VA Tech shooting and politics (this is the thread for talk of "gun control", etc)
 

Based on another message board that's been discussing this almost all day... it's only a matter of time before it goes very political... imo of course. I'm starting this out of respect for people who have friends/family/acquaintances at VA Tech and don't know if they are safe - let alone alive.

Currently the people on CNN are bashing whoever they can think to bash to blame someone for this. Personally I'm finding the media involved in this worse than the officers...

Here's something to start it ...

from godhatesamerica.com

From wikipedia

OK, I'll admit - I don't get it. What does Westboro Babtist have to do with CNN bashing anyone and everyone? If anything, it seems like the media would just be a conduit for the Westboro agenda and would be fairly blameless as such.

What am I missing here?

They don't have anything to do with each other - except that they are two different reactions to the shooting. I was posting some news related to the shooting that was political in nature - along with some of my thoughts on CNN's coverage. I would have posted something gun control related, along with what I already posted, if I could have found a source let alone known where to look.

Im sorry, but I thought all the questions they asked during this last press conference were poignant questions. They said themselves they only locked down a building that they said they *thought* the shooter wasnt even in anymore.

I was not at all impressed with the police person they used, why even have him there if he's not going to answer any questions?

Fred Phelps and his church is the last place anyone of sane mind should consider a statement from about anything of any importance.

Dk, I'm sure this thread will turn towards gun control at some point, and you and I will take our usual positions. At this particular point, however, we are in complete and total agreement. That is notable.

i am sure that the reverend phelps wonderful sentiments will be a real solace to the other students at va tech, to the families of those who were killed or wounded, and to the wider community. i am sure that all will be grateful for such christian words, such christian expressions of empathy and compassion. who wouldnt be?

cnn is obviously in pure reactive mode, its reporters running around to get any stray bit of bite-worthy response to help them give the illusion that the story is somehow under control. whatever. tv news lives for this kind of stuff, all scurrying about and breathless, idiotic reportage.

why anyone watches cnn--or any television "news" outlet in the states--and confuses it with information is beyond me.

I just saw on the news that guns are not allowed on campus. The victims were sitting ducks.

wait: are you actually suggesting that university students should turn up for class strapped?

that's a batshit idea.
any argument that you could possibly make for it simply treats the arbitrary (today's massacre) as necessary and proceeds from there to stand rational thinking on its head. i dont see any point in debating such a ridiculous position. it is not worth taking seriously.

and the doors to the building were chained shut.....from the inside. no police help coming for awhile.

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?

why is that a 'batshit' idea roach? over 30 kids are dead, even though there was a law that was supposed to prevent someone from carrying a gun on campus!!!!!! I'm told that this 'shooter' killed himself at the first sign of someone with a gun, who happened to be a cop, now how many lives might not have been lost had this coward been confronted by another student with a gun?

why is it a batshit idea to defend yourself with a gun? even on campus? It certainly is NOT a ridiculous position after todays events.

There are nearly 300 million people in this country and less than 5% of them commit crimes with guns.....how the hell is that a 'gun culture'?

I'm trying to picture those 10 amish girls defending themselves with a gun last october.

Dk..perhaps you can respond to my question as well. WHy do you blame gun control and not the culture of guns?

as I stated above, the so called 'gun culture' only exists in the mind of those that hype up the episodes of gun violence. Gun control is to blame because NONE of those kids were allowed, by law, to arm themselves for defense, which in this case was obviously warranted.

So you think its warranted for every high school and college student to carry a gun to class?

Is that really the learning environment you want?

I can see the logic of older school kids carrying guns to class in today's Iraq or even Israel...But how do you explain that these repeated episodes of school shootings happen in the US and not other western countries with stricter gun control laws?

Is it the one I want? no, but if one looks at the reality of the world today, at a minimum then the teachers in schools should be armed and the college kids, who are adults by the way, should be armed. Everybody freaks and says 'but they could flip out and go batshit and start shooting people.....well WTF happened today? Someone went out and started shooting people.....in a GUN FREE ZONE. Great law there folks.

i generally do not quote myself, but in this case, dk, since you immediately did what i said you (or anyone else who tried to defend such a lunatic position) would do, i break my little rule and do so.

nobody can explain this, without any degree of factuality anyway. stricter gun laws in other nations has done zero for a crime rate, but in this country, supposedly strict gun laws has only increased school shootings.

you can't defend your OWN lunatic position roach. The only thing you can do is call anything that would hint at a logical solution 'a lunatic position'. Did a law keeping guns off campus stop this crime? not even close. Now how can a law that denies a person to carry a gun for self defense be considered anything but lunatic, considering todays incident? Tell us how a student carrying a gun for self defense would have made this tragedy any damn worse?

dk....We're not going to change any opinions here. I can only be thankful that you represent the minority on this issue.

and yet, there are over 30 dead because a majority opinion failed to prevent it.

