Virginia Tech Tragedy

[ddmoit]

Here's a link to a discussion about the tragedy at Virginia Tech today...

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/2007/apr/16/virginia_tech_killings

[Sponsored Links]

[Scooter]

Dan--like 30 some kids died today--give the liberalist propaganda a rest, will ya? This is not the time or place to politicize this tradgedy with your personal political views as an explanation for every event.

[Rd Tile]

The reason for this was because of one sick individual, had nothing to do with anything else.

Sad day indeed, feel for all the families that lost love ones.

[Steven Hauser]

Horrifying. :sick:

[Bri]

Very, very sad news. :( What the heck was he using that had that many rounds in it?

[Rd Tile]

9mm.

[Splinter]

The coward shot himself... I wish one of the police officers had the pleasure instead... :shake:

[flatfloor]

As usual the media (liberals and conservatives alike) are looking to blame somebody so they have a headline. Seemed like 50% of the question were of a confrontational nature.

i apologize for interjecting that statement into this thread but they have pissing me off all day. They couldn't care less about those poor students and their families. :(

[MudMaker]

Terrible Terrible Terrible thing that happened today...
This is not the time or place to politicize this tradgedy with your personal political views
but you can bet the Gun Control Idiots will be out there in droves... This is their feeding ground...
I've walked across that Drill Field hundreds of times, Marched in formation there more times than I can remember - never thought I'd ever see the words V.P.I. and massacre in the same sentence...
32 senseless murders.... and one soul that will burn in Hell for an Eternity..

[ddmoit]

Dan--like 30 some kids died today--give the liberalist propaganda a rest, will ya? This is not the time or place to politicize this tradgedy with your personal political views as an explanation for every event.

Scooter, your righteous indignation is duly noted. But nothing I say or don't say will bring those kids back.

We will always live in a society where there are a few nuts who are willing to indiscriminately kill us. But we don't have to live in a society that all but guarantees that the nut is the only one armed.

I happen to believe that the advancement of my point of view can minimize the odds of such a tragic event as today from occurring in the future. I choose to talk about it. You don't have to listen.

There was a time when the odds of one person doing this kind of damage on his own were very slim. We can live like that again.

Liberalist? :shrug:

[Lazarus]

The revocation of a legal Right-To-Carry law, as was enacted here, prevented anyone properly trained and licensed to stop the carnage. ANY PLACE that prohibits a licensed owner from his right to carry is just asking for trouble. The bottom line is that any retarded miscreant can obtain a deadly weapon......ANYONE. The "checks & balances" are that a law-abiding citizen has the inherent right to self-protection, not just for themself....but for others around them. Had just ONE off-duty Officer, citizen or student been armed, maybe.....just meybe, the death toll would have been far lower....

I know that, had I been there, I would have not observed the "ban." I would have been armed. Could I have done something? There is no way to tell....but I know this; had I heard the gunfire, I would have reacted. I would have done anything I could to take out this individual. Perhaps I would have been dragged into Court by his family...perhaps I would have been shot by mistake by the police, but this I know; I wouldn't have sat by and done nothing.

[Northern Dimension Tile]

A very sad sad day my prayers go out to the families and loved ones

[muley]

No question we live in a dangerous society, and that is why I always carry in all my vehicles. I would feel totally naked driving around w/o my Glock, even while hiking in the mountains I carry a side arm. As disturbing as it is, I carry my Glock more for humans than predators. In the age of meth, it is humans I worry about running into more than critters. Many don't understand what carrying a firearm does. Even hot heads such as myself are inclined to avoid confrontation because of being armed. Nobody wants to get into a fight when they are carrying a weapon, it makes you calm. Having said all that, I think America is to far gone. Human life means little to so many. Technology has segregated society and the days of old are long past and never comming back. I dread the next two weeks in the media, and the stupid meaninless discussions and banter that are sure to follow. Of course the liberals will be touting some stupid form of gun control and the circus will be in full swing, here we go again. :yawn:

[Shooter]

Very sad indeed. Too bad there wasn't an armed individual that could have intervened much sooner.

[Alto]

Amen, Shooter. If the University hadn't had a no-carry policy maybe he would have been stopped sooner. I don't know when (or if) the anti-gun crowd will fully realize that criminals do not obey laws.

[flatfloor]

If the University hadn't had a no-carry policy maybe he would have been stopped sooner


I am not anti-gun but somehow a college campus filled with armed immature testosterone loaded students scares me.

[ddmoit]

They are allowed in Utah. And they used to be allowed everywhere some 40 years ago. This kind of thing didn't happen then.

http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/article.cfm?section=News&articleID=752&month=09&day=15&year=2006

[Scooter]

I'm sorry here.

