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

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

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

Thank you dear ShaniFaye for proving such an excellent point about background checks.

Originally Posted by 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?

Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.

Originally Posted by Rekna

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.

the size of the magazines are irrelevant. I can change a magazine in about 1 second. If I carry 2 30 rnd mags or 6 10 rnd mags, the amount of damage I can do is the same. The Hi Capacity Mag argument is probably the second most frivolous argument for gun control there is.

[Rekna]

While I agree with that statement loquitur it should also be stated that it should not take a massive tragedy to make changes that should be done in the first place (reguardless of what your stance is).

[loquitur]

I think that was my point.

[debaser]

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

But Title X USC does not refer to to either as "well regulated". If the intent of said code was to discriminate between the two for the purpose of defining the 2nd Amendment, would it not be reasonable to assume they would have used the language in the ammendment.

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.

Unfortunately the opposite is also true. Equally unfortunate is that your professor most likely has strong opinions on the issue that may be swaying his judgement (assuming that you asked him about the language in the second ammendment, and not just the archaic definition of regulated). I have heard several different explanations from several different professors, each subtly (and not so subtly) influenced by thier veiws on guns.

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

Criminals seem to be doing just fine without any training at all right now...

Perhaps you would at least agree that gun safety classes should be mandatory in our schools?

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.

The right to free press is organization based.

The right to free press is an individual right, part and parcel with the freedom of speech.

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.

It does not arm everybody, it just allows them to be armed. Remember: the dangerous sociopath will arm himself regardless of laws against it. The dangerous gunfights breaking out everywhere are farsical, were it true then we would expect far more shootings in right to carry states than in rights restricted states, which is not the case.

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.

You missed my point. IF you could wave a magic wand and make all of the guns in the US dissappear, and decided to disarm your law-enforcement personnel as well, what would happen if a criminal got his hands on a firearm? How would you stop him? The Army?

[Rekna]

dk why do you need an RPG or any of those other weapons? Do you think you should also be able to own a tank? An Apache Helicopter? A nuclear missile?

The weapons i'm listing are weapons which are not designed for protection but instead for damage. They are made to maximize damage. I mean how can you accurately hit a single person with an RPG or a submachine gun?

[debaser]

Originally Posted by 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?

Rekna: The term "assault rifle" is almost as loaded a term as is "sniper rifle". Using either term in an informed debate shows a certain level of ignorance (wilfull or not) about the subject that further hazes the truth and moves people father rather than closer to a consensus.

[Rekna]

.50 caliber sniper rifle is not a loaded term as it is a specific class of guns. You can call an assault riffle a loaded term but that was a term to describe guns long before the AWB.

[debaser]

How about an .50 caliber non-sniper rifle, is that OK?

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by debaser

But Title X USC does not refer to to either as "well regulated". If the intent of said code was to discriminate between the two for the purpose of defining the 2nd Amendment, would it not be reasonable to assume they would have used the language in the [amendment].

Well look at when they're written. The USC isn't 225 years old.

Originally Posted by debaser

Unfortunately the opposite is also true. Equally unfortunate is that your professor most likely has strong opinions on the issue that may be swaying his [judgment] (assuming that you asked him about the language in the second [amendment], and not just the archaic definition of regulated). I have heard several different explanations from several different professors, each subtly (and not so subtly) influenced by [their] [views] on guns.

I asked him first about the word by itself, then about the word in context. He had the same answer for both. I'm aware that some people would skew their translation based on their personal beliefs, just as I feel many pro-gun people sway the meaning to their benefit.

Originally Posted by debaser

Criminals seem to be doing just fine without any training at all right now...

I'd say that not only do many criminals train, but many of them see repeated action. That's the best training of all.

Originally Posted by debaser

Perhaps you would at least agree that gun safety classes should be mandatory in our schools?

I agree that anyone who chooses to have a gun should absolutely be trained to the point where they are safe with that gun. I don't want my daughter to take a gun class (unless she chooses to do so).

Originally Posted by debaser

The right to free press is an individual right, part and parcel with the freedom of speech.