What is right is not always popular, what is popular is not always right.

You can rationalize your "armed" nation any way you want..and I'll stick to my responsible, as well as popular and right postion. :)

I'm sure we'll see more polls.....these are several years old, and not that they are likely to have any impact on you. I am linking just so you see how much of a minority position you represent:

http://pollingreport.com/guns.htm

so, in your mind, it's right that over 30 people died because they shouldn't be carrying guns on campus. thanks. somehow I don't see that as right, though im sure its popular.

yeah, i'm certainly persuaded by polls. :shakehead:

Its not right when one innocent person dies by gun violence, particulary the thousands of kids who die each year as a result of suicide or accident because of the easy access to guns in their house.

I've had my say...I'm done.

not to belittle the loss of life, but if a kid commits suicide, even with a gun, he/she certainly is not an innocent victim. So the question you should be asking yourself is 'should people be allowed to defend themselves at the cost of others being victims of gun crimes'? If you answer no, then what is your plan to guarantee keeping people free of being a gun crime victim?

or loosely translated, 'this is how I feel about it, can't support it with facts and logic, so i'll just say my piece and skedaddle'.

If describing it that way makes you feel better...thats cool.....just dont shoot me!

why would I shoot you? or do you think i'd shoot you simply because I carry a gun?

lighten up :)

its a lot easier to shoot someone if you're carrying a gun than without

oh great another gun control thread that will get no where. One side will claim if everyone had guns this wouldn't have happened and the other side will claim that if the shooter didn't have the gun this wouldn't have happened.

True. It's a real pity the only one with a gun today at VT was the homocidal maniac, huh?

Not everybody should have guns. But when responsible people are prevented from having guns then there is no recourse to an event such as this other than waiting and hoping he doesn't get you before the cops come.

No, it means that there is no point in using facts and logic to argue with you, because it will go absolutely nowhere. Why the hell would anyone want to argue with someone who isn't open to even the remotest possibility that he/she might be wrong? Where is the discussion in that?

Dead horse, anyone?

To imply that this is something that only happens in the United States is disregarding the truth:
Osaka school massacre - Ikeda, Japan; 2001 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
Erfurt massacre - Erfurt, Germany; 2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erfurt_massacre
Dawson College shooting - Montreal, Quebec, Canada; 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson_College_shooting

Where I went to high school, we had a Police school resource officer, he was a visible presence and he walked the hallways with a nightstick and gun in his belt. This was not an innercity school either, it was in a city of a population of 125,000. For a high school, his presence was enough, and we were located 60 miles from Colombine.

What happened today was at a university. The people who attend are by law, adults. I beleive that if people were allowed to carry guns instead of having a "gun free zone," somebody else might have had a gun and put a bullet in this shooter's head before the death toll hit 32.

it's also a lot easier to be shot without a gun than when you can shoot back.

please show me what facts or logic would show that this could be prevented.

ultimately, there is no way to stop such things; in the end its just a fucking horrible thing that happened. in dk's world, a legally carrying person would inevitably get drunk, or pissed off, and would shoot the fuck out of some people before someone reacted. or would incite a shoot out on campus, with no one knowing who they were really shooting, but goddamn it someone is shooting at them and they're shooting back. and i'm sure there would be legal penalties for doing so, and if this kid had been caught there would have been legal penalties for him. i really can't see how a college campus could ever be a relaxed open place for learning when a significant portion of the kids are packing heat. and the fucking hormones and the alpha social competition and the peer pressure and the alcohol and the drugs? i just think that's a really really really bad idea.

and dk i don't think that sentence means what you think it was supposed to mean

Explain Iceland... the country where even the police don't carry guns. As a result, gun violence is not a problem here, period. The only people who own guns are goose-hunters, and there are very few of those.

Want to come and try to arm everyone here? It won't work. It's about the culture.

Maybe, maybe not. It's impossible to tell. Most college students living and studying in a small town are more worried about grades, relationships and the continuation of the good time than the threat of firearm violence to their immediate safety. Those going to school in larger cities may place a higher value on it, but only because the chances are higher of an incident.