This is a whacko that was of age when he purchased a gun identical to Muley's; and was crazy. No laws were broken.

There is not a political solution to this problem, nor should there be a political hand wringing or finger pointing. When I was in the Service, we used to call guys like you guys conducting a 'blamestorm", opposite of a brainstorm.

Always second guessing and Monday morning quarterbacking every event to the point I wanted to scream.

32 kids died yesterday. Give it a rest. This is not the time for political speeches.

[ddmoit]

Scooter,

I don't think anybody here disputes the fact that this guy was a nut case, and that he is primarily responsible for the deaths of 32 innocent people and the injury to many more.

We will likely never live in a society where we can completely eliminate our vulnerability to to such monstrous people. But some of us take issue when the existing laws serve to increase our vulnerability.

You can portray this discussion as disrespectful if you want, but I don't think I'm alone in thinking that now is the time to talk about it. There certainly is no shortage of anti-gun folks running their mouths in the media right now.

[jgleason]

but I don't think I'm alone in thinking that now is the time to talk about it. There certainly is no shortage of anti-gun folks running their mouths in the media right now.

:tup2:

I try to stay out of these debates as they so often end up with the polar opposite viewpoints yelling at each other. It is difficult to persuade anyone to change their mind, particularly on hot button issues such as this.

For me, full blame goes to the nut job that did the killing. I do know that there are places I would not go to unless I was armed.

I absolutely agree that no matter what kind of restrictions you put on gun ownership, an individual that wants a gun will find a way to get a gun.

Well, back to work. No danger where I'm at today, except maybe from drowning. The rain just won't quit. :(

[MHI]

Want to rid the world of guns? You will have to find a way to erase everybodys memory of the gun ever being invented, and hope that nobody ever thinks of the idea ever again.

If you stop gun manufacturers from making guns, someone can make one themself. It is one of the oldest ideas in the world, and Beretta is the oldest company having been in buisiness for over 500 years making guns.

I think the government should outlaw nutjobs.

Arming students? Lets start at having some sort of security first, then maybe teachers. There are a lot of non lethal weapons that could be used in schools as well, all of them outlawed in NYC of course.

I think Scooter is saying that we should all just lay down and die.

Shooting fish in a barrel, the outlaws have it easy. Think about that next time you are in a convienence store that is being robbed at gun point.

Remember Bernard Getts? He wasn't a victim, instead he was looked at as a hero thanks to his .357.:)

[Scooter]

You know, I had the same reaction about 9-11.

As much as I like Michael Moore, and found his movie funny, entertaining, and informative, I felt it was inappropriate to conduct a blamestorm after 9-11 and to politicize the event, with one party claiming that they saved the free world after the attacks, and the other party claiming that the villiage idiot reading "My Pet Goat" was fiddling while Rome burned.

That kind of Monday Morning Quarterbacking is very inappropriate in dealing with a National Tragedy the likes of 9-11, or in a microcosim, the Virginia Tech and Colorado Shootings.

I don't think we should be trying to sell each other doctrines like Libertarism, Pro-Guns, Anti-Guns, or any other dogmas in the wake of this tragedy. This event was born in the isolated whacko mind of a derranged kid who legally bought a gun. I don't think there is a legal or political solution to this event.

If you want to do anything, pray for kids and their parents.

[Rd Tile]

After watching the news all day on this idiot, alot of blame to go around, this kid had no business being in that school or any other one, no one seemed to listen or care about issues he's had, even after being warned to the brass from his teachers and classmates, talk about slipping through the cracks. :mad:

[Scooter]

If we locked up every deranged and confused kid, the santariums would be full.

There is no objective standard for institutionalizing kids like that.

But your post makes me wonder what Quinton Tarrentino's thoughts were as a kid......

You be very afraid if you met me at age 19 in 1968. I was whacko.

Sometimes bad things happen, without rhyme or reason and there is not a legal or political answer to the event. You just need to accept that and move on.

[Rd Tile]

OK, you have a point, well how bout we blame someone on the fact that he killed 2 people, then calmly walked back to his room, got a package, went to the post office and mailed it, came back and opened fire, I have issues on that one.

[flatfloor]

The guy was deemed a danger to himself and others by a psychiatrist and a judge. The schools he attended, not sure which, decided not to do anything due to a self imposed right to privacy issue. They had every right to report him to the police since he had been adjudged a danger to society.

I'm not trying to blame anyone here but we have to look at these privacy issues, many self imposed but not legally required.

[jjwq8]

For all the grief and the arguments one way and the other, the simple inescapable fact is that incidents such as this occur in the US with far greater frequency than anywhere else on the planet. To suggest that there is no correlation between their frequency and the "ease" with which fire-arms are available in the US is stunning obfuscation.

