Democrats & Liberals Archives

Another tragic school shooting

My university (Virginia Tech) has joined the all too long list of tragic school shootings. At least 31 people have been killed including the gunman in the worst school shooting in US history. I dropped my wife off at work an hour and a half after the first shooting in the building next to where the first shooting was.

There were no signs of any trouble which makes me wonder about the police response to the first shooting which was almost three hours before the other 30 people were killed.

Episodes like this always bring up issues of gun control. This gunman used a 9mm handgun with mulitple clips and shot over 50 people. I believe in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights but incidents like this one lead to questions about how easy it is to get a gun in this country and how many people are killed by legally purchased weapons.

I personally do not want to see the 2nd amendment overturned and think that the number of murders in this country are about something broken in our culture that the easy availability of guns in this country just makes the problem worse. I don't like the idea of taking guns away from law abiding citizens but I think we need some way to limit the ease that guns cans be purchased in this country.

The 2nd amendment states:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What does this mean? - is the second amendment an attempt by the founders to protect the states against the federal government? To give every citizen the right to a gun? I know that they founders debated an amendment that looked like the NRA's position and shot it down in favor of the one that passed.

Another question I have is that the amendment doesn't specify hand guns, rifles, or cannons it just says arms, a RPG is an arm, a howitzer is an arm, a nuclear weapon is an arm. The founders did not count on their progeny developing such efficient ways of killing people. We seem to have decided as a society that we do not want citizens to have military weapons but the amendment doesn't specify this. Where do we draw the line? Automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets, hand guns? Where is this line? Does the 2nd amendment mean what everyone thinks it means? I think it doesn't - I think the founders wanted to ensure that state militias could have the arms to fight off the federal army if they try to oppress the state and not that they wanted everyone to have the right to have a gun.

Posted by Tom Snediker at April 16, 2007 2:30 PM
Comments
Comment #216825

Tom
An honest, level-headed approach to debating this issue. Thank you.

IMO, it is the fear that somebody might do something like this, which makes people push to get rid of our 2nd Amendment right.
It really is no different than the fear that terrorists might attack tactic that allows people to give up some of their privacy rights.
I don’t think we should allow our govt to use fear to take our rights away.

“The founders did not count on their progeny developing such efficient ways of killing people”

They also did not count on us being able to log-in or call up people hundreds or thousands of miles away and executing a mass event such as 9-11. And there is absolutely no way they could have thought about being able to make a phone call to detonate a bomb either.
There are many ways for the “nut cases” to get their point across. Do we take away the rights of the majority so that our govt can “protect” us from the few nuts? A 7 day wait before we buy a phone or get internet service and have that usage monitored?
I wouldn’t want that.

Of course I disagree with what you think the 2nd means, but you are entitled to your beliefs.
But, the state militias of then, were made up of all able men and they represented the state. Today, it is made up of a few men who really work for the federal govt in the long run.
It is the duty of all of us to keep our govt in check.

Again, good approach to this issue Tom.

Posted by: kctim at April 16, 2007 3:35 PM
Comment #216828

Tom,

One thing kctim failed to mention was that the “state militias” were made up of men that supplied their own guns.

Posted by: Rocky at April 16, 2007 3:40 PM
Comment #216829

The state militias of then, were made up of all able men and they represented the state. Today, it is made up of a few men who really work for the federal govt in the long run.

Then kctim, perhaps it is time to change the militia requirements. I start with requiring every person who wants to bear an arm be part of the state’s well regulated militia. If that happens I’ll join the NRA.

Posted by: bobo at April 16, 2007 3:41 PM
Comment #216830

Good call Rocky, thanks.

Other than joining the NRA bobo, I can’t say that I disagree with that.

The sad part wouldn’t be with everyone being armed.
It would be having to require people to make up their militia, when it should be somthing each of us would willingly do out of love of country.

Posted by: kctim at April 16, 2007 3:47 PM
Comment #216834

kctim,
Well, that was me saying I’d join the NRA. I feel the NRA has utterly failed to to play any role in the responsibility factor in guns. Sure, they talk about gun safety and harsh penalties for crimes, but talk like that has absolutely no bearing on what happened today at VT.

IMO, the “well regulated militia” part of the second amendment clearly gives the government the authority to require a gun owner to check in and drill on a regular basis.

Posted by: bobo at April 16, 2007 4:01 PM
Comment #216836

bobo - You’re right about the NRA - they refuse to take part in any level-headed debate and the “you can pry my gun out of my cold, dead, hands” statement is about all they offer. There has got to be some room for debate on this issue.

Posted by: Tom Snediker at April 16, 2007 4:11 PM
Comment #216838

bobo
What kind of “responsibility factor” role do you think the NRA should play?

I think you misunderstood my gun owner being part of the militia statement.
I believe every American should feel honored and compelled to be a part of their state militia. I think it is sad that it would have to be a govt requirement.

Posted by: kctim at April 16, 2007 4:16 PM
Comment #216840

Tom,

I read that about the delay between shootings and was wondering why the campus wasn’t in lock down, too.

Last night I was doing some reading about the Indian trails in Kentucky and Ohio and Daniel Boone. My ancestors settled in Kentucky and were friends of Daniel.

I doubt at the time State militias were what this was entirely meant by the 2nd admendment.

Daniel was captured by Indians four times and lost a brother and 2 children to Indian attacks. The settlers in Kentucky, while on a land grab from the Shawnee and Cherokee ancestral lands there, could not rely on the State, Feds, or anyone to protect them.

In 1791 the Whiskey Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania began (the same year of the ratification of the 2nd admendment).

The tax on whiskey was bitterly and fiercely opposed on the frontier from the day it was passed. Western farmers considered it to be both unfair and discriminatory, since they had traditionally converted their excess grain into liquor. The whiskey thus produced could easily be transported and sold while the grain itself could not. Since the nature of the tax affected those who sold the whiskey, it directly affected many farmers. Many protest meetings were held, and a situation arose which was reminiscent of the opposition to the Stamp Act of 1765 before the American Revolution.

From Pennsylvania to Georgia, the western counties engaged in a campaign of harassment of the federal tax collectors. “Whiskey Boys” also made violent protests in Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia.

By the summer of 1794, tensions reached a fevered pitch all along the western frontier as the pioneer/settlers’ primary marketable commodity was threatened by the federal taxation measures. Finally the civil protests became an armed rebellion. The first shots were fired at the Oliver Miller Homestead in present day South Park Township Pennsylvania — about ten miles south of Pittsburgh. As word of the rebellion spread across the frontier, a whole series of loosely organized resistance measures were taken, including robbing the mail, stopping court proceedings, and the threat of an assault on Pittsburgh. One group disguised as women, assaulted a tax collector, cropped his hair, coated him with tar and feathers, and stole his horse. Though this did not kill the collector, it physically scarred him for life.

George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, remembering Shays’ Rebellion from just eight years before, decided to make Pennsylvania a testing ground for federal authority. Washington ordered federal marshals to serve court orders requiring the tax protesters to appear in federal district court. On August 7, 1794, Washington invoked Martial Law to summon the militias of Pennsylvania, Virginia and several states. The rebel force they sought was likewise composed of Pennsylvanians, Virginians, and possibly men from other states.
A militia force of 13,000 men was organized, roughly the size of the entire army in the Revolutionary War. Under the personal command of Washington, Hamilton and Revolutionary War hero General Henry “Lighthorse Harry” Lee,(Robert E. Lee’s dad) the army assembled in Harrisburg and marched into Western Pennsylvania (to what is now Monongahela, Pennsylvania) in October of 1794. The rebels “could never be found,” according to Jefferson, but the militia expended considerable effort rounding up 20 prisoners, clearly demonstrating Federalist authority in the national government. The men were imprisoned, where one died, while two were convicted of treason and sentenced to death by hanging. Washington, however, pardoned them on the grounds that one was a “simpleton,” and the other, “insane.”, after widespread public outrage.

This established the power of the federal government the authority to keep the peace and supress insurrection.

Unreported and untaxed Moonshine Whiskey began to be produced in Kentucky as a result.

The tax was repealed in 1803.

While I doubt the admendments intent was to allow armed rebellion, the western frontier was a place where arms were a part of everyday life.

I was never taught about these stories in my history classes, and I find this period of U.S. history fascinating and telling of how far we have moved from our Constitutional underpinnings, even as early as 1794.

Posted by: gergle at April 16, 2007 4:22 PM
Comment #216841

What the? I have to take driver’s ed, take a road test, get a license to drive a car. I have to get a credit check and address check done before I can change my cellphone company. I can’t kill anyone with my cellphone, I can only run over a few people with my car if I’m a real psycho, but if you stop me from buying a gun today so that tonight I can shoot down my neighbor, his wife and kids, I’ll start yelling about how your depriving me of my rights!

Posted by: g at April 16, 2007 4:26 PM
Comment #216842

As an outsider to your country, It is incomprehensible as to why people should need to bear arms in a civilised society. In my country, which is not immune to gun crime, guns are very tightly regulated. However, we have never had a slaughter like today in VA, nor Columbine and all of the others.

It’s as if the US has never moved past its frontier days, as if the distant apparent romance of that period in your history holds you in thrall. I don’t know of any advanced society that has similar ease of access to weapons to that of the US, and their citizens don’t seem to feel deprived. Is it that guns lend a feeling of virility to people who feel insecure? Is it that people have so embedded the frontier legend so deeply in their psyches, that they cannot distinguish between then and now?

Whatever the 2nd amendment was actually intended to mean, that does not imply that such meaning needs to be still relevant today. The US constitution is a flexible one, intended to be amenable to change over time, as circumstances demand. Nothing is written in stone, and times and circumstances change. It’s bad enough having out and out criminals having weapons, but when anyone can have them, be they totally insecure, immature, inadequate, or just someone at a crisis point in their lives feeling a need to lash out, then you must factor in the cost of the Columbines and the Va’s and so on in that right to bear arms. Is it worth it? If if was your child, parent, lover, sibling, whatever, who paid the price, would it be worth it?

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at April 16, 2007 4:31 PM
Comment #216843

g
First, big difference between priviledges and rights.
Second, you can kill with a cellphone.
Third, you wouldn’t start yelling about being deprived of your rights because if its not your right to free speech or privacy, you really don’t care.
Fourth, you shouldn’t let fear be the determining factor in giving up your rights.

Posted by: kctim at April 16, 2007 4:37 PM
Comment #216845

I was going to agree that only citizens who were prepared to serve in a militia should be allowed guns, but unfortunately the definition seems to suggest that anyone and everyone deserves the right to purchase and keep one.

MILITIA:
An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

Dammit. Was really hoping I could find some flaw there that would support my argument that people should not have guns.

BTW, Wisconsin recently passed a law allowing 11 year olds the right to bear arms. Not sure how that fits with the body of civilians as defined above.

Posted by: Jon Rice at April 16, 2007 4:42 PM
Comment #216848

People have the right to own guns to overthrough their government. Does that mean that wacko like the guy in VA are going to show up. Yes it does.
You are not allowed under federal law to have a firearm at a university. That is why Oregon State University has to have the State Police patrol campus (Their is a federal law that says if you have a Nuclear Reactor you have to have Armed security). So how is another law to keep someone from having a gun on school property going to stop this type of crime?

Posted by: timesend at April 16, 2007 4:46 PM
Comment #216849

No Paul, you’ve never had a slaughter like we have had today. Europe had the holocaust.

“If if was your child, parent, lover, sibling, whatever, who paid the price,”

My father.

“would it be worth it?”

It hurts everyday, but it is worth it.
I believe as my father believed: without our rights, we are no longer Americans.

Posted by: kctim at April 16, 2007 4:46 PM
Comment #216854

“You are not allowed under federal law to have a firearm at a university.”

Maybe if you were, someone would have taken this SOB out before he could do so much damage.

Posted by: tomd at April 16, 2007 5:01 PM
Comment #216855

These acts of suicide, mass homicide, and revenge in America are not that dissimilar from what some in Iraq are engaged in. There’s something intellectually pregnant about that, but, the gestation period has not come to term, yet.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 16, 2007 5:04 PM
Comment #216856
The 2nd amendment states:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
What does this mean?

Even with this little quote, we run into another problem involved in figuring out what the Second Amendment means: punctuation. Although what is quoted here was the most common version of the text that the states considered, the final version officially approved actually is this:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Do those two little commas matter? Maybe, maybe not. They do mean that the official text of the 2nd Amendment cannot really be parsed using modern rules of English punctuation and usage. The closest we can come to is that the full statement is “A well regulated militia shall not be infringed,” with the missing part being an explanatory appositive, but even that’s a stretch given the bad grammar.

So, in order to even debate the meaning of the terms “arms” and “militia” and “regulated” and “infringed” in the proper context, we have to figure out what the proper context is. According to the NRA, those commas essentially don’t exist, making the Amendment about individual rights. According to gun control advocates, the commas both exist and are grammatically meaningful, so the Amendment is about the rights of militias.

If we decide to be strict interpreters of the Constitution, what matters? Is it the original intent (not to have the commas)? Or is it the original text (to have the commas)?

It’s horribly confusing. All because of a couple commas.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 16, 2007 5:04 PM
Comment #216858

Self defense is an unalienable human right. Police do not defend the innocent, they apprehend the guilty. Self-defense is an unalienable human right. Police do not defend the innocent, they apprehend the guilty. Self defense …

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 16, 2007 5:07 PM
Comment #216861

Lawnboy, for me, the argument is not over punctuation but the word ‘militia’.

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.

An army, but not like a conventional army which only functions when amassed. Hence, a loose and dispersed armed citizenry whose purpose is to insure peace and and social order could also fit that definition.

But, then one runs into the word ‘vigilantism’. And, it is doubtful, given the care our founders took to establish our judiciary system, that vigilantism is what they contemplated in 2nd Amendment.

But all this is moot. America has a serious crime problem and people have the right to defend themselves in the midst of it. It is not a right any law can take away from people who insist on their right.

The only viable solution in modern times is to devise means and ways of recognizing and intervening to help individuals who are prone to depression, violence, or suicide/homicide. In other words, “All you need is love, dah ta dah, ta dah!”

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 16, 2007 5:21 PM
Comment #216863

Perhaps we need some sort of compromise. Right now just about anyone can purchase a gun - whether they know how to use the thing or not.

What if instead of simply requiring a 7 day holding period, that the buyer be required during that time, or prior, to pass a gun safety test before purchasing a fire arm? It would not of course have helped the situation that occurred today at Virginia Tech - and as I know students there, I am anxiously awaiting news, but it might help prevent some of the accidents that happened.

I had to pass a driver’s tests to get my license, go through some type of training\probation period in order to get\hold my job, have my house inspected at purchase\sale, have car insurance in order to own a car\buy\rent, pass my exams before graduating from High School, etc., and etc.

I am not suggesting that the course cost anything, although, frankly I had to pay for my graduation gown, my insurance, and drivers license.I also pay taxes for the food I buy.

As far as the time period before Va. Tech was Locked down, on the news right now, they are saying that there was no way to reach all of the students other than e-mail and those already walking too, or in class would not of course be reading their e-mail.

I can appreciate the concern about issuing an alarming e-mail. Would the students have stayed calm, or panicked and run form the dorms upon hearing that shots had been fired in a dorm, thereby increasing the possible risks of running into the gunman before he arrived at the classrooms.

There apparently are no sirens, or speakers in or around the dorms and classrooms.

Instead of jumping the “gun” if you’ll pardon my bad pun, perhaps we need to try to come up with ideas to prevent the next one. Va. Tech has already faced such an assault, what do we do to stop the next one?

Posted by: Linda H. at April 16, 2007 5:27 PM
Comment #216865

I am not advocating taking anyone’s gun away; I was trying to make sense of the second amendment. Like I said, we have mostly accepted that it doesn’t give me the right to get an ICBM at Wal-Mart (though I’m sure they could get a Chinese one made of cheap plastic for 1/10 the cost of an American made one), or a RPG, or bazooka. So where is the line? timesend mentioned. “People have the right to own guns to overthrough(sic) their own government.” Are you planning on doing it with your Smith and Wesson? If we can’t have the same weapons as the government we can’t compete agaist them. Therefore, if that is your argument you have already lost that right.

I just would like a discussion of where exactly this line should be drawn. I don’t want anyone taking away my rights to free speech, rights to assemble, and rights to a speedy trial that the Bush administration has been assaulting for the last 6 years. It would be hippocritical to say that all the amendments should be protected except this one.

Posted by: Tom Snediker at April 16, 2007 5:40 PM
Comment #216866

“Perhaps we need some sort of compromise.”

I won’t conpromise this right.

Posted by: tomd at April 16, 2007 5:43 PM
Comment #216868

Tom
The line has already been drawn. Innocent, average Americans must now get govt permission to “legally” exercise their 2nd Amendment right.
We are guilty until proven innocent.

And if you look at what tomd just posted, you will see that most people who still believe in the 2nd, feel they have already given enough up.
Compromise now consists of only hearing what anti 2nd people demand and then try to lessen the severity of their demands.

Other than outright confiscation, there really isn’t too much else that can be done.

Posted by: kctim at April 16, 2007 5:53 PM
Comment #216876

kctim,
I think the NRA should have tests for membership, mandatory training programs, and a means to expel members to fail to keep certified.

Posted by: bobo at April 16, 2007 6:07 PM
Comment #216877

Maybe if you were, someone would have taken this SOB out before he could do so much damage.

tomd,
The fallacy of this logic is that the person who wants to do the killing always fires first. And one murder already “much damage.”

Posted by: bobo at April 16, 2007 6:10 PM
Comment #216879
America has a serious crime problem and people have the right to defend themselves in the midst of it. It is not a right any law can take away from people who insist on their right.

AFAIK, it doesn’t work that fine.
How many of these 31 victims could or actually have an arm? Does it protect their lives?

Nope. The argument that every citizen have the right to self defense with a gun fall flat. US *is the country where having a gun for every citizen is the most easier in the world. But it doesn’t give you the lowest crime level. Far from it.
Your country have the highest death by gun.
If having a gun were actually protecting citizens from crime, WHERE IS THE DAMN PROOF???

That’s ironic that from the worst weapons ever invented by human the only one that have actually protect lives and peace so far is the worst one ever imagined by brain human, nuclear weapon.

All these others weapons never accomplish this level of deterrence. Having a gun doesn’t protect your life one bit. Having no gun protect you to kill someone with a gun.

Wake up guys, if it doesn’t work, it’s time to reconsider your choice? Or what, what’s cool in the USA is driving an huge SUV while wearing a cowboy hat and a gun?