But it's the same basic concept. The press is based in organizations. The freedom is for the individual, but it applies to the individuals of an organization, just as I was explaining about the militia. I see the two as similar.

Originally Posted by debaser

It does not arm everybody, it just allows them to be armed.

I understand that.

Originally Posted by debaser

Remember: the dangerous sociopath will arm himself regardless of laws against it.

Would you care to elaborate on this being an absolute? I agree that sociopaths COULD get guns despite a ban, but you act as if they can make them magically appear. They would have to redouble their efforts in order to attain guns in a place where they are almost not available. It would be considerably more difficult, case in point: the UK.

Originally Posted by debaser

The dangerous gunfights breaking out everywhere are [farcical], were it true then we would expect far more shootings in right to carry states than in rights restricted states, which is not the case.

We don't because not as many people carry as one would believe, and of them, almost none of them are ever in a situation where they need it. I hope you get my meaning.

Originally Posted by debaser

You missed my point. IF you could wave a magic wand and make all of the guns in the US [disappear], and decided to disarm your law-enforcement personnel as well, what would happen if a criminal got his hands on a firearm? How would you stop him? The Army?

Non-lethal weapons are very effective. Have you ever seen tear gas in action? Have you ever been shot with a bean bag? Have you been maced? Tased? These are not toys. They are powerful weapons that just happen to be difficult to actually kill with.

[debaser]

I have experienced all of the above, and none of them will go toe to toe with a gun. Nor, I might add, will any sane user of said non-lethal weapons stick around if presented with lethal force.

The people you trust your safety to, and I am one of them, use a force continuum. In some unfortunate instances deadly force is the only option to resolve a situation.

I understand that you value life very highly, but do you value it above all other things?

I agree that anyone who chooses to have a gun should absolutely be trained to the point where they are safe with that gun. I don't want my daughter to take a gun class (unless she chooses to do so).

Why would you not want her to take a gun safety class?

Would you care to elaborate on this being an absolute? I agree that sociopaths COULD get guns despite a ban, but you act as if they can make them magically appear. They would have to redouble their efforts in order to attain guns in a place where they are almost not available. It would be considerably more difficult, case in point: the UK.

There are many criminals in the UK with firearms, and the cops there are better armed than most officers in the US.

We don't because not as many people carry as one would believe, and of them, almost none of them are ever in a situation where they need it. I hope you get my meaning.

You are right about that last bit, thank God. Most people who do carry simply walk around with a useless couple of pounds of metal on thier waist most of their lives, they don't actively stop any crimes and they don't commit any crimes. Why are you so worried about them?

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by debaser

I have experienced all of the above, and none of them will go toe to toe with a gun. Nor, I might add, will any sane user of said non-lethal weapons stick around if presented with lethal force.

You've experienced tear gas, mace, tasers, and bean bag ammunitions? You'll have to excuse me if I say you're credibility has stretched to the point where it has snapped.

I've been shot. Had I been armed with a bean bag gun at the time, I would not have been shot.

Originally Posted by debaser

The people you trust your safety to, and I am one of them, use a force continuum. In some unfortunate instances deadly force is the only option to resolve a situation

But if there were a functioning gun ban, you and I would be in a different continuum. I hope that's clear.

Originally Posted by debaser

I understand that you value life very highly, but do you value it above all other things?

That might be a complicated answer. Could you be more specific?

[debaser]

Originally Posted by willravel

You've experienced tear gas, mace, tasers, and bean bag ammunitions? You'll have to excuse me if I say you're credibility has stretched to the point where it has snapped.

If you doubt my credibility than you needn't reply to my posts. Suffice to say that all non-lethal equipment we are trained on, we must experience the effects of.

As for your bean-bag scenario, I would put to you that if you can say that you can just as easily say that if you had a pistol you wouldn't have been shot either, and it would have been a damn sight easier to pack around than a 40mm grenade launcher or a 12 gauge shotgun (which are used to fire bean-bag projectiles).

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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?

What do we establish as normal? Behavioral patterns that are not conducive to aggressive violence. You'd think that would be obvious. Don't give guns to people who have clear tendencies and patterns that would suggest dangerous behavior.