The comment that carrying a weapon actually has a calming effect in the event of conflict is specious ; the logic therefore is that you will refuse to fight until the point is reached that you draw your weapon. At which point it changes from a simple "affray" to assault with a deadly weapon.

It further negates the "fight or flight" response since it inevitably leads to a determination that fight is inevitable.

[Steven Hauser]

Jeremy, :wtf:

What about your quadrant of the world, any whackos having trouble getting munitions?

[jjwq8]

Not happening in Kuwait.
Iraq is a war zone.
Folks "going postal"?
Last I can recall was the incident in Egypt and that was tied to a terror group.
My reference is to individuals rather than groups with a political agenda.

[oogabooga]

I normally stay out of this political stuff too, but Jeremy does have a point, there would be far fewer mass killings in the US if there were tighter gun controls, quite simple really.

Having said that, nothing will be done about it, and we'll have to put up with the media singing the same tired old tune when the next bunch of innocents are slaughtered. Gets to be pretty monotonous after a while.

Rob.

[scott anthony]

I disagree with the last statement. Gun control will not solve mass killings, they will simply find another to do what they intend, they will simply find the easy way to attain there weapons or create weapons of there own. Oklahoma will vouch for that.

[jjwq8]

Scott,
That may or may not be the case.
Oklahoma was the result of an extensively planned elaborate plot that took weeks if not months to complete and execute. It required far more than the simple purchase of a firearm and ammunition.
Gun control will not stop the whackos but it will make their wickedness far more difficult to inflict upon their intended victims.
Given the level of paranoia in the US now, the likelihood of a person or persons being able to hatch and execute a plot equivilent to Oklahoma without raising suspicion would be astronomic, but not impossible.
Virginia Tech simply proves the case. The shooter was identified as a threat but was able to do it anyway because he was able to easily gain access to the weaponry necessary to achieve his ends.

[ddmoit]

I'm afraid that no amount of gun control will stop every - or even most - nuts from acquiring a weapon. It does, however, guarantee that the nuts will have defenseless victims.

In this most recent case, I've already heard it said that if only his full mental history were available, he could not have obtained those weapons.

No, he just wouldn't have been able to obtain them legally. There's a huge difference.

Another piece of faulty logic is the suggestion that since he did not break any laws to acquire the guns, the laws therefore need to be changed.

I could use the same logic to argue that since none of victims had guns, the laws need to be changed.

Gun control fails to achieve its stated goal (ask the Brits, or residents of our nation's capitol), and at the same time, produces the unintended consequence of defenseless victims.

[John K]

Dan,

I agree. Gun control is not the answer. There are wackos walking the streets all over, and this type of behavior will continue. Its not like its anything new.

There are a zillion different arguments on the subject. Had a teacher been carrying. This cat could have been stopped sooner. I don't believe I would arm all the students, but someone of some authority should have a weapon.

What about the TWO HOURS that went by after the first shootings until the final shootings? What the hell happened there? " Hey lets keep classes going. Its only a double homicide".

Liberalism and the feel good crowd are to blame. If this group wasn't so worried about protecting this yahoos' rights, his ass would have been deported along time ago.

[MHI]

"there would be far fewer mass killings in the US if there were tighter gun controls, quite simple really."

I wonder why the killer didn't go on a shooting rampage at the local police station, or a military base. He didn't do it at the local gun club either. He targeted people he knew would be unarmed, even locked one of the doors to keep police from getting in.

Gun control will only help increase the death toll with the inevitable mass murders by making sure the victims can't defend themselves, legally.

Not everyone would want to carry a gun, and the ones who do wouldn't want to all the time. Its the fact that there may be someone armed at any given time that would be a deterant, and a way to stop a killer who is determined.:)

[Alto]

"I am not anti-gun but somehow a college campus filled with armed immature testosterone loaded students scares me."

Scares me too. Just a little less though, than the thought of all those kids being unable to save their own lives and the lives of their classmates. I don't guess there's a really good answer.

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/multiple_victim_shootings_study.htm

[Stu]

The only thing Gun Control will do is control the honest people it will never hurt the criminals.... The cops down in West Palm Beach Florida just south of me raided a house and found a dvd of some gangs showing there guns and they where just kids waving around 9mm, 45s, Ak-47s they where 8yrs old and up Gangs and Crooks can buy weapons on the street that we can not buy...... They will always have guns...... Can you imagine if we lost or rights to have guns, we would not be able to protect our selves. I would die before I ever give my guns and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

[oogabooga]

The common US attitude to firearms is the reason you guys have (for a stable country that is) a mortgage on these mass killings, and why they simply will continue to happen. Like I said earlier, nothing will be done about it, and the attitude displayed here is testament to that.

