Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   General Discussion (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/)
-   -   VA Tech shooting and politics (THIS IS THE THREAD FOR TALK OF "gun control", ETC) (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/116305-va-tech-shooting-politics-thread-talk-gun-control-etc.html)

samcol 04-18-2007 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout
I don't think you have anything to worry about as it's just as illegal for a "Marine just back from combat, potentially with a ptsd" to own a RPG as it is for you yourself to own own one. It is also illegal for just anyone to own a automatic weapon.

On a completely different note but along these same thoughts, some of our pro gun control crowd needs to brush up on current gun laws. Over 99.9% of the objections that have arose and state pro gun control reasons are already illegal but for whatever reason keep getting hashed and rehashed over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

One thing I'm curious about is how it can be legal for a green card holder to buy weapons, especially with our current concerns about terrorism. I think this policy should be at the forefront of the debate rather than gun ownership as a whole.
In light of all the information coming out about the shooter another noteworthy question that needs to be answered is was this gentleman ever under the care of a doctor for psych reasons. This is one of the questions you have to answer on your paperwork when you legally purchase a firearm. We know that he was supposedly referred to counseling for some his writings. As more information comes out it seems perhaps someone could have blown the whistle on this whacko long before he committed this atrocity.

I agree. I think it's totally insane that someone with a greencard can buy firearms. Especially with the lax immigration policy and terrorism threat like you mentioned.

ubertuber 04-18-2007 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout
In light of all the information coming out about the shooter another noteworthy question that needs to be answered is was this gentleman ever under the care of a doctor for psych reasons. This is one of the questions you have to answer on your paperwork when you legally purchase a firearm. We know that he was supposedly referred to counseling for some his writings. As more information comes out it seems perhaps someone could have blown the whistle on this whacko long before he committed this atrocity.

Just a note here, because I have personal experience in being a college administrator in the position to spot these kinds of things...

So much of what people are saying now is hindsight. The creative writing thing is relatively significant. The fact that he was a "loner"... Well, that's only significant after the fact. If we had tried to refer every kid who met the threshold this guy was at, you'd end up intervening with 5-10% of your population at one point or another. Of course, the social patterns combined with the school thing look significant, but you won't realistically have all the people who see these different facets in a position to compare notes, even at a smaller school. Some schools are uneasy about even attempting stuff like that in light of privacy concerns, which can lead to court cases. And most places are unable to MANDATE counseling. You can suggest it, but it nigh impossible to MAKE someone go. I became really adept at phrasing my suggestions so that they sounded like mandates without actually being so.

I guess what I'm getting at is that a lot of kids at school are (or go through periods of being) a little unstable. Since they internalize these instabilities, it's about impossible to know which way it's gonna go. So snap and sing hymns for 19 hours without stopping, some lock themselves in the shower and quote Shakespeare, some develop chronic psycho-somatic illnesses like seizures, some develop fixations on cleaning their homes with bleach while hording water bottles in their bedrooms, some try to kill themselves, and every once in a while one will go and try to hurt someone else. I've seen all of the above firsthand except for the last. The only truly reliable indicator that a person will try to hurt someone is a history of doing so.

scout 04-18-2007 05:54 AM

According to this report which states

Quote:

Authorities found two three-page notes in his dorm room after the shootings. They weren't suicide notes and provided no clue about why he did what he did. Instead, they were expletive-filled rants against the rich and privileged, even naming people who he thought had kept him down, federal and state law enforcement sources said. Two government officials said he had been treated for mental health problems.
it was illegal for him to honestly answer the questionaire and to purchase the firearms legally because one of the questions you have to answer specifically asks if you have ever been under a doctors care for psych/mental health reasons. If you have you are automatically denied, period, end of story. The article then goes on to erronously state on the next page

Quote:

.....He used his driver's license as identification and had no problem buying the guns because he was complying with Virginia law, which permits the purchase of one gun a month, investigators said.
which may comply with Virginia law but he also must comply with federal law and part of complying with the federal law he must fill out the application/questionaire mentioned above that asks about 20 or so questions and when answered truthfully can cause one to be denied on the spot before your application is ever called into the BATF for the final approval.

For those that have never bought a gun before here's a little play by play that you have to do before you ever walk out of the store with your new firearm whether you buy it at a gunshop or one of the infamous gun shows that is always brought up by gun control advocates. {1} you decide what firearm you are purchasing and haggle the price until you are satisified {2} the dealer then hands you a state form and a federal form which you have to fill out {3} the dealer then looks over the federal form to make sure all your answers are what they should be, if not you are automatically denied on the spot {4} if you have answered the questions properly and everything is legit the dealer then makes a call to the BATF for final approval. The BATF then searches their database for any red flags and either denies, puts you on hold for further investigation and they have 10 days to complete this phase or you are approved and you can then leave the gun store or gun show with your new purchase. The forms are then sent to the state and federal authorities. The dealer keeps his copy of the forms forever, he can never destroy them because it is the record of the firearm he once had in his possession. He also has to keep a log of every single firearm that has ever come into his possession. His log, the serial numbers of the guns on his shelf, the paperwork of all the guns he has ever sold, the paperwork with your information and all the other pertinent details have to match or he loses his license. You don't just walk in and give the man a handful of money, show your drivers license and walk out with a newly purchased firearm, not legally anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber
Just a note here, because I have personal experience in being a college administrator in the position to spot these kinds of things...

So much of what people are saying now is hindsight. The creative writing thing is relatively significant. The fact that he was a "loner"... Well, that's only significant after the fact. If we had tried to refer every kid who met the threshold this guy was at, you'd end up intervening with 5-10% of your population at one point or another. Of course, the social patterns combined with the school thing look significant, but you won't realistically have all the people who see these different facets in a position to compare notes, even at a smaller school. Some schools are uneasy about even attempting stuff like that in light of privacy concerns, which can lead to court cases. And most places are unable to MANDATE counseling. You can suggest it, but it nigh impossible to MAKE someone go. I became really adept at phrasing my suggestions so that they sounded like mandates without actually being so.

I guess what I'm getting at is that a lot of kids at school are (or go through periods of being) a little unstable. Since they internalize these instabilities, it's about impossible to know which way it's gonna go. So snap and sing hymns for 19 hours without stopping, some lock themselves in the shower and quote Shakespeare, some develop chronic psycho-somatic illnesses like seizures, some develop fixations on cleaning their homes with bleach while hording water bottles in their bedrooms, some try to kill themselves, and every once in a while one will go and try to hurt someone else. I've seen all of the above firsthand except for the last. The only truly reliable indicator that a person will try to hurt someone is a history of doing so.

I hear what your saying Uber, hindsight is always 20/20 and its awful easy for us to quarterback from the confines of our easy chair.

Nisses 04-18-2007 06:39 AM

I don't get how it's important that he got the gun in a legal fashion.
The true problem should be that due to the legal structures, it's very easy to get a gun (if lying on a dead-giveaway question like that isn't even checked).

Shakran: After reading up on the second amendment and its history, I can't say I agree with you on your interpretation of that sentence.

Due to the brevity and unclear (to me) phrasing, it had me going around a bit, but

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia
"Militia is the activity of one or more citizens organized to provide defense or paramilitary service, or those engaged in such activity. ........ a militia is distinct from a regular army"

So interpretation of the word Militia alone, can even make a huge difference as to the exact meaning of the amendment.
Given that alot of people seem to interpret it very broadly anybody, even on their own, can qualify as a militia at some point.


It sounds like the constitution defines a militia as being necessary for a free state to function, and because of this, the right of people to bear and keep arms will not be restricted within limits:

Infringe
In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon.
http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#INFRINGE


I can't say I agree with the 2nd Amendment, *at all*. But that to me is what is written in your (America's) constitution.


edit: cuz I forgot to add the bit about interpretation of Militia halfway in my post.

shakran 04-18-2007 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pigglet
i'd like to ask a few quick questions about this thing with smooth and mirevolver, and if the modding is going to be public from here on out, then i'll ask them publicly.

1. what happened to all the talk a few months ago about tfp opening up and people being able to call a spade a spade?

I don't think anyone here would have a problem with Smooth telling us that our argument is stupid. And if someone does, they need to get over it. Smooth crossed the line by calling the PERSON an idiot. Attack the ideas all you want, but realize that you are not dealing with retarded children here. Each of us is an adult, with our own intelligence and our own ideas on how things should be done. I don't expect everyone to agree with everything I say, but I expect them not to assume I'm stupid because they don't like what they read.

roachboy 04-18-2007 07:03 AM

so cruising around the net this morning looking for more infotainment on this, i stumbled across this fine example of powerful deduction as the headline on cnn.com:

Quote:

gunman 'suicidal'

gee...you think so?

what idiots.....


anyway, more generally:

cant control arbitrariness folks. no way no how. you just have to accept that. no amount of fantasy concerning universal armament will change the simple fact that arbitrary shit happens. of course this is amurica, so it is easier for this arbitrariness to happen with guns than it is elsewhere. the fantasy of universal armanent is a fantasy of universal control looped through political conceptions of where ultimate control should lie--but the simple fact is that in this kind of situation, there really was nothing to be done.

another way: folk indulge the parlor game of ex post facto thinking because arbitrariness freaks them out. i think most are smart enough to see the problem with the logic, but they play the game anyway. it is therapeutic: rather than having to think about chance, you think about breakdowns in some order that could have remained perfect in its perfect control had errors not happened, and that can be imagined as still-perfect in potentia if such "errors" can be controlled for in the future. from this viewpoint, total state surveillance and universal armament turn out to be variants of the same logic, versions of the same thing.

Rekna 04-18-2007 08:22 AM

The shooter did not have a "clean" history. He was accused of stalking twice and placed in a mental health facility. These are the types of things background checks would bring up and cause further scrutiny.

hiredgun 04-18-2007 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol
I agree. I think it's totally insane that someone with a greencard can buy firearms. Especially with the lax immigration policy and terrorism threat like you mentioned.

What? What did this kid's being a greencard-holder versus a citizen have to do with his eventual shooting spree? What makes you think that a greencard-holder represents any more of a school-shooting threat?

