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

[Rekna]

First off I do want to help prevent this from happening again in the future but I think we should give the victims and families honor and respect before we start issuing talking points.

With that been said there isn't much we can do to stop a suicidal maniac. We can increase security, we can have random spot checks, we can place snipers on buildings, and make society very Orwelian but it won't stop a suicidal maniac. The most we can hope to do is minimize the damage caused by such a person.

Those in here saying that gun control stops the wrong people from having guns are partially correct and those saying that gun control prevents needless deaths are also partially correct. There is no easy answer to this debate as going completely gun rights or gun control are both bad answers. Yes if there had been students with guns there the damage likely would have been less. However, if everyone was packing how many simple altercations would turn into shootings? In addition, if we assumed for a moment that this would not happen and everyone was packing without problems that might arise from that the suicidal maniac would change his ways. Instead of using a gun he/she would now use a bomb in a crowded place. So what do we do? I don't know.

For some reason this issue of gun control is a life or death issue for many people. But in reality the number of deaths caused/prevented/ect by the laws/guns are not that large when you think about how many people die daily from drunk driving, not wearing their seat belts, heart disease, cancer, aids, ect. Or even worse the number of people that are dying in Darfur and Euganda (but that is another rant for another time). So what is it about gun control that gets everyones panties in a bunch?

[Dilbert1234567]

we have to accept that we live in a dangerous world, statistically we are not likely to fall victim to these dangers, but they do exist. crime cannot be stopped, death cannot be stopped, they are parts of life.

[EaseUp]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

flstf....last October, the 10 little Amish girls in their one-room school house were sitting ducks as well. Nearly 8 years ago, the high students at Collumbine were unarmed? Would you have suggested they all should have been armed?

Do you presume these horrific acts, that happen with such relative frequency in this country (as compared to other western countries) are the result of gun control?

Why dont you think the might be the result of the "gun culture" in this country, which would more reasonably explain why it occurs here and not elsewhere?

One reason might be that it DOES occur elsewhere. Or have you forgotten:

http://english.people.com.cn/200409/...01_155577.html

Gunmen seize Russian school, taking 400 hostages
font size ZoomIn ZoomOut

Some 400 people, including 200 schoolchildren, have been taken hostage after a group of armed men seized a school in Russia 's North Ossetia region Wednesday morning, Itar-Tass news agency reported.

Ismel Shaov, North Ossetian Interior Ministry spokesman, told Interfax that the gunmen have contacted authorities. Itar-Tass reported that the gunmen, numbering 25 to 30, demanded the Russian authorities free jailed fighters.

The armed men have seized the school in the town of Beslan at around 9:30 a.m. Moscow time (0530 GMT).

Earlier reports said the terrorists had been engaged in a gun battle with police.

Vladimir Yakovlev, Russian presidential envoy to the South Federal District, has confirmed the school seizure.

"Police and interior troop units are arriving at the school at the moment. A shootout is in progress in the area," Yakovlev was quoted by Interfax as saying.

A source in the Interior Ministry's central branch for the South Federal District told Interfax that one of the terrorists was killed in the shootout.

The hostages are reportedly being held in the school's gym, the source said.

North Ossetia is located in southern Russia, bordering the rebellious republic of Chechnya. The school's students are aged between seven and 17 and they were attending the first day of their new academic year.

Russia has suffered a series of terrorist attacks over the past week...

Edit: I see mirevolver beat me to it with three other citations.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by shakran

I think it's sad that 32 people died today and some people don't want to try and figure out how to stop it from happening again.

Quoted for truth. TFP is here for people to have discussions about things. We're discussing this. I don't think anyone has shown disrespectful behavior in this thread. If they did, I'm sure a majority of posters would call him or her on their words.


I do have to wonder how much more difficult it would be to get guns in a country where guns were banned. Gun crimes in the UK dropped off after the gun ban was put in place. Yes, some other violent crimes did rise, but I doubt you'd see someone go into a school with a knife or an airgun and kill 33 people. That says a lot.

We've had various discussions before about the source of weapons to criminals. I still have not found a reasonable answer to the question, "Where do they get these guns?". Some are stolen from owners. Some are bought at gun shows. Some are stolen from retain locations. Some are stolen en route to retail stores. Some are imported. The thing is, guns aren't like drugs, being grown all over the world and such. We know where guns are made. You'd think we could monitor them more efficiently between production and sale to the public, police, or military.

Speaking momentarily to the right to bear arms:

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

I see nothing in here about non-militia civilians having the right to bear arms. I read this as saying that a well regulated militia has a right to arm itself. I can think of one well regulated militia in the US: the National Guard. I agree that the National Guard has the right to bear arms in order to protect our country. I do not agree that every Tom, Dick, and Harry has the right to walk down the street packing. That's where gun related fatalities come from. That's where involuntary manslaughter comes from. Not only that, but the escalation means that when the populace is armed, the criminal must arm better. Call it mutually assured destruction.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by willravel

I see nothing in here about non-militia civilians having the right to bear arms. I read this as saying that a well regulated militia has a right to arm itself. I can think of one well regulated militia in the US: the National Guard. I agree that the National Guard has the right to bear arms in order to protect our country. I do not agree that every Tom, Dick, and Harry has the right to walk down the street packing. That's where gun related fatalities come from. That's where involuntary manslaughter comes from. Not only that, but the escalation means that when the populace is armed, the criminal must arm better. Call it mutually assured destruction.

Now WHY on earth would the framers of the constitution specifically denote a RIGHT, to an organization that didn't exist at the time of its writing, the RIGHT to bear arms, as if they were afraid we wouldn't arm a military branch? Do you realize how non-sensical that sounds? The PEOPLE are us...you, me, and your neighbor. The PEOPLE are the well-regulated militia. It makes zero sense to interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean that the military had a uninfringable right to be armed when the framers were VERY SPECIFIC about ensuring a military was completely subservient to the people.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Now WHY on earth would the framers of the constitution specifically denote a RIGHT, to an organization that didn't exist at the time of its writing, the RIGHT to bear arms, as if they were afraid we wouldn't arm a military branch?

They had a well regulated militia at the time, remember? The American Revolutionaries were mostly militia. When the Revolutionary War started, we ONLY had a militia. We saw what a government run military could do in the British Army, attacking a colony despite the reasonable request for adequate representation in government. The militia was to regulate power, but it was to be organized. Whether or not the National Guard would fill the role of a counterbalance to the Army, Navy, Marines, etc. is another conversation, but it is a regulated militia.

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Do you realize how non-sensical that sounds?

To a gun right's advocate? Of course it sounds nonsensical to you. To me? It makes perfect sense. The language is quite clear, and it supports my conclusion. What doesn't support my conclusion would be the fact that we live in a democracy, and I don't think a gun ban would have 50%+ if put to a vote. Cest la vis.

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

The PEOPLE are us...you, me, and your neighbor. The PEOPLE are the well-regulated militia. It makes zero sense to interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean that the military had a uninfringable right to be armed when the framers were VERY SPECIFIC about ensuring a military was completely subservient to the people.