Oh, please, your kids deserve better than 200+ old nostalgia. They deserves campuses that wont turn one day into shoot them up. Having more guns everywhere don’t work since, well, start. Dare to try the *other* solution, no gun?
You can’t tell until you actually try it…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 16, 2007 6:16 PM
Comment #216880

Now, we see the 2nd amendement freaks (aka, NRA) at work… thank you NRA. Will the NRA be providing financial assistance to the families of the dead? No, they will be putting their money to furthering the availability of machine guns to other freaky Americans.

Posted by: Paul at April 16, 2007 6:20 PM
Comment #216881

“well regulated militia”

Obviously we need a lot more regulation if our militia is to be considered a well regulated one. The real trouble with the NRA and other gun nuts is that they are saying there should be NO regulation at all. And look at where that has us brought us — an age where people who are insane are allowed to own as many guns and as much ammo as they can afford to buy.

Euro Paul and Philippe, the majority of Americans have no desire to abolish the 2nd Amendment. Most of us believe the founders were very wise to believe that it was dangerous to allow only our army and our police units to have the right to own and use guns.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 16, 2007 6:44 PM
Comment #216886
If having a gun were actually protecting citizens from crime, WHERE IS THE DAMN PROOF???

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 16, 2007 6:55 PM
Comment #216887

No Paul, you’ve never had a slaughter like we have had today. Europe had the holocaust.

“If if was your child, parent, lover, sibling, whatever, who paid the price,”

My father.

“would it be worth it?”

It hurts everyday, but it is worth it.
I believe as my father believed: without our rights, we are no longer Americans.
Posted by: kctim at April 16, 2007 04:46 PM

Just two things about that kctim. First, what the hell does the Holocaust have to do with the issue under discussion? And secondly, is not the primary right of any person the right to life? We all know that guns do not give life, but they most surely take them away.

The second amendment was a creature of its time. With the panoply of law enforcement agencies of the modern state, the general arming of the people is not only unnecessary, it is I believe, profoundly unwise. If other civilised societies with serious restrictions on gun ownership and lower levels of gun deaths than the US, can manage to maintain their liberties and at the same time a relatively sober attitude to their personal safety, why is the US so different?

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at April 16, 2007 7:03 PM
Comment #216888
Every 13 seconds an American firearm owner uses a gun in defense against a criminal.

Sorry Paul in Euroland, the numbers do not match up to your assertion that guns are not an effective means of defense.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 16, 2007 7:07 PM
Comment #216890

Adrienne, I understand very well that the majority of Americans don’t want gun control, I just can’t understand why. Especially when so many applaud the depredations on your rights by the Bush regime, including the plundering of other countries to build and maintain American hegemony.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

Now if they can do all of this without prompting revolution, they need have no fear of a duped, if armed citizenry.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at April 16, 2007 7:08 PM
Comment #216892

Every time something like this happens, you can count on the Europeans to come out of the woodwork and lecture us about firearms. So many of them are so obsessed with America that they don’t even know what’s happening around them.

Fact is however, that there is still a WHOLE lot of firearm violence in Europe, but Europe being Europe, there could be gunfire next door but they’d rather turn on the tv and hear about an incident in America.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 16, 2007 7:10 PM
Comment #216893
If other civilised societies with serious restrictions on gun ownership and lower levels of gun deaths than the US, can manage to maintain their liberties and at the same time a relatively sober attitude to their personal safety, why is the US so different?

1) Your first assertion that other countries maintain the same level of liberty as the US is not a given, I think we could have some debates about that.

2) The US is different for a variety of reasons that other countries do not experience. Why do countries with much more LAX gun laws than the US have fewer gun incidents? Why do areas of the US with the most lenient gun laws are the ones with the lowest levels of crime? Why are the areas with the highest levels of crime also the ones with the most pervasive gun laws?

The fact is the US has many issues that it needs to address before crime will go down. The fact that someone may or may not have a gun is *NOT* the main factor. If we did eliminate guns, as the study I pointed to shows, we could have millions of more violent crimes committed, or more, each year.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 16, 2007 7:11 PM
Comment #216895
The US constitution is a flexible one, intended to be amenable to change over time, as circumstances demand. Nothing is written in stone, and times and circumstances change

True, but I have not heard one politician suggesting an amendment to the constitution to amend it in this regard. When they do they we can discuss it as an option. But simply IGNORING the constition because we don’t like part of it means we can ignore all of it. Like that pesky search and seizure part, or the freedom of speech part…

Either it is to be followed or not. Amend if you like, but do it right, don’t invalidate it to fill a pet peeve.

Oh, and finally, self defense being an unalienable right, as David pointed out, means that the right to own a gun is actually covered by the 9th amendment as well, so the argument about the 2nd amendment in this country is a moronic smokescreen.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 16, 2007 7:17 PM
Comment #216896

“tomd,
The fallacy of this logic is that the person who wants to do the killing always fires first. And one murder already “much damage.”

Posted by: bobo at April 16, 2007 06:10 PM”

One murder is terrible. It’s better than 32.

I remember a story of a deranged person in a mall in Florida I believe who held a woman hostage with a knife. A nearby woman saw what was happening and pulled a pistol from her purse, put the gun to the bad guy’s head and demanded he drop the knife. An “eye witness” interview revievled another shopper saying something to the fact that she couldn’t believe that woman was allowed to carry a gun in her purse.

Posted by: tomd at April 16, 2007 7:20 PM
Comment #216898

Tomd,
Did you read the rest of the post I wrote?
I do not advocate the removal or even the compromise of the 2nd Amendment. Just better education for those who buy one.

Posted by: Linda H. at April 16, 2007 7:27 PM
Comment #216899

Paul in Euroland, and Philippe Houdoin,
I apologize for Kctim’s rather flippant remark to you, Paul.

While both of you have raised some of the very issues, that almost seem to to divide the US, I don’t believe either of you are seeing the entire picture. I think you might be forgetting several very important items in you posts.

I. The US is still very young in comparison to any country on the European Continent. If you could remember back when France or England were only 200 years old, things were every different then - and no, I’m not talking about the historical events - more the cultural philosophies. The fear of losing one’s family, friends, loved ones. With the exception of the holocaust. (and no I’m not making light of it)when was the last time you had a great-father tell you about being held up in a bank robbery by masked bandits?

My husband remembers sitting on his great-father’s lap and being told stories of the Wild West! Have either of you ridden a horse in a round-up, or even in matter in a rodeo? In this country while we are not by any means all cowboys or cowgirls, the memories are still very strong.

2. The United States is much larger than all of Europe. What works well in one culture does not work well in another. As an example, Miami, or New York City could probably do with guns, but Wyoming or New Mexico need them, if for no other reason than physical safety - if only from the wild life that roams the area.

3. The United States is based on a Democratically based Republic. This is not the same as a total Republic, or a Parliamentary based government.

You would be appalled if every one were considered equal, be it Kings, Queens, Lords, Presidents, or other governmental leaders. Here in the U.S. all people are supposed to equal (I know it doesn’t always work this way) but the fear of losing this equality is a primary force in our culture. The Right to Protect ourselves and our government, or even against our government is as ingrained in US citizens as the right to breathe.

These are only partly some of the differences between our countries and yours.

I hope this explains some of reactions and strong feeling being posted today.

Posted by: Linda H. at April 16, 2007 7:31 PM
Comment #216900

“Tomd,
Did you read the rest of the post I wrote?
I do not advocate the removal or even the compromise of the 2nd Amendment. Just better education for those who buy one.

Posted by: Linda H. at April 16, 2007 07:27 PM”


Yeah I read all of your post Linda and we can agree that we don’t want people running around carrying guns who are untrained. What you are proposing with better education sounds great but that means there is a record of everyone who has a gun. That is a compromise in my opinion. I realize there are records of purchases now, but I’m unwilling to let this right slip any further.


Posted by: tomd at April 16, 2007 7:37 PM
Comment #216903

Well,
The victims in Blacksburg are in my prayers.

Time to clean my guns and go to bed. I’ll catch up on this thread in the morning.

Posted by: tomd at April 16, 2007 7:46 PM
Comment #216905

Linda H, you seem to be under the misapprehension that I am a citizen of the UK. In fact, I am a citizen of Ireland, a full democracy, where, at least in theory, every citizen is equal to our president. So I am not at all appalled that all of our citizens are considered equals. As for what you say of fear of losing equality with your fellow citizens? Well, I’m not trying to be smart or nasty, but equality between citizens in the US, and indeed to some extent also in my country, is more observed in the breach than in the main. The bed you are born into is a much greater indicator of your future than anything else. Such is humanity.

I also remember the tales my father told me of his experiences during our war of independence, when he was a child and British irregular forces were causing murder and mayem in his part of Ireland, the west. Of course our history of cruel and imperial government is a long one, yet we somehow manage to live life without a need for guns to feel secure.

Rhinehold, I never said that guns were not an effective means of self defence. However, perhaps if guns were not so prevalent, criminals would not feel the need so strongly to arm themselves with guns? The fact remains that any hothead with a gun with a sense of grievance against whoever, has a very powerful and immediate means of salving their sense of self pity. And that is the kind of thing that leads to the kind of savagery we saw today.

You say that we could have a debate about the relative levels of liberty in our respective democracies? Bring it on. For some reason Americans often seem to think that theirs is the only free and liberal country on the globe, or at least the most free, and it seems to me they are mostly the ones who know least about the reality of countries outside the US. As to the right to self defence? I can tell you that such a right is clearly recognised in Irish and British law, although there is a debate ongoing in the Britain about the extent of this following the imprisonment of a man who shot and killed an intruded to his home some years ago. I believe it is also firmly rooted in most if not all continental european countrys laws, and yet none of these countries or peoples feel the need for the proliferation of firearms among the citzenry.

LO, a lot of vague generalities there. Care to back them up with some facts?

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at April 16, 2007 8:01 PM
Comment #216909

The problem with gun laws is that there are to many of them. The tragedy today at Virginia Tech proves once again that the problem is not enough people are armed. One whacko kills 32 people and injures 26 more because no one could return fire and the police could not be at the scene to stop the whacko from killing the innocent people.
In the best of all possible worlds we would not need guns , unfortunately we done live in the best of all possible worlds. Until such time as we do more people should train for and carry side arms. The laws should allow for this and as much as we may not like it the laws shoul allow us to protect pourselves as the police have shown they cannot be there to do it for us.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 16, 2007 8:29 PM
Comment #216911

Paul,

“However, perhaps if guns were not so prevalent, criminals would not feel the need so strongly to arm themselves with guns? The fact remains that any hothead with a gun with a sense of grievance against whoever, has a very powerful and immediate means of salving their sense of self pity. And that is the kind of thing that leads to the kind of savagery we saw today.”

A fact you may not be aware of is that most of the guns used in crimes in the US aren’t bought by the criminals in stores where the sale can be regulated.
There is a “black market” in guns in America that taking away the rights of the lawful isn’t going to stop.
Oh, BTW, you’re not trying to convince us that the IRA fought the British with rocks and Molotov cocktails are you?

Posted by: Rocky at April 16, 2007 8:43 PM
Comment #216917

“Paul in Euroland”


“Just two things about that kctim. First, what the hell does the Holocaust have to do with the issue under discussion?”

maybe not much other than the jews were slaughtered by the the nazis after first being disarmed under the gun bans implemented by the third reich.

it’s typical that incidents such as these bring out the typical emotional knee jerk reactions. BTW the media is reporting the shooter may have been a chineese national here on a student visa. last i checked he wasn’t legally allowed to own a gun. ya more gun control thats the answer.

Posted by: dbs at April 16, 2007 9:21 PM
Comment #216920

Paul:
“Adrienne, I understand very well that the majority of Americans don’t want gun control, I just can’t understand why.”

Because it was written into right into our Constitution from the beginning. For that reason, we’ll never get rid of them, yet I believe we can and should make laws that ensure that the people who own them are responsible, and sane individuals.

“Especially when so many applaud the depredations on your rights by the Bush regime, including the plundering of other countries to build and maintain American hegemony.”

Well, I’m not one of those applauding anything this administration has done — and there are a hell of a lot of us who feel this way.

Re: War is a Racket

Truer words were never written.

“Now if they can do all of this without prompting revolution, they need have no fear of a duped, if armed citizenry.”

Paul, there is always a tipping point in all revolutions. Bushco is likely the worst and most hated administration in all of American history. But we know that despite all the rights they’ve violated, and all damage they’ve tried to do to our Constitution, Bush is going to go away soon, and legislation can be put in place to protect against a repeat of their unconstitutional actions. If, on the other hand, Bushco suddenly declared that elections were no longer going to be held, and that he and his Neocon thugs were now the official rulers of America, you’d see another revolution begin immediately.
Indeed, I know quite a few liberals and Democrats who decided to buy guns due to the actions of this utterly lawless administration. Too many similarities to the Nazi’s with Bushco — and a certainty that what happened then might have turned out very differently had all of the Jews in Germany owned guns and had trained themselves to be able to use them.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 16, 2007 9:29 PM
Comment #216922

Paul, the enormous size, cultural and geographical diversity of the United States gives outsiders a very false picture of violence in the United States. And no small part of this has to do with the sort of media attention those in the rest of the world focus on us.

If you want to compare what happens here to what happens in your part of the world, lay a map of the US over a map of Europe (a map of the same scale, of course), and just think about all the things that have occured in a comparable area of Europe while America has endured the occasional school shooting and inner city violence.

I’m not just talking about stories like this. Or Bosnia. Or Kosovo. Or the armed conflicts of Ireland.

Or stories like this.

Linda points out our nation’s frontier background, but despite that, there is actually not a comparable geographical area of the entire world, even during the shoot-em up days of the Wild West, which has actually been as safe and peaceful as the United States.

We’ve had plenty of gun violence in our country over the last 100 years, and the world is supposedly shocked by the “wild west” behavior of the United States, but we’ve never killed each other by the tens of millions as has happened in Europe and Asia over the same time frame.

If you aked them, the people of Chechnya, Ireland, or Bosnia probably think that life in America is violent, based on what they see in the media. The irony is pretty thick.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 16, 2007 10:01 PM
Comment #216924

This was a terrorist attack!

We don’t know who the terrorist is yet, but we might as well use this as an excuse to bomb Iran.

Or maybe this was domestic terrorism and we can never be sure where and when it will strike. Well, more guns will probably fix the problem!

More guns and bombs always make us safer.

Posted by: KansasDem at April 16, 2007 10:25 PM
Comment #216926

Sorry my first post was short but I only had 5 minuites left on my break at work.
1. Linda has a very valid point in that Europeans do not understand our great love of the firearm.
A German forign exchange student is staying with my wifes Aunt and Uncle. This young man is going to have a completly different understanding of gun ownership and why Americans are so addicted to them. The son-in-law of this exchange students host family has at least 15-20 guns (this may seem excessive but he HUNTS with every single one of them). This exchange student got to go shot a couple of these guns. Owning and being responsible with a firearm is something that everyone should do. Should their be classes, Yes. How do we set these classes up so that the government doesn’t track them? This is a huge ligistical nightmare how to educate people on guns in a non-bias manor and also not violate our rights of privacy.
2. The number of ALL gun deaths in the US is at about the same as ALL deaths associated with DRUNK DRIVING. These gun deaths include but are not limited to, military accidents, justified police shooting, Suicide, Self-defence. The fact is if you are to die by a hand gun most likely you are the person pulling the trigger.
3. After I moved into the appartment I now live in the crime rate in the complex droped. I have been seen coming and going with numerous differnt weapons including a bow and arrow. Family members of mine have also been seen with these weapons here. This is at verious times of the day and year. A criminal isn’t going to knowingly go after someones stuff if they know they may get shot trying to get it, their is just too much that ins’t protected to risk their lives.
4. What I am most upset about is the 2-3 hours between the first and second shootings and why were the cops not their? This screams to me that we can not trust the Police to protect us.
5. please forgive all the spelling errors due to the help of my young children in posting.

Posted by: timesend at April 16, 2007 10:36 PM
Comment #216933

Timesend, I agree that there are a LOT of unanswered questions about this particular case which go far beyond the mere question of guns.

The police and university response to the first two killings, which occured several hours earlier is just one. Putting myself in their shoes, however, I can definitely see how you wouldn’t assume that a double-murder in a dorm room which by all appearances was a crime of passion would indicate that there was about to be cold-blooded random shooting spree.

A much bigger issue is that of screening for student visas. Apparently, according to some reports, the culprit was an exchange student from China who had been in the US for less than a year.

Considering that the 9-11 terrorists were also on student-visas, it looks to me like there is something seriously wrong with our student visa program. And I’m sure that many people will soon be saying the same thing.

Also, there are a lot of things that look very strange about how this went down. The shooter apparently chained exit doors to the building, and was amazingly adept at his handling of firearms. Adding the killed to the wounded, he managed to single-handedly shoot 50-60 people. The planning and skill here is incredible for a lone gunman who supposedly doesn’t have military training or accomplices and who had supposedly just decided that day to go on a rampage.

Also, sadly, I can’t figure out why there were apparently around 20 fatalities in a single classroom where he reportedly lined up students and shot them one-by-one execution style. While we can never really imagine what we would do ourselves in such a situation, the idea of standing there waiting your turn to be shot staggers the imagination.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 16, 2007 11:04 PM
Comment #216936

FYI
“well regulated” meant in parlance “well armed”.

The National Gard is not a militia. They can and have been federalized. They are an adjunct to the standing army.

As to whether or not the weapons used today in this apalling crime were obtained legally is unknown as yet. There are plenty of guns on the black market,enough that restrictions are largely meaningless.

Also apalling is that out of all those victums not even one was properly armed and trained to stop the perpetrator.

Instead of blaming guns,or video games,or bad parenting,or any of the other “causes” we will no doubt be subjected too in the next few days as America tries to make sense out of a occurance that makes no sense,why don’t we just blame the shithead that did it?

Posted by: BillS at April 16, 2007 11:20 PM
Comment #216942

BillS, since the shooter here was apparently not even an American but an exchange student who’d only been in the country for 8 months, the usual stuff about American culture—video games, music, etc—isn’t going to wash.

If anything, this is yet another reason to reevaluate our immigration practices and our student visas. The 9-11 hijackers, remember, were also here on student visas.

We don’t want any backlash against foreigners here, and this behavior is way outside the norm—especially for Chinese exchange students. I’ve known several, and they were some of the most law-abiding, hard-working and decent people I’ve ever met. The ones I knew wouldn’t even drink because they were not of legal age, and studied harder than most American students. I’m just saying that we need to take a very hard look at our screening practices before handing out so many visas to crazy people.

I’m not up on Virginia’s firearms laws, but it would greatly surprise me if these weapons were legally obtained, considering that this individual was not even a citizen.