I'm sorry, I just don't see it, and your attitude comes off as xenophobic.

roachboy 04-18-2007 09:03 AM

i *knew* the resident alien status of mr. cho would come up refigured in terms of some rightwing xenophobia. it follows in a straight line from the ongoing construction of him as someone Other who was lurking about within the Us. it almost seemed unnecessary that the stories be written which appeared yesterday describing him as an "eccentric loner"---that's right folks, not to worry, the guy was a cliche.

as more information emerges, he gets positioned more and more clearly in this dubious space of the Outsider Amongst Us.
next step would be a raising of the collective hysterometer to orange of some such because he would have been entirely blurred into the fiction of the "terrorist" as a kind of one-man sleeper cell.
it is ridiculous.
get a fucking grip, folks.

ubertuber 04-18-2007 09:11 AM

This may be a topic for another thread, but it relates because I don't see what his green card status has to do with anything.

Rights granted on the basis of the constitution are granted because we're human, not because we're Americans. I'm deeply disturbed by the trend to deny rights and protections to people based on their national status - whether it be fair trial or something like gun ownership. If it's a right, it's a right.

Jinn 04-18-2007 09:24 AM

Quote:

Rights granted on the basis of the constitution are granted because we're human, not because we're Americans. I'm deeply disturbed by the trend to deny rights and protections to people based on their national status - whether it be fair trial or something like gun ownership. If it's a right, it's a right.
The right to vote in US elections is a 'human' right?

samcol 04-18-2007 09:25 AM

Playing the xenophobia card on these forums is getting so bad I think we need another Godwin's Law.

Rekna 04-18-2007 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber
This may be a topic for another thread, but it relates because I don't see what his green card status has to do with anything.

Rights granted on the basis of the constitution are granted because we're human, not because we're Americans. I'm deeply disturbed by the trend to deny rights and protections to people based on their national status - whether it be fair trial or something like gun ownership. If it's a right, it's a right.

Quoted for truth. I have always felt that our constitution should apply to every single person within our jurisdiction as our forefathers specifically said in our deceleration of independence that mankind has certain unalienable rights....


With that been said I do see 1 reason to deny foreigners weapons that I would deem appropriate. If there was a system in place which required extensive background checks in order to purchase a weapon (ie interviewing previous employers, family, ect) a new resident alien would not have much background to probe. In this case I would support not allowing resident aliens to buy a weapon for the first couple years they are in the US.

Willravel 04-18-2007 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol
Playing the xenophobia card on these forums is getting so bad I think we need another Godwin's Law.

The thing is, screaming 'Godwin' doesn't always negate the argument being made. Sometimes, something is comparable to the Nazi war of aggression leading up to and being WWII. The only problem is that people are afraid it might be overused and it will lose some of it's shock value.

Quote:

xen·o·pho·bi·a
–noun
an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange.
If used correctly, and if it can be defended from a semantic standpoint, the word must stand.

Edit: for example:
Statistically speaking, Mexican immigrant workers are less likely to commit crimes than American citizens, therefore those that say Mexican immigrants are coming into the US and committing crimes (other than the act of illegally immigrating) could be xenophobic.

roachboy 04-18-2007 10:08 AM

style note: probably the most irritating legacy of the o.j. simpson trial is the popularization of that meaningless construction:

"to play the x card..."

end style note. the post:

in samcol's post above, this tedious, empty phrase functions as if it use alone constitutes an understanding and containment of a particular critique. so it is that the idea behind the post is essentially to disable recourse to a category--xenophobia--which in the case of posters like samcol is a prefectly legitimate way of characterizing such logic as there is behind trying to get explanatory mileage out of cho's resident alien status as if that would in some bizarre-o world make him more inclined to snap and go around shooting people. the claim is idiotic.

again, all this is about trying to find some peculiar "not one of us" status for this guy--an operation that has nothing at all to do with understanding anything, nothing to do with questions of what, if anything, would constitute a rational response to the vt murder/suicide, nothing to do with anything except insofar as if feeds into some pathetic ideological illusion that there is an amurica of "normal righteous folk" who would never snap, would never indulge acts of arbitrary violence, and then there are those Others, those Fucked Up People who explain any and all disturbances to the otherwise perfect harmonious world of "real amuricans".

this is a really problematic way of seeing this fiction of the "us" or "amurica" or the nation--what it functions to do is establish the conditions of possibility for efforts to cleanse the body amurican of disordered folk---because there is no "us" there is no coherent boundary to be defended--but the illusion that there is one is enough to set up consent for attempts to maintain it in its "order" in its "virtue" in its "purity"--and so you get to see the same retro-nationalism that we all know and love so bloody much turning up again here, in debates around a situation that has fuck all to do with it.



the only reason that there is any objection to the category of xenophobia here is as an attempt to block the laying out of the logic behind such moves in this (or any) context because once you lay out the logic, its idiocy is transparent.

scout 04-18-2007 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun
What? What did this kid's being a greencard-holder versus a citizen have to do with his eventual shooting spree? What makes you think that a greencard-holder represents any more of a school-shooting threat?

I'm sorry, I just don't see it, and your attitude comes off as xenophobic.

So..... It's not paranoid or xenophobic to want to completely disarm the populace because a few terrible persons of ill repute manage to beat the system?

I don't get it and I probably never will.

This is much like the liberal left movement to cry foul at the denial of certain God given rights to the terrorists housed at Gitmo while bringing up legislation to deny the God given rights of the law abiding citizens of the United States. They haven't had time to bring up all the legislation they promised including legislation for the impeachment of the President, although they promised they would. According to them he has broken many, many laws and is perhaps the biggest criminal in American history. But by golly they have had time to craft anti-gun legislation.

what the fuck?

Rekna 04-18-2007 11:22 AM

Thou shall not kill......

I don't think God intended everyone to be armed as one of the rights he gave us. On the contrary the New Testament over and over and over talks about forgiveness and love and not revenge and hatred. Somehow I find it hard to believe that a gun leads to forgiveness and love but I can definitely see it leading to revenge and hatred.

dc_dux 04-18-2007 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout
So..... It's not paranoid or xenophobic to want to completely disarm the populace because a few terrible persons of ill repute manage to beat the system?

I don't get it and I probably never will.

This is much like the liberal left movement to cry foul at the denial of certain God given rights to the terrorists housed at Gitmo while bringing up legislation to deny the God given rights of the law abiding citizens of the United States. They haven't had time to bring up all the legislation they promised including legislation for the impeachment of the President, although they promised they would. According to them he has broken many, many laws and is perhaps the biggest criminal in American history. But by golly they have had time to craft anti-gun legislation.

I think you're letting your emotions get the best of you.

What guns laws have been introduced that want to "completely disarm the populace" by this new (or any recent) Dem congress?

When did the majority of the Dem who were recently elected to the majority "proimise legislation for the impeachment of Bush"?

I find it a bit contrarian that some of the gun rights folks here fight so hard for unrestricted rights under 2nd amendment but are ready to trash the 14th amendment.

What the fuck?

smooth 04-18-2007 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran
I don't think anyone here would have a problem with Smooth telling us that our argument is stupid. And if someone does, they need to get over it. Smooth crossed the line by calling the PERSON an idiot. Attack the ideas all you want, but realize that you are not dealing with retarded children here. Each of us is an adult, with our own intelligence and our own ideas on how things should be done. I don't expect everyone to agree with everything I say, but I expect them not to assume I'm stupid because they don't like what they read.

Shakran, the day after...I'd appreciate it if you'd go back and re-read what I wrote because the instances where I used the word "dumb" were specifically aimed at behavior and not the person.

At the start of the downward spiral, I was clear I valued his opinion but not his analysis. Later, I requested that a mod lend a neutral voice to the assessment of the data (a suggestion I've made directly to Halx in terms of what role moderators might consider in a form of "pre-emptive" in-thread moderation). Even after that I reiterated that I valued his opinion, that I took issue with the analysis, and then labeled the inability or unwillingness to reassess the data in light of what I was explaining as "dumb." I also added misquoting people was "dumb", but I never labeled either of the persons behind those posts unintelligent. Both responses were limited to the behavior exhibited.

I don't know what calling a position or saying a person is being "obtuse" would resolve since my understanding is it means unintelligent, dull, lacking insight, etc. But I already apologized, because I recognize that my standards of certain things aren't the same as the communities. So it goes that I happened to have realized last night what pigglet alluded to regarding the past discussions on these types of things...basically that the "political" interactions are back at square one and I'm not particularly interested in that kind of discourse...although I may choose to read what some friends have to say from time to time (which is why I'm even here currently) but I doubt I will contribute much thought of my own for some time again.

roachboy 04-18-2007 11:42 AM

god given?
what are you talking about?
when that phrase appears, it is an 18th century reference to theories of natural law. since the claims of the american revolution were based on an idea of restoring rights violated by england, the language of natural law served a tactical function.
but the notion of natural law itself is at the very best problematic, based as it is, as it always was, on fundamentally religious committments simply transposed from the register of religion to that of transcendent categories (limits, prohibitions and their opposite)...but without the category of religion behind it, this transposition holds no water. you have a long history of ethics as a branch of philo that tracks the problems encountered when western folk noticed that there was a world beyond them that could not simply be understood as less than them, or as repetitions of their history and so trapped in some eternal childhood waiting around for the heroic western white folk to rescue them and show then the way to adulthood--which was of course embodied in the euro-americans themselves. the notion of natural law became untenable. this still freaks out some ethicists so deontology persists, but is mostly a space ccupied by religious thinkers who for whatever reason continue to blur their religious committments and philosophical work into each other. meanwhile, in most other areas of ethics, folk have worked out the obvious: that constructions on the order of natural law were, are and always will be political matters.

there is no natural law: the language of it provided a veneer of legitimation to the constitution itself--but within the constitutional regime, any rights are stipulated by the document itself, they function as rights within that regime because of the status accorded the document itself.
this god character has nothing to do with it.