Your welcome to your opinion. I disagree.

If I were a supreme court justice, I would do what I could to rule in what I see is the true spirit of the Amendment.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by willravel

They had a well regulated militia at the time, remember? The American Revolutionaries were mostly militia. When the Revolutionary War started, we ONLY had a militia. We saw what a government run military could do in the British Army, attacking a colony despite the reasonable request for adequate representation in government. The militia was to regulate power, but it was to be organized. Whether or not the National Guard would fill the role of a counterbalance to the Army, Navy, Marines, etc. is another conversation, but it is a regulated militia.

To a gun right's advocate? Of course it sounds nonsensical to you. To me? It makes perfect sense. The language is quite clear, and it supports my conclusion. What doesn't support my conclusion would be the fact that we live in a democracy, and I don't think a gun ban would have 50%+ if put to a vote. Cest la vis.

Your welcome to your opinion. I disagree.

If I were a supreme court justice, I would do what I could to rule in what I see is the true spirit of the Amendment.

Go through the federalist and anti-federalist papers, the convention debates, and then go through the first 50 years of articles, editorials, and court cases to find PROOF that the framers intended the 2nd Amendent to the Bill of Rights to mean that the states had a right to maintain an armed military unit when Art. 1 Sec 10 of the constitution clearly states "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace,".

How does that square with your interpretation that the states have a right to armed militia as protection from a central government when the constitution clearly denies them that so called right?

That would be because the PEOPLE are the militia, not the national guard, especially when the guard is federally funded, federally armed, and under federal jurisdiction at the presidents command. The 2nd Amendment is clearly an individual right so that the states have ACCESS to a well-regulated militia. The ONLY thing the states have to do with it is appoint its officers.

also, we do NOT live in a democracy...we have a representative republic to specifically avoid majority rule that would override the rights of the individual or minority.

[archetypal fool]

I agree with most of what you said, Will. I'll also point out that your last point a few posts back was a very important one.

Not only that, but the escalation means that when the populace is armed, the criminal must arm better. Call it mutually assured destruction.

It's easy, at least in principle, to assume that removing guns from the population would solve these problems, but I feel that it would do the exact opposite. The fact is, there are evil, sick, degenerate people out there who are more than willing to kill others. It's disgusting, and a travesty, but that's the nature of the beasts we are. That being said, we will always have problems like these. As so many people have already said, if you're willing to kill people, for what ever reason, then breaking a gun law is nothing to you.

Lets assume, if only for argument's sake, that by some miracle, guns were suddenly removed from the nation. What then? Criminals and psychopaths are the way they are not because they have the opportunity to own a gun, but because they are mentally ill. If guns are removed, then these people will just move down the ladder; they'll start building home-made firearms, or using knives. They'll find a way. It's important to realize that it's the explicit purpose of these people to harm others, so the method by which they do so isn't going to make their goal any less desirable.

That being said, I say that if these people have the ability to gain fire-arms, regardless of whether they do so legally or otherwise, then the least we can do to defend ourselves is to level the playing field. I know that if I were a criminal, I would specifically target neighborhoods which prohibit guns, because that's where I'll most likely get away with my crimes. Who's going to stop me? The most the residents can do is throw stuff at me, in which case I'm sure my projectile will be much more effective than theirs will.

I can't remember where or when exactly, but approximately a year ago, at some mall, some psycho decided to shoot up some people. A citizen with a concealed weapon permit quickly ended that spree before things got too out of hand. Not too long ago, a man killed two robbers who broke into his store and held guns to his wife's head. In fact, that was the second time that has happened to the same man. Both times, he defended his life and that of his family and property, through the use of fire-arms. If I were a criminal, I'd take care not to wander too close to that particular store...


With that in mind, I believe that there is truly very little which can be done to stop these kinds of things from happening. You wouldn't have had any luck convincing the sick piece of shit who committed this crime not to go through with it, just as you wouldn't have any luck convincing Islamic militant extremists not to blowing up their Parliament and their own people. Removing guns will only make you and me more vulnerable. Equally so, making guns completely unrestricted will probably cause more harm than good. Take any university, for example. Obviously, you can't mix guns with college kids, drugs, sex, alcohol, anxiety, depression, and inexperience. That's basically a recipe for the End of Days.

Bottom line is, we need guns. Until the government decides to completely and indefinitely rid the country of these weapons, replacing them instead with publicly accessible stun-guns and other non-lethal alternatives, all we have to protect ourselves and our property is a force equal to that which the criminals use. It's a damn shame, but not everyone in the world is a lawful, wonderful , beautiful person.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Go through the federalist and anti-federalist papers, the convention debates, and then go through the first 50 years of articles, editorials, and court cases to find PROOF that the framers intended the 2nd Amendent to the Bill of Rights to mean that the states had a right to maintain an armed military unit when Art. 1 Sec 10 of the constitution clearly states "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace,".

I'll bet I've read them as much as you. Again, we've looked at the same thing and have come to different conclusions (like Dilbert and myself on the 9/11 stuff). I stand by my conclusions, though. BTW, subsequent court cases tell me what judges thought of the Amendment after the framers. They don't tell me what was in the minds of the framers. As for the National Guard, it should be regulated internally, not by Congress or presidential order. I feel it's a mistake to have another federally controlled military force.

Under Title X in the US Code,

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
__(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
__(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

I think that language is quite clear. A 'well regulated militia' is the organized militia outlined in section 1: the organized militia; the National Guard and Naval Militia. Those are the only current organizations in the US that could be reasonably classified as well regulated militia.

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

How does that square with your interpretation that the states have a right to armed militia as protection from a central government when the constitution clearly denies them that so called right?

My interpretation is that communities (not states, proper) have a right to a well regulated militia, and that militia has the right to be armed. That militia, however, should be absolutely responsible for the firearms they are allowed to have. If they go on a rampage, they are disbanded, are no longer a well regulated militia, and thus lose their right to arms.

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

That would be because the PEOPLE are the militia, not the national guard, especially when the guard is federally funded, federally armed, and under federal jurisdiction at the presidents command. The 2nd Amendment is clearly an individual right so that the states have ACCESS to a well-regulated militia. The ONLY thing the states have to do with it is appoint its officers.

I'm personally not well regulated, so what you're saying doesn't make sense. I do not have any formal firearm training, and would be a horrible member of a militia armed with guns. I'd only have the right to bear arms if I meet qualifications: being a member of a militia, and that militia being well regulated. I am not a member of any militia.

Originally Posted by archetypal fool

I agree with most of what you said, Will. I'll also point out that your last point a few posts back was a very important one.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by archetypal fool

It's easy, at least in principle, to assume that removing guns from the population would solve these problems, but I feel that it would do the exact opposite. The fact is, there are evil, sick, degenerate people out there who are more than willing to kill others. It's disgusting, and a travesty, but that's the nature of the beasts we are. That being said, we will always have problems like these. As so many people have already said, if you're willing to kill people, for what ever reason, then breaking a gun law is nothing to you.