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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?

Who said anything about the government? I think it should be the gun companies that do it, and they are simply monitored by local government. They are the ones who keep the door to Pandora's box perpetually open.

Originally Posted by debaser

If you doubt my credibility than you needn't reply to my posts. Suffice to say that all non-lethal equipment we are trained on, we must experience the effects of.

What type of mace were you exposed to? Where were you hit with the bean bag?

Originally Posted by debaser

As for your bean-bag scenario, I would put to you that if you can say that you can just as easily say that if you had a pistol you wouldn't have been shot either, and it would have been a damn sight easier to pack around than a 40mm grenade launcher or a 12 gauge shotgun (which are used to fire bean-bag projectiles).

The point is that I would have been substantially less likely to mortally would the shooter with a bean bag gun than a gun.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by mirevolver

....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?

THe US has four times the population of Germany and more than 10 times the number of random school shootings (35 to 3) in the last 10 years.

That is not disproportional?

[debaser]

Originally Posted by willravel

What type of mace were you exposed to? Where were you hit with the bean bag?

Freeze +p and in the chest with a 12 gauge bag at 20 meter. Neither was pleasant.

The point is that I would have been substantially less likely to mortally would the shooter with a bean bag gun than a gun.

So what? He was shooting at you! Now he's probably off shooting other people since you couldn't stop him shooting at you.

Robert Frost once said that the definition of a liberal is a man so fair minded that he won't take his own side in a fight.

You fit the bill perfectly.

And what would be the chances that you just happened to be hauling around a huge piece of hardware at the time?


Edited for literary justice...

[smooth]

Originally Posted by EaseUp

Now back to Virginia Tech, specifically:

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



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

What is there to "get"
hmm, yeah it is interesting that we haven't heard of a shooting in utah, but guess what, Oregon HAS had shootings, and it's one of the two states that allows students to carry guns on campus. It's also ridiculously easy to carry in oregon, you don't need a permit to carry a loaded gun on your person as long as it's in plain sight--you can set a LOADED GUN in your seat next to you or up on the dash for example!

me loves me guns in oregon but shit, man, take a LOGIC class.
obviously allowing students to carry is not the INDEPENDENT VARIABLE if you have two states with similar laws but one of them with different outcomes.

If there is anything to GET it's that these type of events are RARE.
Most people who get shot are involved in crime or are loved ones!
Strangers popping strangers is RARE RARE RARE. What is so hard to understand about that?

No one I know of who is properly trained, even in combat tactics, walk around quickdrawing their weapons. These kids were SITTING at their desks enjoying class when someone walked in and started dropping bullets from a gun.

The only people who could seriously believe that even a properly trained and armed person would have stopped that have NEVER been on the receiving end of this kind of event. It's pure randomness that the gun carrier would have not been killed in the initial spree, and then whether someone would have semblence of mind to pick the firearm off the dead body and weild it is just pure ludicrous. They weren't even rationally thinking when they barricaded the door, just plain reacting in panic mode.

[loquitur]

I just don't get the allure of guns. Probably a cultural thing for me.

But there's lots of things I don't get, like country music or cricket. Just because I don't get it doesn't mean the govt should regulate big hair or bats.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by debaser

Freeze +p and in the chest with a 12 gauge bag at 20 meter. Neither was pleasant.

Um, okay.

Originally Posted by debaser

So what? He was shooting at you! Now he's probably off shooting other people since you couldn't stop him shooting at you.

The police caught him almost immediately. Oddly enough, the gun was legally purchased and licensed by his father.

Originally Posted by debaser

Robert Frost once said that the definition of a liberal is a man so fair minded that he won't take his own side in a fight.

Actually, I think it's:

Originally Posted by Robert Frost

A liberal is a man so broadminded that he won't take his own side in a quarrel.

I'd like to consider myself broadminded. I have fought back in fights of my youth, but I've found that when one postures and you posture back, you're asking for needless quarreling.

Originally Posted by debaser

You fit the bill perfectly.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by debaser

And what would be the chances that you just happened to be hauling around a huge piece of hardware at the time?