===================================================

aside, added: smooth---i wish you'd reconsider what you say about your participation here in your last post. for what it's worth, i think this is a better more interesting place because you play about in it as well--your views are consistently interesting and thoughtful---if folk are bothered by the style in which they are sometimes presented--well---in my view anyway---fuck em.

Deltona Couple 04-18-2007 11:56 AM

Well WOW! What an amazing thread. took me a long time, and I STILL have yet to finish every post. MOST people on this thread know that I am pro-gun ownership. Now that it is clear to everyone my basic stance, here is my take on some of what has been said here:

As far as students being allowed to carry on campus:
1: I disagree that they should be allowed. It is difficult enough to go around campus worrying about studying for exams and socializing, than to add "who is carrying a piece".
2: From the news articles I have read, MOST of those students that were killed were under the age of 21. Now correct me if I am wrong, but my research showed that HANDGUNS are not allowed for purchase in Virginia until the age of 21. So it is a moot point to consider what MIGHT have happened, or NOT happened, if students were allowed to carry on campus.

As far as faculty carrying on campus: Personally, I don't see it as a bad idea, considering what HAS happened in the past. However I DO agree that if you ARE going to allow faculty to carry, then they should ALL be given extensive background checks, and go through a POLICE sanctioned gun training class on how to use it, and WHEN to use it.

History has shown that in the states where concealed wepons permits have been enacted, that crimes against INDIVIDUALS has decreased over time. Now OBVIOUSLY this doesn't include such a HORRIFIC situation as that at Virginia Tech. There will ALWAYS be anomolies in life. We can't begin to predict human bahavior or emotions when under stress; and lets face it, there are not many things more stressful than highschool and college. It is terrible what has happened, and there is nothing that we can do now to go back and change things, but lets cool down before we start taking action too soon. Face it, after September 11th, we jumped the gun pretty quick, and see where THAT led us? (Don't go jumping me about the war or anything...if ANYONE can attest to how I feel about the war, support of/or the actual fact that we are there in the first place it is Willravel, whom I have ENJOYED many discussions of our difference of opinions in threads of that subject!)



Now as to the 2nd amendment: I love how some people are trying to give their opinion on what it menas, so here is mine...
"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Maybe the grammar is a little off, but I read it thusly: "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the preservation of a free state" (because we may NEED at some point in the future, a militia), "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"(the right of individual gun ownership, will not be taken away)
I do not read it as a FULL sentence, meaning that only those needed for a militia will be allowed to own/carry guns, but as a WHOLE statement.

As a thread jack here:

Am I the only one who thinks that maybe the reason the United States has never actually been invaded by a foreign nation, is because they are worried about the fact that every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the USA has a half dozen or more guns in their own home? I mean face it, when Germany invaded France, do you think it MIGHT have been tougher if everyone in France had a couple of guns in their home? I mean face it, if we were invaded say at Miami, how long do you think it would take to get an actual FULL military presense to defend it?...but If say 50% of the people there had firearms of their own...then BANG! there is our Militia, per the constitution!...

dksuddeth 04-18-2007 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deltona Couple
From the news articles I have read, MOST of those students that were killed were under the age of 21. Now correct me if I am wrong, but my research showed that HANDGUNS are not allowed for purchase in Virginia until the age of 21. So it is a moot point to consider what MIGHT have happened, or NOT happened, if students were allowed to carry on campus.

Federal law states that you have to be 21 to purchase from an FFL. You need only be 18 to POSESS and carry....so if you were given a handgun as an 18th birthday present..you're legal.

Willravel 04-18-2007 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deltona Couple
History has shown that in the states where concealed [weapons] permits have been enacted, that crimes against INDIVIDUALS has decreased over time. Now OBVIOUSLY this doesn't include such a HORRIFIC situation as that at Virginia Tech. There will ALWAYS be [anomalies] in life. We can't begin to predict human [behavior] or emotions when under stress; and lets face it, there are not many things more stressful than [high school] and college. It is terrible what has happened, and there is nothing that we can do now to go back and change things, but lets cool down before we start taking action too soon. Face it, after September 11th, we jumped the gun pretty quick, and see where THAT led us? (Don't go jumping me about the war or anything...if ANYONE can attest to how I feel about the war, support of/or the actual fact that we are there in the first place it is Willravel, whom I have ENJOYED many discussions of our difference of opinions in threads of that subject!)

I'm sure \we both agree that most if not every military action in response to 9/11 has been a mistake. The rest is another matter.

I'll again call on the UK to cite as an example of a nation that has a successful gun ban. The short history of that ban has shown that a gun ban can lower gun crime when carried out correctly. While it's easy to call the VT massacre an anomaly, the fact of the matter is it's much easier to commit a massacre with a gun than it is with a knife or bat. I'd rather face a man in a dark alley if he were armed with a knife or bat than a gun. I'm sure you agree.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Deltona Couple
Now as to the 2nd amendment: I love how some people are trying to give their opinion on what it means, so here is mine...
"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Maybe the grammar is a little off, but I read it thusly: "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the preservation of a free state" (because we may NEED at some point in the future, a militia), "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"(the right of individual gun ownership, will not be taken away)
I do not read it as a FULL sentence, meaning that only those needed for a militia will be allowed to own/carry guns, but as a WHOLE statement.

And you're not the only one the read it that way. The thing is: they were obviously intended to be linked in spirit by their logical functions. It's in that sense that I derive my interpretation.

What was the intended function Second Amendment? The populace was able to wage war against the superior forces of the British Army partially because of their militia's armaments. Had the populace not been able to organize militias, it's entirely possible we'd all have all bad teeth and snobby accents. Bearing that in mind, when one starts a new government who's genesis features such realizations, the idea of regulating power between the government and the populace should be balanced by having an able militia that is not federally controlled. In the unlikely case that the federal government, using the military, were to infringe on our rights and such we should have the organizational capacity to hold our ground by having a capable militia. Do we have anything like that now? Not really, and it's a shame because I believe that things like Waco could have been prevented if representatives from a militia were to speak with the ATF they could have brought with them the promise of armed resistance that could have acted as a deterrent (one would hope). Moving back to what this means so far as the Amendment, I believe that the Amendment is in place to protect the ability of the populace so far as maintaining military power in the form of a militia or militias. The clear reasoning would be to make sure that a potential police state would meet with heavy resistance.

How would this apply today? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Federal government continues on it's current authoritarian road. Let's say that, in the name of fighting crime or terrorism, that we have tanks rolling down our streets, curfews, kidnappings, the loss of due process for those citizens captured, and detention camps for those suspected but not tried. If this were to ever happen, I would have the Constitutionally protected right to organize a militia to the ends of returning order. It's the right to resist governmental tyranny in organized groups. I'd probably use bombs instead of guns, personally, because it's clear that IEDs are the most successful way to combat a military like ours. They're cheap and easy to construct from common parts and compounds.

When you ask a gun owner why they own a gun, I'd be willing to bet that they'd say they have the gun to protect themselves or their families from criminals or aggressors. While I concede that this is reasonable, I do think it's clear that that intent is not in the Second Amendment, and thus things like the right for an individual to bear arms is not Constitutionally protected unless they are a member of a militia which has the function of supporting the power of the populace in case the government oversteps it's bounds.

My fingers hurt, and I have to get back to work.

pig 04-18-2007 12:53 PM

quick post: i concur, perhaps obviously, with the above posts of roach and smooth. the perspectives and approaches are appreciated by some, but apparently not by others. c'est la vie. i'd suggest further discussion take place in a separate thread if necessary.

/end threadjack

Ourcrazymodern? 04-18-2007 01:05 PM

An armed nut goes on a rampage and kills dozens of other people for his 5,555minutes of fame, but he's dead. What a concept.

roachboy 04-18-2007 01:09 PM

thing is that i dont see a police state being met with any particular resistance simply because people have guns---they are not magic objects, they do not bring with them political consciousness--what would matter is the organization of consent. if consent is organized on grounds that folk find to be compelling, they will not resist--it wont occur to them. so they would be docile people who happen to have guns. they would not percieve a police state as a police state: they would probably think in terms of necessary security measures carried out for some political objective that they would agree with. if the consent ran deep enough, people with guns would be no more or less inclined than people without guns to turn over suspected dissidents to the state.

same logic obtains for a revolutionary movement--what matters really is the political program--that is what would give a sense of direction and coherence to any such movement.

either way, people with guns are just people with guns. there IS NO POLITICAL MEANING TO OWNING A GUN. none--no more than political orientation can be derived from the car you drive or the pants you wear--insofar as all are commodities, all are functionally equivalent. having a gun does not make you free--it doesnt make you anything---a gun is a tool that no more tells you what to do with it than having a saw tells you how to cut pieces of wood to size for a building. to think otherwise would require that you also think that you can build a complex model spontaneously because you bought a tube of glue.

in the present political and legal environment, owning a gun is a type of accessorizing.
some people like chanel, other people like a glock.
it is a consumer choice.
nothing political about it, the imaginings of gun fetishists notwithstanding.


in a non-revolutionary situation, political conflict is primarily ideological and can be seen as a war of position. gramsci was right.

Eeeraq 04-18-2007 01:13 PM

Check out this AP story.

"As a korean, I'm embarassed"

how about, as a human, I'm embarassed!

Willravel 04-18-2007 01:22 PM

RB, great post.

Rekna 04-18-2007 01:27 PM

A Virginia district court found that Virginia Tech killer Cho Seung-Hui was "mentally ill" and was an "imminent danger to others," according to a 2005 temporary detention order.   click to show 


This did not appear on the "instant" background check. Virgina needs to reevaluate its instant background check as it is apparently way to lax.

All the warning signs where there. The University was warned by a professors, students had complained about him for stalking, he started a fire in his dorm room, and yet none of this showed up on a background check. I think the University was highly negligent in not reporting this information to police. Well these types of things are not always preventable this one most definitely was. Virgina really needs to improve there background checks.

Willravel 04-18-2007 01:34 PM

Rekna, yes this seems to have little or nothing to do with the Second Amendment and more to do with bad decision making by whomever is in charge of security and background checks. Anyone who would stalk or start a fire should require a psych profile (which could have prevented this massacre).