Well, we'd have to look at a country wide gun ban to be sure. I took the UK for example. They have relatively lower crime rates than the US across the board, and their gun related crimes shot down after their gun ban. While other crimes went up slightly, they also are pretty low now. There aren't home made firearms being used. Sometimes people will smuggle guns in, but the amount is negligible. They are islands, so if we implemented it, we could have trouble with Mexico or Canada, but I wonder how different it would really be.

As I said before, you won't have a man with a knife killing 33 people in one go. If firearms were suddenly less prevalent, knife and blunt object crime might go up, but how difficult is it to carry mase or a taser with you? You'd have some trouble fighting off a criminal with a gun using mase, but a knife needs proximity so it's more likely to do the trick.

I like your idea of getting rid of ALL guns, and giving police officers non lethal weaponry. I'd vote the hell out of that measure.

[Fire]

The police are not obligated to protect any one individual- therefore I would prefer to have the responsibility myself- a gun is a tool, and the only one that would give a person like my wife, who is about 5 feet tall, a chance against an angry linebacker- it comes down to the idea that to live in a free society involves some danger that someone will abuse the freedom they have- If someone at virginia tech today had possessed a legal concealed firearm, and had been allowed it on campus, then this tragedy might have been lessened- but the lawfull holders of said firearms were not allowed that chance......

[smooth]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

yeah, that didn't turn out right.


Probably the most correct statement of the day regarding whether a student would have been armed or not.

We, on another message board, predicted that something like this would happen after the VA legislature let a house bill die in subcomittee that would have let students and faculty carry concealed on campus.

You know, the thing is that I wondered why VA Tech has been having so many issues lately...but what you just posted makes me wonder whether some nutjob actually perpetrated this to make a point...

...not that anti-control zealots are nutjobs on the face of it, but there are wacked people from all sectors sooo maybe the failure of a bill to allow students to carry gave rise to the belief that someone needed to demonstrate need for them to do so.

and I certainly hope your stat of 5% of 300 million people committing gun crimes is wrong--because that's still 15 million.


I personally think this topic has absolutely nothing to do with gun control, or lack thereof. Look, I know people who keep and enjoy handguns. Some of whom would keep them in their homes if they could (they can't, it's also illegal to keep a firearm in one's house if it's on school property, and even though none of us live in a dorm, we live in family housing that is zoned within the university). But they can't, and as far as I know, they're supportive of such restrictions.

But the fact of the matter is, even dk would have to wonder how many people would actively arm themselves? let's say 1,000 students, a number I think would be incredibly overly optomistic. That's neither here nor there, but it would be a stroke of luck, plain and simple, for *someone* armed legally to have stopped this. Not for some reason like the gun would get taken away or someone would shoot an innocent person, but simply due to the size of the campus, the population, school commitments, sleeping, partying, whatever...the point is that a legal gun carrier would only be in proximity to the shooter by pure coincidence.

If anyone wants to build policy from this singular incident, to ensure that a once in a lifetime opportunity might come up to save someone's life in a school shooting, I think that would be poorly devised and ultimately ineffectual on a pragmatic level (with deep symbolic effect).

Originally Posted by mirevolver

And Switzerland has fully automatic assult rifles in 14% of homes, with a murder rate average of 1.2 per 100,000 over the years of 1999-2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_and_crime). What works in Iceland, works in Iceland and may not work anywhere else, the same goes for Switzerland. What works in one country is not the end all solution for every country.

I think you're making abaya's point.
I thought she was making the point that gun violence is better attributed to something like "gun culture" rather than amount of guns. She used iceland that doesn't have any guns. You used Switzerland that does have guns. Both have little to no gun crime, which suggests that amount of guns is not the independent variable in gun crime...of course, neither allows indiscriminant gun carrying, so both fail to address the most prevelant US problem--handguns; in that sense, Switzerland doesn't even help your argument even if you don't believe that it supports abaya's.


Oh, and I forgot to mention why I think gun control is totally irrelevant. and I suspect that gun/violence culture theories are, as well. Because the thing is, we've had a gun culture since the beginning and various periods of lax gun control with strict gun control, but school shootings are a recent phenomenon. So I really think all these ideas are interesting but hold very little predictive value.

[jorgelito]

It's impossible to tell if an armed student body would have been able to shoot back or disable the shoter. But I think the real benefit is in the POSSIBILITY of that happening. It coluld make the difference in making the shooter or potential shooter think twice before committing the crime. In other words, the rigth or ability, potential to carry arms could very serve in a preventive capacity. If the possibility exists that I (a potential shooter) could be confronted by an armed populace instead of a helpless one like the VT students, then I mjust may think twice of committing the crime. Sure it's not fool proof, but I would think the odds are better than having one armed guy having his way with everyone.

Would it it be worth it if only 1 student died instead of 33? Or how about 32? What's an acceptable loss? Cause it seems like for anti-gun people, it's ok that 33 people died as long as no one is allowed to carry guns (in theory) though criminals will always find a way to procure illegal guns. What if another student or a bunch of students were able to fight off the shooter, with only a few students being shot? Would it be ok that only 3 people died instead of 33 because students were able to carry guns? Or would you still blame the right to carry guns for 3 deaths when they prevented 30 more?

[smooth]

You know, I had a really long post detailing the deficiencies in the logic of arguing for a nation wide policy allowing concealed weapons on campus on the basis of the *possibility* of someone, somewhere, stopping something, at sometime. The possibility is so low in terms of practicality that the only purpose such a law would serve would be to push forward a particular idealogically driven gun ownership agenda that is so transparent it's offensive when applied to this particular scenario.

In caes neither of you realize it, I would caution you from voicing such opinions in a non-anonymous context because it will do more harm to your credibility than anything else. You need to STOP DELUDING yourselves that rationally minded people will agree with you, because if you don't, you'll find yourself on the opposite side of the table from the victims and their families. And I GUARANTEE you do not want to be there, because to the extent that our policies are made in this country, and as poorly thought out as they are, they are often built on the backs of incidents like this to appeal to coalitions of victims and the nation sympethizing with them. And in case you need to be disabused of the notion that they would actually side with you, watch what happens and I suspect that it's far more likely that there will be a push for stricter gun legislation in Virginia.

I would only add that you ought not make the mistake of calling gun-control advocates "anti-gun" and CERTAINLY people who are anti-guns on campus as "anti-gun"! I know heaps of people who are avid gun lovers and users of guns, personally and professionally, who are staunch gun-control advocates.

[stevie667]

Having kids go to school armed is just...stupid. You'll just end up with more shootings when someone pulls a gun on another kid for whatever dumbass reason.

Kids fight already, adding guns has been graphically proven to cause mayhem.

As for armed the teachers, they have to get their gun, get to the point of attack, find the attacker then shoot them. That takes time and lots of training, people will still get hurt.

School shootings are a symptom of a bigger problem, finding what that problem is should be the debate, not saying how or how not those kids might have been saved. Saving kids in the future is the aim.

[debaser]

Originally Posted by willravel

I think that language is quite clear. A 'well regulated militia' is the organized militia outlined in section 1: the organized militia; the National Guard and Naval Militia. Those are the only current organizations in the US that could be reasonably classified as well regulated militia.