If they were, however, I’d have no problem though an NRA member and stauch defender of the Second Amendment with ammending the laws to prevent non-citizens from buying firearms. It’s not that such a measure would actually prevent a determined and crazed lunatic like this one, but if we’re going to fool around with the laws, I’d have no problem with that one measure.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 16, 2007 11:44 PM
Comment #216948
It is the duty of all of us to keep our govt in check…Posted by: kctim at April 16, 2007 03:35 PM
Absolutely! It’s too bad that so many think it’s through firearms rather than through the checks and balances built into the Constitution. Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 17, 2007 12:24 AM
Comment #216951

And it’s even worse that so many don’t realize that firearms *ARE* one of the check and balances built into the constitution.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 17, 2007 12:43 AM
Comment #216952

Paul,
I had no idea you were in Ireland. I apologize for my ignorance.

However I stand by my explanation of the differing cultures. Your great country has been in existence far longer that ours. Therefore the fear of war within our own country, corrupt governmental take-overs, as well as our very present past history, causes many of us to feel somewhat insecure.

Perhaps you might understand it better in this type of comparison. You know a great deal about, and I little, about the conflict in Ireland. Just as we here do not understand the religious problems in Ireland, perhaps you do not fully understand many of the cultural problems we have here in the States.

I do have to admit I was rather amused by your statement:

The bed you are born into is a much greater indicator of your future than anything else. Such is humanity.

However fortunately for many, including myself it doesn’t always apply.

As Rocky pointed out, we have a large number of criminals buying and using illegal guns.

We also have a much larger population that Ireland, France, England, Germany, etc. I can’t help but wonder what our percentage of death by guns would be compared to other countries.

I also find this statement a little hard to swallow considering how the media has portrayed the War in Ireland.

I also remember the tales my father told me of his experiences during our war of independence, when he was a child and British irregular forces were causing murder and mayhem in his part of Ireland, the west. Of course our history of cruel and imperial government is a long one, yet we somehow manage to live life without a need for guns to feel secure.

You see the media can make almost anything appear better or worst that it really is.

Posted by: Linda H. at April 17, 2007 1:10 AM
Comment #216955

The saddest thing about today has not changed. There are 32 know deaths at a wonderful college, located in the beautiful rural setting of Virginia. There are families, friends, neighbors, and regular community citizens who will never sleep in quite the same manner as they did last night.

We may never truly understand the why - we may never even get close to a reason.

Right now there is not a lot we can do except hope there will be a thorough investigation.

Even here the rumors are flying high, especially regarding this post, so I ask that we all try to breathe for a minute, and attempt to actually learn the real facts before we start hanging people out to dry. Regardless whether it the police, the school, the students, the gunman.

Several examples of the rumors floating around here in some of the above posts. “He was Chinese, Asia, on a student visa, a terrorist, why didn’t someone shoot him first, the students were cowards, they were lined up and shot, the police screwed up, the school screwed up, and on and on” it will go , so that once the truth comes out, it will probably come up lacking because it won’t be as nearly as interesting as our imaginations would like it to be.

What does matter is how we conduct ourselves while this investigation moves a long. I hope that we can show these students, both the living ones, and the ones who have died, that they died honorably, I’ll be it, needlessly, and we as a country will wait patiently until we receive all the facts. Then react calmly to what is discovered, and hopefully learn from it.

In the meantime, I pray that whatever Higher Power ones believes in be with these people, not only tonight, but for the rest of their lives. tonight.

Posted by: Linda H. at April 17, 2007 1:31 AM
Comment #216960

Rhinehold,

Thanks to provide a link to pro-gun book ad.
But, again, where is the proof having massively gun carried by every citizen actually reduce death by gun?
Or should I buy this book to access these data? Is the pro-gun lobby so strong that even data proving its case has to be a business too?

Loyal Opposition,

Fact is however, that there is still a WHOLE lot of firearm violence in Europe, but Europe being Europe, there could be gunfire next door but they’d rather turn on the tv and hear about an incident in America.

Maybe because what you call a WHOLE lot of firearm violence in Europe (link, BTW?) in its western part, where I happened to live, is among 30 death by gun PER YEAR. So, yeah, when one “incident” alone does the same in America, we indeed are shocked.

Shock that is quickly replaced by disgust, seeing that *your* solution to death by gun seems to be having more gun. Sure, the victims didn’t die because of a gun but because they didn’t exercise their self-defense right. In fact, there aren’t victims but stupid people that didn’t carry a gun to fire back during their scholarship.

Damn stupid dead students.
Yeah, more deadly metal *is* the solution, that’s *so* obvious.

Not.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 17, 2007 2:22 AM
Comment #216962

*sigh*

But, again, where is the proof having massively gun carried by every citizen actually reduce death by gun?

From the Link I Provided:

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year — one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds. Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone “almost certainly” would have died had the gun not been used for protection — a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone “probably” would have died if the gun hadn’t been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first — disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn’t make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn’t be called “newsworthy” by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare — well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers — and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm — martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns — gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender’s home.

Source: “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun,” by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995

And

Relationship between type of gun owned and percent committing street, drug and gun crimes.

Illegal gun:
Street crimes = 74%
Drug use = 41%
Gun crimes = 21%

No gun:
Street crimes = 24%
Drug use = 15%
Gun crimes = 1%

Legal Gun:
Street crimes = 14%
Drug use = 13%
Gun crimes = 0%


“The socialization into gun ownership is also vastly different for legal and illegal gunowners. Those who own legal guns have fathers who own guns for sport and hunting. On the other hand, those who own illegal guns have friends who own illegal guns and are far more likely to be gang members. For legal gunowners, socialization appears to take place in the family; for illegal gunowners, it appears to take place ‘on the street.’”
“Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use and are even slightly less delinquent than nonowners of guns.”

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, NCJ-143454, “Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse,” August 1995.

Further

Making it legally possible for civilians to carry concealed weapons does not make society more violent or result in shootouts at traffic accidents. The rate of criminal misuse of firearms by the hundreds of thousands of persons licensed to carry concealed firearms in Florida is so low as to be statistically zero. In fact, homicide, assault, rape, and robbery are dramatically lower in areas of the United States where the public is allowed easy access to carrying concealed firearms in public.

Sources: Florida Department of State, Concealed Weapons/ Firearms License Statistical Report and “Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,” by John R. Lott, Olin Fellow in Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School and David B. Mustard, graduate student, Department of Economics, Journal of Legal Studies, January 1997.

I’m sorry that I didn’t directly link to that page,

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html

I thought people would understand that the front page was changed and click on the link to the internal page… *shrug*

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 17, 2007 3:30 AM
Comment #216967

Linda,

The fear of losing one’s family, friends, loved ones.

And that fear can’t be related that the level of violence, gun violence, is higher in the US than it is in Europe? Countries ages differences doesn’t explain all. Every country live in the same today, and in worldwide communication space that we have now, nobody could ignore the cultural difference about violence.

Europe, after so many attempt to resolve crisis by violence during centuries, which culminated indeed by the two world wars, as since move away from violence as the first response to every crisis.
Yeah, soft power is weak. Yeah, it doesn’t work as great as everybody hope it will.
But violence, guns, bullets doesn’t either. Some people die, but the crisis remains.

when was the last time you had a great-father tell you about being held up in a bank robbery by masked bandits?

Never. But I remember well my great-father crying while he told me about his first christmas during World War I.

Have either of you ridden a horse in a round-up, or even in matter in a rodeo?

Well, I do ride horse each week. But never did or watch a rodeo.

In this country while we are not by any means all cowboys or cowgirls, the memories are still very strong.

Our memories of violence and hatred in Europe are very strong too.

The United States is much larger than all of Europe.

Wild, yes, larger, no:
USA: 9,631,420 km²
Europe: 10,180,000 km²

If you want to consider only the EU part of the Europe continent, then yes EU is about half smaller than US. But have 4 times inhabittant density, which means europeans lives in 4 times more promisciously. But still less crime rate.

Wyoming or New Mexico need them, if for no other reason than physical safety - if only from the wild life that roams the area.

Here you got a point. Except that handgun and assault rifle are not the best weapon against wild life, right?

You would be appalled if every one were considered equal, be it Kings, Queens, Lords, Presidents, or other governmental leaders.

Uh?
I’m appalled that you could think europeans could actually consider that their leaders have no equal rights than themselves.

Please, wake up, “Old Europe” only exists in Rumshelf speeches.

The Right to Protect ourselves and our government, or even against our government is as ingrained in US citizens as the right to breathe.

The 2nd amendment of US constitution was written 2 years before the french revolution. But not having the right to protect themselves or against their government didn’t stop french to stand up against it, taking arms (which they got no rights for) and taking control of their collective destiny.

You don’t need a law or a constitution right to take arm against your own government. You only needs enough people with enough reason to do it.

I hope this explains some of reactions and strong feeling being posted today.

I understand that many historical and cultural reasons are behind some of these strong opinions.
What I just don’t get is how lack of gun control actually fixed US huge death by gun problem and that a majority of people between choosing another policy and keep the current one and tolerate the death choose the second.

I guess that why it’s a conservative value.
“Don’t ever think taking my gun”, forever.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 17, 2007 5:17 AM
Comment #216968

tomd,

The fallacy of this logic is that the person who wants to do the killing always fires first. And one murder already “much damage.”

One murder is terrible. It’s better than 32.

So true. So one person wants to do the killing, he fires the first each 32 times and your solution is to allow more people to fire in self-defense, aka each time the second one to fire.

That’s a good day for logic, it seems.

I remember a story of a deranged person in a mall in Florida I believe who held a woman hostage with a knife. A nearby woman saw what was happening and pulled a pistol from her purse, put the gun to the bad guy’s head and demanded he drop the knife. An “eye witness” interview revievled another shopper saying something to the fact that she couldn’t believe that woman was allowed to carry a gun in her purse.
Posted by: tomd

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 17, 2007 5:24 AM
Comment #216969

Rhinehold,

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html

I thought people would understand that the front page was changed and click on the link to the internal page… *shrug*

You can’t expect people to actually click on a link at the top-bottom of a childish presented web page leading at its bottom to a book cover officially acclaimed by the NRA president as anything other than pro-gun link. Which moot the unbiased point a bit, sorry.

Anyway, thank for the fixed link.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 17, 2007 5:57 AM
Comment #216975

I don’t think that the solution to this is to arm everyone. That will only cause more death and more hurt to people who do not deserve it. When people have easy access to guns they are more likely to get them out and use them. More guns is not the solution. I don’t want to take anyone’s gun away who feels that they must have one. But you go walking around armed and afraid of everything around you will cause more accidents than it will save people in situations like we had here in Blacksburg yesterday.

Other news, Tech is still not saying that the two shootings were related. Our campus police have not looked terribly competent through this whole episode. The news media have already taken over my little town there seem to be hundreds of satelite trucks crowding campus parking lots to make sure they are not left out of the media circus and I’m sure the hand wringing politicians will be here soon for some fake compassion as will the NRA and gun control advocates using this event as their platform. What I would say to all of them is not to forget that these were human beings that were senselessly murdered who have family and friends here and that want to grieve for their lost loved ones and that your story, your sound bite, your rally is not as important as these people who have actually been affected by this sad episode.

They are also beginning to release names of the dead including Ryan Clark the RA in the dorm that was killed trying to stop the shooter who my wife knew from work.


Maxine Turner
Vienna, Va.
Senior, Chemical Engineering

Henry Lee
Roanoke, Va.
Freshman, Computer Engineering

Matt La Porte
Dumont, N.J.
Freshman, University Studies

Jamie Bishop
Instructor, Foreign Languages and Literatures (German)

G.V. Loganathan
Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering

Juan Ortiz
Graduate Student, Civil Engineering

Jarrett Lane
Narrows, Va.
Senior, Civil Engineering

Ryan Clark
Columbia County, Ga.
Senior, Biology, English, Psychology

Leslie Sherman
Sophomore, History and International Studies

Caitlin Hammaren
Sophomore, International Studies and French

Liviu Librescu
Professor, Engineering Science & Mechanics

Kevin Granata
Professor, Engineering Science & Mechanics

Reema Samaha
Centreville, Va.
Freshman

Emily Hilscher
Woodville, Va.
Freshman, Animal and Poultry Sciences, Equine Science

Posted by: Tom Snediker at April 17, 2007 7:44 AM
Comment #216977

-…we all have a right to bear arms - Back when the constitution was written, it was an equal fight for the militias to overthrow the government. Aka, fighting a government (with guns), with guns. Now, if an armed militia were to try to overthrow the government, with only guns, they would fail miserably. The government has more power than the whole country, each person armed with a big fully automatic weapon, could ever have.

-…finally, after countless posts, someone had the sense to state the real deal:
“Instead of blaming guns,or video games,or bad parenting,or any of the other “causes” we will no doubt be subjected too in the next few days as America tries to make sense out of a occurance that makes no sense,why don’t we just blame the shithead that did it?
Posted by: BillS at April 16, 2007 11:20 PM”
Thank you BillS!!!

- I am a coward, I would rather run from a fight, and save my life, than fight. - But, given a choice, I would rather be pummeled to death, than shot to death. This is my sole arguement for gun control of some sort. Cowards use guns to kill people who are brave enough not to own a gun (but what about defense against bears? [that is sarcasm for all those NRA members out there]) If guns were controlled, or did not exist, this guy would not have killed as many people. The folks (sadly) waiting in line to be killed, would have easily, with numbers reported killed at that scene, overthrown this guy had he NOT had guns. If he was skilled to use a sword, the same amount of people still would NOT have likely died. I’d rather lose my arm than life. Going back to 9-11, the plane that went down in Penn. was stopped due to numbers, this happened because the hijackers didn’t have guns.

Guns simply possess too much “potential energy” that can be utilized quicker than can be defended against under normal circumstances.

- Guns in the Netherlands - at the lunch table, my colleagues and I often discuss guns. Though, I don’t have evidence, everyone adamantly says that the number of deaths by guns per year, in the Netherlands, can be “counted on one hand”. It is not legal to own a gun, they must be kept at a gun club, and strictly used for hunting. (this is one weak example FOR gun control)

You want try to kill me, beat me to death, instead of cowardly shooting me in the back as I run for my life!

-Dutch_expat

Posted by: Dutch_expat at April 17, 2007 8:03 AM
Comment #216986

”- I am a coward, I would rather run from a fight, and save my life, than fight. - But, given a choice, I would rather be pummeled to death, than shot to death. This is my sole arguement for gun control of some sort.”

I don’t consider myself a coward, but I too would rather leave a situation than fight if possible. Given the choice, I would much rather face the quick death of a bullet to the head than a slow, painful death by beating.

Let me be sure to understand your next statement. Your sole argument for some sort of gun control is your preference to being beaten to death rather than shot? What about knives? Should we control kitchen cutlry or do you prefer being stabbed to being beaten up?

If preference has anything to do with it, I’ll give you this quote from someone unknown “When I die I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my Grandfather. Not screaming and yelling in fear like his passengers.”

Posted by: tomd at April 17, 2007 9:24 AM
Comment #216991

Tomd,

Sorry, I was a bit vague. But, I would rather have the opportunity to defend myself (aka getting beaten to death), than shot in the head point blank, or in the back while running away.

After my post, I thought about the folks who get beat and torn apart alive by angry militias. In that case, sure, I’d rather the bullet.

Regardless, bullets offer less a chance to live versus “fighting like a man”.

Being beaten instead of shot is not my sole argument for gun control. Another good argument would be the accidental deaths that could have been prevented by simply not having the accidentally fired gun around in the first place.

I would much rather face a knife than a gun, any day! A knife takes some sort of skill to kill with, hence my statement that guns “possess too much “potential energy” ” that is too easily used. I can run away from a knife, and someone can only throw a knife so far, but bullets go much further, much faster, and when bullets make a hit, will do damage, versus the 50 percent chance of getting hit with the blunt end of a knife.

I agree that we have the right to bear arms. I agree that it would be nearly impossible to remove guns from society without a major change in paradigm. I disagree with how easy it is to get a gun, and the penalties of wrongdoing that result. If, for instance, we made the penalty death if found with a gun, I bet there would be less of them. Would you agree?

It’s like specifically banning cell phones while driving. It was already illegal to use a cell phone while driving, but the penalties were lame, and the enforcement was practically non-existant. Same goes for gun control. Enact logical laws with steep penalties, and enforce them. The issue will never go away, but more lives could be saved.

-Dutch_expat

Posted by: Dutch_expat at April 17, 2007 9:45 AM
Comment #216993

Paul
“Just two things about that kctim. First, what the hell does the Holocaust have to do with the issue under discussion?”

You said you have never had a slaughter such as VT because of your strict gun control. Your govt makes strict gun laws to keep its people in check.
I say we have never had a holocaust due largely because of our 2nd Amendment. Our founders made it a right so that “We the People” could keep OUR govt in check.

“And secondly, is not the primary right of any person the right to life? We all know that guns do not give life, but they most surely take them away”

Guns do not give life nor do they take life Paul.

bobo
“I think the NRA should have tests for membership, mandatory training programs, and a means to expel members to fail to keep certified”

The NRA is no different than the NEA. It is there to represent its members, which consist of average day to day people. You also do not have to be a member of the NRA to own a gun. I do not agree with the NRA so I am not a member, but I have a couple bb guns.

Adrienne
“The real trouble with the NRA and other gun nuts is that they are saying there should be NO regulation at all”

That is not what the NRA does ma’am. In fact, they are more into brokering deals than protecting that right as it should be.
The NRA has a bad reputation from the left because of politics. Many Dems are members of the NRA (at least in my area) and they just don’t get why you guys on the far left gave up on them.

And to be honest, I am one of those gun “nuts” who do not believe in sacrificing the 2nd Amendment because of our fears. But, I do realize society as a whole has been taught to fear them and there really is no turning back.
We must all work together to preserve this right.

“the majority of Americans have no desire to abolish the 2nd Amendment. Most of us believe the founders were very wise to believe that it was dangerous to allow only our army and our police units to have the right to own and use guns”

VERY well said. I know its hard for others to understand our freedoms and I certainly don’t look down on Paul and PH for their opinions either. In fact, I always look forward to see their input.
But, keeping on the difference angle here, I need to ask you a question.
Do you think the founders realized that there would be a huge difference in lifestyles, such as urban and rural, and that is why they originally designed our states to have more power than they do now? There is no way the federal govt can effectivly make gun laws that apply to both BFE Mizzou and NYC you know.
Anyway, just a thought I’ve had a few times.

Posted by: kctim at April 17, 2007 9:51 AM
Comment #217001
I say we have never had a holocaust due largely because of our 2nd Amendment. Our founders made it a right so that “We the People” could keep OUR govt in check.