That said, no one anywhere ever predicted this kind of thing. One of my coworkers who lives in the suburbs is licensed to carry a gun (long story). He and I talked about this today, and he pointed out that security in our building is a joke. They're there to deter theives, not mass murderers. He's not about to start carrying his gun to work because "something may happen". If there's a reasonable threat he will, but he thinks that it's too much of a pain to carry it, despite his right to do so.

And that, I think, is the much more likely outcome if guns had been allowed on campus.

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.

on the Texas Tech Campus guns are not allowed because its a public university, therefore government property and your not allowed to bring guns on it. just like courthouses or capitals.

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.

And when I was in a university in a major metropolitan area, I never went to class thinking someone would walk in and unload a clip into the classroom. In this country, that's not a realistic expectation for what will happen in a day's events. What I'm saying is if people were allowed to have guns on them, someone just "might" have one, and that could have made a huge difference in the number of dead.

I sincerely hope that there is no joy being taken in that prediction on the other board.

And again, I doubt that there would have been any students returning fire. It's not their major concern. There might have been professors, but then again there might not. Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

dk: i you were referring to me above with the say your piece and skedaddle, you're wrong: against my better judgement i have been reading this sorry thread off and on this afternoon as it has unfolded. i just dont have anything to say to you: i think your position concerning university students carrying guns around with them because somewhere, sometime, something like this might happen is crazy.
there is no possible debate about this so far as i am concerned.

you might note that many of the folk who have posted whose positions might incline them to oppose you have not indulged the knee-jerk reaction game. it seems that many are waiting until they know more. you are not. it is almost as if you need no information to run out arguments. that does not help the impression that you are backing yourself into a corner.

Those poor kids....horrible.

No joy at all, in fact there is a lot of anger about it. It was predicted based on two things...a statement from this guy
and the house bill being killed in subcomittee, we knew it was just a matter of time.


for about 95% of them, I agree. It's not a scenario that they envision. That shouldn't mean that it should not be prepared for, like some I know. woulda, coulda, shoulda indeed. we are on the same page with that one.

it's a sad event, however gun control does not stop things like this, gun control only stops legit people from owning guns.

Where did it say he got his guns from? Just curious.

[QUOTE=roachboy]dk: i you were referring to me above with the say your piece and skedaddle, you're wrong:[/ QUOTE]It wasn't directed at you.

because somewhere, sometime, something like this might happen......and what happened?
and NOW it's directed at you.

and yet, i don't feel backed in to a corner because 32 innocent students and one suicidal coward are dead....what do the 32 have in common? They were the ones without the gun.

You can' carry a gun on campus, so you're assertion is incorrect.

Body armor, on the other hand, is totally allowed and could have saved their lives.

Last I heard they were trying to figure that out in order to identify him.

As far as gun control, this seems like a law enforcement issue rather than a gun control issue. Letting students go to class packing heat? Absurd. We have law enforcement that is trained to deal with these things (ideally....). We should be pondering why, during a two hour period between shootings, the law enforcement didn't get a hold of this guy. Not whether gun control is adequate.

Yeah, I've been to dozens of site and none of them has information on the source of the weapons. The logical conclusion from that lack of information would be that saying gun control wouldn't have prevented this is premature to say the least. These could have been purchased legally for all we know.

Oh, and is 'Borgs' the plural for Borg? Cause that's clever. :thumbsup:

Virginia Tech does not allow students, faculty, or parents to carry on campus UNLESS it is required by their job description, i.e. law enforcement.

Body Armor doesn't do crap when you're lined up against the wall and get a bullet put in your head, like most of these kids were.

I think we need to make sure this was done by the same man dont we? They are saying the descriptions of the person at each shooting dont match.....

you didn't learn anything from columbine, did you? Law enforcement can not be expected to be there as each crime occurs, especially in situations such as this, where an unknown number of gunmen was a factor, as well as the doors were CHAINED shut, preventing law enforcement from reacting any quicker than it would take to find a way around the chains.

And as far as we know a vast majority of the victims fall into the students, faculty, or parents category.
Unless all of the kids were shot in the head, my statement is still 100% correct.

Also, guns don't do crap if you're being shot in the head.

It seems you may not have learned that condescending isn't an effective way too communicate.

thank you for helping me make my point.

do you think that the parents of kids that WERE shot in the head give a damn about that?

A gun in the back of the head does an awful lot of crap, but a gun can also be used before that other gun makes it to the back of your head.

