Quote of the day—Ruth Bass

All we have to do is stop selling guns to people who are potentially violent or totally whacky. Then our gun troubles would be over — only the sane and sensible would be armed to the teeth, ready to shoot only when it was sane and sensible to do so, whenever that might be.

People get training for all sorts of things, from muscles to job skills, so training must be the key to success. Gun show salesmen, gun shop owners and anyone else who sells weapons that shoot would be trained to recognize the dangerous and the demented and be authorized to “just say no” when such folks ask for guns or ammunition.

If we’d instituted these bans years ago, we would have avoided James Brady, Simon’s Rock, Columbine High, Aurora. And we would have saved any number of wives, husbands and state troopers. The no-gun people could be registered, just like sex offenders.

Ruth Bass
August 27, 2012
Gun control must mesh with the times
[At first I thought it was sarcasm or someone mocking the anti-gun position. But by the second paragraph I realized it wasn’t that at all. I felt I.Q. points being sucked into the vacuum by the third paragraph and last night after reading the entire article I barely stumbled into bed before falling into a coma.

There should be barricades in place a light-millisecond in all directions around that vortex of stupidity to prevent people with poor constitutions from having their brains sucked dry beyond any hope of recovery.—Joe]

6 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Ruth Bass

  1. Either this person doesn’t know about NICS, and is unaware of the limitations of that system…or they think that Experts can somehow turn indications of potential trouble into actual Pre-Crime reports about who will be (and who will not be) a criminal.

    I’m not sure which is more frightening.

  2. Weren’t a few famous serial killers reported as being very suave? As in people had absolutely no reason to believe they killed for fun? As in human reasoning can be thwarted if you’re just nuts enough be the kind of person who’d be barred from gun ownership?

    Yeah, forget this guy not knowing about NICS, he doesn’t seem to know enough about people.

  3. “Gun show salesmen, gun shop owners and anyone else who sells weapons that shoot would be trained to recognize the dangerous and the demented and be authorized to “just say no” when such folks ask for guns or ammunition”.

    And the training these people would receive would be called what? Perhaps a term related to study of the mind, or in Greek, the Psyche? Oh, we already have people trained in detecting, among other things, recognizing the dangerous and demented, and reporting tho the authorities? Some professions known as Pschologists and Psychiatrists? These are people who train in that subject for many years more than it takes to know all about how to use a gun, and how has this knowledge and training worked out in real life? Just ask Tatiana Tarasoff, among others.
    Of course, just make the gun mfrs liable for deaths occuring with guns they sold to someone, without regard for intervening causation, and the gun mfrs will be extra careful. Perhaps when that law is passed, psychologists and psychiatrists should be liable for recidivism when they write a report releasing an inmate.
    Karrde, that’s prior restraint, which for rights described in the Bill of Rights is a bad thing.

  4. It sure would be nice to have total omniscience so we can stop all crimes, not just those in which a firearm is used.

    So wouldn’t we just put these super-duper trained experts in the airports so they can spot terrorists at a mere glance?

    Sorry Ruth Bass, but your unicorn has stopped farting hallucination rainbows and needs a refill from the “hope and change” feed bucket.

  5. that’s actually prior restraint…

    May I should have put some kind of obvious [joke] tag around “Experts can somehow turn indications of potential trouble into actual Pre-Crime reports about who will be a criminal.”

    That sounds like something out of science fiction. And the intersection of possible futures with prior restraint produces a lot of odd questions, not to mention room for abuse of power.

  6. Karrde, I’m sorry, I understood your sarcasm, but my dislike of Ms Bass’s (hmm, largemouth? sorry) anti-liberty position made my comment harsher than I intended. The prior restraint of “Minority Report” is, I think, the more frightening.

Comments are closed.