You can claim as you want, but it doesn’t make anymore true that the only thing that prevent your country to commit an holocaust is your 2nd amendment and nothing else, as well as what allowed the nazi’s holocaust to happen was the lack of similar amendment for germans.

Germans elected Hitler. Many germans were just passive regarding nazism, even in its worst aspect. What having the right to a gun will change for them?

Once again, the french revolutioners didn’t have the right to take arms against the king. They did it anyway. In Iraq, militias doesn’t care about having the right by law or not to carry firearms. They does, that all.

Plus, I found the logic that what protect US democracy being each people have right to have a gun and use it quite… dystopian.

Guns do not give life nor do they take life Paul.

Indeed. Bullets does.
But everybody knows that bullets and guns are totally unrelated things.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 17, 2007 10:12 AM
Comment #217012

good god - is that where this argument has come to how people would rather die? beaten or shot? that is not what this is about. The NRA folks can say what they want but if there were fewer people owning guns there would be fewer people killed in incidents like these and in domestic violence and other killings. That is a fact guns make in very easy and impersonal to kill another human being. So stop all the arguments that legal gun owners don’t commit crimes. This kid bought the 9mm he used to kill 32 people at a gun store in Charlottesville on the 13th. A one-week waiting period would have meant that this kid would not have this gun at this time. Not that this would have prevented him from doing it but it wouldn’t have happened yesterday.

It would be nice for all of the NRA folks to remember that there are 9 other rights in our Bill of Rights and you guys have been pretty silent while the Bush admin has stripped most of those away in a pretense to make us safe from terrorism (habeas corpus, speedy trial, cruel punishment). I, someone who has been very critical of civil rights abuses of this administration, has always included the 2nd amendment with the rest. Even though I have issues with the amendment, it is in our Constitution and should be respected.

I was hoping to engage people in a reasoned discussion on the issue of where the line should be drawn not in how it is better to be killed.

Posted by: Tom Snediker at April 17, 2007 10:31 AM
Comment #217015

Phillipe,

“Indeed. Bullets does.
But everybody knows that bullets and guns are totally unrelated things.”

Bullets have no conscience. If I threw a bullet at you, it would most likely bounce off.

Guns rarely go off by themselves.

Humans are the wild card here, and they can be less predictable than guns or bullets.

It would make more sense to ban humans than it would to ban guns.

Posted by: Rocky at April 17, 2007 10:35 AM
Comment #217020

Philippe Houdoin,

Never. But I remember well my great-father crying while he told me about his first Christmas during World War I.

Funny I remember that to. Oddly enough he was in France.

Have either of you ridden a horse in a round-up, or even in matter in a rodeo?
Here I was actually teasing you - sorry you missed the joke. My point was simple, life here is vastly different than it is there.
Well, I do ride horse each week. But never did or watch a rodeo.

I never said a thing about assault rifles. To my knowledge they’re intended use is to kill people. I spoke of guns, thinking of hand guns. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear.

You don’t need a law or a constitution right to take arm against your own government. You only needs enough people with enough reason to do it.

And enough people with some type of weapon.

Actually you’ve hit on one of the major issues those who don’t support gun control have. One problem is simply they fear a major part of gun control would involve gun registration. That simply means allowing your name to be put on a Governmental list. I believe you can see the problems arising from this.

Many fear that should such a list exists, it could be used as a way for the government to restrict ownership, or remove arms from the people.
Sort of like Hitler did with the Jewish population, in the thirties and forties. We simply don’t want to be put in that position.

I’m appalled that you could think europeans could actually consider that their leaders have no equal rights than themselves.
I didn’t mean that Europeans leaders didn’t have equal rights. What I said was that no one in our country is more equal or less equal to anyone else. Our President is not necessarily a better person, (heaven help us)or higher individual in regard to his life than I am. He simply works for me, and the rest of this country, and he can be terminated from his post.

It may well be a mis-conception, however, my understanding is the Europeans leaders, particularly the Kings and Queens are somehow ‘above’ the rest of the citizens.

Please, wake up, “Old Europe” only exists in Rumshelf speeches.
I have no idea whom you are referring to. I’m sorry.
What I just don’t get is how lack of gun control actually fixed US huge death by gun problem and that a majority of people between choosing another policy and keep the current one and tolerate the death choose the second.

What I don’t get is this last comment. I’ve re-read it, and re-read it, and it simply does not make sense to me. Perhaps you’d like to re-write it?

BTW - I happen to support some type of gun control - I’m just not sure what. I don’t think it is necessary for regular people to have assault rifles, machine type guns, etc. Regular rifles, shotguns for hunting,handguns for themselves, I see no problem with.

Posted by: Linda H. at April 17, 2007 10:51 AM
Comment #217021

PH
“but it doesn’t make anymore true that the only thing that prevent your country to commit an holocaust is your 2nd amendment and nothing else,”

Which is why I said “due largely to,” and not only because we have it.

“as well as what allowed the nazi’s holocaust to happen was the lack of similar amendment for germans”

I can’t say it would have helped and you can’t say it would not have helped.
But I’m betting many Jews were wishing they had a right to own guns and would not have allowed their guns to be taken so that they could have fought back rather than be put in those camps.

“I found the logic that what protect US democracy being each people have right to have a gun and use it quite… dystopian”

Its worked so far.
200+ years without an overthrow of our govt. How many other countries who have disarmed their people have accomplished that?

Posted by: kctim at April 17, 2007 10:52 AM
Comment #217036
200+ years without an overthrow of our govt. How many other countries who have disarmed their people have accomplished that?

Middle Age europeans? Egyptians? Romans?
And… what about the British?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 17, 2007 12:04 PM
Comment #217038

Tom,

In my original response, I made a point, basically saying: militias simply ain’t what they used to be.

For some reason, we don’t know what the exact intent was in those words written into the Constitution.

Regarding the argument that the right to bear arms empowers the citizen to “protect the states against the federal government”. MY issue with this is that the playing field is not level. So, our right to bear arms (own a gun), is somewhat moot at this point because there aren’t enough guns (or people with guns) in the US that would empower us to do so.

If Bush, Clinton, Reagan, etc… came to the knowledge (which, in this day and age, would almost definately be covered by the media, so everyone in the country/world would know immediately), then that group, correct or not, would not likely succeed in overthrowing the government. Back in 1794, this may have been possible, cause the only weapons were guns. Now, the power and advantage is in the govenments hands, and nothing the comman man can do with any “arm” is going to make a difference (unless he can afford a nuke, right?) The “militia” will only be seen as a terrorist or enemy, unless the general public were behind them, in which case they wouldn’t need guns!

I don’t think it’s a matter of where to draw the line anymore, since the common man’s only power, now, is his vote (and probably even more powerful, his leverage on the media). Therefore, guns should simply be removed from the general public so they can stop causing the pointless deaths they currently do. Leading to my death by the punch argument…

-Dutch_expat

Posted by: Dutch_expat at April 17, 2007 12:14 PM
Comment #217040

“Middle Age europeans? Egyptians? Romans?”

You might as well include the Garden of Eden in with that group.

“And… what about the British?”

Good answer. I don’t really know much about them so I will have to read up on that one.
First question would be how long has the British populace been disarmed though.

Posted by: kctim at April 17, 2007 12:21 PM
Comment #217044

Dutch
Its not about overthrowing the govt, its about protecting the people from govt tyranny.
Believing the people can just “vote” out a dictator or other oppressive form of govt is a little silly isn’t it?
Sometimes, an armed action is the only way left to gain ones freedom.

You are right about there being nowhere else to draw the line though.
We are basically to the point where we get rid of guns or honor our Constitution.

Posted by: kctim at April 17, 2007 12:34 PM
Comment #217045

BillS:
“FYI
“well regulated” meant in parlance “well armed”.”

Bill, I disagree. I’ve never seen the word regulated used to mean armed in any of the writings or letters of that era. According to my Colonial Lexicon, at that time the word Regulate or Regulated would have been used to mean:

1. To control or direct by rules, principles, or methods.
2. To arrange or conform to a standard, or to a requirement.
3. To adjust or put into order, to ensure the accuracy of an operation (as in the drilling and training of soldiers)

Interestingly enough, any of these three definitions could apply to the concept of an armed citizenry.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 17, 2007 12:39 PM
Comment #217049

Tom:

I can’t imagine what you folks must be going through. You have my heartfelt sympathy that such a tragedy should happen. I believe we need to blame the shooter and the root cause when this happens.

exchange students host family has at least 15-20 guns (this may seem excessive but he HUNTS with every single one of them

I find it interesting, and somewhat telling that this statement called for a justification. Hunts with 15-20 guns? Must hunt all the time. There are gun collectors, and they shouldn’t need a justification.

I would love to see the NRA, or anybody for that matter, fight for things like more mental health care and screening, advocate for responsible gun ownership, and not just gun ownership.

I’m torn between thinking guns should be registered and hard to obtain to wondering why folks are so afraid of a government knowing they have guns? I admit I’m finding some of this hard to understand.

I’ll also piss some folks off when I say that the gun arguments always smell a little of excess testosterone to me. No offense to the women gun owners, myself included. The arguments get a little too much into protectionism (protection of my right to do what I want, to hell with the rest).

I sincerely believe that we need to seriously address the causes of this kind of behavior, not just gun ownership. If that includes gun ownership and accessibility, so be it. There should be major consequences when children and teenagers can access guns and do what they have done. Rights come with responsibility.

JMHO

Posted by: womanmarine at April 17, 2007 12:44 PM
Comment #217059

“Believing the people can just “vote” out a dictator or other oppressive form of govt is a little silly isn’t it?”

Totally.

But you missed my concept. Even if it were the government tyranny, the tyranny obviously believes they are correct. Though, it may happen quicker, and folks likely would die, guns don’t solve the problem.

It would end up looking like an old wagon circle defending against the indians, with the citizens being the indians. But, in this circumstance, we’d have BB guns, and they’d have tanks, nukes, etc… no match. We all know that whoever has the nuke, has the power, period. If everyone had one, we’d disappear because of what womanmarine mentioned:

“…gun arguments always smell a little of excess testosterone…”

If the problem were large enough, it would not need guns, just voting or public opinion through mediums such as the internet and TV.

The playing field is not level enough to warrant the existing laws. Does anyone suggest that, in 1000 years, the laws we live by will still apply? In general, yes, but where things change (for instance, lasers become smaller and more powerful than guns, and thus rediculously more deadly) over time, rules and laws will have to adapt.

-Dutch_expat

Posted by: Dutch_expat at April 17, 2007 1:17 PM
Comment #217060

“The President stated at the October 10th White House Conference on School Safety that he believes that funding education is a local responsibility. Initial reports suggest Congress is also not moving to restore or expand funding for school safety. Congress must view school safety as a public safety issue, not an education funding issue. Violence and crime in and around our schools is a matter of protecting the safety of our children and teachers. Federal grants cuts made in school drug and violence prevention programming, school security, and school emergency planning funding for the past five years should be restored and incrementally expanded in the manner we have built upon funding to protect the rest of our national infrastructure.”

http://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/white_house_school_safety.html

How many of these recommendations fell on deaf ears?

Posted by: KansasDem at April 17, 2007 1:28 PM
Comment #217068

KansasDem,
You are very correct.
I would add, that just as under-funding these programs, our illustrious president has not seen fit to ask for funding for his NCLB program, which schools in his home state of Texas are now taking to court.

Posted by: Linda H. at April 17, 2007 1:50 PM
Comment #217069

Bravo Tom and womanmarine! Great posts!

womanmarine:
“I would love to see the NRA, or anybody for that matter, fight for things like more mental health care and screening, advocate for responsible gun ownership, and not just gun ownership.”

That is exactly how I feel also. This is why the NRA and the nut-job militia types have earned such a bad, yet well deserved reputation. In their zeal to promote and protect gun ownership, their message has become synonymous with an insane amount of irresponsibility and simplemindedness. This country desperately needs gun laws that make sense, and promote real responsibility. We also need a serious crackdown on the entire illegal gun trade, and stiff fines and penalties for breaking the law.

kctim:
“The NRA has a bad reputation from the left because of politics. Many Dems are members of the NRA (at least in my area) and they just don’t get why you guys on the far left gave up on them.”

See above comments.

“Do you think the founders realized that there would be a huge difference in lifestyles, such as urban and rural,”

Yes, and those differences between urban and rural areas and lifestyles already existed at that time.

“and that is why they originally designed our states to have more power than they do now?”

I think it had more to do with communications and traveling distances during that era. They knew that America was going to have one seat of power for the federal government, and seats of state power since communications between the fed and the states would consist of a guy on a horse or riding in a coach, sometimes traveling for days at a time to deliver news and messages.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 17, 2007 1:50 PM
Comment #217071

womanmarine,
Beautifully put!!!

Posted by: Linda H. at April 17, 2007 1:54 PM
Comment #217077

Wow Dutch. I could not just lay down like that. My freedoms, rights and love of this country would not allow me too.

Adrienne
Its not the NRA’s duty to fight for more screening. They “say” they’re intention is to fight for our 2nd Amendment right. And while I don’t agree with the NRA and am not a member, they do have a very good safety (responsibility) program.
As I said, the NRA’s “bad” reputation is mainly believed only by those of the far left. The majority of Democrats that I know, are members of the NRA. Comparing them to militias is no different than lumping anarchists in with all anti-war demostrators.

“I think it had more to do with communications and traveling distances during that era”

Ah, good call.
Do you think the federal govt should be the end all be all when it comes to this issue or do you think it should recognize the differences between urban and rural life and grant that option to the individual states?

womanmarine
“why folks are so afraid of a government knowing they have guns? I admit I’m finding some of this hard to understand”

So, if people don’t have anything to hide, they should not be afraid of being on a govt list? Isn’t that one of the things some on the right have said recently about their freedom of speech and privacy? Why should people be afraid if govt knows they talk to terrorists or not, right?
Sorry, but I think its wrong for all three of those rights.

And, btw, testosterone isn’t what its really about at all for most gun owners. Contrary to what is said, we do not sit around stroking our guns 24 hours a day waiting to use it.
Its no more about testosterone than privacy is about being a pervert or free speech is about being gossip.

Posted by: kctim at April 17, 2007 2:15 PM
Comment #217079

Kctim:

Thanks. I’m having a hard time trying to figure out a balance, or if there can even be a balance. And I’ve never been an advocate of the “if you have nothing to hide” group think. I am for freedoms, but I also believe in responsibility. I do think we need some kind of balance, moderation in all things. The testosterone I speak of is of the “not over my dead body” extreme that seems to come out when gun issues are discussed.

Frankly, I don’t want to take away yours or anyone elses gun. But I am hoping you would agree that it is not best for everyone to own or have access to a gun. Just as some folks shouldn’t drive and some folks shouldn’t drink, I don’t believe everyone should own or be able to own a gun. What to do about it, I don’t know. But I think we should be discussing it together, not assuming that those of us concerned are just trying to take everyone’s gun away, or invade their privacy.

Do I know how to do this? No. But I would like to see a discussion based on what we would like the outcome to be. Perhaps more attention to mental health is the answer, perhaps not. I think all aspects and possibilities should be discussed rationally.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 17, 2007 2:25 PM
Comment #217084

Kctim, lay down like what?

Tom asked where the line was, or should be. I argue, that given the situation at hand, the line should be - no guns.

Is this realistic, nah, not anytime soon. Do I advocate it, nah, I agree that guns have their place. But given all that, like Tom originally said, what do we do with the RPG’s? Why can’t I own one of them???

The whole point of this is to preserve life, correct? We aren’t in 1794, where the only way to be heard was have a gun. It works. But, ultimately, it costs lives, in this case, 33.

If this guy went around killing people by boxing with them, or throwing hatchets, this wouldn’t be news. Cause it happened with a gun, it’s the hugest thing in the world. Doesn’t this tell us there is a problem.

-Dutch_expat

Posted by: Dutch_expat at April 17, 2007 3:08 PM
Comment #217086

womanmarine
I understand where you are coming from, I just don’t think there is much more that we can do other than outright confiscation.
We already have laws to try and prevent the nuts, criminals and kids from getting them. We already have laws saying where we can take them. Neither are very effective when somebody is dead set on doing bad though.


Dutch
Lay down and let the govt do whatever it wanted just because the “majority” says its ok for them too. I would not lay down and accept that.

Other than the timeline of events, this guy is no different than a serial killer. How many people did Gacy murder? Do we ban clowns and offering to help people down on their luck? Do we ban homosexuality because of what Dahmer and Berdella did? Of course not.
Taking away rights because of what a few psycos do is not the way to stop it.

Fear is why this is huge news. People allow their fears to justify the taking of their rights. It happened with gun control and it happened with the Patriot Act.
It is wrong.

Posted by: kctim at April 17, 2007 3:29 PM
Comment #217087

Philippe
“what about the British?”

Actually, the British once set a very good example for why people should always hold fast to their right to keep and bear arms. After the Jacobite (Highland Scottish) uprising of 1745 and Culloden, when the British wanted to control the Highland people and destroy their traditions and way of life (and prevent the future risk of another uprising against the Hanoverian King), the first thing they did was to proclaim the Disarming Act, which consisted of severe penalties (sometimes death) for carrying and possessing any arms, wearing any kilt, plaid, or tartan garment, and even the bagpipes were prohibited for being an ‘instrument of war’. British rule (tyranny) in America is obviously also another good example of why we should not wish to abolish the 2nd amendment.

kctim:
“Its not the NRA’s duty to fight for more screening.”

I strongly disagree. I think they should make it their duty to advocate in a much more responsible way. They should support the idea of mental health screening, and waiting periods when purchasing guns, and should take up the discussion of exactly what constitutes reasonable and rational guns and ammo. To give but one example, I don’t think they should continue to vociferously defend those “cop killer” bullets.

“Do you think the federal govt should be the end all be all when it comes to this issue”

No, I think all Americans should be discussing what we think is rational and reasonable and pass these thoughts on to our Congressional representatives — that way, when and if they ever do take up this issue the way they should, they’ll actually know their constituents think.

“or do you think it should recognize the differences between urban and rural life and grant that option to the individual states?”

Yes, I think the differences between urban and rural life should definitely be taken into account.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 17, 2007 3:42 PM
Comment #217089

Kctim:

Thanks. I really believe this isn’t a gun issue. It’s a social issue which we will never solve. Sounds defeatist maybe, and I don’t think we should quit trying to solve it, but society being what it is…..

Just like terrorism, this kind of thing will continue to happen and I don’t believe it can be predicted with any certainty. We can only do our best in trying to perceive and prevent things, but it will never be eradicated.

Sad, isn’t it?

Posted by: womanmarine at April 17, 2007 3:55 PM
Comment #217093

Thanks Adrienne. I love when your posts are informative and not political.
A history lesson [thank you very much :) ] and an honest point of view.