Considering I was a minor, better than the chances I was packing heat.

[Eeeraq]

Whats with Ismail Ax? Anyone hear anything on that yet?

All I could get was Ismail Yk, A "Sean Paul" type of guy from Somewhere...

[mirevolver]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

THe US has four times the population of Germany and more than 10 times the number of random school shootings (35 to 3) in the last 10 years.

That is not disproportional?

In looking at US National Center for Education Statistics and Germany's Federal Office of Statistics, the disproportionality fades. School enrollment statistics of the two countries for secondary education and higher show that the United States has 7 times the number of students enrolled. Also, the secondary school dropout rate of the United States is 10%, the secondary school dropout rate of Germany is 5%.

With half the school dropout rate, it would seem that Germany maintains a better school system and a lesser percentage of students enrolled feel the need to extract vengence on their schools.

[smooth]

willravel,

I raised my eyebrows when debaser listed all the stuff he'd been on the receiving end, but as I read the rest of the post it looks to me like he is in law enforcement. If you believe that, it's true that he would have been subjected to all those non-lethal tactics.

I wasn't sure if you picked up on that, or if you simply don't believe he's in law enforcement, so I wanted to toss that out there.


I really don't understand the basis of your argument, mirevolver, but I think you should stop making it. I didn't take the time to suss out what you were trying to justify with your statistical "analysis" but I don't know of a single criminologist, who do such things for a living, who would argue that the US has disproportionate levels of violent crime compared to other western nations. In fact, it's one of the single most glaring issues we face in explaining.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by smooth

willravel,

I raised my eyebrows when debaser listed all the stuff he'd been on the receiving end, but as I read the rest of the post it looks to me like he is in law enforcement. If you believe that, it's true that he would have been subjected to all those non-lethal tactics.

I wasn't sure if you picked up on that, or if you simply don't believe he's in law enforcement, so I wanted to toss that out there.

If he's in law enforcement.....yes, it's entirely possible. It's also very convenient.

[debaser]

Originally Posted by willravel

Um, okay.

Don't be coy, you asked.

[n0nsensical]

Good thing drugs are illegal!

[debaser]

Originally Posted by willravel

If he's in law enforcement.....yes, it's entirely possible. It's also very convenient.

About as convenient as you being shot, and everything being berrys and cream after you failed to do anything about it.

And for the record I work both as law enforcement and in the military, how convenient is that for ya?

[ubertuber]

Originally Posted by willravel

If he's in law enforcement.....yes, it's entirely possible. It's also very convenient.

Don't be ridiculous. We've all got "convenient" perspectives, yourself most definitely included. I, for one, would not be the least bit surprised if a law enforcement officer was drawn to this thread.

[mirevolver]

Originally Posted by smooth

I really don't understand the basis of your argument, mirevolver, but I think you should stop making it. I didn't take the time to suss out what you were trying to justify with your statistical "analysis" but I don't know of a single criminologist, who do such things for a living, who would argue that the US has disproportionate levels of violent crime compared to other western nations. In fact, it's one of the single most glaring issues we face in explaining.

And are you implying that our disproportional violent crime rates are because of our gun policy? Are you saying that I should cease my side of the argument just because you personally can't think of anyone off hand that would see my point of view?

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Overall the total crime rate of the United States is similar to that of other highly developed countries. Reported property crime in the US is actually lower than in Germany or Canada, yet the American homicide rate in the United States is substantially higher. Interestingly enough, the overall violent crime rate in the United States was roughly half that of Canada, despite its homicide rate being 189.5% higher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_i...nal_comparison

Seems our violent crime rate isn't such a big difference after all.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by debaser

About as convenient as you being shot, and everything being berrys and cream after you failed to do anything about it.

There is a marked difference between not opening fire and not doing anything about it. I chased him down in my civic. For the record, weeks of physical therapy is neither berries nor cream.

Originally Posted by debaser

And for the record I work both as law enforcement and in the military, how convenient is that for ya?

Very well.

