent a massacre at Virginia Tech. Freeman argues that VT is a bad example because it has 130+ buildings. BUT - that is only 5-6 buildings for each guard. It's not unusual for a high school, or even some grade schools, to have more than 5 buildings overall. Yet the NRA STILL suggests only 1 guard per school. And then there's the cost in tax money. . .
Columbine High School actually DID have one armed, trained Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputy on the grounds on April 20, 1999. Did his presence deter the massacre? Not at all. Did he manage to stop the massacre? No. Did he save lives? Unknown and impossible to prove - opinions differ, but don't count. He did help people fleeing the scene, but the shooters STILL managed to find targets.
Even more worrisome - despite security cameras, the deputy, a variety of non-teaching school personnel, the shooters planted a series of home-made bombs around the campus before they started shooting. None actually went off.
"Columbine High School actually DID have one armed, trained Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputy on the grounds on April 20, 1999." @ renorobert
"A Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputy, Neil Gardner, was assigned to the high school as a full-time uniformed and armed school resource officer. Gardner usually ate lunch with students in the cafeteria, but on April 20 he was eating lunch in his patrol car at the northwest corner of the campus, watching students in the Smokers' Pit in Clement Park."
It was 7 minutes after the shooting at Columbine began, with 2 students already dead and 10 more injured, that Gardner engaged in gun fire with one of the Columbine shooters. While this fact is oft quoted, that an armed security guard was on duty at Columbine, it's never mentioned he was at lunch and not in the building but in the parking lot. Obviously we collectively have learned alot since the Columbine massacre.
And, like it or not, one-third of schools in the USA have at least one armed guard already on the premises. Many are inner city schools and are city/town police in and around the school buildings and campuses.
CarmineD
"Even more worrisome - despite security cameras, the deputy, a variety of non-teaching school personnel, the shooters planted a series of home-made bombs around the campus before they started shooting. None actually went off." @ renorobert
"The security staff at Columbine did not observe the bombs being placed in the cafeteria, since a custodian was replacing the school security video tape as it happened. The bags holding the bombs were first visible on the fresh security tape, but they were not identified as suspicious items. No witness recalled seeing the duffel bags being added to the 400 or so backpacks already in the cafeteria."
CarmineD
Motorsports wrote "So now you're saying you want a trained armed guard in EVERY building at every school - assuming k-12 (NRA said EVERY public school without a qualifier.) A quick count shows an approximate 1 million buildings".
Wow, I'm sure your quick count is spot on. LOL
Having a police office in every home is not financially feasible and neither is every building at a university. Motorsport, you expanded the scope of securing school buildings to include universities which is an absurd proposition since universities already have on-campus police officers who are at the ready to respond to threats. Few will admit that it's difficult, if not impossible, to proactively prevent a deranged person from killing their targeted victim(s). Can we limit the number of injured or killed with a response team of trained officers? In majority of cases, I would say yes.
RenoRobert & Motorsport: Good stuff today. I've enjoyed it.
>>>>Does he realize that we already have a massive problem with overcrowded prisons?<<<<<
Yes, they are overcrowded with Americans who pursued happiness by smoking the leaves of a plant rather than drinking the distilants of another plant! Stop the senseless prohibition of the hemp plant and use our prison space for real criminals like those that commit violent crimes using a firearm.
Motorsport,
Read Carmine's information regarding columbine.
Let me repeat my premise Motorsport since you missed it the first time. Here it is:
It's difficult, if not impossible, to proactively prevent a deranged person from killing their targeted victim(s). The exception of course are government officials with security detail. Can we limit the number of injured or killed with a response team of trained officers at schools? In a majority of the cases, I would say yes.
Motorsport, who specifically recommended replacing on-campus police officers with building security personnel for each campus building at universities?
"You are trying to make political hay on the backs of six year olds. How do you live with yourself?"
MotorSports to rightwing poster
Good question.
Richard......Very good letter.
YES, more gun control is needed.
We also need a complete ban on all assault rifles
and mega-clips.
TOO MANY GUNS ARE THE PROBLEM!