You make quite a leap from well regulated to organized. Well regulated in the parlance of the times actually meant well trained. Perhaps a better tact would be to properly train all members of the militia so that by the age of 17 they have some formal firearms training rather than just playing Doom.

By the way the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled the 2nd Amendment to be an individual right, not a collective one. Of course this only makes sense given its context in the constitution.

Why would the framers throw a collective right in the mix with 9 individual rights in a document called the Bill of Rights which was specifically written to garauntee individual freedoms?

Perhaps you should look at the 2nd Amendment from the opposite direction: An armed populace insures the ability of the state to draw upon competant (or well trained) citizens for its militia if needed.

Originally Posted by willravel

I like your idea of getting rid of ALL guns, and giving police officers non lethal weaponry. I'd vote the hell out of that measure.

And what happens if just one gun gets through the net into the hands of a violent criminal?

[dc_dux]

My original question was:

Do you presume these horrific acts, that happen with such relative frequency in this country (as compared to other western countries) are the result of gun control?

Originally Posted by EaseUp

One reason might be that it DOES occur elsewhere. Or have you forgotten:

http://english.people.com.cn/200409/...01_155577.html

Edit: I see mirevolver beat me to it with three other citations.

Absolutely, it occurs elswhere....but neither of you addressed (or even acknowledged) my point about relative frequency.

Feb. 2, 1996
Moses Lake, Wash. Two students and one teacher killed, one other wounded when 14-year-old Barry Loukaitis opened fire on his algebra class.

March 13, 1996
Dunblane, Scotland. 16 children and one teacher killed at Dunblane Primary School by Thomas Hamilton, who then killed himself. 10 others wounded in attack.

Feb. 19, 1997
Bethel, Alaska. Principal and one student killed, two others wounded by Evan Ramsey, 16.

March 1997
Sanaa, Yemen Eight people (six students and two others) at two schools killed by Mohammad Ahman al-Naziri.

Oct. 1, 1997
Pearl, Miss. Two students killed and seven wounded by Luke Woodham, 16, who was also accused of killing his mother. He and his friends were said to be outcasts who worshiped Satan.

Dec. 1, 1997
West Paducah, Ky. Three students killed, five wounded by Michael Carneal, 14, as they participated in a prayer circle at Heath High School.

Dec. 15, 1997
Stamps, Ark. Two students wounded. Colt Todd, 14, was hiding in the woods when he shot the students as they stood in the parking lot.

March 24, 1998
Jonesboro, Ark. Four students and one teacher killed, ten others wounded outside as Westside Middle School emptied during a false fire alarm. Mitchell Johnson, 13, and Andrew Golden, 11, shot at their classmates and teachers from the woods.

April 24, 1998
Edinboro, Pa. One teacher, John Gillette, killed, two students wounded at a dance at James W. Parker Middle School. Andrew Wurst, 14, was charged.

May 19, 1998
Fayetteville, Tenn. One student killed in the parking lot at Lincoln County High School three days before he was to graduate. The victim was dating the ex-girlfriend of his killer, 18-year-old honor student Jacob Davis.

May 21, 1998
Springfield, Ore. Two students killed, 22 others wounded in the cafeteria at Thurston High School by 15-year-old Kip Kinkel. Kinkel had been arrested and released a day earlier for bringing a gun to school. His parents were later found dead at home.

June 15, 1998
Richmond, Va. One teacher and one guidance counselor wounded by a 14-year-old boy in the school hallway.

April 20, 1999
Littleton, Colo. 14 students (including killers) and one teacher killed, 23 others wounded at Columbine High School in the nation's deadliest school shooting. Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, had plotted for a year to kill at least 500 and blow up their school. At the end of their hour-long rampage, they turned their guns on themselves.

April 28, 1999
Taber, Alberta, Canada One student killed, one wounded at W. R. Myers High School in first fatal high school shooting in Canada in 20 years. The suspect, a 14-year-old boy, had dropped out of school after he was severely ostracized by his classmates.

May 20, 1999
Conyers, Ga. Six students injured at Heritage High School by Thomas Solomon, 15, who was reportedly depressed after breaking up with his girlfriend.

Nov. 19, 1999
Deming, N.M. Victor Cordova Jr., 12, shot and killed Araceli Tena, 13, in the lobby of Deming Middle School.

Dec. 6, 1999
Fort Gibson, Okla. Four students wounded as Seth Trickey, 13, opened fire with a 9mm semiautomatic handgun at Fort Gibson Middle School.

Dec. 7, 1999
Veghel, Netherlands One teacher and three students wounded by a 17-year-old student.

Feb. 29, 2000
Mount Morris Township, Mich. Six-year-old Kayla Rolland shot dead at Buell Elementary School near Flint, Mich. The assailant was identified as a six-year-old boy with a .32-caliber handgun.

March 2000
Branneburg, Germany One teacher killed by a 15-year-old student, who then shot himself. The shooter has been in a coma ever since.

March 10, 2000
Savannah, Ga. Two students killed by Darrell Ingram, 19, while leaving a dance sponsored by Beach High School.

May 26, 2000
Lake Worth, Fla. One teacher, Barry Grunow, shot and killed at Lake Worth Middle School by Nate Brazill, 13, with .25-caliber semiautomatic pistol on the last day of classes.

Sept. 26, 2000
New Orleans, La. Two students wounded with the same gun during a fight at Woodson Middle School.

Jan. 17, 2001
Baltimore, Md. One student shot and killed in front of Lake Clifton Eastern High School.

Jan. 18, 2001
Jan, Sweden One student killed by two boys, ages 17 and 19.

March 5, 2001
Santee, Calif. Two killed and 13 wounded by Charles Andrew Williams, 15, firing from a bathroom at Santana High School.

March 7, 2001
Williamsport, Pa. Elizabeth Catherine Bush, 14, wounded student Kimberly Marchese in the cafeteria of Bishop Neumann High School; she was depressed and frequently teased.

March 22, 2001
Granite Hills, Calif. One teacher and three students wounded by Jason Hoffman, 18, at Granite Hills High School. A policeman shot and wounded Hoffman.

March 30, 2001
Gary, Ind. One student killed by Donald R. Burt, Jr., a 17-year-old student who had been expelled from Lew Wallace High School.

Nov. 12, 2001
Caro, Mich. Chris Buschbacher, 17, took two hostages at the Caro Learning Center before killing himself.

Jan. 15, 2002
New York, N.Y. A teenager wounded two students at Martin Luther King Jr. High School.

Feb. 19, 2002
Freising, Germany Two killed in Eching by a man at the factory from which he had been fired; he then traveled to Freising and killed the headmaster of the technical school from which he had been expelled. He also wounded another teacher before killing himself.

April 26, 2002
Erfurt, Germany 13 teachers, two students, and one policeman killed, ten wounded by Robert Steinhaeuser, 19, at the Johann Gutenberg secondary school. Steinhaeuser then killed himself.

April 29, 2002
Vlasenica, Bosnia-Herzegovina One teacher killed, one wounded by Dragoslav Petkovic, 17, who then killed himself.