[smooth]

Originally Posted by mirevolver

And are you implying that our disproportional violent crime rates are because of our gun policy? Are you saying that I should cease my side of the argument just because you personally can't think of anyone off hand that would see my point of view?

a) no, I've stated repeatedly in this thread that gun policies are not adequate independent variables (CAUSES) of violence
you are combining two different arguments: violence vis-a-vis gun control and that we don't have disproportionate levels of violent crime.
The first point is a matter of debate
The second point is not...you are empirically wrong

b) it's not offhand, it's within my discipline and career
you should stop misusing information you don't understand
your arguments don't make sense to someone who analyzes this type of data in his professional and academic career

I didn't have any problem with your *opinion*, but now you're slapping a bunch of figures around and making illogical conclusions about them...please stop trying to make arguments about better school systems, school violence, over all violent crime in Germany, etc. based off one variable of drop-out rates.

that's all I'm saying; I don't imply stuff so much as you try to head me off at the pass by suspecting what I may say.

you should note that both myself and roachboy, two of the most leftist people on the board, refuse to take a hardcore stance on the topic of gun-control on a national level. At best, we've both argued that it's totally irrelevent to this topic. But whatever, if you want to keep assuming you know what I think because you think you know my politics, I can't stop you but only suggest that you read what I say for what it is and not who you think I am or may be implying.

mirevolver, how do you read the portion you qouted and come away with the idea that it supports your claim that our violent crime isn't a concern and disproportionate? It clearly says that while crime isn't any higher HOMICIDES are. I don't want to be rude, but wtf is wrong with you people?

This is exactly why I asked you to stop mishandling the stats you don't understand. That's a WIKIPEDIA entry, as such it doesn't explain how we calculate "violent crime" in the US. In the US we compile stats on RAPE, ROBBERY, ASSAULT, and MURDER. I don't know how they do it Canada, for all either of us know, Canadians consider burglary to be violent crime, too. SEE NOTE

But even if they used the same incidents, we have no idea how they are compiled. The only thing relevent to this discussion in CONTEXT is the HOMICIDE rate, since this thread has been, is, and will continue to be about KILLING STUDENTS. So lifting a piece of evidence that CLEARLY states our homicide rate is almost 200% higher than our closest neighbor worse than ignorant! We teach entire courses on international comparisons of crime rates, you aren't going to pull it off adequately from a WIKI blurb...I'm sorry.

2nd EDIT
NOTE: A few posts down you'll notice that I actually go read the wiki entry after my post is deleted on accident. When I do, I find that mirevolver leaves this second half of the sentence from his quote: "note from the references, however, that the US violent crime rate includes only Aggravated Assault, whereas the Canadian violent crime rate includes all categories of assault, including the much-more-numerous Simple Assault (i.e., assault not using a weapon and not resulting in serious bodily harm)."

What this means is that homicide in the US is almost 200% that of Canada.
Additionally, while mirevolver attempts to fudge the quote to give the impression that Canada's "violent" crime is double ours, what he leaves out is that what this quote really says is that only ONE measure, aggravated assault, is HALF of ALL of Canada's "violent" crime that includes everything from aggravated assault to assault w/o a weapon that doesn't result in bodily harm!

That's a MUCH DIFFERENT picture than mirevolver was trying to paint.
There is no way this data supports his position IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.
Furthermore, this is a universal opinion criminologists. I have never heard, seen, or read anything from anyone anywhere who deals with this data to suggest otherwise...except mirevolver.

[mirevolver]

Smooth, are you saying that problems in the school system are completely unrelated to school violence? I for one see a dropout rate as a clear indication of how well as school system performs. If a school has a high dropout rate, then it is a failure to its students. Would it not be a stretch to say that failing schools with high dropout rates have higher incidences of student on student and student on staff violence?

I don't know what you think, that's why I asked questions about what you said. Furthermore I did not compare to all violent crime in Germany, but to violence in German schools.

Also, I referenced violent crime because that's what you said, if you mean homicides, say homicides.