Rekna 04-18-2007 02:00 PM

I'm betting Virgina is going to be paying a lot of money in lawsuits for negligence.

Ourcrazymodern? 04-18-2007 02:33 PM

Virginia can afford it - she's no longer a virgin. The shooter may have been.

dksuddeth 04-18-2007 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna
This did not appear on the "instant" background check. Virgina needs to reevaluate its instant background check as it is apparently way to lax.

All the warning signs where there. The University was warned by a professors, students had complained about him for stalking, he started a fire in his dorm room, and yet none of this showed up on a background check. I think the University was highly negligent in not reporting this information to police. Well these types of things are not always preventable this one most definitely was. Virgina really needs to improve there background checks.

The background check is a federal background check, not a state check. This is pursuant to the brady bill passed back when reagan was president. If there was a failure in the check system, it was due to federal negligence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
Rekna, yes this seems to have little or nothing to do with the Second Amendment and more to do with bad decision making by whomever is in charge of security and background checks. Anyone who would stalk or start a fire should require a psych profile (which could have prevented this massacre).

and if the shooter would have simply stolen a weapon or two, how would it then have been prevented? or bought a weapon off the street? or from a private party? The bottom line is that there is simply no possible way to prevent any person from obtaining a gun.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy
having a gun does not make you free--it doesnt make you anything---a gun is a tool that no more tells you what to do with it than having a saw tells you how to cut pieces of wood to size for a building. to think otherwise would require that you also think that you can build a complex model spontaneously because you bought a tube of glue.

If you were accosted by someone with a gun and that person tells you to turn around, are you going to turn around or say no?

If that same person accosts me, i'm going to tell him no, as I draw my own gun against him. I am now FREE of being forced to submit to said attackers demands.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna
I'm betting Virgina is going to be paying a lot of money in lawsuits for negligence.

The state will not be paying anything. If anyone pays money, it will be the university.

Willravel 04-18-2007 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth
and if the shooter would have simply stolen a weapon or two, how would it then have been prevented? or bought a weapon off the street? or from a private party? The bottom line is that there is simply no possible way to prevent any person from obtaining a gun.

That's a great attitude. We also can't stop all pedophiles from raping children....so why even try?

I've already posted a straightforward way to avoid this: public monitoring by both government and corporation of each gun by putting a bar code on every gun. Every gun produced is a matter of public record. The records start when the guns are produced. The record has a list of the factory, shipping company, vendor, and owner. If a gun goes missing, they can track down exactly when in the process it went missing and can take steps to prevent it in the future. If there's a dirty vendor or shipper, they get shut down. If the gun is stolen from a legal owner, then policy on how to keep guns must change.

powerclown 04-18-2007 03:19 PM

sorry, wrong thread. don't..shoot me.

hiredgun 04-18-2007 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout
So..... It's not paranoid or xenophobic to want to completely disarm the populace because a few terrible persons of ill repute manage to beat the system?

I don't get it and I probably never will.

This is much like the liberal left movement to cry foul [*snip* bizarre rant about 'the left' -HG]

what the fuck?

Okay, I'm going to have to sidestep almost all of this because I have not made any arguments for (or against) gun control in this thread, nor have I identified myself with the left or any of the Bush-related arguments you've brought up. None of that is relevant to my post.

My simple point is: there's something bizarre and utterly arbitrary about choosing national origin as a way to explain this incident. There is absolutely zero evidence that his being Korean (or more broadly a non-citizen) had an atom's worth of bearing on what happened. You cannot even construct a hypothetical explanation of how such linkage might operate, because it's completely absurd.

Willravel 04-18-2007 04:06 PM

It reminded me of Bill ORly's argument in that other thread.

Halx 04-18-2007 04:11 PM

Hopefully they find enough shit mentally wrong with this guy that they can't blame benign devices like video games and rock music for long. That is unless they say it caused the insanity. Then we know who the real psycho is.

dirtyrascal7 04-18-2007 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
Rekna, yes this seems to have little or nothing to do with the Second Amendment and more to do with bad decision making by whomever is in charge of security and background checks. Anyone who would stalk or start a fire should require a psych profile (which could have prevented this massacre).

I had the same view as you regarding the psych profile being able to prevent this from happening, but apparently that isn't true... below is an excerpt from this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18169776/

Quote:

The two women complained to campus police that Cho was contacting them with “annoying” telephone calls and e-mail messages in November and December 2005, campus Police Chief Wendell Flinchum said.

Cho was referred to the university’s disciplinary system, but Flinchum said the woman declined to press charges, and the case apparently never reached a hearing.

However, after the second incident, the department received a call from an acquaintance of Cho’s, who was concerned that he might be suicidal, Flinchum said. Police obtained a temporary detention order from a local magistrate, and in December of that year, Cho was briefly admitted to Carilion St. Albans Behavioral Health Center in Radford, NBC News’ Jim Popkin reported.

To issue a detention order under Virginia law, a magistrate must find both that the subject is “mentally ill and in need of hospitalization or treatment” and that the subject is “an imminent danger to himself or others, or is so seriously mentally ill as to be substantially unable to care for himself.”

According to a doctor’s report accompanying the order, which was obtained by NBC News, Cho was “depressed,” but “his insight and judgment are normal.” The doctor, a clinical psychologist, noted that Cho “denies suicidal ideations.”

Cho was released, said Dr. Harvey Barker, director of the health center.
Now, apparently he went to the health center in early 2006, so he essentially had a year after being released for his mind to continue deteriorating to the breaking point. The article mentioned that there were no further police incidents from that point until Monday, so unfortunately there wasn't another chance for a formal re-evaluation of him.

However, every article I've read featuring statements from people who interacted with him gave very grim and creepy views of this guy... so you would think somewhere along the line a warning flag would have gone off in someone's mind and prompted further investigation.

archetypal fool 04-18-2007 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtyrascal7
However, every article I've read featuring statements from people who interacted with him gave very grim and creepy views of this guy... so you would think somewhere along the line a warning flag would have gone off in someone's mind and prompted further investigation.

Yeah, but I think we've all met the occasional creepy guy every once in a while, and not every introverted creepy guy is capable of doing this kind of thing.

Willravel 04-18-2007 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtyrascal7
I had the same view as you regarding the psych profile being able to prevent this from happening, but apparently that isn't true... below is an excerpt from this article:

As someone familiar with psychology, I can tell you that it's rarely an exact science. What I mean to say is that a good analyzing could have prevented this. The mind is a complicated organ and it's processes are often maddeningly complex and difficult to chart and predict. Despite all that, I still think that if he were required to see a counselor for an extended period of time, much as someone likely to be sick should see a doctor often, this could have been avoided.
Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtyrascal7
However, every article I've read featuring statements from people who interacted with him gave very grim and creepy views of this guy... so you would think somewhere along the line a warning flag would have gone off in someone's mind and prompted further investigation.

Legal mental health procedures right now are still relatively in their infancy. Maybe, someday, we can have procedures in place that are quite successful in prevention.

Quote:

Originally Posted by archetypal fool
Yeah, but I think we've all met the occasional creepy guy every once in a while, and not every introverted creepy guy is capable of doing this kind of thing.

I've got bad news: we're all capable of this kind of behavior. That's just the way the human mind works. We all have the capacity for healthy and unhealthy behavior.

archetypal fool 04-18-2007 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
I've got bad news: we're all capable of this kind of behavior. That's just the way the human mind works. We all have the capacity for healthy and unhealthy behavior.

Very true, but what I meant was that not every quiet creepy guy is plotting to kill people.

Willravel 04-18-2007 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archetypal fool
Very true, but what I meant was that not every quiet creepy guy is plotting to kill people.

That's probably true, but keeping an eye out for warning signs can't hurt.

dirtyrascal7 04-18-2007 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archetypal fool
Yeah, but I think we've all met the occasional creepy guy every once in a while, and not every introverted creepy guy is capable of doing this kind of thing.

I agree, but this guy was extrordinarily creepy. Many of his classmates in his writing class were afraid of him... he was actually removed from one class and taught one-on-one because other students stopped showing up to the lessons. There are testimonials saying that he never spoke to anyone, not even a professor when he was asked a direct question. I don't know about you, but I have never met anyone THAT creepy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
As someone familiar with psychology, I can tell you that it's rarely an exact science. What I mean to say is that a good analyzing could have prevented this. The mind is a complicated organ and it's processes are often maddeningly complex and difficult to chart and predict. Despite all that, I still think that if he were required to see a counselor for an extended period of time, much as someone likely to be sick should see a doctor often, this could have been avoided.

Legal mental health procedures right now are still relatively in their infancy. Maybe, someday, we can have procedures in place that are quite successful in prevention.

I've got bad news: we're all capable of this kind of behavior. That's just the way the human mind works. We all have the capacity for healthy and unhealthy behavior.

Oh, I totally agree. I think that, even in retrospect, this is what we should be focusing on to prevent this from happening again... not gun control, not surpressing violent video games... but becoming better at identifying these individuals and then getting them the proper help.

I believe that psychology has the potential to be a much more effective preventitive measure than any number of policies or bans that lawmakers can come up with. However, obviously the barrier here is educating enough people and having the manpower in place to provide the necessary help.

archetypal fool 04-18-2007 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtyrascal7
I agree, but this guy was extrordinarily creepy. Many of his classmates in his writing class were afraid of him... he was actually removed from one class and taught one-on-one because other students stopped showing up to the lessons. There are testimonials saying that he never spoke to anyone, not even a professor when he was asked a direct question. I don't know about you, but I have never met anyone THAT creepy.

Wow, I didn't know it was that bad...I though he was just your average "loner" kind of person.

Willravel 04-18-2007 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtyrascal7
Oh, I totally agree. I think that, even in retrospect, this is what we should be focusing on to prevent this from happening again... not gun control, not surpressing violent video games... but becoming better at identifying these individuals and then getting them the proper help.

I believe that psychology has the potential to be a much more effective preventitive measure than any number of policies or bans that lawmakers can come up with. However, obviously the barrier here is educating enough people and having the manpower in place to provide the necessary help.