Your point is that guns wouldn't have helped them? I wasn't aware that you'd joined my side of the gun debate. Welcome. :thumbsup:
They're dead, so they don't give a damn about anything anymore.
Or one could simply stay home from school. More guns would have meant more flying bullets. More flying bullets could have very easily meant more fatalities. There's absolutely no guarantee that if some vigilante had a gun he or she could have stopped the gunman. The fact of the matter is that they weren't allowed to have guns to avoid just such an occasion. Had security done it's job, this might have been a much different story.

Not hardly, but you know this. Those three categories were those that were DENIED the ability to have a gun, not that it wouldn't help them.

So we don't give a crap about dead people anymore, got it.

yeah, I can just imagine that if one student had a gun and fired back, the death toll would be at 50 or 60 instead of just 32. :orly:
why would the cops carry a gun then if flying bullets just mean more dead people?

Alas, I am not a clever man. It's a shorthand version of my last name. In any case, I still accept the thumbsup. :thumbsup:

I've heard varying reports. This is just one of those things where a million different stories are coming in during the first day, and it takes a few days to sort it all out. You could be right, I have no idea.

Perhaps it is the law enforcement that has learned nothing, rather than me. Why were students still going to class two hours after a shooting on campus, especially considering they hadn't got the shooter in custody yet? This baffles me. I understand that there is a period of time in which they need to react, but give me a break. At least from accounts that I've read so far, this seems like a serious lapse in the response from law enforcement.

On this very point, I do not disagree with you in the slightest. This was an egregious lapse of judgement on the campus authorities as well as Virginia Law Enforcement which HELPED cause the deaths of 32 young kids.

i think its WAY too early to start blaming law enforcement with this. no one deserves the blame other than the person or persons who committed the murders. i can think of numerous reasons why they might not have shut the campus down. no one could have substantially predicted a mass slaughter on the basis of a more-than-likely domestic violence case. i think that's pure hindsight talking.

According the last press conference (where they said the two peoples descriptions didnt match) they had a person they were questioning that they thought was involved. They thought the situation was under control.

Its very possible these were two seperate incidences and the 2nd gunman took advantage of the police's preoccuption of the first shooting.

Anyone can armchair quarterback....

Today's event was horrific, and I will say a prayer for the victims/families.

However, while I honestly believe that the likelyhood of another gun saving all those students was rather low, I also feel that "a" chance is better than "no" chance.

There are thousands of stories where the right person (not necessarily a cop) having a weapon has saved lives, yet these stories don't seem to be highlighted on the news. I know people whose lives/property were saved by the fact that they had a gun, and I myself have come *very* close to needing one. Close enough for me to realize that I'd rather have one nearby. Not everywhere I go mind you, but nearby when possible/practical.

This has been an interesting thread....

So you think having a policy that allows everyone to carry on campus would have helped to prevent a school shooting?
You're trying to speak on their behalf. They no longer have voices outside their friends and family. I don't pretend to know their politics.
Can you say that it's impossible that more people having guns will mean more guns fired and thus a higher probability of renegade bullets? Have you ever taken fire from several semi or automatic weapons? I haven't but I can imagine it may be more intense than a firing range.
They often do, unfortunately. Google 'accidental police shootings '.

And I still bestow it! :thumbsup:

Personally, I would think that the more guns in the hands of people the more chance someone would get shot, rather than less. Arguably, someone might have stopped this guy halfway through his rampage - equally arguably, 3 other people might have flipped their lids prior to now and reacted with the weapon at hand and killed even more in some fit of violence or while fired up by something else.

I confess, I will never understand the extremist/fundamentalist viewpoint some people in the US have about "the right to bear arms". I find it a frightening thing. Perhaps that's the reaction some people crave.

I've said this before, I'll say it again. There is NO LAW that will ever prevent a massacre like this.....NONE....BUT, if those that WANTED to were allowed to carry, this massacre COULD have ended with alot less deaths.

so they are inconsequential to the issue at hand now that they are dead because of said politics. I heard you the first time.

No, and neither can you say say the opposite, since the ONLY thing that stopped this was the gunman taking his own life.

uh, 6 years, US MARINE!!!!! not fun at all, but I was damn glad to have had a weapon myself, thank you very much.

yeah, i know. I pointed this out to you in the san francisco ban thread. I also pointed out how cops shoot innocent bystanders 9% more than civilians using a gun as self defense.

HT, it's all about in how much you value your life. If you desire to place the responsibility of protecting your life in the hands of a paid government official, by all means....do so. Understand though, that that government official (or his department) suffer no legal consequences for failure to do such.
On the other hand, if you value your life enough that you trust nobody with it but yourself....well, there you go. You become the ultimate responsibility for yourself and your life.