Originally Posted by smooth

I really don't understand the basis of your argument, mirevolver, but I think you should stop making it. I didn't take the time to suss out what you were trying to justify with your statistical "analysis" but I don't know of a single criminologist, who do such things for a living, who would argue that the US has disproportionate levels of violent crime compared to other western nations. In fact, it's one of the single most glaring issues we face in explaining.

[samcol]

Originally Posted by loquitur

I just don't get the allure of guns. Probably a cultural thing for me.

But there's lots of things I don't get, like country music or cricket. Just because I don't get it doesn't mean the govt should regulate big hair or bats.

I never really did either until went to a gun show for the hell of it and saw an m1 garand. The age and character in it was unbelievable. I was totally in awe of the history behind the rifle and had to have one. The first time I shot it was amazing.

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if the anti-gun crowd who fears guns like the plague (I'm not implying you fit that description loquitur) actually went out and shot one once. Or maybe studied the history behind the United States along with other countries and realized what an important part of history guns are. Guns are a symbol of freedom.

Who knows, maybe some of them would change their mind?

[shakran]

Originally Posted by willravel

Um, okay.

He's right Will. The cops are put through the mace / teargas chamber, they're shot with tazers, and they're often shot with beanbag guns as part of their training. I've done stories on it.

I will say that shooting to the chest with a beanbag gun for training seems incredibly stupid, since hitting it just right can stop the heart.

[archetypal fool]

Originally Posted by mirevolver

Would it not be a stretch to say that failing schools with high dropout rates have higher incidences of student on student and student on staff violence?

In all honesty, I doubt there's a correlation between a school's performance and school-related violence. This guy didn't do this because VT isn't the number one university school in America, and the Columbine kids didn't go ballistic because their school wasn't an A+ school. These are psychopathic, mentally unbalanced people who commit these kinds of crimes. The human brain is an incredibly complex machine which is fundamentally disturbed by "being bumped" or "being picked on". Most people get by with time, etc, but not these people. I believe these kinds of people are ticking time bombs, and they would be just as likely to do these kinds of things at the meanest "ghetto" school as they would at Harvard Law.

[pig]

I would just to point out an additional fact, which has been talked around to some extent (in my opinion) concerning the notion that students packing heat could have averted such a thing. In light of the improbability that an armed student would have actually gotten to this kid in time to do anything, the other aspect is the deterrence affect. The notion that knowledge, on the part of the shooter, that other students might have been packing would have made him rethink. I think that in light of his suicide, that is highly unlikely. It may have exacerbated the situation.

Not that it should be relevant, but I'm not an anti-gun nut. I own guns. I've shot guns. I was raised around guns. I still think the idea of a student population walking around on campus carrying handguns, shotguns, whatever...is absolutely nuts.

What's the law on having a handgun locked in your glove compartment? Anyone?

[Kurant]

Pigglet hit the nail.

I'm one of the most pro-gun advocates on the planet. I live in Alaska. Where out on the Russian River a person carrying a loaded weapon, from pistols to shotguns for bear protection is more common then a 4 year old kid picking his nose. I'm one of those people, I also hunt, I also have educated my 13 year old son about guns, properly. He has a Hunter Education card, etc.. etc.. I went the right way about it.

However, there is a BIG difference between being pro-gun and the insanely ridiculous idea of allowing every kid who's "responsible" to walk around carrying a loaded weapon on a college campus. It's absurd, and it's more of a radical type of idea then a political stance. I use guns for a purpose, for a reason, for protection from a real threat, and for feeding my family.

I'm pro-gun. Your borderline insane and advocating putting LOTS of guns into the hands of people, for ALL the wrong reasons.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Rekna

The weapons i'm listing are weapons which are not designed for protection but instead for damage. They are made to maximize damage. I mean how can you accurately hit a single person with an RPG or a submachine gun?

I was a US Marine for 6 years. I've got some experience with them and am quite comfortable in my ability to aim and hit the target

[archetypal fool]

Originally Posted by pigglet

I would just to point out an additional fact, which has been talked around to some extent (in my opinion) concerning the notion that students packing heat could have averted such a thing. In light of the improbability that an armed student would have actually gotten to this kid in time to do anything, the other aspect is the deterrence affect. The notion that knowledge, on the part of the shooter, that other students might have been packing would have made him rethink. I think that in light of his suicide, that is highly unlikely. It may have exacerbated the situation.