Very well put. I couldn't agree more. Instead of a gun control thread about this atrocity, we should be talking about:
1) Having better funded and researched programs in elementary schools reinforcing positive and healthy mental health. (not necessarily for this case, as he grew up in Korea, but in other similar cases)
2) Better screenings of people who exhibit unhealthy behavioral patterns.
3) Universal mental health care.

Rekna 04-18-2007 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth
and if the shooter would have simply stolen a weapon or two, how would it then have been prevented? or bought a weapon off the street? or from a private party? The bottom line is that there is simply no possible way to prevent any person from obtaining a gun.

I don't buy this. First he would have to find a contact to get the gun. In addition the gun would be much more expensive. Then there is also a lot more risk in getting caught because now he has to worry about undercover agents. Your logic is so flawed. It is like saying we can't stop 13 year olds from drinking alcohol so lets just sell them alcohol anyways.

Quote:

The state will not be paying anything. If anyone pays money, it will be the university.
I could be wrong but I was under the impression that this was a state University thus why I said the state is going to be paying. If it isn't a state run University then I see both getting sued.

dksuddeth 04-19-2007 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
That's a great attitude. We also can't stop all pedophiles from raping children....so why even try?

I've already posted a straightforward way to avoid this: public monitoring by both government and corporation of each gun by putting a bar code on every gun. Every gun produced is a matter of public record. The records start when the guns are produced. The record has a list of the factory, shipping company, vendor, and owner. If a gun goes missing, they can track down exactly when in the process it went missing and can take steps to prevent it in the future. If there's a dirty vendor or shipper, they get shut down. If the gun is stolen from a legal owner, then policy on how to keep guns must change.

And you're continued attempts to try will only reap more massacres like this one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna
I don't buy this. First he would have to find a contact to get the gun. In addition the gun would be much more expensive. Then there is also a lot more risk in getting caught because now he has to worry about undercover agents. Your logic is so flawed. It is like saying we can't stop 13 year olds from drinking alcohol so lets just sell them alcohol anyways.

Nobody is saying not to try, I'm simply telling you that no matter how hard you try, you will never be able to stop all of them. I can't see how you think MY logic is flawed when yours only places more people at risk of being defenseless.

Deltona Couple 04-19-2007 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna
I don't buy this. First he would have to find a contact to get the gun. In addition the gun would be much more expensive. Then there is also a lot more risk in getting caught because now he has to worry about undercover agents. Your logic is so flawed. It is like saying we can't stop 13 year olds from drinking alcohol so lets just sell them alcohol anyways.



I could be wrong but I was under the impression that this was a state University thus why I said the state is going to be paying. If it isn't a state run University then I see both getting sued.

Sory, but that attempt at a comparison is rediculous... You cannot compare underage drinking to what happened here. Teens and such that try to sneak a drink illegally are for the most part only hurting themselves, and generally not INTENT on causing physical harm to a large group of people. I CANNOT and WILL NOT accept this as even a REMOTELY good comparison. Any no, it ISN'T that difficult to obtain a firearm illegally. They are not usually expensive as you are trying to show. Illegal guns are normally stolen, so therefore cost to the seller is zero, so if you sell if for a cheap $200.00, then you are making a pretty darn good profit. if someone really wants a gun, it is not difficult at all to obtain one pretty quickly, and cheaply. If you look at the background, only the Glock was purchased legally. His other pistol they have YET to find where he obtained it from.

Will, I find your posts quite insightful, and DO enjoy seeing you bring out some interesting points, even if I disagree with you. Again it is a priveledge to debate things with you!:thumbsup:

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
And you're not the only one the read it that way. The thing is: they were obviously intended to be linked in spirit by their logical functions. It's in that sense that I derive my interpretation.

This is of course why we have the SCOTUS to try and help interpret what was meant. Personally I think old G. Washington would have surrendered to the Brittish if he saw our country today...lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
How would this apply today? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Federal government continues on it's current authoritarian road. Let's say that, in the name of fighting crime or terrorism, that we have tanks rolling down our streets, curfews, kidnappings, the loss of due process for those citizens captured, and detention camps for those suspected but not tried. If this were to ever happen, I would have the Constitutionally protected right to organize a militia to the ends of returning order. It's the right to resist governmental tyranny in organized groups. I'd probably use bombs instead of guns, personally, because it's clear that IEDs are the most successful way to combat a military like ours. They're cheap and easy to construct from common parts and compounds.

When you ask a gun owner why they own a gun, I'd be willing to bet that they'd say they have the gun to protect themselves or their families from criminals or aggressors. While I concede that this is reasonable, I do think it's clear that that intent is not in the Second Amendment, and thus things like the right for an individual to bear arms is not Constitutionally protected unless they are a member of a militia which has the function of supporting the power of the populace in case the government oversteps it's bounds.

OK. let me pose a question for you Will...and I am being truly honest here. If we were to only arm a militia for your above mentioned senario, where would we keep the weapons used to arm them? a central location? or allow individuals to keep them at home?

While I agree with you that MOST people would say they keep a firearm in their home to protect their family, It's not like you would ask someone that question and honestly expect them to respond "I keep my firearm just in case a militia is formed to raise up against a tyranical government"...:oogle:

Unfortunately our country is what it is today. and as such, we have an inordinate amount of criminals that are themselves armed. I see it this way, if were were to finally have the government say "thats it! enough! we have decided to repeal the 2nd amendment, and will require all citizens to disarm themselves"...next thing you know, the CRIMINALS who ARE still armed, now know that NOBODY is at home with a firearm. They can now go on a crime spree, knowing that homeowners can no longer defend themselves against them with them carrying a gun!

To be honest, I wouldn't mind at all giving up my gun, if the government could GUARANTEE that I would be protected in my own home against said criminals. Our country is what it is. and unfortunately I cannot see a sucessful ban on firearms. I DO agree with stricter MONITORING of gun purchasing and ownership. EVERY gun I own is registered. Even the ones purchased from a private individual gets registered with my local sherriff's office.

On a side note. There is much talk about the "mental stability" of the person who commited the massacre at VT. The biggest thing is this....when filling out a gun purchase form, one of the questions is "have you ever been hospitalized or treated for a mental condition"...this question is COMPLETELY voluntary in answer, because if you all remember, Mental health conditions are like a lawyer, client's privacy is protected, so it is not like when the people involved in doing the background check can ACTUALLY check to see if you have ever been commited, unless the commiting was done by a court order.....

And as was mentioned earlier. it is federal law that you cannot purchase OR own a handgun
under the age of 21 in ANY state. If yo uwere given a HANDGUN as a gift, and are under the age of 21, then the person who gave it to you has VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW...I had looked this up not that long ago. The law was enacted by Bill Clinton in his last year in office. Unless Things have changed. If so, then I say we should push for it again!

Rekna 04-19-2007 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deltona Couple
Sory, but that attempt at a comparison is rediculous... You cannot compare underage drinking to what happened here. Teens and such that try to sneak a drink illegally are for the most part only hurting themselves, and generally not INTENT on causing physical harm to a large group of people. I CANNOT and WILL NOT accept this as even a REMOTELY good comparison.

My point still stands, if you need a different one with the same point here: We can't stop people from driving drunk so we should just legalize drunk driving.

Quote:

Any no, it ISN'T that difficult to obtain a firearm illegally. They are not usually expensive as you are trying to show. Illegal guns are normally stolen, so therefore cost to the seller is zero, so if you sell if for a cheap $200.00, then you are making a pretty darn good profit. if someone really wants a gun, it is not difficult at all to obtain one pretty quickly, and cheaply.
It is still an extra step, one in which he can get caught. By your logic it is easy to buy drugs illegally so we should just legalize them. Or it's easy to find child pornography so we should just legalize it. I'm sorry your logic is unsound here.

Quote:

If you look at the background, only the Glock was purchased legally. His other pistol they have YET to find where he obtained it from.
I could of swore I heard the police chief recently say both guns were purchased legally.


We can't always stop this sort of thing from happening but just because we can't stop something doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop it. This is why we have increased our security in the US. We can't stop the terrorists but we can stop some of them. The whole we can't always do something so do nothing attitude is completely ridiculous.

Willravel 04-19-2007 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth
And you're continued attempts to try will only reap more massacres like this one.

This suggests that you believe that gun control CAUSED this. That doesn't make any sense.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Deltona Couple
This is of course why we have the SCOTUS to try and help interpret what was meant. Personally I think old G. Washington would have surrendered to the British if he saw our country today...lol

He'd probably see a dentist, as to avoid further splinters in the gums.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Deltona Couple
OK. let me pose a question for you Will...and I am being truly honest here. If we were to only arm a militia for your above mentioned senario, where would we keep the weapons used to arm them? a central location? or allow individuals to keep them at home?

Well it wouldn't just be in case the government lost it. It would also come in handy if we were invaded.

They could keep the weapons at home, locked up.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Deltona Couple
While I agree with you that MOST people would say they keep a firearm in their home to protect their family, It's not like you would ask someone that question and honestly expect them to respond "I keep my firearm just in case a militia is formed to raise up against a tyranical government"...

I can think of one person on this board who would. His name starts with a Z, and you'd want him on your side if the government lost it.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Deltona Couple
Unfortunately our country is what it is today. and as such, we have an inordinate amount of criminals that are themselves armed. I see it this way, if were were to finally have the government say "thats it! enough! we have decided to repeal the 2nd amendment, and will require all citizens to disarm themselves"...next thing you know, the CRIMINALS who ARE still armed, now know that NOBODY is at home with a firearm. They can now go on a crime spree, knowing that homeowners can no longer defend themselves against them with them carrying a gun!

I see no reason to think that having a gun is a safe way to stop crime. I do see that many crimes are made more possible by guns. As such we should be trying to have less guns on the streets, not more.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Deltona Couple
To be honest, I wouldn't mind at all giving up my gun, if the government could GUARANTEE that I would be protected in my own home against said criminals. Our country is what it is. and unfortunately I cannot see a sucessful ban on firearms. I DO agree with stricter MONITORING of gun purchasing and ownership. EVERY gun I own is registered. Even the ones purchased from a private individual gets registered with my local sherriff's office.