The only thing I could add is that the NRA will start preaching about ammo such as that when its members start speaking up about it.

Womanmarine
Yet another thing we agree on ma’am.
Sounds defeatist? Life of the party aren’t we :)

Posted by: kctim at April 17, 2007 4:06 PM
Comment #217096

As usual, whenever something tragic happens like this, all the “anti’s”, and by that I mean, those who are against guns, don’t like guns, prefer that no citizen be allowed to own guns, those who are AFRAID of guns—-you get the picture, all those anti’s start screaming “WAAAH! WE NEED MORE GUN CONTROL!” etc. etc.

Enough already.

“Gun control” is obviously a failed policy, because it prevented 30-some innocent students from making it to final exams. Fact is, if one, just one student had been armed, this might not have gone to such tragic proportions.

Whomever, a while back, said something idiotic to the point that if such armed student had shot the assassin, then someone else would have pulled his (or her) gun and shot him, on and on and on, ad infinitum—-are you a total idiot?

THE PROBLEM, anti’s, and I mean anyone who thinks that more guns means more killings, is that YOU are AFRAID of guns, you are afraid of anyone who possesses a gun, you are afraid, or just too damn LAZY to obtain one for yourself, get the necessary training, learn the skill to use it effectively, carry it discretely, and then KNOW that you might be able to make a difference if something like this ever happened that involved you directly.

By the way, we probably don’t know yet, but this perp, who indeed was an evil SOB, certainly knew how to operate his guns, didn’t he? He sure didn’t learn it by simply buying a gun and fantasizing in front of the TeeVee did he?

It was said that many of the victims apparently submitted meekly, and even lined up to be shot. That is cowardly behavior. So, if you would rather remain a victim, like that, you would rather not get the necessary equipment and skills to defend yourselves, please don’t try to prevent those of us who do have that skill from exercising it when warranted.

Posted by: WarrenW at April 17, 2007 4:12 PM
Comment #217104

WarrenW
“all the “anti’s”, and by that I mean, those who are against guns, don’t like guns, prefer that no citizen be allowed to own guns, those who are AFRAID of guns—-you get the picture, all those anti’s start screaming “WAAAH! WE NEED MORE GUN CONTROL!” etc. etc”

Only a few posts have called for that Warren. For the most part, we have been talking about if there is anything that can be done to prevent further events such as this from happening again.

I am extreme when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.
The author, who doesn’t wish to engage with me, believes something must be done that protects people and our rights.
Adrienne, a pretty far left lady and womanmarine, a moderately left lady, desire the same.
Two vastly oppossing viewpoints, but yet, we were able to have a reasonable Q&A session without the anger that normally arises with this issue.

You want to keep your 2nd Amendment right? Then understand and respect the other sides views.

Posted by: kctim at April 17, 2007 4:38 PM
Comment #217107

WarrenW - that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Gun control is not a failed policy - because this state has no gun control.

Here is one equation that always proves itself to be true:
guns = dead people; more guns = more dead people

plain and simple

I would also appreciate you not calling my friends, classmates, and colleagues cowards. You sir are much more cowardly than professor Liviu Librescu, who I believe was a halocaust survivor, who laid himself down in front of the door to give some of his students time to get out a window at the cost of his own life. There are many other stories of bravery from my fellow Hokies. You are a coward for sitting in front of your computer calling these people meek, cowardly, victims.

Having guns on campus would have a very slim chance of stopping something like what happened here yesterday but would probably cause many more deaths than than the 33 that died yesterday. If you were there you probably would have shot yourself, an innocent bystander, but probably not the gunman - though you would probably be wetting your pants and cowering in the corner. It’s easy to talk tough on the internet - it is another to be brave in the face of danger like many of my fellow Hokies were.

It’s one thing to stand up for gun rights - it is in our contstitution just don’t pretend that it makes anyone safer. New York City is the safest big city in the country and is the hardest to buy a gun whereas Dallas is the most dangerous city in the country where everyone has a gun. It’s not that hard to understand.

Posted by: Tom Snediker at April 17, 2007 4:58 PM
Comment #217109

Warren W.,

By the way, we probably don’t know yet, but this perp, who indeed was an evil SOB, certainly knew how to operate his guns, didn’t he? He sure didn’t learn it by simply buying a gun and fantasizing in front of the TeeVee did he?

I never really thought pointing a pistol and pulling a trigger, at point blank range, was rocket science, but maybe that’s just me. Nor would I characterize the fish being shot in a barrel cowardly. Those that held the doors closed and got shot while others escaped were heroic, in my opinion. Frankly, I find your characterization of those shot as cowards quite creepy.

Posted by: gergle at April 17, 2007 5:06 PM
Comment #217112

“guns = dead people; more guns = more dead people”

Not true at all.
Gun control scare tactic to instill fear and get people to vote to give up their right to be armed.

Everyone has a gun in Dallas? Wow.
Why did you not mention DC in your comparison?

Posted by: kctim at April 17, 2007 5:18 PM
Comment #217114

kctim,
I apologize for not being able to engage you in as much debate as I would like. I have been on campus most of the day comforting my wife who lost 2 of her employees and a former employee in the shooting. I have been trying to keep the discussion on topic but people like WarrenW have made it difficult. Between that and my 4 month old daughter screaming in my lap it has been hard to write much.

While I may disagree with you on this issue your posts have been reasonable. My main question is why have we ignored the first half of the second amendment and only focused on the last half.

If we look at the amendment it says:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The two clauses are separated by a comma which denotes a dependent clause which means the second half of the sentence is dependent on the first. If the founders didn’t want them to be tied together they would have use a semicolon which would mean independent clauses. I think these men understood grammar. I haven’t heard much from the “pro-gun” side what they think the first half of the amendment meant. If it is outdated to talk of militias shouldn’t we revisit the whole amendment. The people on the right seem to have issues with interpreting the other amendments of the Constitution in light of the modern world in which we live why is it ok to do here?

Also, as I said, if we have the 2nd amendment to protect against the tyranny of the federal government - we have already abdicated the right. We might as well stand against the government with pitchforks and torches as we could with rifles and pistols against tanks, helicopters, and guided missles.

Posted by: Tom Snediker at April 17, 2007 5:34 PM
Comment #217117

kctim,
I stand by my statement that guns = dead people - what else are they for? other than hunting. Guns are designed to make holes in other people. Whether or not the other people have done something to deserve having a hole in them is a subject for debate

I don’t have the statistics but how many crimes every year are actually stopped by a gun? I would guess very few compared to the domestic shootings, accidental shootings, and guns stolen to be used in crimes. I would also venture a guess that most of the guns in this country sit quietly in a closet or case and never needed except to go to the shooting range or a hunting trip.

I am not advocating taking anyone’s gun away I would just to start a dialogue on what are the actual consequences of guns in households and what the real meaning of the second amendment is.

Posted by: Tom Snediker at April 17, 2007 5:42 PM
Comment #217119

Tom S,
Your comment (below) is more ridiculous. By your standards, “gun control” includes prohibiting students in a college from being armed, correct?

“that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Gun control is not a failed policy - because this state has no gun control.”

I guess that to you, “gun control” means no guns, no where, no how. Except for the police, and the military, who are supposed to protect us?

You continue:
“It’s not that hard to understand.”
Apparently is is hard for YOU to understand. Almost 40 states, so far, have effective concealed carry legislation, and in every single one, crime has gone down. EXCEPT on school property. Why is it that these incidents occur on school property? Or where citizens are prohibited or otherwise prevented from being armed?

“Here is one equation that always proves itself to be true:
guns = dead people; more guns = more dead people”

Yeah, more airplanes = more plane crashes. Get over it.

I in no way meant to insinuate that anyone present, when that killer attacked, IS or WAS a coward, BUT until we learn of some valiant attempt by someone to FIGHT BACK, not surrender, I will assume that they prefered to accept their status as victims. And Tom, you can call me a coward all you want. It in no way makes me a coward.

kctim:
Your comments and posts have always been reasonable and useful, even if I don’t always agree with them. The following is a case in point:
“For the most part, we have been talking about if there is anything that can be done to prevent further events such as this from happening again.”
Yes, I understand that, but what some folks absolutely refuse to accept or understand is that allowing qualified, trained, willing students or teachers to be armed could have prevented it. By forbiding any weapons, you are guaranteeing that it will indeed happen again. And, as long as you are afraid of guns, afraid of people who have them and know how to use them, and seek to prevent law-abiding citizens from having the means to defend themselves AND THEIR FELLOW CLASSMATES, you will always be helpless. It’s your choice.

Posted by: WarrenW at April 17, 2007 5:44 PM
Comment #217121

Tom
No need to apologize sir. I too am a family man and I can only guess at how terrible your dealings with this has been.
I wrote that because I know I can be an unreasonable pain sometimes, just ask Adrienne :)

My university (Virginia Tech) has joined the all too long list of tragic school shootings

Two and two didn’t add up for me Tom. I completely forgot that you had said you were there man.

My biggest thing with your latest post is that I personally do not ignore the first part of the amendment. Too me, all of us citizens make up the “militia” that is to protect us from our govt should it go astray.

I know its old fashioned or just kooky to some, but I firmly believe 200 million armed civilians could make a difference against our advanced military weapons.
Sure, a 30-30 is not an M-60, but are numbers are greater. There is also the soldiers mentality factor to weigh.
From experience, I know our soldiers would have 2nd, 3rd and more thoughts on fighting against their fellow Americans.

Revisiting the amendment is a dangerous thing IMO. I believe it is what cost the Dems in 2000 and 04.
I also believe it scares them now:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/virginia_tech_gun_control

Posted by: kctim at April 17, 2007 5:54 PM
Comment #217123

WarrenW

I have never advocated repealing the second amendment or taking anyone’s gun away. You have absolutly no idea what happened on my campus yesterday and calling the victims of this crime cowards shows how little you know.

You are still more likely to shoot yourself or someone you love than a perpetrator of a crime. It doesn’t mean we should take everyone’s gun just make decisions with our eyes open.

Posted by: Tom Snediker at April 17, 2007 5:55 PM
Comment #217124

WarrenW:

So do you also advocate armed high school students? Think Columbine.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 17, 2007 5:57 PM
Comment #217130

womanmarine:
“So do you also advocate armed high school students?”
No way. Absolutely not! High school teachers, not students. Sorry I wasn’t clear on that.

Tom S.:
You are correct. I have absolutely no idea what happened on your campus yesterday, and I doubt many do know, even those who were there. I’m sorry you had to experience that. However, had that perp known that someone could possibly be armed, legally, he might not have attempted such a stunt.

“You are still more likely to shoot yourself or someone you love than a perpetrator of a crime. It doesn’t mean we should take everyone’s gun just make decisions with our eyes open.”

Tom, you keep repeating the tired old saw that all the anti-gunners use. There is NO WAY that I am going to shoot myself, or someone I love. Sorry man, you are wrong wrong wrong about that! Someone I hate, perhaps. Having a gun around does not automatically mean someone is going to get shot! That is a tired, old, false statement, that I personally am sick of hearing. You, however, may continue to believe it, especially if it reinforces your fear of guns and armed citizens.

Posted by: WarrenW at April 17, 2007 6:23 PM
Comment #217137

WarrenW,

As usual, whenever something tragic happens like this, all the “anti’s”, and by that I mean, those who are against guns, don’t like guns, prefer that no citizen be allowed to own guns, those who are AFRAID of guns—-you get the picture, all those anti’s start screaming “WAAAH! WE NEED MORE GUN CONTROL!” etc. etc.

Enough already.

You don’t need *more* gun control.
You need to experience gun control, as you don’t have any that could be called that way, in fact. You said “enough”, but what you consider gun control policy is, from here, Europe, the weakliest “gun control policy” one could imagine.
AFAIK, Virginia law regarding gun carrying is very lax, so everyone can buy one, carry one and move where he want with it.
But the campus were supposed to be a gun-free area, all by the magic of “law”?

If you want to experiment effective gun-free zone, make the zone the USA size, and only allow guns to be used (and registered as well) for hunting, firearm clubs and law and orders bodies. Period.
All other demagogic policy is flawed.

Or you could continue that way.
After all, 32 deaths, that one day in Iraq. If you don’t care for iraqis, why would you care for 32 virginians?
Let’s move on.

YOU are AFRAID of guns, you are afraid of anyone who possesses a gun, you are afraid, or just too damn LAZY to obtain one for yourself, get the necessary training, learn the skill to use it effectively, carry it discretely, and then KNOW that you might be able to make a difference if something like this ever happened that involved you directly.

Check the records. Nobody without a gun ever kill someone with its gun. But people having a gun killing other people with it are far from zero.
And you wonder why one could be *more* afraid about people having a gun than people not having one?

Stop kidding me.
I’m not afraid of guns. I’m afraid of people using guns on other people, for whatever purpose, attack or self-defense.

Because the bullets don’t know they’re on a self-defense mission when fired.

Find a way to make them a difference, add the capabilities to avoid collateral or unwanted homicide to bullets and I’ll change my mind.

Until that, better run faster than bullets.

“Gun control” is obviously a failed policy, because it prevented 30-some innocent students from making it to final exams. Fact is, if one, just one student had been armed, this might not have gone to such tragic proportions.

That’s not fact, that’s speculation. Your. On someones else lives.
There is no proof that if one single student were armed he will not have been killed before he could even react.
There is no proof that if one single student were armed he will have not missed his murderer if he ad reacted.
There is no proof that if one single student were armed he will have not wounded or even killed another victim(s) while trying to kill the murderer, confusing him or wrongly using his gun.

BUT… there is ALL proof spread everywhere that one single gun killed 32 people and wounded many others.

This is FACT, not speculation.

Speculate as much as you want, but gun kills. Your country choose to tolerate these deaths to keep being able to worship guns, that’s all.

Many countries stop being in morbid love with deadly weapon decades if not centuries ago and guess what: they have national scale gun ban *and* far less death by gun rate than in the US, per 100,000 inhabitants.

Yeah, “AND”.
At the same time.

Weird, isn’t it?
Yeah, I know, who care about the other solution(s) when you already get the worst one…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 17, 2007 6:42 PM
Comment #217141

Tom,

I have to agree with kctim on the issue of the first part of the amendment.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State (country; my word), the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I don’t see the “regulated” as meaning regulations on who/how someone should have a gun.
There isn’t any way that even a 7 month waiting period would have hindered this guy, and you said that yourself.
Some people just snap.
Because of that do we take away the rights of the rest of the population?

No offence meant to anyone, but sometimes shit happens.
We stop the apparent, the not so apparent is a bit harder to stop.

I am a gun owner. I don’t hunt because I don’t care to. I do, however, go to the target range regularly, and my wife goes with me. I don’t carry a gun because I don’t feel the need, and my guns are stored unloaded as they should be (the clips are loaded though).

I don’t want to use my guns if I don’t have to.
That said, if I needed to, I am prepared to use them.

Posted by: Rocky at April 17, 2007 6:48 PM
Comment #217146

Warren W.

My bet is that you are very young or at least immature in your thinking process.

You conjecture that someone unarmed would and could effectively reisist a person walking in with a 9mm who starts shooting everyone is absurd. One too many Steven Sagal movies, dude. My bet is for all your tough talk you’d pee your pants.

By the time it would occur to you to reach for your concealed weapon, you’d be dead. This is how military/police clear a hostile room. By surprise. By the time you react, they kill you.No one at VT was expecting to deal with this. Assuming you did get off a shot, your adrenaline would be so high you’d be lucky to hit a barn. You’d probably have killed a fellow classmate, much like the soldiers in Afghanistan killed Pat Tillman when they got in a hot fire fight. Seasoned police officers are quite aware of this reality. You are the last person I’d want armed around me.

I have no problem with responsible people being armed in dangerous areas. But your fantasies about self defense are quite juvenile.

My brother-in-law used to keep a loaded pistol next to his bed. One night his wife awakened and half asleep thought someone was in the room and began screaming. He was awakened and began reaching for the gun. They struggled with each other for a moment thinking each other was an attacker, until they became fully awake. Fortunately, he never reached the gun.

How you react in a crisis in reality is an unknown. Even to a “trained” gunman. Please don’t bore me further with this self agrandizing fantasy of how you would fight off an attack. It’s quite a load of crap.

There are situations where being armed is a smart and good thing. Please stop using VT as a springboard for this dumb argument.

Posted by: gergle at April 17, 2007 7:07 PM
Comment #217147

Rocky,

No offence meant to anyone, but sometimes shit happens.

You know, by such logic, one could tell the same regarding 9/11. It was only 100 times worst, that’s all.

Oh, did I offense someone? No? Okay.
So let’s wait for the next ~80 tragic school shooting “incidents”. Then americans will start to change their mind, no doubt.

I don’t carry a gun because I don’t feel the need […] That said, if I needed to, I am prepared to use them.

As you don’t [feel the need to] carry one, you’re only prepared to miss your gun when you will need to use it.
Oh well, at least I hope you feel more safer.
At least. Otherwise, that’s hopeless.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 17, 2007 7:08 PM
Comment #217149

WarrenW:

Someone I hate, perhaps.

Sorry, but you negate your own argument. This is NOT an appropriate reason to own or use a gun. This is some of what has caused the shootings we have had already.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 17, 2007 7:18 PM
Comment #217150

I got my first gun at age 10. A .410 shotgun. I could only shoot it with dad’s supervision. The gun was kept in my room and the ammo was put up by my dad. I started hunting with friends at around 14. My parents had a hard fast rule. Anything you kill, you eat. I became selective with my targets. In the army I qualified as an expert with small arms.

Would you regulate my gun? If so, why?

Posted by: tomd at April 17, 2007 7:20 PM
Comment #217152

Rocky,

I quite agree. A well regulated militia was refering to something other than a lynch mob. Although the militia raised to squelch the Whiskey (1794) and Shays (1786) Rebellions killed only five people, both unauthorized militias (the Rebels) were charged with treason. One man died in prison, and two others were hanged. The rest were eventually pardoned.

There was no standing State or Federal armies at the time. Militia’s were called up as needed. Some were mercenary.

Guns and self defense were considered an everyday thing. There were no police forces. I think the 2nd admendment is quite clear. Irregardless that we may no longer need a well regulated militia, the right to bear arms in inalienable.

As to rifles against tanks, ask the soldiers in Iraq if the insurgents are a formidable force. You use the guns to steal bigger arms. They may not be able to win militarily, but they sure can raise hell, while pleading their cause to outside sources.

Posted by: gergle at April 17, 2007 7:31 PM
Comment #217154

Phillipe,

I don’t carry a gun because I don’t feel unsafe.

I keep my guns because I can, and because you just never know.