Not that it should be relevant, but I'm not an anti-gun nut. I own guns. I've shot guns. I was raised around guns. I still think the idea of a student population walking around on campus carrying handguns, shotguns, whatever...is absolutely nuts.

What's the law on having a handgun locked in your glove compartment? Anyone?

I think for the common petty criminal, this knowledge of the possibility of guns being pointed at him would be a deterrent. However, with the recent evidence which has been revealed, it turns out that this asshole was stalking a specific girl for some time. In fact, she was one of the first ones he killed. He was just another pathetic sociopath. Though I'll admit that I'm still speculating, I believe his priority was to kill this one girl. Everything else he did was in addition to this primary goal, in which case he probably couldn't have cared less about being shot, since he would've shot the first bullets anyways.

As troubling as it is, I don't think there's anyway to stop this kind of behavior that wouldn't cut deeply into privacy and civil liberties. If the Patriot Act is as detrimental to civil liberties as it is, imagine if the government decided to probe into each of our daily lives to see if we were up to anything bad...

I doubt removing guns would've done anything to prevent this from happening. In this case, guns were the easy solution. By all likelihood, if guns weren't available to this guy, then he probably would've crafted a bomb of somekind to accomplish the same goal.

[smooth]

Originally Posted by mirevolver

Smooth, are you saying that problems in the school system are completely unrelated to school violence? I for one see a dropout rate as a clear indication of how well as school system performs. If a school has a high dropout rate, then it is a failure to its students. Would it not be a stretch to say that failing schools with high dropout rates have higher incidences of student on student and student on staff violence?

I don't know what you think, that's why I asked questions about what you said. Furthermore I did not compare to all violent crime in Germany, but to violence in German schools.

Also, I referenced violent crime because that's what you said, if you mean homicides, say homicides.

I had a long post but I didn't hit reply for a long time and the forum logged me out. Rather than type it out, I actually went and read your quote. Imagine my surprise when I noticed what you left out, here is the portion in it's entirety:

Reported property crime in the US is actually lower than in Germany or Canada, yet the American homicide rate in the United States is substantially higher. Interestingly enough, the overall violent crime rate in the United States was roughly half that of Canada, despite its homicide rate being 189.5% higher; note from the references, however, that the US violent crime rate includes only Aggravated Assault, whereas the Canadian violent crime rate includes all categories of assault, including the much-more-numerous Simple Assault (i.e., assault not using a weapon and not resulting in serious bodily harm).

So I'm curious, WHY would you leave out the rest of the sentence...other than it directly undermines your argument. And if that's how you'd like to proceed, I'm not going to participate in discussing things with you.

You not only misuse information due to a lack of knowledge, you're willing to clip relevent information out from your own sources in order to support a point that isn't being made by the source itself!

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by willravel

What do we establish as normal? Behavioral patterns that are not conducive to aggressive violence. You'd think that would be obvious. Don't give guns to people who have clear tendencies and patterns that would suggest dangerous behavior.

which rules out nearly the entire human race, including your military and law enforcement, and while I know that you think the world would be better off without guns, they exist so how do YOU fix that issue?

Originally Posted by willravel

Who said anything about the government? I think it should be the gun companies that do it, and they are simply monitored by local government. They are the ones who keep the door to Pandora's box perpetually open.

I would normally believe that nobody is capable of this kind of deluded thought......

[shakran]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I was a US Marine for 6 years. I've got some experience with them and am quite comfortable in my ability to aim and hit the target

I'm glad you know how to use an RPG. Most people don't. Would you be comfortable if I were running around with one? What about your next door neighbor. Would you want him patrolling his yard with an RPG? Seems kinda insane doesn't it? Letting the guy next door to you have something that could blow up your house if he screws up with it?

Perhaps you would be fine with a populace armed with devastating weapons. Fortunately, saner ideas are likely to prevail.