Have you ever shot a criminal?
Quote:

Originally Posted by Deltona Couple
On a side note. There is much talk about the "mental stability" of the person who commited the massacre at VT. The biggest thing is this....when filling out a gun purchase form, one of the questions is "have you ever been hospitalized or treated for a mental condition"...this question is COMPLETELY voluntary in answer, because if you all remember, Mental health conditions are like a lawyer, client's privacy is protected, so it is not like when the people involved in doing the background check can ACTUALLY check to see if you have ever been commited, unless the commiting was done by a court order.....

I don't believe in mental health privacy. Just like you can have a driver's license when you're blind, you shouldn't be able to get a gun if you're unstable.

Deltona Couple 04-19-2007 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rekna
By your logic it is easy to buy drugs illegally so we should just legalize them. Or it's easy to find child pornography so we should just legalize it.

I take SEVERE offence in THAT type of comment. You are trying to use a rediculous theory to try and support your own claim. My logic has NOTHING to do with drugs or child pornography...and I would appreciate it if you wound not try and make THAT type of infrance in what I am trying to say!

And no. your infrance does NOT still stand. A child CHOOSING to drink and risk themselves has NOTHING to do with a person whose SOLE INTENT was to kill people. The teenage drinker, or drug user is NOT going out with the INTENT to try and kill someone else, in a mass production way. I am in NO WAY saying that we shouldn't try to do something to prevent crime. What I AM saying, is that there really is no way to totally prevent all crimes. I am simply stating that trying to take guns away from everyone is a flawed concept in THIS country.


Back to the weapon specific disussion: I have read your posts about "fingerprinting" a gun when purchasing. Did you know that I can fire less than 200 rounds through a pistol, and change the "fingerprint" so to speak by the 200th round? The rifling of a barrel can change over time. The way they get a match in the riffling is usually due to a limited number of rounds fired after the one that is being investigated. So fingerprinting a barrel would really be insignificant.


Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
Have you ever shot a criminal?

Unfortunately, yes I have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
I don't believe in mental health privacy. Just like you can have a driver's license when you're blind, you shouldn't be able to get a gun if you're unstable.

I also do not agree in privacy, but only when OFFICIAL needs are there. I do feel that if I go to a doctor because I am feeling depressed, that my neighbor or coworker have no right to know this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
He'd probably see a dentist, as to avoid further splinters in the gums

A little selfless plug there eh?...:thumbsup:

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
Well it wouldn't just be in case the government lost it. It would also come in handy if we were invaded.

They could keep the weapons at home, locked up.

OK, then you SUPPORT the right to keep arms in the home?


Again, I am honoured to have debates with you Willravel!:)

dksuddeth 04-19-2007 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna
My point still stands, if you need a different one with the same point here: We can't stop people from driving drunk so we should just legalize drunk driving.

It is still an extra step, one in which he can get caught. By your logic it is easy to buy drugs illegally so we should just legalize them. Or it's easy to find child pornography so we should just legalize it. I'm sorry your logic is unsound here.

Rekna, I am unable to see how you can label Deltonas logic as unsound, even when you've used a perfect example to show the flaw in yours. Drugs are illegal....all across the board, yet they still flourish. What would be your next choice of action? To make them doubly illegal? One would think that the lessons of prohibition would have been learnt, but that is obviously not the case because we now have the war on drugs, the war on terror, and an increasing war on guns. If more and more laws are created to try to ensure that a gun does not fall in to the hands of a criminal or madman, you will eventually see that it doesn't work, more people die in massacres, and you will be left with the last option that the gun control groups and politicians want....which is to ban guns from civilian possession and just like drugs, you will guarantee that only criminals will have guns leaving ALL of us at risk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna
We can't always stop this sort of thing from happening but just because we can't stop something doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop it. This is why we have increased our security in the US. We can't stop the terrorists but we can stop some of them. The whole we can't always do something so do nothing attitude is completely ridiculous.

What you are completely avoiding in this viewpoint is the unadulterated fact that you want the government to do your job for you....which is to provide for your personal protection and safety. That is not their job, never has been, and only will be when the USA is made in to an orwellian police state where we have police with automatic weapons on every street corner, camera that monitor our every movements both on the streets and in our homes, and GPS chips implanted in us so that all of our movements may be monitored and tracked for that eventual crime we will all commit. Is that the country you want to live in just so you can be 'protected'?

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
This suggests that you believe that gun control CAUSED this. That doesn't make any sense.

Gun control did not stop the purchase of the gun, but it DID allow for 32 people to be completely defenseless..so yes, gun control is the indirect cause of this massacre.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
I see no reason to think that having a gun is a safe way to stop crime. I do see that many crimes are made more possible by guns. As such we should be trying to have less guns on the streets, not more.

Then why does law enforcement carry weapons?

Rekna 04-19-2007 07:56 AM

Ok DK you are right we should abolish all laws because prohibition doesn't fix anything. We should allow parents to beat their children senseless, men should be able to rape women when ever they please. There should be no laws against robbing people. After all prohibiting these behaviors doesn't stop it. Anarchy rules!

DK it seems like the ideal society for you is a feudal society where might makes right. We had this a long time ago, it was a flawed system and barely worked. Hell they have this now in Afghanistan with the tribal warlords and look how well it works for them.

I'm not saying we should ban guns, i'm saying we should ban certain types of weapons and have better background checks when purchasing weapons.

dksuddeth 04-19-2007 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna
Ok DK you are right we should abolish all laws because prohibition doesn't fix anything. We should allow parents to beat their children senseless, men should be able to rape women when ever they please. There should be no laws against robbing people. After all prohibiting these behaviors doesn't stop it. Anarchy rules!

DK it seems like the ideal society for you is a feudal society where might makes right. We had this a long time ago, it was a flawed system and barely worked. Hell they have this now in Afghanistan with the tribal warlords and look how well it works for them.

Don't be angry or foolish because i'm showing you the flaws in your logic. Follow me for a minute and try to understand what i'm saying. For decades now, it's been a common belief by both liberal and conservative to make a new or stronger law when the previous law (made in a kneejerk or feelgood atmosphere) gets ignored by someone who wasn't going to follow it anyway. Then, with a newer or stricter law in place, people think 'this will solve all of our issues', yet it happens again....and again....and again. Think the definition of insanity applies. All the while, this newer and stricter set of laws only affects one group of people......simple law abiding citizens because THEY are the only ones who are going to follow those new laws anyway. I'm not advocating abolishing laws against rape or murder just because the crime still happens, but since banning the action or tightening the law isn't working, how about taking action against those that have actually offended?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna
I'm not saying we should ban guns, i'm saying we should ban certain types of weapons and have better background checks when purchasing weapons.

which will do nothing but make people 'feel' better.

Rekna 04-19-2007 08:16 AM

I fail to see how more comprehensive background checks isn't going to help prevent this sort of thing from happening. Will it stop it? No. Will it reduce the occurrence of gun related crime? Yes. Will it stop law abiding citizens from getting guns? No. What is wrong with more comprehensive background checks? Do you feel there should be no background check at all?

On the same point I don't see any reason (other than ego) to own an RPG, submachine gun, or other weapons which have high rates of collateral damage.

pan6467 04-19-2007 08:18 AM

This is much like when Limbaugh took the London bombings and turned them political that day..... I feel sad and disgusted with the people (and especially the politicians, who show how much they truly care about the citizenry) on both sides turning this event into a political arena.

Granted, there should be debate and both sides will bring forth great educational and beneficial facts for some to ponder and come to an opinion over.

However, I believe good taste and respect to the families would be to give it a week of mourning and recovering then begin the debate.

Going straight to debate hours or a day or 2 afterward is grandstanding and trying to gain political points and to me shows very little concern or care for those who lost family members.

You are not going to change policy, or people's opinions this soon anyway, so why not show respect and wait a week to calm down, think truly about the event that happened, feel the pain and loss, gather your thoughts and then bring forth your debates.

Otherwise you are nothing but vultures, picking at the bones, rehashing what-ifs and playing on the heightened emotions of the people.

That's just my opinion. There are good points made by both sides... but I do feel that this debate could have waited until respect was shown to the lost.

dksuddeth 04-19-2007 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna
I fail to see how more comprehensive background checks isn't going to help prevent this sort of thing from happening. Will it stop it? No. Will it reduce the occurrence of gun related crime? Yes. Will it stop law abiding citizens from getting guns? No. What is wrong with more comprehensive background checks? Do you feel there should be no background check at all?

Laws like drug laws or driving laws, etc. when broken, only deal with victimless crimes....i.e. the only one hurt by the broken law is the person that broke it. Laws that continually reduce the number of people able to obtain a gun, with the idyllic pursuit of limiting the tools of gun violence on the street, leave a larger and larger group of people as potential victims of gun violence because of those laws. Background checks already stop law abiding citizens from getting guns. This is fully documented all over the internet. If a process or law infringes on a general citizens ability to exercise a right, then that process is much too prohibitive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna
On the same point I don't see any reason (other than ego) to own an RPG, submachine gun, or other weapons which have high rates of collateral damage.

In a nation that was designed to keep the PEOPLE in power, over that of an oppressive government with a highly armed military at their disposal, so that individual rights could be protected, I find it sadly ironic that a large group of people are actively politicking to have that exact structure the founders were afraid to be put in to place.

Willravel 04-19-2007 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deltona Couple
OK, then you SUPPORT the right to keep arms in the home?

If their intended use is covered under the Bill of Rights, yes. I don't want armed people walking down the street or anywhere near my family.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Deltona Couple
Again, I am honoured to have debates with you Willravel!:)

[IMG]http://www.digitalpeers.com/gallery_images/smiley_blush.jpg[/IOMG]
Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Gun control did not stop the purchase of the gun, but it DID allow for 32 people to be completely defenseless..so yes, gun control is the indirect cause of this massacre.