We need to stop this republican gun madness before
we turn into the wild west again.
AND YES, those kids and teachers would be alive
today if the crazy republicans left the assault
rifle ban in place.
Jeff,
You are a 'true believer' in the Democrat party and you have every right to be one. Unfortunately for the country, the Democrat party is a part of the corrupted system of government we have in place, just as the Republicans are.
It is going to take a viable 3rd party, an uprising by the public or some kind of disaster, economic or otherwise to change this system. I don't believe either party, as currently constituted will change this system.
Somehow, I think you know this to be true, but because the stated philosophy of the Democrats is much closer to your views than that of the Republicans, you think by supporting them and trying to get others to do the same, your goals will be reached. Many people agree with you and many on the right think exactly the same thing about their party.
I'm almost 60 and I shared that view once as well, but all I have to do is look to see that very little that matters changes no matter which of our two parties controls the government.
Michael
We, the USA, have not identified the real reasons for spree killings like Columbine, Aurora, Colorada, Newtown, Connecticut, Webster, NY, and on and on. Despite all the gun laws, or lack thereof according to some, this is a recent phenomenon in the US with 39 incidents since 1974, according to Dr. Phil. Until we do [identify the reasons], and do something about them, all the gun control laws in the world, won't help. They'll give us a false sense of security of having done something, until we have another spree killing.
CarmineD
Let's deal with reality. Prisons are, in larrrrge part, warehousing of the mentally ill. I don't know that the state of the art would be more humane--in institutions. Victims talk about the medication for mental illness being horrible, bad side effects. Therapy is painful. Reliving every day the pain and abuse you went through. So can we find a way to set up half-way houses with varying degrees of security and oversight? We, as a society, are going to pay for the poor choices and inabilities of each and every resident in this country. Many in half-way houses could learn what is acceptable behavior and what is not. You can live acceptably or you don't have to. And if you don't, you go to the big house. (For the thoughtful: You think someone who "snaps" and murders is not mentally ill? I challenge that anyone snaps. Each of us knows what is acceptable behavior, to us, in case we as individuals are threatened somehow. The only real question is what we perceive as a threat.) Further, there is no need to turn on a dime and dump our current prison system. Just add those half-way houses for the less-threatening offenders. Half-way houses are currently often used as a transition for long-term incarcerated re-adjusting to life on the outside.
Michael, once again asserting his opinions as fact says:
"You are a 'true believer' in the Democrat party"
I say:
You can't read too well. Both parties are unimportant to me, which one is closer to the way I personally feel I support at the moment. This is a very fluid process, it is wedded to right and wrong, and choosing the vessel most equipped at the moment to better America.
Yes, Carmine. Deputy Gardner was at lunch when the Columbine massacre broke out. But he was also looking for other illegal activity. That's the problem with ONE armed guard. When he's at lunch or otherwise engaged in law enforcement, there's no substitute to cover for him. We'll need at least TWO armed guards per school. But then how to cover illnesses? Do we need THREE armed guards per school? Or more, since some schools are pretty well spread out. Gardner had to drive AROUND the school border to get to the scene, because the grounds were fenced. But IEDs could be placed in a school while it's closed! We need multiple teams at every school 24/7/365!
And yes, the appropriate camera was down because its tape was being changed. TAPE??? Why not hire even more people and have live surveillance? Tape is only good for seeing what happened after the fact. We could well end up with more bodies surveilling students in our schools than we have bodies TEACHING them!
So much for the practicality of an NRA idea. . . And all we'd need is just one lone nut to undo everything. Try to make something foolproof and someone'll just find a better fool.
"Yes, Carmine. Deputy Gardner was at lunch when the Columbine massacre broke out. But he was also looking for other illegal activity. That's the problem with ONE armed guard." @ renorobert
There are many means available to protect schools from unwanted armed students and bombs. Many schools use these means successfully to do so. Sadly, many use none and Sandy Hook was one. The consequences of burying our heads in the sand to the problems of evil people with guns are tragic. The only fools are those who do.
CarmineD