I have known people that have carried (here in Arizona you can carry on your hip, or with a permit, concealed).
Most of them carried because they were in fear.
The chances of stopping a crime in progress is astronomical against, and if you are carrying a gun you better be prepared (not just know how) to use it.

If you had read the news, you would know that this guy had issues that hadn’t been addressed, because he refused to address them. This was a premeditated act. If he hadn’t bought the two guns in a store I am sure he would have gotten them illegally.
Of course there is no illegal traffic in guns in France is there?

Posted by: Rocky at April 17, 2007 7:35 PM
Comment #217157

kctim

“I can’t say it would have helped and you can’t say it would not have helped.
But I’m betting many Jews were wishing they had a right to own guns and would not have allowed their guns to be taken so that they could have fought back rather than be put in those camps.”

i think it would have helped, i seems i remember reading that one of the main reasons hitler never invaded switzerland was that the swiss were heavily armed and doing so would have been to costly.

BTW i’m an nra member, and a member of my states pro 2nd amendment orgiization. they support certain regulations, such as instant background checks and so on. they are also one of the only organizations thats out there actively trying to protect our 2nd amendment rights. if you value your gun rights you owe it to yourself and your fellow gun owners to help protect those rights. i’ve seen many people on this thread badmouthing the nra, and most of them are of base. when they come for your guns try calling the aclu.

Posted by: dbs at April 17, 2007 7:36 PM
Comment #217166
This was a premeditated act. If he hadn’t bought the two guns in a store I am sure he would have gotten them illegally.

Probably. But having to search for an illegal gun dealer will have make it harder for him than just enter a shop, buy one and exit, right?

I mean, if I really want to got coke, I could, but my risk to get arrested trying to do it are higher than if coke were legal. Math is math is math.

Of course there is no illegal traffic in guns in France is there?

Yep. But, still, we don’t have such shooting in Europe. How come, if whatever gun control policy can make any difference about gun violence, only everybody caring a gun would, as according to many pro-gun posters here?

Maybe it’s a question of gun violence addiction, then?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 17, 2007 7:56 PM
Comment #217167
i seems i remember reading that one of the main reasons hitler never invaded switzerland was that the swiss were heavily armed and doing so would have been to costly.

I would be really interested to read that. Could you find a link, please.
Hitler had attacked Staline’s Soviet Union, after he crushed Poland, Belgium, France, Netherland, bombed London, and he will have fear the swiss army???

How crazy he was.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 17, 2007 8:02 PM
Comment #217169

Adrienne

“This country desperately needs gun laws that make sense, and promote real responsibility. We also need a serious crackdown on the entire illegal gun trade, and stiff fines and penalties for breaking the law.”


there are already laws covering the illegal sale of firearms to felons and those that are prohibited from possesing them, and they include long prison sentences. what other laws that make sense were you thinking of?


“To give but one example, I don’t think they should continue to vociferously defend those “cop killer” bullets.”

this is an anti gun buzz word. almost any commercialy produced rifle cartidge designed for hunting will penetrate soft body armor, and even ceramic plate body armor will not defeat all of them.

you can prevent most accidents through saftey training, and safe handling practices. i believe all children should be taught respect for guns at an early age, and what to do if they find one, or one of their friends is playing with one. the nra eddy eagle gun saftey program does this but most schools will not allow it to be taught because of PC. from time to time people go off the deep end and all the laws in the world won’t prevent this, as tragic as it is.

one other question. virginia has a shall issue conceal carry law, but guns are banned from the campus. how might this had turned out if just one of those people had had the ability to fight back? i bet there’d have been some lives saved. seems the perp. wasn’t aware of the law, or maybe laws only affect those of us willing to live by them.


Posted by: dbs at April 17, 2007 8:06 PM
Comment #217172

Philippe


the better question would be why not invade switzerland then? i wasn’t talking about the swiss army. i was talking about the swiss people.
stalin had disarmed his people before slaughtering many of them, and i don’t believe the people of the other countries mentioned were heavily armed. chamberlain had signed a treaty with hitler, and what good did it do? neutrality meant nothing to him. there is a big difference between fighting a standing army, and fighting an armed civilian populace, as we’ve seen in iraq.

Posted by: dbs at April 17, 2007 8:20 PM
Comment #217173

Phillipe,

“But having to search for an illegal gun dealer will have make it harder for him than just enter a shop, buy one and exit, right?”

In America, you cannot just go into a gun shop, pick one off of the shelf, pay for it and leave. I have gone through the ID check twice.
This I know as fact.

As for obtaining an illegal gun, it just isn’t that hard.
For a person that is planning mayhem, and has an agenda why would he care about the legality or worry about getting caught?

Posted by: Rocky at April 17, 2007 8:21 PM
Comment #217178
the better question would be why not invade switzerland then? i wasn’t talking about the swiss army. i was talking about the swiss people.

That’s the same since Swizerland is Swisszerland. Swiss people is the swiss army.
I dunno why he didn’t. Maybe he knows he had nothing to worried about the Swiss. And history has shown he was right.

stalin had disarmed his people before slaughtering many of them, and i don’t believe the people of the other countries mentioned were heavily armed.

Compared to Hitler war machine, nope.
But that’s also true for Swizerland. No way Swizerland was far more heavily armed than any of these countries.

Anyone, feel free to correct me.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 17, 2007 8:44 PM
Comment #217180
For a person that is planning mayhem, and has an agenda why would he care about the legality or worry about getting caught?

Because he could be caught *before* doing it?
Something that he will never worry about when it’s legal.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 17, 2007 8:47 PM
Comment #217181

Rocky,

Ooops, I almost forget the most important part:

As for obtaining an illegal gun, it just isn’t that hard.

It should be harder.
Which will only when gun control will actually be control the gun market, not the gun owners.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 17, 2007 8:51 PM
Comment #217185

Phillipe,

You miss the point.

“Because he could be caught *before* doing it?”

I was speaking of buying the illegal gun. This man didn’t seem to care if he got caught.
He shot two people in the dorm and then went over accross campus to the classrooms where he shot 30 more people before he took his own life.
Whether the guns were illegal or not he was going to do what he did.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18161472/site/newsweek/

This guy was just nuts.

Posted by: Rocky at April 17, 2007 9:14 PM
Comment #217252

Rocky,

You miss the point.

Tell me something I don’t know!
;-)

“Because he could be caught *before* doing it?”

I was speaking of buying the illegal gun. This man didn’t seem to care if he got caught.
He shot two people in the dorm and then went over accross campus to the classrooms where he shot 30 more people before he took his own life.
Whether the guns were illegal or not he was going to do what he did.

Oh, the determinist explanation.
Yeah, even in a world free of gun, this guy’s destiny was to found one (build one himself, even), and nothing, nobody could have stop him.

That make sense.
Not.

Shit happens. No doubt.
Now you can try to reduce how often and how awfull when it does. Seeing the current situation, I fail to see a reduction of gun violence in the USA.

Maybe you’re right and that nothing could reduce it, so everybody should just move on, aka tolerate. That seems as valid point as actually experimenting real gun control, I confess.

I wonder why you don’t that with terrorism, though. Each year gun violence kills way more on US soil that any terrorists attacks combined.
I guess that’s the frog dropped in boiling water vs slowly boil a frog in the water…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 18, 2007 5:18 AM
Comment #217256

Philippe,

Why the obsession with our gun laws? I fail to see how they affect you. Don’t take this wrong. This is an open forum and as far as I know you are free to express your views anytime. I’m just curious about your passion reguarding our laws.

Posted by: tomd at April 18, 2007 7:13 AM
Comment #217257

Phillippe,

Is the French Constitution avaliable online? Maybe we can discuss some of your laws.

Posted by: tomd at April 18, 2007 7:15 AM
Comment #217260

tomd,

Why the obsession with our gun laws? I fail to see how they affect you. Don’t take this wrong. This is an open forum and as far as I know you are free to express your views anytime. I’m just curious about your passion reguarding our laws.

Because what’s interested in laws is their effect, if any, not the laws itself.
And gun violence in the USA, statically, is in no way comparable with any other western nations.

The passionate property comes from death. Life and its antagonist, death, usually leads to passionate debate.

Is the French Constitution avaliable online? Maybe we can discuss some of your laws.

Right from our National Assembly and in english:
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/english/8ab.asp

I don’t know half of it.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 18, 2007 8:09 AM
Comment #217265

According to a rumor in Korean papers, the parents of the murderer have killed themselves in shame. Details here.

Posted by: Chops at April 18, 2007 8:45 AM
Comment #217269

dbs
“if you value your gun rights you owe it to yourself and your fellow gun owners to help protect those rights. i’ve seen many people on this thread badmouthing the nra, and most of them are of base. when they come for your guns try calling the aclu”

I am not a member of the NRA not because they are the so-called “gun nuts,” but because they do not fight hard enough to keep our 2nd Amendment rights in tact.
As I said earlier, I have an extreme view of the 2nd Amendment.

PH
“Probably. But having to search for an illegal gun dealer will have make it harder for him than just enter a shop, buy one and exit, right?”

Rocky is right my friend, its not that hard.
In fact, I could go out and “illegally” buy a gun and be back within an hour or 2.
Its actually easier to get one illegally than legally.

I know its hard for you to understand why we love our rights so much and why at least half of us strongly believe in our 2nd Amendment rights. If its any consolation, maybe 30 percent of us believe in your type of govt rule, so there are many who agree with you here.
I think the biggest difference is how the two sides of the issue look at it.
Gun control advocates blame an inanimate object and 2nd Amendment supporters blame the person who turns that inanimate object into a tool to kill.

Believe it or not, but there are people in this world who are just bad and taking the blame off them and putting it on an inanimate object does nothing.
Carving up 32 people over the course of a year or shooting 32 people one afternoon are the same thing.
32 innocent people are dead at the hands of an evil person. You don’t blame the knife, you shouldn’t blame the gun.

Posted by: kctim at April 18, 2007 9:23 AM
Comment #217275
I think the biggest difference is how the two sides of the issue look at it. Gun control advocates blame an inanimate object and 2nd Amendment supporters blame the person who turns that inanimate object into a tool to kill.

I don’t blame the gun, I blame the tolerance that allows your gun culture to rank your country as the highest gun crimes #1 of all “civilized” countries.

Believe it or not, but there are people in this world who are just bad and taking the blame off them and putting it on an inanimate object does nothing.

I don’t advocate taking the blame off them, but the “inanimate object” instead. Just because the object in that matter is no more inanimate one as soon as his finger pull the trigger.

I understand you’re for removing every “bad” people. But where the proof that your country is successfull at doing it?
Yeah, finding out whose that “bad” is hard, in particular *before* they do bad things.

Meanwhile, you could try to remove as much as possible weapon from people hands. It’s hard, sure, but it’s easier than catching the bad guys in time, as history show us.

In fact, I think that’s the exact same argument people are pushing to forbid Iran to get nuke weapons. Nobody is pushing only blaming Iran leaders, but many agree that they should NOT get weapons.

Until one day a massive school shooting ends *without* the murdurer(s) being killed or captured, I’ll bet americans wont consider making weapon far harder to get anyday.
AFAIK, in that case, the police didn’t know who to search for for a long time. You’re lucky the shooter was suicidal, as he got enough time to escape the area… That would have been quite disturbing, I guess.

Here, as previously, the moral is “safe”.
Hurray.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 18, 2007 10:27 AM
Comment #217276

BTW, by your own logic nukes are also “inanimate objects”. Even the supposed future iranians ones.
And that was never *that* true for the never found Saddam’s WMDs, too.

So why should we worry about those?
Let’s blame their mad owner(s) for their responsability if they ever use them.
Let personnal responsability show how great it works.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 18, 2007 10:33 AM
Comment #217280

kctim,
you said, “Carving up 32 people over the course of a year or shooting 32 people one afternoon are the same thing.”

I agree, it doesn’t matter what method a person uses to kill someone. Their family and friends don’t care. What I think is an issue with guns is how easy and impersonal it is to pull a trigger and how much less likely someone is to go on a stabbing rampage than a shooting rampage. In addition, guns that have 15 shot clips that are easily exchangeable make it so much easier for things like what happened here Monday. Like I have said, I don’t think that this means we should take people’s guns. I don’t know where the line should be drawn but I don’t think that there is much debate that there should be some weapons that we shouldn’t be able to buy (ex. RPGs, guided missles, anti-aircraft weapons) and some that we should be able to own (ex. hunting weapons, personal protection weapons). So where is this line? Have we drawn it too stricly already or not enoungh?

What I think is way off base are those suggesting that everyone on campus be allowed to carry a gun. That would not have stopped Cho. Someone bent on killing themselves is not going to be deterred by the possibility of getting killed by someone else. In addition, there if we armed people on campus, there would be a lot more than these 32 people killed every year. We don’t need shootouts on campus by untrained people. The police don’t generally shoot into crowds of people because of all the innocent people in the way. An untrained person would not be able to make sound decisions in a crisis, the trained ones have a hard enough time.

kctim said, “Believe it or not, but there are people in this world who are just bad and taking the blame off them and putting it on an inanimate object does nothing.”

I don’t think it puts the blame on an inanimate object. It is the inanimate object that allows these bad people to commit their crimes. A guy with a knife won’t be able to kill 32 people in a matter of minutes. The object is the facilitator for the bad person.

I also believe that one of the risks of living in a free society is that there is a safety exchange. Free people are also free to to say and do horrible things (obviously not without consequense). I would like to point out the hypocrisy in those that stand for gun rights and are for things like the so-called Patriot Act which strips people of their civil rights and things like torturing people, putting them is a prison camp without any legal recourse, and the rest of the stuff Bush has done to our Constitution in the name of making us safe from terrorists. My problem with the NRA and other gun advocates is that they only stand for one of our enumerated rights, we have 9 others that are just as, if not more important.

Posted by: Tom Snediker at April 18, 2007 10:54 AM
Comment #217283

PH
We are tolerant of our gun “culture” because we respect the rights our founders gave us.
You say we “highest gun crimes #1 of all “civilized” countries” but you refuse to acknowledge the other side of that equation: we also have more guns and incidents, such as this mass shooting, do not happen every day.
Your fear of guns allows you to only see one side of the issue. So far, we see both sides of the issue and believe the pros far outweigh the cons.

“BTW, by your own logic nukes are also “inanimate objects”. Even the supposed future iranians ones.”

You ignore a question about how a guy who kills 32 people over the course of year with a knife isn’t any different than a guy who kills 32 people with a gun in an afternoon and ask me about Iran and nukes?
Well, I really am not that fearful of a person, so I don’t care about Iran.
But, if I had to provide an answer, I would say it is because nukes have a global impact and are capable of destroying an entire country when in the hands of a madman.
Our 2nd Amendment rights do not have that capability.

Posted by: kctim at April 18, 2007 11:15 AM
Comment #217284

dbs:
“i’ve seen many people on this thread badmouthing the nra, and most of them are of base.”

No we’re not off base, because the NRA’s message has over time become an extremely irresponsible one. I’d have nothing against them if they would try to clean up their act.

“when they come for your guns try calling the aclu.”

The ACLU was designed to aid people when their First Amendment rights are under attack, not their Second Amendment rights.

“there are already laws covering the illegal sale of firearms to felons and those that are prohibited from possesing them, and they include long prison sentences.”

Yes, I know this, but somehow they still seem to be able to buy them, which is why I said we should attempt a serious and focused crackdown on those who deal in the illegal gun trade.

“what other laws that make sense were you thinking of?”

Oh you know, things like not attempting to classify Uzi’s and machine guns as sporting weapons. Stuff like that.

re: copkiller bullets
“this is an anti gun buzz word. almost any commercialy produced rifle cartidge designed for hunting will penetrate soft body armor, and even ceramic plate body armor will not defeat all of them.”

I guess you don’t know what I’m referring to here. “Cop killer bullets” aren’t rifle cartridges, they’re handgun bullets that are specifically designed to cut through body armor like butter, and as they enter human flesh they grind up everything into hamburger along the path of the bullet. This means that most people end up bleeding to death in only a few minutes time. There is no moral justification for such bullets, yet the NRA has been defending them.
Btw, I’m not anti-gun at all, just anti-gun-nut.

Philippe,
This has nothing to do with this thread, but I just wanted to tell you that I truly appreciate the fact that your country attempted to warn us about the threat of a terrorist attack many months before 9/11. Just too bad that everything under Bushco became so incompetent that no one bothered to heed that warning.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 18, 2007 11:24 AM
Comment #217286

A thought just struck me. I don’t think this is so much about guns per say but what they represent. It’s about perceived power. A gun is the ultimate icon of power. With a gun I can make you cese to exist.

I haven’t done any research at all, but I’ll bet a dollar to a donut that the same people who oppose guns are the ones who suffer from wealth envy.

Posted by: tomd at April 18, 2007 11:30 AM
Comment #217289

Tomd: too funny, thanks for the laugh.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 18, 2007 11:36 AM
Comment #217291

The more I read and the more I think this through, the problem is anger and anger management. And to the extreme, mental health.

We as a country need to stop the “I was mad” excuse.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 18, 2007 11:40 AM
Comment #217298

kctim,

You say we “highest gun crimes #1 of all “civilized” countries” but you refuse to acknowledge the other side of that equation: we also have more guns and incidents, such as this mass shooting, do not happen every day.

Oh, I see. That good enough because, in all logic, it should be far worst than that?!

You ignore a question about how a guy who kills 32 people over the course of year with a knife isn’t any different than a guy who kills 32 people with a gun in an afternoon and ask me about Iran and nukes? Well, I really am not that fearful of a person, so I don’t care about Iran. But, if I had to provide an answer, I would say it is because nukes have a global impact and are capable of destroying an entire country when in the hands of a madman. Our 2nd Amendment rights do not have that capability.

First, I didn’t reply to your knife or gun question because the answer is obvious, what matter is not the weapon but the damage it can do. If a majority of homicide in my country was commited by knife, I’ll be pushing for a strong knife control, do bout. But so far in the US, it’s gun, not knife, who is the deadliest weapon.

Back to 2nd amendment, as far I undertsand it, there is no provision about american right to have any type of arms, nuclear weapon included. It only talk about the right to be armed is an inalienable one. Period.

What? Founding fathers can’t have though about nukes!? And? They can’t have though about assault gun too, or even .38 guns. Let’s allow their epoch weapons only to be allowed, would you?
Why not? If not, why only allow small arms? After all, nukes have a better agression detterence record than handguns, that’s a fact.

I’m for allowing everybody to bear a mini-nuke. That should drop crime a lot.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 18, 2007 12:49 PM
Comment #217299

“do bout” should be read “no doubt”. ;-)

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 18, 2007 12:51 PM
Comment #217301

Adrienne,

This has nothing to do with this thread, but I just wanted to tell you that I truly appreciate the fact that your country attempted to warn us about the threat of a terrorist attack many months before 9/11. Just too bad that everything under Bushco became so incompetent that no one bothered to heed that warning.