Again, according to your understanding of the universe where carrying a gun makes you Superman. They would have been breaking the law had they been armed on campus.
Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Then why does law enforcement carry weapons?

...for the same reason they are allowed to run red lights. They think that breaking the law can help to enforce it. I happen to disagree, personally. I think they'd do a lot better with non-lethal weapons.

Rekna 04-19-2007 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Laws like drug laws or driving laws, etc. when broken, only deal with victimless crimes....i.e. the only one hurt by the broken law is the person that broke it.

Ohh really? Tell that to the people killed by drunk drivers, aggressive drivers, speeding drivers, drugged drivers, people who step on an HIV infected syringe in a park, ect. There are victims in these crimes.

Quote:

Background checks already stop law abiding citizens from getting guns.
Law abiding should not be the only qualification, there should also be formal training (like we do with driving), and mental evaluations to make sure they are mentally sound people.

Quote:

This is fully documented all over the internet. If a process or law infringes on a general citizens ability to exercise a right, then that process is much too prohibitive.
There is documentation all over the internet saying all kinds of things that are not true. The internet in general is not a reliable source.

Quote:

In a nation that was designed to keep the PEOPLE in power, over that of an oppressive government with a highly armed military at their disposal, so that individual rights could be protected, I find it sadly ironic that a large group of people are actively politicking to have that exact structure the founders were afraid to be put in to place.
You mean that exact structure we are trying to place in Iraq? Do you have a problem with gun control in Iraq? If not then you should not have a problem with it here. I believe every fundamental right granted to American citizens should be granted to all nations not just ours. And all people within our jurisdiction should also have those said rights with the obvious exception of voting in our elections. If we are willing to cry out when someone prevents us from doing something then we should not be attempting to stop others from doing that very same thing because that would make us hypocrites.

As a tangental discussion I'd like to look at the idea that many students are carrying weapons. Someone in one class room starts shooting. People start screaming and yelling shooter. People with guns in other class rooms grab their guns and start running in the halls. All the sudden we have people running around looking to shoot someone with a gun while they have a gun. What is going to stop all of these people from shooting each other? Then the police come and see people with guns shooting each other and they pull out their guns and start shooting them because they are unable to identify the real shooter from the people with guns.

That is a very bad but likely situation if everyone comes running with guns. People that are not trained panic, they do not know how to react and they react poorly. The situation could get much worse because of lots of people having guns.

Being someone who has taught college courses I can tell you that I would not be comfortable with my students packing heat. Nor would most of my colleges.

dksuddeth 04-19-2007 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
Again, according to your understanding of the universe where carrying a gun makes you Superman. They would have been breaking the law had they been armed on campus.

If you can surmise that IF guns are banned, then eventually they will all be destroyed, I can certainly surmise that if only ONE person had been carrying a gun as well, 32 people wouldn't have died. As I said...gun control contributed to those 32 deaths.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna
That is a very bad but likely situation if everyone comes running with guns. People that are not trained panic, they do not know how to react and they react poorly. The situation could get much worse because of lots of people having guns.

Being someone who has taught college courses I can tell you that I would not be comfortable with my students packing heat. Nor would most of my colleges.

and yet, i've met more 18 year olds who grew up with guns with more maturity and responsibility than most urban adults who wet their pants at the sight of one.

Rekna 04-19-2007 09:24 AM

and that has no bearing on my statement.

dksuddeth 04-19-2007 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna
and that has no bearing on my statement.

Then explain your statement better please..

Quote:

Being someone who has taught college courses I can tell you that I would not be comfortable with my students packing heat. Nor would most of my colleges.
just by reading it, I can only guess that you're not comfortable because you think young people don't know how to act with guns.

Rekna 04-19-2007 09:34 AM

It isn't age that bothers me. I don't feel that I should have to teach in front of a potential firing squad. If I hand someone a bad grade I don't want to worry about will they snap.

Please respond to my comments on Iraq and gun control and the case where people don't know who the gunman is because lots of people are running around with guns trying to find the gunman.

pan6467 04-19-2007 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth
If you can surmise that IF guns are banned, then eventually they will all be destroyed, I can certainly surmise that if only ONE person had been carrying a gun as well, 32 people wouldn't have died. As I said...gun control contributed to those 32 deaths.

DK

Let me start by saying I do respect your views and your passion, I always have and always will.

However the post I quoted (and yes there was more and I agree with that portion), is plain and simple emotional bullshit.

Just as the side that says "This proves we need gun control" is plain and simple emotional bullshit.

To state the above
Quote:

gun control contributed to those 32 deaths.
is as wrong as saying
Quote:

If we had gun control, those 32 would still be alive.
It's fucking bullshit. The kid wanted to kill and would have found ways to no matter what.

To use this and play on people's emotions to further your own political gain is wrong, especially this soon afterward.

There are better arguments and ways to prove points without having to reduce your arguments to such tasteless statements that do not take into account the feelings of those that have lost loved ones.

We are talking about a fucking tragedy in a painful time and both sides want to politicize it and make brownie points. When there is no need to, when there is no justification in doing so, and when people just need to digest and accept and mourn over the losses.

I am truly saddened and believe this shows how torn our nation has become when such an event is not mourned for what happened but is politicized and emotions preyed upon to further one's views.

Rekna 04-19-2007 09:41 AM

If we look at the intent of the 2nd amendment it is there so that the population is armed in order to keep the government in check. You can have weapons at home and accomplish this. It's intent was not to have a population walking around with guns. No that sounds like the middle east to me.

If the government were to go crazy tomorrow and need to be overthrown the majority of the population would have time to go home and get their guns. I highly doubt the government is going to be able to raid every single office and home in the US at the same time.

Deltona Couple 04-19-2007 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renka
Please respond to my comments on Iraq and gun control and the case where people don't know who the gunman is because lots of people are running around with guns trying to find the gunman.

I feel that if the general populace in Iraq feels the need to arm their citizens, then that is THEIR choice, and should be upheld by their government. However I don't see it actually HAPPENING in real life.

And as far as students running around with guns, Personally, I don't agree with arming the student populace, as I have stated in an earlier post in this thread, Rather ALLOWING the faculty to arm themselves IF THEY CHOOSE TO, after completing an appropriate firearm training class and background checks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna
You can have weapons at home and accomplish this. It's intent was not to have a population walking around with guns.

To be truthful, you can only state that YOUR belief is that was their intent...No way of TRUELY KNOWING what their intent REALLY was. And to be honest, I don't think when the 2nd Amendment was drafted, that they were considering the future of weaponry.

dksuddeth 04-19-2007 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna
It isn't age that bothers me. I don't feel that I should have to teach in front of a potential firing squad. If I hand someone a bad grade I don't want to worry about will they snap.

you have 3 options then....
1) don't teach. ( I know, not very reasonable.)
2) have your institution implement the types of security that were talked about earlier....armed guards on every floor, metal detectors monitored by armed guards at every entrance, and an unscalable wall with only one guarded entrance
3) carry your own gun for defense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna
Please respond to my comments on Iraq and gun control and the case where people don't know who the gunman is because lots of people are running around with guns trying to find the gunman.

I don't live in Iraq so I don't really know the gun laws there. Kindly brief me on them or link me to the Iraqi firearms codes and i'll gladly answer your question after I read them.

Rekna 04-19-2007 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deltona Couple
Rather ALLOWING the faculty to arm themselves IF THEY CHOOSE TO, after completing an appropriate firearm training class and background checks.

On this we agree. I've been stating that we need required training and better background checks for the purchasing of firearms. But somehow this idea offends a lot of people.

I don't see whats wrong with making sure people who want a gun know how to use a gun and making sure that people who want a gun are mentally and criminally fit to own a gun.

dksuddeth 04-19-2007 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467
DK

Let me start by saying I do respect your views and your passion, I always have and always will.

As I do yours, good sir.

All in all, when I say that gun control contributed to the deaths, I'm not blaming it directly. The blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the one who perpetrated the crime, but we can ALL see the ONE SINGLE THING that these 32 victims had in common, right? The fact that they were all unarmed and defenseless.

Rekna 04-19-2007 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth
I don't live in Iraq so I don't really know the gun laws there. Kindly brief me on them or link me to the Iraqi firearms codes and i'll gladly answer your question after I read them.

If you own a gun then you are a terrorist and the US Military throws you into prison without a trial.

dksuddeth 04-19-2007 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna
If you own a gun then you are a terrorist and the US Military throws you into prison without a trial.

can't verify that without an official link, however, the last that I heard was that ONLY in the 'green zone' was that enforced.

Deltona Couple 04-19-2007 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna
On this we agree. I've been stating that we need required training and better background checks for the purchasing of firearms. But somehow this idea offends a lot of people.

I don't see whats wrong with making sure people who want a gun know how to use a gun and making sure that people who want a gun are mentally and criminally fit to own a gun.

Of course we live in a society and country...hell we live in a WORLD where there will NEVER be a total agreement on all situations. Personally I wouldn't want to live in that kind of Utopia!


On an asside, I chuckled a little at the wording "criminally fit to own a gun" If you read it as a third party, it sounds kinda funny!

pan6467 04-19-2007 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth
As I do yours, good sir.

All in all, when I say that gun control contributed to the deaths, I'm not blaming it directly. The blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the one who perpetrated the crime, but we can ALL see the ONE SINGLE THING that these 32 victims had in common, right? The fact that they were all unarmed and defenseless.

Yes, I know you're not and yes they were all unarmed.

Willravel 04-19-2007 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth
If you can surmise that IF guns are banned, then eventually they will all be destroyed, I can certainly surmise that if only ONE person had been carrying a gun as well, 32 people wouldn't have died. As I said...gun control contributed to those 32 deaths.

You're not omnipotent, so you cannot say that with any certainty.

I can say that if the UK can do something, so can we. .05% of all crime in the UK has anything to do with a gun. CAN YOU IMAGINE THOSE STATS HERE?!

Rekna 04-19-2007 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth
we can ALL see the ONE SINGLE THING that these 32 victims had in common, right? The fact that they were all unarmed and defenseless.