April 14, 2003
New Orleans, La. One 15-year-old killed, and three students wounded at John McDonogh High School by gunfire from four teenagers (none were students at the school). The motive was gang-related.

April 24, 2003
Red Lion, Pa. James Sheets, 14, killed principal Eugene Segro of Red Lion Area Junior High School before killing himself.

Sept. 24, 2003
Cold Spring, Minn. Two students are killed at Rocori High School by John Jason McLaughlin, 15.

Sept. 28, 2004
Carmen de Patagones, Argentina Three students killed and 6 wounded by a 15-year-old Argentininan student in a town 620 miles south of Buenos Aires.

March 21, 2005
Red Lake, Minn. Jeff Weise, 16, killed grandfather and companion, then arrived at school where he killed a teacher, a security guard, 5 students, and finally himself, leaving a total of 10 dead.

Nov. 8, 2005
Jacksboro, Tenn. One 15-year-old shot and killed an assistant principal at Campbell County High School and seriously wounded two other administrators.

Aug. 24, 2006
Essex, Vt. Christopher Williams, 27, looking for his ex-girlfriend at Essex Elementary School, shot two teachers, killing one and wounding another. Before going to the school, he had killed the ex-girlfriend's mother.

Sept. 13, 2006
Montreal, Canada Kimveer Gill, 25, opened fire with a semiautomatic weapon at Dawson College. Anastasia De Sousa, 18, died and more than a dozen students and faculty were wounded before Gill killed himself.

Sept. 26, 2006
Bailey, Colo. Adult male held six students hostage at Platte Canyon High School and then shot and killed Emily Keyes, 16, and himself.

Sept. 29, 2006
Cazenovia, Wis. A 15-year-old student shot and killed Weston School principal John Klang.

Oct. 3, 2006
Nickel Mines, Pa. 32-year-old Carl Charles Roberts IV entered the one-room West Nickel Mines Amish School and shot 10 schoolgirls, ranging in age from 6 to 13 years old, and then himself. Five of the girls and Roberts died.

Jan. 3, 2007
Tacoma, Wash. Douglas Chanthabouly, 18, shot fellow student Samnang Kok, 17, in the hallway of Henry Foss High School.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

Easeup and mirevolver....how do you explain the disproportional frequency of thiese horrific acts in the US? (I assume the Russian incident was not included because it was considered an act of chechnyan terrorism for political purposes, equally horrific, and not a random act of violence.)

[highthief]

Originally Posted by stevie667

Having kids go to school armed is just...stupid. You'll just end up with more shootings when someone pulls a gun on another kid for whatever dumbass reason.

I tend to agree with this, also.

I don't really have an issue with certain teachers and other staff being armed, although I am not sure how effective that will be. People will just start blowing up buildings or slipping rat poison into the lunch line to make the same point.

[EaseUp]

Originally Posted by willravel

I do have to wonder how much more difficult it would be to get guns in a country where guns were banned. Gun crimes in the UK dropped off after the gun ban was put in place. Yes, some other violent crimes did rise, but I doubt you'd see someone go into a school with a knife or an airgun and kill 33 people. That says a lot.

Guns are banned in Mexico. Sarin gas was used in Japan. That says a lot, too.

From time to time, in discussions like this, the topic arises that the police will protect us, or that the US laws must be altered to accommodate the UN position on firearms. Here is a quote that touches on both at once:

We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money," warned Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in the July/August 1995 issue of Foreign Affairs. Schlesinger had taken to the pages of the flagship journal of the Council on Foreign Relations to vindicate the dubious proposition that the United Nations military represents the thin blue line dividing peaceful civilization from savagery — in short, our planetary police. But what happens when the planetary police run amok and become the agents of bloodshed? When local police abuse their power, the abused have avenues of redress. From what body can those abused by the planetary police seek justice? The escalating scandal of unpunished atrocities committed by UN "peacekeepers" illustrates that the planetary police are beyond accountability.

This is an example of UN troops in Somalia, communicating with an unarmed civilian.




It does not make me trust the police, or make me desire a life in which others can be armed, but I can not.

Originally Posted by willravel

Speaking momentarily to the right to bear arms:

I see nothing in here about non-militia civilians having the right to bear arms. I read this as saying that a well regulated militia has a right to arm itself. I can think of one well regulated militia in the US: the National Guard. I agree that the National Guard has the right to bear arms in order to protect our country. I do not agree that every Tom, Dick, and Harry has the right to walk down the street packing. That's where gun related fatalities come from. That's where involuntary manslaughter comes from. Not only that, but the escalation means that when the populace is armed, the criminal must arm better. Call it mutually assured destruction.

Prof. Akil Reed Amar of the Yale Law School and Alan Hirsch, like Amar a former Yale Law Journal editor, write:

We recall that the Framers' militia was not an elite fighting force but the entire citizenry of the time: all able-bodied adult white males. Since the Second Amendment explicitly declares that its purpose is to preserve a well-regulated militia, the right to bear arms was universal in scope.

In other words, if it was not a universal right to bear arms when the Constitution was written, it is the best-kept secret of US History. This approach to banning guns has been disproved so many times that almost no one tries it anymore.

Now back to Virginia Tech, specifically:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/04/va...ised_defea.php

A Virginia Tech official in 2006 praised the defeat of a proposal to allow students with state-issued concealed handgun permits to carry their handguns on college campuses in Virginia. At least 20 unarmed students were killed on the VA Tech campus Monday morning by a single gunman.

Virginia House Bill 1572 was proposed in 2005 by Shenandoah County, Va., Republican Del. Todd Gilbert after a VA Tech student with a state-issued concealed handgun permit was arrested and charged only with "unlawfully" carrying a handgun on campus. The bill would have prohibited state universities in Virginia from enacting "rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit ... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun."

After the proposal died in the state's House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety, The Roanoke Times quoted VA Tech spokesman Larry Hincker as celebrating the defeat of the bill.

"I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions," Hincker said on Jan. 31, 2006, "because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Following Monday's multiple-victim shooting at VA Tech, Erich Pratt with Virginia-based Gun Owners of America called that philosophy "idiocy."

"I think gun control advocates will say, 'See, we need more gun control,' even though this is exactly the product of gun control," Pratt said.

Currently, only Utah and Oregon have statutes specifically authorizing law-abiding individuals with concealed handgun permits to possess their firearms on state university property. Most other states have explicit or implied prohibitions.

"Every [other] school campus in this nation is a 'gun free zone,' supposedly," Pratt bemoaned. "But, isn't it amazing that criminals, bad guys never obey those laws."

Regarding Utah, Pratt adds, "Isn't it interesting that that's the one state where we haven't heard of any school shootings."

At least two school shootings have been stopped by armed civilians before police arrived:

· January 9, 2002, Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Va. - 43 year old Peter Odighizuwa, who had flunked out of the small law school earlier in the week killed three people and wounded three others. Two law students - Tracy Bridges and Ted Besen - retreived a handgun from Bridges' vehicle and held Odighizuwa at gun point for several minutes before police arrived. (Bridges was a reserve deputy sheriff, but was not on duty at the time of the incident.)

