VA Tech shooting and politics (THIS IS THE THREAD FOR TALK OF "gun control", ETC)

[Willravel]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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!

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

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"...

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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]

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.

Originally Posted by willravel

Have you ever shot a criminal?

Unfortunately, yes I have.

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.

Originally Posted by willravel

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

A little selfless plug there eh?...

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]

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.

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'?

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.

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

and that has no bearing on my statement.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Rekna

and that has no bearing on my statement.

Then explain your statement better please..

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]

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]

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

gun control contributed to those 32 deaths.

is as wrong as saying

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.