Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Guns, Carried Openly or Concealed, Threaten Our Safety [View all]Straw Man
(6,943 posts)76. Yes, it must be.
A major REASON why I OPPOSE allowing people to wander around in public with guns is that THERE IS NO OVERSIGHT.
Really? So the background check that I had to undergo to obtain a handgun permit was a figment of my imagination? The background check that I undergo whenever I purchase a firearm is an illusion? The criminal and civil codes that circumscribe any and every action I may take with a gun are just are pure fairy tales?
Bus drivers are tested, have to have special licences, are limited in the hours a day/week they may drive the buses and are visible to the general public as bus drivers and observable by the general public as they drive their buses, and have employers that oversee their work and ensure they comply with the hour limitations, observe them to make sure they are not drinking or doing drugs and are subject to civil and criminal liability if they fail to oversee the drivers properly, etc. etc. etc.
Oddly enough, I don't see anything in there about psychological screening for suicidal tendencies. That was the topic. Remember?
There is no oversight for me to have faith in.
You said, "no one can tell for sure whether anyone is suicidal" -- in other words, effective oversight of mental state is impossible. You say you want oversight, yet you deny that it would be effective. Is there some other way to interpret that? Please enlighten me.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
134 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
"the murder itself would be extremely unlikely to have been committed absent a firearm"
rl6214
Apr 2012
#29
And you have proof that the " facts and figures" put put by the RCMP are reliable?
oneshooter
Apr 2012
#81
Sorry - didn't realize you supported the public ownership of handguns and other weapons. Sorry. nt
hack89
Apr 2012
#101
So the "actual rate of death and injury" due to drunk drivers is low enough to be acceptable
hack89
Apr 2012
#114
So it is not about facts or evidence but simply "feelings"? At least you are honest about it. nt
hack89
Apr 2012
#116
In many areas LE is required to be armed. They are actually considered to be "on duty" 24-7.
oneshooter
Apr 2012
#39
Well good for you. If you don't want a question answered, then don't ask it.
oneshooter
Apr 2012
#50
In the US federal law mandates that they be allowed to carry at all times.
AtheistCrusader
Apr 2012
#95