· October 1, 1997, Pearl High School, Pearl, Ms. - 16 year old Luke Woodham carried a rifle onto the school campus, killed his ex-girlfriend and one of her friends and wounded seven other people. Assisstant Principal Joel Myrick retreived a handgun from his truck and held Woodham for police. It was later learned that the teeneager had beaten and stabbed his own mother to death before the attack at the school.

Pratt is not optimistic, however, that lawmakers will allow public university students and faculty members to protect themselves from mass murderers like the one who struck VA Tech Monday.

"The only schools and universities where these tragedies have been stopped abruptly were the places where law-abiding citizens had a gun that was accessible to them and they were able to stop the shooter," Pratt noted. "The schools and universities that had to wait for the police to arrive, those are the ones that find these high death tolls.

"It's just a real shame," he concluded, "that these guys never get it."

Sadly, even after these murders, people will still not "get it."

[shakran]

Originally Posted by Rekna

First off I do want to help prevent this from happening again in the future but I think we should give the victims and families honor and respect before we start issuing talking points.

With that been said there isn't much we can do to stop a suicidal maniac. We can increase security, we can have random spot checks, we can place snipers on buildings, and make society very Orwelian but it won't stop a suicidal maniac.

Of course not. We know that won't work, just like we know attacking Iraq won't stop the terrorists. I would advocate that our society do something smart for once. Let's figure out WHY things like this happen. Hasn't anyone noticed that people are going completely nuts at a much higher rate than they used to? More school shootings, more incidents of "road rage" which didn't even have a name 15 years ago, more incidents of people suddenly going nuts and killing their entire family. . . Why?

Is it chemical? Maybe - the average person today has over 600% more lead in their system than the average person in 1920 - and lead is a neurotoxin. And, lead is only one of the many chemicals we are now subjected to that we did not evolve to be subjected to. Perhaps one or more of those chemicals is making people literally crazy.

Maybe its societal pressures. We're requiring more work more quickly out of fewer people than ever before, and we're paying them worse than ever before to do it. That puts people under an awful lot of stress - are people just reaching the breaking point?

Maybe it's something else. I don't know, but I think we had best find out before the problem gets any worse. We've already seen how problem solving by "increasing security" works - - none of us feels any safer from the "terrists" than we did the day after the WTC attack.

Wouldn't it be nicer to figure out what's happening to these people, so that we can stop it from happening and therefore not have to worry about how to lock down an entire college campus?

[Rekna]

Originally Posted by archetypal fool

I can't remember where or when exactly, but approximately a year ago, at some mall, some psycho decided to shoot up some people. A citizen with a concealed weapon permit quickly ended that spree before things got too out of hand.

That was the Trolly Square shooting in Salt Lake City. However, it wasn't a citizen that saved the day it was an off duty officer from Ogden having a valentines diner with his wife.

[highthief]

Now that the identity of the killer has been revealed as being a South Korean student, I wonder how long it will be before someone calls for foreigners to be restricted from entering US schools? Someone will seriously float the idea within the next 48 hours, I'd bet.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Rekna

That was the Trolly Square shooting in Salt Lake City. However, it wasn't a citizen that saved the day it was an off duty officer from Ogden having a valentines diner with his wife.

Here IS an example of armed students stopping a shooting before it became a massacre.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...20020917a.html

Jowyk began researching his law school's gun policy following the January incident in which a disgruntled student at Appalachian Law School, Peter Odighizuwa, allegedly shot and killed the school's dean, a professor and a student on campus before being subdued by two armed students, Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges.

Gross and Bridges reportedly ran to their cars to fetch their own guns and returned to confront Odighizuwa, who surrendered after allegedly initiating a fistfight.

[ubertuber]

The idea that encouraging students to carry in class would reduce deaths is SO speculative I'm having a hard time believing it is being advanced as serious.

I could speculate that for every death prevented in situations like yesterday's there would be an additional one due to drunk altercations, fights, accidents, road rage, and "friendly fire". I'd have just as much ground to stand on as you.

[roachboy]

as information is emerging about this, i find it increasingly mind-boggling.

i dont see anything that could have been done that would have changed the course of this.
the notion of armed students is little more than a bizarre compensatory fantasy, the kind of thing that you might dream in a revenge fantasy kinda way, reflecting nothing more than a combination of anxiety and a desire for control over the conditions that you imagine responsible for it. the associations that make this kind of thing appear to be even sane--which it is not--reside there, in the desire for control, for the elimination of arbitrariness. which is in itself a delusion.

the abstract condition of possibility for this is self-evidently the easy availability of guns.
there is no getting around this.
i can understand why the guns=freedom set would want to be proactive and attempt to counter incoming information with scenarios that at first blush may appear rational, but this seems to me little more than damage control--whether the talking points are informally worked out or co-ordinated somehow is irrelevant.
it is however a sick state of affairs that there would have been enough incidents like this for the guns=freedom set to recognize in it a recurrent public relations problem.

at any rate, the condition of possibility--the easy availability of guns--is just that. i do not know that changes in this would function to prevent this kind of incident. but i do know that without ease of access to weapons--the handguns in this case--this would not have happened. i suspect that any conversation about this matter will immediately be streamed into the usual nra talking points concerning legal vs illegal guns, us vs them blah blah blah: none of which is relevant.

all this because at this point i am unclear that there is any wider meaning to be taken from this.
it is simply arbitrary.

the kid who did the killing is of course described as "a loner"....maybe he was, maybe he is framed that way in the press as a device for isolating him, putting him into some floating category of the Other, maybe a sociopath...maybe not a sociopath until he engaged in a self-evidently sociopathic action.
did he "snap"?
what does "snapping" mean?

for me, the only wider meaning i have been able to assemble from all this comes from relegating this to an example status which functions in the context of the rather vague sense that something is fundamentally pathological about the environment within which we function in the states. but that is structurally no different from any other attempt to work out a general meaning to something that appears, well, arbitrary.

i find it disturbing that folk seem to want more pervasive general security, that people actually believe that pervasive state security could somehow have changed anything. but i find that less disturbing than the inverse argument, that everyone everywhere shold wander about with a gun strapped to them...to bars, to parties, to classes on a unviersity campus; to meetings to discuss grades or to wrangle some administrative advantage; to dinner at a dining hall where you may not like the food. all that seems to me to be a recipe for is a tighter calibration between frustration leading to a sense of loss of control over a situation and escalation into violence and death. and where the guns=freedom set would prefer to see scenarios in front of kitty's saloon at high noon involving sober cowpokes admnistering rough justice to the black-hatted forces of Evil, i imagine shootouts at fraternity parties involving drunken, frightened kids.

i dont know. there seems so little to hold onto about all this. the arbitrary, the Singular is like that. and this is what makes it intolerable for many.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by ubertuber

The idea that encouraging students to carry in class would reduce deaths is SO speculative I'm having a hard time believing it is being advanced as serious.

I'm not sure that anyone is 'encouraging' students to carry. Most will obviously not want to and that is perfectly fine. What is wrong is flat out denying others that wish to take up that right and responsibility for themselves simply because others 'feel' safer thinking that guns are not allowed.