Well, I guess warning coming from France were not anymore taking seriously even before Iraq War. For Bush defense, our intelligence service warned about planes hijacking terrorism, not planes “crashing” terrorism.

No wonder nobody will take french warnings seriously anymore, seeing how inacurate they’re…

More seriously, I’m not that proud that we warned in time, because, well, it didn’t stop 9/11.
I’ll be more proud if it had, but in such case nobody will have never know about, so still no proud.

Oh god.
;-)

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 18, 2007 1:01 PM
Comment #217304

“Oh, I see. That good enough because, in all logic, it should be far worst than that?!”

No PH. “In all logic,” as you say, the majority of gun owners are responsible and we don’t let fear dictate that a few bad events will take away our rights.
In our country, we don’t punish the majority or make them conform simply because of what a few nutcases “might” do.

“First, I didn’t reply to your knife or gun question because the answer is obvious, what matter is not the weapon but the damage it can do”

It apparently is not obvious. In both examples I gave, the person used either a knife or a gun to kill the exact same number of people. The damage is the same.

“Back to 2nd amendment, as far I undertsand it, there is no provision about american right to have any type of arms, nuclear weapon included. It only talk about the right to be armed is an inalienable one. Period.”

Um, yeah. You are barking up the wrong tree with that type of thinking my friend.
As I stated earlier, I have an extreme belief in the 2nd Amendment and believe it means what it says and was intended to mean.

Posted by: kctim at April 18, 2007 1:17 PM
Comment #217307

Great post Adrienne, it is sad what happened at VT and my thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of those killed there. But it’s not going to stop with more gun laws unless they are the right ones. One can ban every gun made in the world and take away the rights of the responsible gun owner, but really is it going to stop someone that really wants to get their hands on one. NO. There are to many people who sell them illegally. The ones that are hurt when that happens are the victims of those that purchase the guns illegally. In this case the college officials and even the shooters parents dropped the ball. From what I heard this morning, the campus officials had, had professors, and students alike tell them about how afraid they were of him. He had even spent time in a mental hospital for depression. The question remains, if this was the case, where did he get the gun and ammo? In this case and many like it, tougher standards, tougher backround checks, longer waiting periods, and that includes those guns purchased at gun shows as well as those purchased at shops, work to a certain extent, but the bottom line is that if someone really wanted to purchase a handgun or rifle for that matter, they would get one no matter what. There are way to many ways to do it.

Posted by: Sherri at April 18, 2007 1:33 PM
Comment #217317

Philippe:
“More seriously, I’m not that proud that we warned in time, because, well, it didn’t stop 9/11.”

Doesn’t matter that the warning didn’t stop what happened, what matters is that France was being a good friend and ally to America. It also shows that your intelligence agency is doing a good job.

“I’ll be more proud if it had, but in such case nobody will have never know about, so still no proud.”

I can’t agree. The truth eventually would have come out, even if it was years later. France can be proud either way.

“Oh god.
;-)”

What makes me smile is the thought that all those French Freedom Fries eaters can now help themselves to a large slice of humble pie! ;^)

Sherri:
“In this case the college officials and even the shooters parents dropped the ball. From what I heard this morning, the campus officials had, had professors, and students alike tell them about how afraid they were of him. He had even spent time in a mental hospital for depression.”

Yes, the more I read about this disturbed kid the more it becomes apparent that lots of people really weren’t paying enough attention here. I’ve also heard that he was the one who had made the bomb threats that the college had received a few days before — so who is to say that if he wasn’t able to get his hands on a gun, he wouldn’t have then turned to making some sort of bomb to do his premeditated killing?
I’m getting the sense that we’ve really gone in the wrong direction in this thread — even although gun laws are an important topic for us to discuss. Instead, it seems like we should be talking about the need for decent mental health screening so kids like this one are able to get help long before they turn into mass murderers.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 18, 2007 3:08 PM
Comment #217323

Adrienne,

I disagree, people were paying attention - teachers warned the administration and the police. People made stalking complaints. He was admitted to a mental institution for evaluation. He had just not committed a crime so there wasn’t much they could do. He was allowed to legally purchase a gun and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.

Posted by: Tom Snediker at April 18, 2007 3:51 PM
Comment #217330

Tom, you know what? I think you’re right — and this then becomes not only an issue of mental health OR gun ownership and purchasing, but one where there is an obvious need for there to be a means of communication between a mental health doctor or agency, and the ATF doing background checks, as well as those who make their business in the gun trade. With the string of disturbing problems this kid obviously had, he should never have been able to buy a gun.

This is exactly the sort of common sense issue that I wish gun legislation would try to address. If the NRA was smart, they’d want to get solidly behind that sort of thing, too.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 18, 2007 4:28 PM
Comment #217344

Adrienne
The NRA would loose the majority of its members if it agreed to a govt list like that.

Posted by: kctim at April 18, 2007 5:46 PM
Comment #217349

kctim:
“The NRA would loose the majority of its members if it agreed to a govt list like that.”

But that would be good news, because maybe then they would be able to rebuild it into a responsible organization that understands that gun-deaths-by-nutters isn’t a good thing for the preservation of the 2nd Amendment.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 18, 2007 6:09 PM
Comment #217371

Adrienne


“I guess you don’t know what I’m referring to here. “Cop killer bullets” aren’t rifle cartridges, they’re handgun bullets that are specifically designed to cut through body armor like butter,”


actually i do. i own quite a few guns myself. have all my life. there is no handgun cartridge that will penetrate ceramic armor, or soft armor designed to defeat any handgun cartridge period. first of all they lack the velocity, and the profile of a rifle cartridge. the only way to get more velocity out of a hand gun cartridge is to fire it through a carbine, or sub-machinegun ie somthing with a longer barrel, most soft armor is now designed to defeat this too. in case it interests you a sub-machinegun is classified as any fully automatic weapon that fires a cartridge originaly designed for a pistol. with all due respect, i don’t mean to be condescending or rude to you, but this is something i am very familiar with. the bullets you speak of do not exist, they were fabricated by those who’s ultimate goal is to take guns away from everyone.

“Oh you know, things like not attempting to classify Uzi’s and machine guns as sporting weapons. Stuff like that.”

actually the possesion of fully automatic weapons with out a federal license has been illegal since the NFA of 1934 was implemented. a gun should not have to qualify as a sporting weapon to be owned. the original intent of the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with sporting uses.

hope you find this info helpful.

Posted by: dbs at April 18, 2007 7:43 PM
Comment #217376

kctim

i didn’t mean for you to take that post as an attack. i find i agree with your statements 99.9% of the time. the point i was making was that while they are a political orginization with a will to continue existing, they are the only one i know of with the clout or the financial backing to get anything done. whether they could be more effective can always be debated. right now i feel it’s important for all of us who value the 2nd amendment to stick together and this is the only avenue i know of at this time. if you know of a better one, i’m more than willing to listen.

Posted by: dbs at April 18, 2007 7:58 PM
Comment #217380

adrienne


“The ACLU was designed to aid people when their First Amendment rights are under attack, not their Second Amendment rights.”

i thought they were there to to help protect all our civil liberties. i guess maybe i learned something today. though it seems i remember them stepping in on rushs’ doctor shopping case and defending him. wouldn’t that be an illegal search and seisure issue.

Posted by: dbs at April 18, 2007 8:06 PM
Comment #217383

Sherri

i agree with most your post,although waiting periods are only effective if it’s your first gun purchase.

Posted by: dbs at April 18, 2007 8:18 PM
Comment #217385

dbs, I’m no stranger to guns myself. And I know that KTW bullets and Black Talon-style Ranger SXT bullets (the ones that open up to make hamburger out of human flesh) are made for handguns, and have teflon coatings designed to penetrate things that are normally extremely hard to penetrate — such as bullet proof glass, or body armor.

re:ACLU
“i thought they were there to to help protect all our civil liberties.”

Well yeah, technically, but if you look at the vast majority of what they do, it’s really focused on First Amendment cases. By the way, you may not know this, but the ACLU takes a states rights stance on the Second Amendment, and they’re strictly neutral on the entire concept of gun control.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 18, 2007 8:27 PM
Comment #217387

Adrienne,

Technically the Teflon coating is for lubrication because the brass core of the bullet wore out the barrels more quickly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon_coated_bullet#History

Posted by: Rocky at April 18, 2007 8:45 PM
Comment #217395

adrienne

“(the ones that open up to make hamburger out of human flesh)”

actually the rounds you speak of are classified as hollow point or expanding, and yes they are designed to cause severe trauma, i agree with that, however the fact that they are designed to expand gives them less penetration than an FMJ round. however if your looking for a good self defense round they’re exellent, the winchester silver tip, and federal hydra-shock are also very good, they are also less likely to go through multiple walls, and hit your neighbor. BTW to the best of my knowlege the black talon is not armor peircing because of the above explanation.

Posted by: dbs at April 18, 2007 9:05 PM
Comment #217402

Rocky:
“Technically the Teflon coating is for lubrication because the brass core of the bullet wore out the barrels more quickly.”

Yeah, technically. But my husband and I and some friends were once camping up in Willetts (btw, not all that far from the Bohemian Grove — you know, the campground of wealthy ‘n’ evil elite) and we were firing off KTW rounds from about forty or fifty yards into these four inch thick pieces of bullet proof glass that we set up — and it went CLEAN through!

dbs:
Ranger SXT:
“if your looking for a good self defense round they’re exellent,”

No sir, they are not good for self defense. What they are is utterly immoral.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 18, 2007 9:32 PM
Comment #217407

adrienne


“No sir, they are not good for self defense. What they are is utterly immoral.”

why so? if your defending yourself against someone who is looking to kill or cause you severe bodily harm, the most important thing is your life. immoral is what your attacker is doing.

BTW what caliber were they, and what were they fired from?

Posted by: dbs at April 18, 2007 9:49 PM
Comment #217434

“why so? if your defending yourself against someone who is looking to kill or cause you severe bodily harm, the most important thing is your life. immoral is what your attacker is doing.”

Because those bullets aren’t for simply defending yourself, they’re designed to make killing someone an absolute certainty. And yes, an attacker is immoral, but I’m not interested in becoming equally immoral.

BTW what caliber were they, and what were they fired from?

Sorry I’m afraid I don’t recall which gun we were using that had the KTW rounds loaded in it — our friend brought several of his handguns on that camping trip. I do remember though that he brought his Ruger Super Redhawk .454 with him — and that thing was a freaking monster! Ever seen/shot one of those?

Posted by: Adrienne at April 18, 2007 11:38 PM
Comment #217483

I’m sitting here watching tv coverage about the VT shooting. They are playing clips from NBC that the shooter sent. Listening to his diatribe, I wonder which blogger on here he was.

Posted by: tomd at April 19, 2007 6:02 AM
Comment #217501

Cho’s video stuff was pretty chilling - as I have said earlier my wife works in the building between Ambler Johnston (site of the first shooting) and Harper (Cho’s dorm). Cho was spotted hanging around the dumpsters just after the first shooting and just before I dropped my wife off at work. The police now have taken the dumpsters. He was probably up in his room getting ready to go to the post office at the same time.

Building 32 is the dorm where the first shooting took place, building 38 is the building my wife works in, building 42 is Cho’s dorm.

One thing that has totally made me ill in this whole debate are those that blame these victims for either not carrying a gun themselves or for being sheep that did nothing. Whether or not you are for gun rights, the people whose fault this most definitely was not were these 32 victims. I heard some fool on MSNBC saying this nonesense this morning, WarrenW did the same in this blog. My wife’s friends/co-workers Ryan Clark, Mary Read , and Leslie Sherman were not cowards, sheep, or any of that nonesense, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Posted by: Tom Snediker at April 19, 2007 9:24 AM
Comment #217518

Tom,

I don’t blame the vicims for this slaughter. It is absolutely the asshole’s fault that pulled the trigger.

Without blaming any victim, I must say that I believe if confronted with a similar situation, previous generations of students would have fought back.

Posted by: tomd at April 19, 2007 10:23 AM
Comment #217520
My wife’s friends/co-workers Ryan Clark, Mary Read , and Leslie Sherman were not cowards, sheep, or any of that nonesense, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

If I’ve understood many pro-guns argument, you’re wrong. They were cowards because they didn’t take their individual responsability to have a body stronger than bullets, to have prescient capabilities and to duck bullets while firing back better than Neo in Matrix saga.

Don’t take me wrong, as my recent posts could prove it, this french is very sad about the victims. I’m not trying to make fun of them, I’m trying to make shame on pro-blame-victims.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 19, 2007 10:28 AM
Comment #217528

PH,
I think you misunderstand us pro gunners. We don’t blame the victims. We think they would have had a much better chance of surviving if they had fought back. I understand how hard it is and I certainly wouldn’t call them cowards, however, standing like sheep waiting for a bullet leaves no chance for survival.

Posted by: tomd at April 19, 2007 10:46 AM
Comment #217541

tomd - That is the same as blaming the victims of this crime. You apparently do not know what happend in those classrooms and the dorm room. Ryan Clark confronted Cho in the dorm - he is not a sheep as you call him. Liviu Librescu, holocaust survivor and Tech professor, put his body in front of the door to give his students a chance to get out the window at the cost of his own life - he is not a sheep. The students that blocked the door of the classroom as Cho shot through are not sheep. The students that came to the aid of their injured friends are not sheep as you call them.

No one knows how they will react when a crazed gunman comes into the room and starts shooting people. tomd - has anyone ever come into your house, office, classroom and murdered your friends in front of you? If not then you have absolutly no idea of what you would do in the same place. It’s one thing to talk tough when you are safe and secure it is another to act that way in a crisis. On top of all this, this school’s desks are the type with a small chair with an armrest and writing surface. They are hard to get in and out of quickly and with bullets flying around and wounded people and all of the chaos most people were probably stuck in their chairs. He didn’t stand there delivering a monologue he popped the door open, started shooting, saying nothing. There are rumors that he lined people up against a wall but from what we have heard here, that did not happen.

Posted by: Tom Snediker at April 19, 2007 11:34 AM
Comment #217564

tomd,

WWe don’t blame the victims. We think they would have had a much better chance of surviving if they had fought back.

Sure, but that’s also true as soon as they will attempted *something* against him. The main factor here is taking the initiative.
I’ll bet that 2-3 students skilled in martial arts will have better chance to stop him without collateral damage to others students than one armed student unexperienced with gun. In every case, there is no victimless warranty.

Thousand and thousand of student vs one. But it stopped when he killed himself, not before. He faced his victims one after one, not as a group. And in such situation, the killer keep the initiative. With a gun, it’s often the decisive advantage.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 19, 2007 12:26 PM
Comment #217565

Tom,

How is that the same as blaming the victim?

“Ryan Clark confronted Cho in the dorm - he is not a sheep as you call him.”

I don’t think I called him or anyone else a sheep. The reference I used was them being lined up like sheep and shot.

“Liviu Librescu, holocaust survivor and Tech professor, put his body in front of the door to give his students a chance to get out the window at the cost of his own life - he is not a sheep.”

He sounds like a true hero. I’m sure others will emerge in the wake of this tragady

“No one knows how they will react when a crazed gunman comes into the room and starts shooting people.”

Some of us have a pretty good idea.

” tomd - has anyone ever come into your house, office, classroom and murdered your friends in front of you?”

Yes 1968 thru 1969 US Army 173rd Airborne Infantry…It happened many times.

Tom, I’m really not trying to minimize what these people did. They done the very best they could do with their limited skills and equipment. What really pisses me off is there are many veterans and non veterans out there who are responsible and who also own guns and society weren’t so afraid to let people manage their own lives, there would have been someone close enough to Cho to have killed him maybe before he got to all 32 people. Or just maybe the thought of confronting someone armed would have stopped him.

If not then you have absolutly no idea of what you would do in the same place. It’s one thing to talk tough when you are safe and secure it is another to act that way in a crisis.

Posted by: tomd at April 19, 2007 12:28 PM
Comment #217567

Okay, I stand corrected, Tom Snediker, as I didn’t know that much about group actions.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 19, 2007 12:30 PM
Comment #217571
Or just maybe the thought of confronting someone armed would have stopped him.

He commited suicide.
It’s hard to stop people not fearing death by death threat.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 19, 2007 12:36 PM
Comment #217579

The schools are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

Colleges see tough choices on troubled students

Posted by: womanmarine at April 19, 2007 12:51 PM
Comment #217583

As I said before I am a gun owner.

That said, much of what I have read in this thread I find truly disturbing.

If I was a student at any University I would presume that these places would be sanctuaries of learning and physically defending myself would be the farthest thing from my mind.

Classrooms should be free of any type of weapon.

I don’t mean to lessen what happened at VT, but this is an anomaly, this is way out of the ordinary, and all of the testosterone in the world probably wouldn’t have changed the outcome much.

Guns do have their place.
That place isn’t in the classroom.

I place the blame for this incident on every single person that knew this guy. Those that knew he was a loose cannon and did little to solve what apparently were his issues leading up to this horrible tragedy.

tomd,

“What really pisses me off is there are many veterans and non veterans out there who are responsible and who also own guns and society weren’t so afraid to let people manage their own lives, there would have been someone close enough to Cho to have killed him maybe before he got to all 32 people.”

That’s dumb as a stump.
The students are there to learn, not to confront raving maniacs.
Confrontation with another student would have solved what?
Had the police arrived quickly would this have been merely a hostage situation?

Posted by: Rocky at April 19, 2007 1:02 PM
Comment #217613

Rocky:

Bravo to your last paragraph!! I couldn’t agree more.

I do disagree that those folks that knew him could have done anything. The law is such that they have to actually do something before anyone can legally do anything against them. The closest thing that comes to mind is protection orders, and we know how well those work.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 19, 2007 2:36 PM
Comment #217624

adrienne

“Ruger Super Redhawk .454 with him — and that thing was a freaking monster! Ever seen/shot one of those?”

yes i have, and the 454 casul is a pretty potent round. i remember in 72 when it came out, it was billed the worlds most powerful handgun cartridge, although it no longer is.