Don't forget they were also all shot by a gun. That seems like a pretty big thing in common.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth
can't verify that without an official link, however, the last that I heard was that ONLY in the 'green zone' was that enforced.

Unfortunately finding information about whats going on in Iraq is difficult. However, I have heard reports about guns being confiscated in Iraq.

The AP is reporting that the other gun was legally purchased from an internet website located in Green Bay.

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/7103521.html
Quote:

Va. Gunman Purchased Weapon from Green Bay
Jenn Rourke & CNN
BLACKSBURG Va. - The pawnbroker who transferred a gun to the Virginia Tech shooter said he didn't notice anything unusual about Cho Seung-Hui.

Cho purchased a Walther P-22 semi-automatic pistol from a Green Bay dealer via the Internet. But under Virginia law, the gun had to be sent to a licensed firearm dealer in Virginia. That store must then perform a background check before allowing the buyer to pick up the weapon.

Cho picked up the gun from JND Pawnbrokers in Blacksburg on Feb. 9.

Just five weeks ago, he bought Glock 19 9mm and 50 rounds of ammunition from a gun store in Roanoke.

The owner of that store also said he didn't see any cause for alarm.

Police found both weapons at the shooting scene.
So he purchased both guns and the ammo legally.

debaser 04-19-2007 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna
If you own a gun then you are a terrorist and the US Military throws you into prison without a trial.


Not true.

Every household is allowed one AKM style weapon and one full magazine of ammunition for it.

Rekna 04-19-2007 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by debaser
Not true.

Every household is allowed one AKM style weapon and one full magazine of ammunition for it.

Were they only allowed to have it in their home only? Or were they allowed to take it with them to work and such? What about hand guns?

debaser 04-19-2007 06:19 PM

Iraqis are not allowed to carry weapons, period. If we caught them with a weapon in their car we would arrest them and turn them over to the police, who would immediately let them go.

Handguns were not allowed, but we usually turned a blind eye when we found one. First off, none of the violence being perpetrated in our AO involved pistols. Second, we figured that if we lived in Iraq we'd all want a pistol, too.


EDIT- Note: there are a lot of weapons either not addressed or prohibited under CPA and Iraqi law that are non-issues. For example, we had many hunters in our area, and equally many shotguns. We never confiscated these except when we found other damning evidence in the residence or vehicle. Often times we would actually give hunters shotgun ammo when we came across them, as we recieved a metric fuck-ton of #6 shotshells for our shotguns (which were totally useless to us).

Rekna 04-19-2007 06:30 PM

Thanks for the information debaser. How many tours have you done?

I personally like the idea of allowing people to own reasonable guns and keep them in their home. What I don't like is the idea of a everyone carrying a concealed hand gun. I don't have any stats on this but i'm willing to be the majority of gun crime in the US is done with a handgun.

Baraka_Guru 04-19-2007 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
I can say that if the UK can do something, so can we. .05% of all crime in the UK has anything to do with a gun. CAN YOU IMAGINE THOSE STATS HERE?!

Yes, the stats are appalling...

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide/Suicide/Unintentional

USA 4.08 (1999)/6.08 (1999)/0.42 (1999)
Canada 0.54 (1999)/2.65 (1997)/0.15 (1997)
Switzerland 0.50 (1999)/5.78 (1998)/-
Scotland 0.12 (1999)/0.27 (1999)/-
England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00)/0.22 (1999)/0.01 (1999)
Japan 0.04* (1998)/0.04 (1995)/<0.01 (1997)
* Homicide & attempted homicide by handgun
Data collected by Philip Alpers, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and HELP Network

Arguments for loosening gun control so everyone has the capacity to return fire?! :shakehead: The Wild West was over with nearly 120 years ago.

Willravel 04-19-2007 07:13 PM

Wow, what is Japan doin?

Baraka_Guru 04-19-2007 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
Wow, what is Japan doin?

Karaoke.

Rekna 04-19-2007 07:52 PM

Japan has a culture that puts large amounts of emphasis on honor. I'm guessing that might be part of it.

Willravel 04-19-2007 07:54 PM

American culture puts large amounts of emphasis on Loony Toons. It makes sense.

Baraka_Guru 04-19-2007 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel
American culture puts large amounts of emphasis on Loony Toons. It makes sense.

You meant to say "guns," right?

Willravel 04-19-2007 08:05 PM

mindless violence + enjoyment = Loony Toons

Paq 04-20-2007 01:15 AM

I love looney toons....

not so much in favor of guns, but i also have to question...just when did these country enact their gun control laws/etc and how many were publicly available at the time.

I'm no gun lover by any means, but i can easily see how difficult it would be for the gov't to take alllllll of the guns that are currently privately owned out of circulation. they can reasonably control the supply of new guns, but the sheer number of gun-owners right now would make it almost feasibly impossible to revoke.

as it stands right now, i can hope and hope to enact some changes that may help our grandkids, but for my lifetime, i don't see much of a change coming in this area..for better or worse

ubertuber 04-20-2007 03:44 AM

A couple of points about the data that no one has mentioned yet:

1) In the U.S. half again as many people commit or attempt suicide by gun as commit or attempt homicide. Put another way, you are more likely to kill yourself with a gun than you are to get killed by someone else. Of course, in Canada you are 5 times as likely, and in Switzerland 10 times as likely. Yes, I realize that this is only the most primitive sort of reading, but the numbers really jumped out at me as something I didn't expect.

2) Switzerland's numbers are very interesting (and Canada's as well, but less extreme) in that their rate of suicide by gun is nearly as high as ours while their rate of homicide is 1/8 of ours. That says something about culture vs. access to firearms.

3) I hate to be that guy, and I'm not saying this changes anything, but the most recent statistic shown is 7-8 years old. Just saying so no one else has to...

I'm sure that (in the U.S. at least) a more detailed breakout would be even more illuminating. I'd be willing to bet that rural vs. urban, geographic region, age, and economic strata would produce some very unbalanced numbers. I'd be curious to see how those things work out, just as a point of interest.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Homicide/Suicide/Unintentional

USA 4.08 (1999)/6.08 (1999)/0.42 (1999)
Canada 0.54 (1999)/2.65 (1997)/0.15 (1997)
Switzerland 0.50 (1999)/5.78 (1998)/-
Scotland 0.12 (1999)/0.27 (1999)/-
England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00)/0.22 (1999)/0.01 (1999)
Japan 0.04* (1998)/0.04 (1995)/<0.01 (1997)
* Homicide & attempted homicide by handgun
Data collected by Philip Alpers, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and HELP Network

Arguments for loosening gun control so everyone has the capacity to return fire?! :shakehead: The Wild West was over with nearly 120 years ago.


debaser 04-20-2007 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna
Thanks for the information debaser. How many tours have you done?

I personally like the idea of allowing people to own reasonable guns and keep them in their home. What I don't like is the idea of a everyone carrying a concealed hand gun. I don't have any stats on this but i'm willing to be the majority of gun crime in the US is done with a handgun.


You're welcome. I've done too many, with another looming.

You are correct regarding violence being commited with handguns, very rarely are long guns used.

Ourcrazymodern? 04-20-2007 08:59 AM

Maybe we should all be armed if anybody is.

The_Jazz 04-20-2007 09:06 AM

In addition to the 3 items that Ubertuber pointed out, I'd like to add that the "unintentional" number is nearly triple the next largest one. Not only do we kill people (ourselves or others) intentionally at a much higher rate than all others on this list, but we do it unintentionally at the roughly the same rate.

debaser 04-20-2007 09:21 AM

Which is why a good first step would be to mandate gun safety courses in school.

The_Jazz 04-20-2007 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by debaser
Which is why a good first step would be to mandate gun safety courses in school.

So you want to bring guns...to schools...

And you don't see any potential problems with that?

Deltona Couple 04-20-2007 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz
So you want to bring guns...to schools...

And you don't see any potential problems with that?

His statement was not meaning I think to bring guns TO school, but to teach gun SAFETY in school, which can be done WITHOUT bringing guns to school. Personally I think it is a good idea to teach gun safety to everyone.

The_Jazz 04-20-2007 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deltona Couple
His statement was not meaning I think to bring guns TO school, but to teach gun SAFETY in school, which can be done WITHOUT bringing guns to school. Personally I think it is a good idea to teach gun safety to everyone.

Deltona, that's what I thought, but I don't see how you can teach safety on a mechanical device (which is a gun in this case) without having the device there to demonstrate upon. There's also the issue that gun safety is very specific to the make, model and customizations of each gun.

Nice idea, but I don't think it's actually workable if it were even politically possible.

Jinn 04-20-2007 12:05 PM

You can demonstrate on a gun without bullets.

Willravel 04-20-2007 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai
You can demonstrate on a gun without bullets.

I dunno, there s a difference between explaining kickback and experiencing it.

The_Jazz 04-20-2007 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai
You can demonstrate on a gun without bullets.

A bullet goes in a pocket a lot easier than a gun.

Sorry, this is just a bad idea.

Lady Sage 04-20-2007 01:16 PM

Guns only do what the person holding them tells them to do. I am fond of saying guns dont kill people, husbands that come home early do. What happened to the students in Virginia was wrong. No gun control law in the world will stop it. People can kill with darn near anything. Special kool-aid served at lunch can kill too.

Could the officials have prevented the second happening? I sincerely doubt it. They knew that the first happening had occured but how were they to know where the gunman was? Could they have cancelled classes? Yes. What would have stopped the guy from waiting around for them to vacate the buildings and picking them off as they fled?

It is easy to point fingers and say what should have been done. What would we have done had we been the ones trying to figure this all out at the time that it happened? The hardest thing to do is accept that it has happened. Unfortunately that is what we have to do at this point. There is no bringing them back.

If they outlaw guns, perhaps the next person will kill the masses with a sword or a box cutter. Perhaps light a shipment of fertilizer with a bomb in it. Strap themselves up with a home made bomb and detonate it in a building full of children. Where there is a will there is a way. I am not saying that it is right, I am saying that is the way of things.

Feel free to toss me under the bus now.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360