For Roachboy: When you say this - the notion of armed students is little more than a bizarre compensatory fantasy, the kind of thing that you might dream in a revenge fantasy kinda way, reflecting nothing more than a combination of anxiety and a desire for control over the conditions that you imagine responsible for it. the associations that make this kind of thing appear to be even sane--which it is not--reside there, in the desire for control, for the elimination of arbitrariness. which is in itself a delusion.

You sound like every other gun control spokesperson out there that has zero evidence or facts to back up your position and the only thing you can do is espouse your opinion by flavoring those that don't agree with yours as bizarre, deluded, anxious, etc. etc. etc. All of the popular terms one uses to hopefully ridicule any other idea but yours.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by debaser

You make quite a leap from well regulated to organized.

According to Title X of the US Code there are two classifications of militias: organized or unorganized. Well regulated militia fits better into organized because they are regulated by the structure of the organization.

Originally Posted by debaser

Well regulated in the parlance of the times actually meant well trained.

Not according to my English professor. The language still meant regulated as we say it today according to someone who know more about the language of that time than I ever will. I'll see if I can find a link online, but the internet is swamped with pro gun propaganda, so I don't hold out much hope.

Originally Posted by debaser

Perhaps a better tact would be to properly train all members of the militia so that by the age of 17 they have some formal firearms training rather than just playing Doom.

That means properly training future criminals, too. I can't live with that.

Originally Posted by debaser

By the way the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled the 2nd Amendment to be an individual right, not a collective one. Of course this only makes sense given its context in the constitution.

I can't say it's either collective or individual. It's more organization based. Members of said well regulated militia are provided the Constitutionally protected right to bear arms so long as they follow the laws of the land.

Originally Posted by debaser

Why would the framers throw a collective right in the mix with 9 individual rights in a document called the Bill of Rights which was specifically written to [guarantee] individual freedoms?

The right to free press is organization based.

Originally Posted by debaser

Perhaps you should look at the 2nd Amendment from the opposite direction: An armed populace insures the ability of the state to draw upon [competent] (or well trained) citizens for its militia if needed.

But it also arms everyone, be they emotionally sound or sociopath. Not only that but the temptation of using the gun is always there. In a dangerous situation, if everyone pulls a gun, we get constant gun fights and a lot of people can die.

Originally Posted by debaser

And what happens if just one gun gets through the net into the hands of a violent criminal?

They do already. If it's more difficult to get a gun, it's more difficult to carry out gun related crime.

How often are gun crimes stopped by civilians that carry? Now compare that to how often gun crimes would happen if guns were very difficult to get.

[roachboy]

dk:
your post no. 105 made me laugh.
let me rephrase some elements from my last post that you obviously missed.

1) the abstract condition of possibility for this was and remains the easy availability of guns.
but if you actually read the post, i make no argument for gun control on that basis--in fact, most of what i wrote was about the simple fact that this is a singular situation, arbitrary..and from there that i find it really quite difficult to make any general arguments from it.

that you do not find it to be difficult as well strikes me as bizarre.

what i see in your posts is a proactive defensiveness: it is like simply stating the obvious fact concerning the ABSTRACT condition of possibility being the easy availability of guns for you amounts to an argument for gun control.

the proximate cause that links this abstract condition of possibility to these particular actions is whatever the psychological situation was of the guy who did the shooting. i dont know what that situation was--AND YOU DONT EITHER----so there is at this point nothing more to be said on this until more information comes out, if it does.

2. i do not care whether you disagree with my assessment of your proposal that students carry guns around with them as they move through a university as totally insane. there is nothing you have said, can say or could possibly say that would persuade me that this idea is not wholly insane.
so that is the end of my interaction with you across this point.
there is no debate.

3. recourse to psychological terminology is not an argument for gun control except perhaps in your private world. i considered the terminology that i used and meant the categories i used in the way in which i used them--you know, in the context of the actual sentences i wrote.

if anything, i was being nice by using these categories on the topic of your proposal that university students walk around strapped. i was being nice by trying to connect it to some level of coherent motivation that had something vaguely to do with the situation at va tech.

your entire motivation here appears to be warding off possible threats to your guns uber alles politics. i find this bizarre.

btw: i dont buy any of your arguments--not one of them--for unlimited availability of guns.

but for your information, i am kind of agnostic on the question of gun control---my position had shifted based on some of the saner arguments i have encountered here---i tend to favor local controls--and i would favor tight controls in urban areas. but i haven't gpt a position on universal gun control. sometimes that surprises me.

but i can also tell you this: your positions have done nothing to alter my views----if anything i find them to be so out there that they make me question them, wondering whether some kind of universal gun controls might be a good idea--so i would seriously ask myself what kind of service your way of arguing does for the politics you espouse.

[hagatha]

Doesn't it all come down to the fact that if you carry a firearm, you know how to use it and are prepared to do so. That is, you are prepared to kill or seriously mame someone.
What's so civil about that kind of society.
And as for it being a constitutional right, wasn't that written after the war with England when the very liberty of the Republic was at stake?
Its been almost 300 years since US independence has been threatened, the time for citizens bearing arms is OVER.

[mirevolver]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

My original question was:

Do you presume these horrific acts, that happen with such relative frequency in this country (as compared to other western countries) are the result of gun control?

Absolutely, it occurs elswhere....but neither of you addressed (or even acknowledged) my point about relative frequency.

Easeup and mirevolver....how do you explain the disproportional frequency of thiese horrific acts in the US? (I assume the Russian incident was not included because it was considered an act of chechnyan terrorism for political purposes, equally horrific, and not a random act of violence.)

First of all, I did not include the Russian incident in pointing at other countries because it was a terrorist action.

Secondly, I do not see such a disproportion. Certianly the United States has more of these incidents than other countries, but with a population of 300million the United States is the most populated western nation. According to your list, Germany (a nation with strict gun control laws) is second in school shootings, and with a significantly lesser population of 82million, Germany is the most populated nation in Europe. Where is the disproporton?


Now if you want schools and universities to be "gun free" zones, and not have any more lone gunmen cause horrific school shootings, here's how you do it. Wall off the campuses with a three foot thick, twelve foot high steel reinforced brick wall. Run Razor wire along the top of the wall. Have a heavily armed security staff run checkpoints at every entry and exit point with full vehicle searches, bag seaches and metal detector scans. Sure it will be at significant cost to the taxpayers, but can you put a price on the saftey of our nation's students?

[Dilbert1234567]

one issue with people carrying, lets say there are four people (very hypothetical), at a corner in a hallway, one in the first hallway and 2 in the second, one at the corner.

one person of the 2 in the hallway (the bad guy) pulls his gun and shots the other in his hallway. the person at the corner sees this, draws and shoots the bad guy. the one guy in the other hallway sees only the corner guy draw and fire (maybe he wasn't looking and thought the first shot was also from him) so he draws and shoots the corner guy, who was defending himself.

basically, this is a crappy way of saying, when everyone is armed and defending them self, how do they distinguish themselves from the aggressor. and how do we stop a massive blood bath of mistaken identity.

in the case that just happened, anyone being armed would have made it turn out better imho, however, in a smaller scale event, it can be made much worse with more guns.


just things to think about

[Rekna]

Ok from the reports i've heard there was 2 guns both with the serial numbers rubbed off. One of the guns was legally purchased in March (they have the receipt) the other one I haven't heard yet. In addition from one news source (I haven't confirmed this from any other sources yet) he used extra large clips which were illegal until the assault weapons ban expired.