“Because those bullets aren’t for simply defending yourself, they’re designed to make killing someone an absolute certainty. And yes, an attacker is immoral, but I’m not interested in becoming equally immoral.”

you sound like a person of good moral character, but i have to disagree. when defending your life you always shoot to kill. the only sure way to stop an attacker is with a hit on the central nervious system, a heart shot is not a sure kill as it can take upwards of 15 seconds for your attacker to bleed to death. count it out thats a long time, enough time for someone to serious damage to you or a member of your family. shooting to wound can also have the same effect. remember this person has no interest in showing any mercy, towards you or anyone else, and if they had an ounce of decency they wouldn’t be there in the first place. it took me awhile to convince my wife of this, as she is a very compassionate person. it actually took a firearms self defense instructor to convince her. also remember if you kill this attacker you gauranty you will be thier last victim, if you don’t, the next one may not be as well prepared as you were, and this to me would be even more immoral. you will also be sued either way. just a little food for thought.

Posted by: dbs at April 19, 2007 3:14 PM
Comment #217636

This is why these things are happening:

Va. Tech shooter was laughed at

This is the kind of societal thing that we need to teach our children. It is about respecting others and their differences, and how we manage anger and teach our children to manage anger.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 19, 2007 3:51 PM
Comment #217681

“That’s dumb as a stump.
The students are there to learn, not to confront raving maniacs.
Confrontation with another student would have solved what?
Had the police arrived quickly would this have been merely a hostage situation?”

Rocky,
I’ve taken and taught self defense and survival courses for the US Army. Call me dumb if you like. What are your credentials?


Posted by: tomd at April 19, 2007 6:55 PM
Comment #217684

tomd,

It’s not about your cedentials.
I’m quite sure they’re very impressive.

I didn’t call you dumb, I called your idea of a student confronting an armed lunatic dumb.

Posted by: Rocky at April 19, 2007 7:17 PM
Comment #217690

“tomd,

It’s not about your cedentials.
I’m quite sure they’re very impressive.

I didn’t call you dumb, I called your idea of a student confronting an armed lunatic dumb.

Posted by: Rocky at April 19, 2007 07:17 PM “

And the alternative is better?

By the way, what IS your alternative?

Posted by: tomd at April 19, 2007 7:41 PM
Comment #217692

Rocky,

You say it’s not about my credentials. OK Lets put ourselves in a similar situation as was at VT.
We hear shots next door and people start to panic. Some go to the windows, some hide behind their desks and some are frozen. Now the question. Are you happy or sad when I pull my pistol from my waistband and tell everyone to get away from the door?

Posted by: tomd at April 19, 2007 7:52 PM
Comment #217693

tomd,

If you are willing to give free non-lethal self defense classes to all of the students, hey I’m all for it.
Students should have an expectation of personal safety in a school setting. Giving out guns to students just isn’t my idea of that expectation.

Look, there are lots of dead heroes.

I prefer to have law enforcement do their job (which in this case they didn’t), and allow the students to do theirs.

This isn’t the wild west (hell the wild west wasn’t even the “wild” west), if this guy was a known danger he shouldn’t have been able to legally purchase a gun.

Posted by: Rocky at April 19, 2007 7:54 PM
Comment #217694

tomd,

“Are you happy or sad when I pull my pistol from my waistband and tell everyone to get away from the door?”

I’m on my cell phone dialing 911.
I haven’t seen anything in any story about this incident where someone called the police about shots fired.

If it’s him or me, it’s going to be him. I said I am prepared to defend myself, but there are hundreds of ways to defuse a situation, and a gun is always the last one.

Posted by: Rocky at April 19, 2007 7:59 PM
Comment #217696

“I prefer to have law enforcement do their job (which in this case they didn’t), and allow the students to do theirs.”

Law enforcement did their job. Their job is to investigate crime and arrest criminals. In this case they done just that. Protection is YOUR responsibility.

“This isn’t the wild west (hell the wild west wasn’t even the “wild” west), if this guy was a known danger he shouldn’t have been able to legally purchase a gun.”

He wasn’t a “known danger” or he wouldn’t have passed the background checks.

Why would universities be any more of a “safe haven” than any other public place? I think we better get used to this sort of thing. Just my opinion, but I think with our soft attitudes the terrorists are comming and we will have similar incidents in the future. Schools aren’t sacred to our enemies.


Posted by: tomd at April 19, 2007 8:03 PM
Comment #217697

tomd,

“Law enforcement did their job. Their job is to investigate crime and arrest criminals.”

You don’t think that shots fired and two people dead in a dormitory warrants an investigation?

The classroom murders took place 2 hours later.

Where were the police?

Posted by: Rocky at April 19, 2007 8:11 PM
Comment #217699

Let me put this another way.

If the police had locked down the campus after the dorm shootings, chances are the classroom shootings wouldn’t have happened.

Blacksburg is a town of only 39,000 people. There was a shooting on campus last year.

Where were the police, where were the campus police?

Posted by: Rocky at April 19, 2007 8:29 PM
Comment #217700

The police couldn’t stop this from happening.
It’s bed time for me now. I’ll take it up in the morning.

Posted by: tomd at April 19, 2007 8:31 PM
Comment #217701

“The police couldn’t stop this from happening.”

It seems that nobody could.

All I know is that putting guns in the hands of students probably wouldn’t have changed anything.

Posted by: Rocky at April 19, 2007 8:35 PM
Comment #217751

While the news reports have claimed that there are 26,000 acres on the campus, most of the buildings are centrally located. I was in the parking lot facing Ambler Johnston just before 9am and there was no sign of any police presence in a building that had just had a double shooting an hour and a half before. My wife could see them guarding the entrances to the dorm once she walked through the building. They could have locked down campus significantly in a relatively short time but to their defense, most murders are done by acquaintences, and most murders of women are commited by their partners. When you come upon a scene like they did it made sense to think that it was her boyfriend. However, it would make sense to notify the dining hall right next door in the very least.

Everyone seem to have done the right thing in dealing with this guy - people reported his aberrant behavior, suicidal tendencies, and violent writing. The only thing that could have stopped him other than some sort of gun control was to have him institutionalized for being a danger to himself and others, something he was officially declared at one point. That would have triggered a red flag the background check and he would have been denied. But Ronald Reagan closed all the federal mental institutions and created an incredibly overloaded state mental care system.

Posted by: Tom Snediker at April 20, 2007 12:54 AM
Comment #217900

rocky


“Giving out guns to students just isn’t my idea of that expectation.”

i don’t think thats what tom is talking about. what he’s saying is to allow those trained and with ccw permits to carry the guns, they’re legally licensed to carry. just one could of ended this situation and saved many lives. this gun free zone BS obviously doesn’t work. when was the last time the police were there to stop one of these things ? they’re almost never are.

Posted by: dbs at April 20, 2007 7:05 PM
Comment #217910

dbs,

I was being fastidious.

The problem with ccws are
1) there are some “gung ho” types that bring an attitude with their guns.
2)just how many “mature” college students are going to have a licence?
Even in a University setting, IMHO, an attitude just isn’t acceptable.

Posted by: Rocky at April 20, 2007 8:07 PM
Comment #217915

rocky


“1) there are some “gung ho” types that bring an attitude with their guns.”

i don’t know about that. seems most of the states that issue have a pretty good track record, as far responsible behavior by the permit holders. can’t remember seeing a incedent where this wasn’t the case.

“2)just how many “mature” college students are going to have a licence?”

don’t know. hopefully at least one.

Posted by: dbs at April 20, 2007 9:00 PM
Comment #217938

Adrienne,
Your analogizy about the Scots and the British was excellently made. The wearing of the kilt was
dis-banned as a way to force to a break down the strong family and clan units. Fortunately they were unsuccessful.

It seems to me that we have gone around and around the issue regarding guns,basically accomplishing noting better that our leaders.

I would like very much to hear from those who do not favor gun control to explain to me why assault rifles are okay. What type of animal is hunted with an assault rifle?

If you happen to agree that assault rifles and others of it’s ilk are only intended to hunt people, would you then agree that perhaps those types of guns might be regulated.

Posted by: Linda H. at April 21, 2007 1:49 AM
Comment #217946

“I would like very much to hear from those who do not favor gun control to explain to me why assault rifles are okay. What type of animal is hunted with an assault rifle?”

Can you define an assault rifle? Can you tell me the difference in an assault rifle and a hunting rifle?

The purpose of any fireare is to hurl a projectile at a target at a super speed.

What makes an assault rifle an assault rifle most of the time is the addition of a “pistol grip” stock. Why should that make a difference?

It’s kind of like a spoiler on the back of your car. It won’t make it faster, but it looks cool. Would you make them illegal?

So, I say assault rifles are OK because they are no different than other rifles. Now, can you tell me please why they are NOT OK?

Posted by: tomd at April 21, 2007 5:04 AM
Comment #217959

I think that some of the responsibility falls on the gun manufacturers and gun dealers. While they are not breaking the law and there is a constitutional right to have guns there is not a constitutional responsibility to supply any weapon, bullet, or clip to the public just because they will sell. It is a moral issue and something that corporate America has forgotten (or never remembered). They are morally culpable for what happened here on Monday. They decided that semi automatic pistols would be a big seller, hollow point rounds can make them a lot of money, and extended clips that hold more than 20 bullets would be popular. They hide behind the constitution and the legality of their products. Just because it is legal doesn’t make it moral or right. I don’t think lawsuits are in order or closing them down - just don’t pretend that there is no moral responsibility to what they do - they do not care about anything than turning a profit.

Posted by: Tom Snediker at April 21, 2007 10:39 AM
Comment #217967

Tom

“They decided that semi automatic pistols would be a big seller, hollow point rounds can make them a lot of money, and extended clips that hold more than 20 bullets would be popular.”

semi automatic pistols were a new technology, i believe invented by john browning. they were an improvement because they were esier to use and reload. naturally anthing that is improved will sell. to say this was an evil capitalist plot, is BS.

hollow point rounds were designed to more effectively stop an attacker, especially in a cartridge that was somewhat under powered. they allow for all the energy of the bullet to be expended on the target, as opposed to going all the way through. they do serve a purpose, and if you intend on using a handgun for self defense i highly recomand you use them.


high capacity magazines were designed to reduce the amount of reloading needed.


these were all improvements to older technologies and had nothing to do with eveil intentions.

Posted by: dbs at April 21, 2007 11:30 AM
Comment #217968

Adrienne, you have some scary friends.

The NRA is in the same position politically as the KKK in a previous era.

http://www.nra-kkk.org/

Posted by: ohrealy at April 21, 2007 11:34 AM
Comment #217970

Linda H

“I would like very much to hear from those who do not favor gun control to explain to me why assault rifles are okay. What type of animal is hunted with an assault rifle?”


tomd is right. the only thing he left out is that to be an assault rifle, it must also have a select fire capability, that is a full auto position on the seletor switch. to own a full auto weapon you must have a federal class 3 firearms license. you can’t just walk into a gun show or sporting goods and walk away with one.

he makes another exelent point. a flash suppressor and bayonette lug don’t make the gun any different. take away the cosmetic features and it’s no different than a gas opperated semi auto hunting rifle. to answer your other question these rifles are used in marksmanship competitions, and for many other types of shooting activities that don’t involve mass murder. and they are exellent for hunting, not because of magazine capacity, but because of thier accuracy and light weight.

Posted by: dbs at April 21, 2007 11:49 AM
Comment #217972

ohrealy

“Adrienne, you have some scary friends”

i could definitly say the same about you. and that web site, HOLLY COW !! what an imagination.

Posted by: dbs at April 21, 2007 11:58 AM
Comment #217979

dbs - “semi automatic pistols were a new technology, i believe invented by john browning. they were an improvement because they were esier to use and reload. naturally anthing that is improved will sell. to say this was an evil capitalist plot, is BS.”

I didn’t say that it was an evil capitalist plot - I am just saying that they are morally culpable for selling and producing weapons that make it easy for mass-massacres. I don’t think these people think about anything other than making money, they aren’t plotting to have these things happen but they do facilitate them.

I am responsible for my actions and the intended/unintended consequences just as I am sure you are. This shooting is, in part, the consequence of people wanting to make money selling hollow point bullets, high volume clips, and semiautomatic pistols.

All of your arguments seem to boil down to thinking that just because people can make something and sell it, they should be able to.
I think you are wrong. I am not saying that they should be legally stopped from selling these things but it doesn’t absolve them from moral responsibility.

Posted by: Tom Snediker at April 21, 2007 2:10 PM
Comment #217986

tom


“I am responsible for my actions and the intended/unintended consequences just as I am sure you are. This shooting is, in part, the consequence of people wanting to make money selling hollow point bullets, high volume clips, and semiautomatic pistols.”

yes i am responsible for my actions, and so are you, but i am not responsible for the miss use of a legal product which when handled responsibly harms no one but an agressor intent on doing me harm. the fact of the matter is there are millions of these products out there and 99.9% of thier owners never miss use them. this is an anomoly, usually followed by a few copy cat incidents because of the excess media coverage.

by your logic the liquor industry would be responsible for the actions of drunken drivers, as well as the auto manufaturers who build high performance sports cars. this is not about product liability, it’s about individual responsibility. we had far fewer gun laws 30 or 40 years ago, and it was much easier to buy any gun. hell there was a time when you could walk into your local hardware store and walk out with a brand new automatic pistol. why was this type of thing happening then ?

automatic pisols have been available since the turn of the 20th century why is it now a problem, when thier far harder to get ? it’s obviuos that gun control is a complete failuere. it’s time to look at the break down of moral values in our society, and the lack of personal responsibility, and stop blaming inanimate objects. how about some real parenting skills !

Posted by: dbs at April 21, 2007 2:56 PM
Comment #217987

“by your logic the liquor industry would be responsible for the actions of drunken drivers, as well as the auto manufaturers who build high performance sports cars. this is not about product liability, it’s about individual responsibility. we had far fewer gun laws 30 or 40 years ago, and it was much easier to buy any gun. hell there was a time when you could walk into your local hardware store and walk out with a brand new automatic pistol. why was this type of thing NOT happening then ?”

sorry forgot to insert the word NOT.

Posted by: dbs at April 21, 2007 2:59 PM
Comment #217997

dbs
Thank you for your explanations.
I still do not understand the need for the “big” guns - I mean seriously - who hunts with a 9mm or a 45 Luger?

Posted by: Linda H. at April 21, 2007 4:42 PM
Comment #218020

Linda,

“I still do not understand the need for the “big” guns - I mean seriously - who hunts with a 9mm or a 45 Luger?”

It’s not about “need” Linda. It’s about desire.
I don’t know what your hobboes are if you have any, but lets assume for a moment that you like to sew. For your hobby of sewing, would you rather have a $300 sewing machine that will do the job or a $1000 unit that will do everything but blow in your ear? If you can afford it I’ll bet you would rather have the better machine. How about dogs. I don’t “need” a big dog, but I love my Lab and won’t give him up. There is nothing illegal with having a big gun. I personally perfer a smaller caliber, but that’s personal preference. BTW, I used to hunt with a Marlin .444 Short range, but a hell of a knock down punch.

The ban on assault rifles was a feel good law that had no effect in reality. They only banned cosmetics. Actual assault rifles are fully automatic and can’t be owned by the general public without a federal liscense. Been that way since the 30’s.

Linda, I haven’t done it but here’s a challenge.

Look at the guns that are deemed “assault rifles” by the left and were part of the last ban. Then go to the manufacturer’s websites. I’ll bet you will fint that for every “assault rifle” they have a sporting model or a hunting model with the only difference being cosmetics.

Tell us what you find.

Posted by: tomd at April 21, 2007 6:08 PM
Comment #218024

Linda H.


“I still do not understand the need for the “big” guns - I mean seriously - who hunts with a 9mm or a 45 Luger?”

i actually don’t know, both are pistol cartridges, and what you are refering to is a 9mm luger, and i think a 45 ACP. the 9mm luger is actually a fairly small round, it’s stopping power is average at best. the 45 ACP is is a larger heavier bullet but is generally lower velocity than the 9mm, but because of it’s size and weight it hits a little harder. i’m telling you this because i gather from what you said, that you are not really familiar with them, when you referred to them as big. actually there are many other handgun cartridges that are far more powerful and actually well suited for hunting. lets face it though any bullet will kill when the shot is placed well, and at close range.

Posted by: dbs at April 21, 2007 6:59 PM
Comment #218025

tomd

“I used to hunt with a Marlin .444 Short range, but a hell of a knock down punch.”

i’ve got one. had it since the early 80s potent brush cartridge isn’t it. haven’t shot it in quite a few years. beats the hell out of the 30-30.

really not a big hunter, but i nave a friend in montana that keeps trying to get me out there for deer season. he always fills his freezer. i think he said he usually gets 2 deer, and at least one elk every year. what do you think?


Posted by: dbs at April 21, 2007 7:11 PM
Comment #218027

I’ve never hunted in Montana, but I’ve been to the beautiful state a few times. You will have a good time. 7mm or .223 would be a good choice out there. Lots of long shots.

Posted by: tomd at April 21, 2007 7:15 PM
Comment #218169

An advanced Google search will show the reader that Israel went through problems with school shootings in the ’70s, though the perpetrators were PLO. The solution was to change the laws so that schools were not gun-free zones. As the laws are now, shooters are unopposed. One comment above hits the nail: Police are to apprehend suspects, not defend citizens. While there will always be responsible and irresponsible people, the problem now is that the law only allows the irresponsible (lawbreakers) to be armed on campus. I wonder how many more years will pass before there’s change.

Posted by: Carl R at April 23, 2007 3:47 PM
Comment #218229

How about the fact that taking away 2nd amendment rights wouldnt help a damn thing. Someone who wants to kill is impossible to stop or predict, especially when the person was a seemingly law-abiding citizen up until the day in which he opened fire. Unpredictable and senseless to anyone else. Most people ask what went wrong? who to blame? the blame rests totally on one mans shoulders, he was not insane, he wasnt deranged, he made a concious decsision to do what he did. Just because his mind doesnt make sense to most people that doesnt mean it can be blamed on something besides him. Honestly if there is one thing that could stand to take the blame its the fucked up society that we all live in. Nobody gives a shit about anybody. Everyone is quick to place blame. When this crap happens we get all political and shit and what i see is that nothing really gets done. This bears striking resemblance to the columbine shootings, in that case too the underlining fact is that the killers were on the bottom rungs of the social chain and given shit for being different, in the end they show how different they really were by doing something dramatically extreme. The media glorifies these events and kids get the same shit in their heads having been treated the same way by society and decide they dont want to live anymore, and kill innocent people.

its fucking horrific and a terribly surreal phenoumenon.

If ur gonna do away with guns everybody has to be willing or there will be bad results.
imagine a world with no guns people who just looked out for one another and themselves in peace. a world with none of this sickening pollution and bull shit wars and street violence and all the other bullshit.

legalize drugs as long as we are gonne be political about this….

my hippie rant.

someone in the media likened our current society to the state of the roman empire as it fell.
I must say this a good way of putting the current state of the world.

sigh.

Posted by: Jimboo at April 24, 2007 2:23 AM
Post a comment