...in theory. That's the real standstill when we come to blows about this time and again. You say, "Guns could have protected them." I say, "Guns could have killed them." I suppose we're both right. It's possible that more guns in this situation could have helped, or it's possible it could have made the situation even worse. We can't really know. On one thing we can agree: I doubt any law could have conclusively and completely prevented this.
They're the subject, so they're obviously consequential. The point, as above, is that the hypothetical scenarios are moot. If someone who knew them and came on talking about how they were pro or anti gun, then their words would have clout. We're just supposing.
Precisely. I can believe that my philosophy on guns is correct, and you can believe that yours is.
Exactly....I'm sure you can attest very clearly as to how different a gun range, the typical gun owner's experience, is with a situation where one is under fire.
Could that be because they're more armed than the populace? I wonder.

I understand what you are saying - I carried on the job for several years. I totally trust myself. But I don't trust the general population with a weapon.

Good people should have the right to reasonably defend themselves when government and policing agencies can not provide adequate personal protection.

To the families of the victims, students, faculty and staff at Virginia Tech - I know words can not provide comfort, but keep your heads up.

Does the same apply to bad people or people who may simply be irresponsible or have poor judgement skills?

I haven't read over this thread beforehand, so I apologize if this was discussed already. Was the killer a registered gun user? Furthermore, just how many killers are registered gun users?

There should always be negative consequences for negligent irresponsible behavior. There should also be negative consequences for illegal behavior. If a person proves to have poor judgement they should not be in a position requiring high levels of responsibility.

Looks like I did not answer the question - my answer is yes. Example - Even if a "bad" person is in prison, they should have the right to defend themselves against "badder" persons if prison authorities can not.

From the reports i've heard the guns he had seem to be illegal guns (they had the serial numbers removed) however the gunman also used special clips that hold much more ammo then the regular clips. These clips were outlawed with the assault weapons ban which the GOP congress and Bush let expire. Making this case likely to be cited by both sides of the gun control issue.

ace....as I understand the gun laws in Virginia, there is no registration or permit required (except for concealed), there is no NICS check to determine the possibility of the person having a criminal background, and there is no waiting period. (dk can correct me if I am wrong about VA laws)

How do you determine potential negative consequences until its too late?

Our gun laws should be federal, the same in each state and local.

Similar to our driving laws. Before an individual can drive on our roads they have to have training and prove they know the rules and can handle a vehicle on the road.

Again, I did not answer the question ( I guess it is time for bed). The key word in the prmise for my argument is "reasonable", and I therefore think reasonable people should determine the consequences.

Unfortunatlely you can not totally prevent negligent gun behavior. You could n ot do it even if guns where made illegal. If a person is in a situation where it would not be reasonable for them to defend themselves with a gun, they sould not do it. On the otherhand if it is reasonable they should have that right.

If government is providing reasonable personal security a gun would not be necessary in my view, and that specific argument for guns goes away.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

The lunatic had a gun where it was PROHIBITED to have a gun and killed 33 people. The man broke several laws in the process of this heinous crime so what makes everyone think that having more laws is going to stop this kind of tragedy? It's not. Every single time a crime is committed with a gun someone probably broke at least a half a dozen laws to commit that crime, what is one more law gonna do to prevent it? The short answer.... absolutely nothing. Someone will just break that law to commit another crime and we will get all up in arms with our panties in a bunch and pass another law for someone else to break. It's a viciously endless cycle. Soon no one will have any rights left and people will still be dying needless deaths. End of story.

Rights "given" in the US Constitution can be taken. The only thing protecting our rights is our willingness to fight (not necessarily in a violent manner) to defend them.

My personal view is that we should have a right to bear arms, but then my neighbor has a right to reasonable safety from people who may want weapons that go beyond personal protection. My neighbor should not have the right to have nuclear bombs.

ace...you and I are pretty close on this one, if I understand you correctly.

The right to bear arms is not unrestricted. We agree on "reasonable" ownership requirements...like licensing and training (ie your driver license example) and I would add background checks and child safety locks.

I think it is sad that the victims are hardly 12 hours dead and we are trying to use their deaths to gain political points. Have some respect.

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.

How do you stop any type of crime from happening?

It's impossible in my opinion.

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?

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.

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.

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:
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.

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.

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.

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.

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,
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.
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.
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.

Thank 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.

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......

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).

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.)

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.

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:

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

http://www.prestoshare.com/images/32...e%20Berets.JPG


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


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

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

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?

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.