[samcol]

I for one welcome the idea that the only people who can bear arms are on the payroll of the president and congress who put an end to habeas corpus and the bill of rights as we know it (Military Commissons Act of 2006).

I really don't understand how someone who realizes how corrput the government has become only wants government employees to have weapons. That makes no sense.

Why can't people understand prohibition just DOES NOT WORK. It failed with alcohol it failed with drugs it fails with everything. Banning guns will not stop gun violence. There are just too many of them. Don't you realize that even if 1% of the American population won't give up their guns that's over a million armed citiziens? Have fun going door to door grabbing those.

We need responsible citizens like professors, teachers, bus drivers, convience store owners, pilots etc to be given fire arm training and permits to carry. Enough is enough. We trust enough idiot cops with firearms, why not trust a few people who are actually in the right place at the right time to stop this nonsense.

[Rekna]

I don't think we should eliminate guns entirely. Instead I think we need better background checks and tracking of weapons. Also certain types of weapons need to be restricted or banned. None of us need an assault riffle, RPG, machine gun, ect. Finally we need much harsher punishments for gun violations.

I think every gun made should be fired prior to being sold and the bullet should be used to fingerprint the gun. This fingerprint should be added to a database. Thus if a bullet is found it can be tracked to the original owner. In addition, there should be laws forcing reporting of transfers of ownership and reporting of stolen weapons. If you buy a gun and it is later used in a crime then it is easily tracked to the last legal owner.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Rekna

I don't think we should eliminate guns entirely. Instead I think we need better background checks and tracking of weapons. Also certain types of weapons need to be restricted or banned. None of us need an assault riffle, RPG, machine gun, ect. Finally we need much harsher punishments for gun violations.

I think every gun made should be fired prior to being sold and the bullet should be used to fingerprint the gun. This fingerprint should be added to a database. Thus if a bullet is found it can be tracked to the original owner. In addition, there should be laws forcing reporting of transfers of ownership and reporting of stolen weapons. If you buy a gun and it is later used in a crime then it is easily tracked to the last legal owner.

How stringent should these background checks be? should a speeding ticket be grounds for the denial of the right to bear arms? Because that's all that the VT shooter had (according to all current info that is). Also, banning certain types of weaponry for civilian usage is pretty much declaring that the framers of the constitution and BoR were idiots that had no business declaring individual rights anyway. Maryland has already spent over a billion on the bullet printing technology and it hasn't solved a single crime yet and if you wish to have a law that mandates telling authorities when your property is stolen, why not make it mandatory to notify authorities when ANY of your property is stolen?

[Willravel]

DK, how about psych profiles?

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by willravel

DK, how about psych profiles?

what about them? what do we establish as normal? or non dangerous? who makes the rules? Do we even go so far as to say that if a person IS on an ADHD med, they can't have a gun? But if they AREN'T on it, they shouldn't own a gun?

The more checks and requirements you establish for a person to exercise a right, the less it becomes a right and the more a priviledge. Do you NEED the government to tell you what you can and cannot do?

[ShaniFaye]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

How stringent should these background checks be? should a speeding ticket be grounds for the denial of the right to bear arms? Because that's all that the VT shooter had (according to all current info that is). Also, banning certain types of weaponry for civilian usage is pretty much declaring that the framers of the constitution and BoR were idiots that had no business declaring individual rights anyway. Maryland has already spent over a billion on the bullet printing technology and it hasn't solved a single crime yet and if you wish to have a law that mandates telling authorities when your property is stolen, why not make it mandatory to notify authorities when ANY of your property is stolen?

He didnt even have the speeding ticket when he bought the Glock....he bought it in March and got the speeding ticket April 7th

[Rekna]

So DK do you think you should be able to own a RPG? A submachine gun? An assult rifle? A 50 caliber sniper rifle?

DK you have yet to address the point that the clips this shooter used were banned under the AWB which expired under Bush. Had he not been able to buy these clips the damage could have been much less.

For the background checks as mentioned before I think psych evaluations would be a good idea, so would interviews with people who know or are acquainted with the person wanting to buy it similar to what they do when you want to get security clearances but on a much smaller scale.

[mirevolver]

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

one issue with people carrying, lets say there are four people (very hypothetical), at a corner in a hallway, one in the first hallway and 2 in the second, one at the corner.

one person of the 2 in the hallway (the bad guy) pulls his gun and shots the other in his hallway. the person at the corner sees this, draws and shoots the bad guy. the one guy in the other hallway sees only the corner guy draw and fire (maybe he wasn't looking and thought the first shot was also from him) so he draws and shoots the corner guy, who was defending himself.

basically, this is a crappy way of saying, when everyone is armed and defending them self, how do they distinguish themselves from the aggressor. and how do we stop a massive blood bath of mistaken identity.

in the case that just happened, anyone being armed would have made it turn out better imho, however, in a smaller scale event, it can be made much worse with more guns.


just things to think about

I believe the military has a way of viewing this. They would see this as a friendly fire incident resulting from a failure to ID the target prior to engaging. There was a situation like this in Afghanistan where a US pilot thought he was being engaged by hostile ground forces, and before getting an ID of the target, he engaged the ground forces and killed several Canadian troops.

Everybody who purchases a firearm should go through mandatory training on proper gun use and firearm saftey. Getting an ID of the target is critical in any firearms situation. If person 3 hears gunshots and then sees person 2 pull out a gun and fire in a direction that person 3 has no visual on. The initial gunshots were fired before person 2 had the weapon drawn, so person 2 either shot just himself in the foot, or person 2 is responding to the initial gunshot. Since person 2 is not dancing around cursing god with blood all over his foot, then it's clear that person 2 was responding to the initial action. At this point the question facing person 3 is, was person 2 responding to eliminate the threat or was person 2 responding as an accomplice to the threat. The best way for person 3 to get an answer is to ready his weapon and observe person 2's followup action.

There is a lot to think about in such a situation and at best only a second to think about it, but owning a firearm is a big responsibility. All the freedoms granted by the constitution come with responsibility.

[loquitur]

I'm not surprised to find that I agree with <A HREF="http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_04_15-2007_04_21.shtml#1176841593" TARGET="Wander">Eugene
Volokh's take</A> on the VT massacre's significance for the
debate over gun control:<BLOCKQUOTE>even if one thinks that either gun control or gun
decontrol would have helped in this instance, we
shouldn't make broad gun policy based on these highly
unusual incidents -- which, tragic as they are,
represent a tiny and extraordinarily unrepresentative
fraction of all the homicide that's out there.</BLOCKQUOTE>