I'm not anti firearm, I'm a hunter myself, I just don't think it's sensible for every Tom, Dick and Harry to be entitled to bear firearms. It's a right that should be earned.

As for the faulty logic that gun control will stop mass killings, of course it won't, but eventually it would "dramatically" reduce their frequency. I know such a thing would never be seriously contemplated in the US, but it works very well in other western countries.

Rob.

[Bri]

I'm 50 years old, and I can honestly say, that I don't know anyone who owns a gun. Yes, the odd 22 to shoot ground hogs....but nothing that will empty a magazine in 5 seconds. Still, we've had our share of this kind of tragedy here too. :(

[muley]

Rob, you are jumping to ridiculous conclusions, and totally speculative comments the have absolutely zero basis in fact. Some of Americas worst murder rates are in cities with the most strict gun laws, contrastly, some of our great nations most liberal gun laws are in areas with the lowest crime rates, in fact, the numbers are such that it suggest exactly the opposite of what you are saying. Gun control never works. Hell drugs are illegal, yet they can be found on virtually every street corner in America.
Jeremy, please don't speculate on that which is most obvious you know nothing about. BTW, the possession/calm theory is also documented and tested.

[MHI]

Rob,

What you say makes no sense.

Gun control will ADD to mass murders, and anybody with any common sense can see that. After all, what is a mass murder? One individual killing a group of defensless victims. If the victims could defend themselves, the individual would be stopped at one or two murders and not the whole group of sitting ducks.

The type of person who does this kind of thing is a coward. Cowards pick on helpless, defensless people. As I said before, why didn't this guy try to do this at the police station? The answer is simple, he wouldn't get very far before getting shot. How effective would a terriorist be if they only killed one or two people? Terriorists want everyone to live in fear, just like they do themselves as cowards.

I don't care what happened to an individual to cause this behavior. Maybe momma didn't love him? Dosen't matter. If someone wants to kill, someone else should have the means to stop it. Bad things happen to good people all the time. Why should the government, or the democrats to be more specific, determine weather we have a chance to live.:)

[Shooter]

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/index.html

Gun control is an impossibility and a good way to keep the sheep, just that, sheep. With the millions and millions of guns in America, it is an impossibility to control them. Criminals will always obtain, possess and use firearms in whatever manner they see fit. Gun control laws will not prevent this. Gun control laws will however keep law abiding citizens from obtaining weapons in a legal manner.

If someone doesn't care about laws they will possess and use guns in any way they see fit. How many law abiding citizens that go to the trouble to legally purchase, possess and possibly take classes and get licensed to conceal carry a weapon actually go on shooting sprees, kill people randomly, or commit violent crimes involving their weapons? Of course it happens but the statistics are negligible.

This shooting isn't some person who should have legally been able to possess a weapon. In fact a person judged mentally unstable should not have been sold, or been able to possess firearms. His weapons should have been seized upon the court findings of mentally unstable. The laws were in place already, just not enforced properly.

More laws will not prevent criminals or mentally unstable persons from committing crimes with a firearm if they so choose. As mentioned several times in this thread, it will however keep law abiding people from being able to defend themselves from the scum of the world.

Sorry to Monday morning quarterback but it is inevitable, but one well trained citizen with the legal ability to possess and carry a firearm could have possibly averted the worst mass murder in this country.

[jjwq8]

Muley
You and I will likely never agree on much. Our lives are simply too different but please do not presume to know what I do and do not have experience or knowledge of. Dismiss my opinions at your ease but smugness does you a great disservice. Twice in my life I have been at the wrong end of a firearm in possession of a person quite prepared to use it. At no time did I wish I had a gun myself. Had I had a gun I wouldn't have the wit or compunction to use it.
Citing cities with strict laws and high crime rates ignores the obvious; guns are available all over the US, legal or otherwise.
In the UK guns have never been freely available and while sadly firearms crimes are increasing, they are still the rarity not the norm.
Gun control is too late in the US where they have been beyond control since before the revolution, when they were in some degree necessary.

[Scooter]

The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:

* U.S.A. 14.24
* Brazil 12.95
* Mexico 12.69
* Estonia 12.26
* Argentina 8.93
* Northern Ireland 6.63
* Finland 6.46
* Switzerland 5.31
* France 5.15
* Canada 4.31
* Norway 3.82
* Austria 3.70
* Portugal 3.20
* Israel 2.91
* Belgium 2.90
* Australia 2.65
* Slovenia 2.60
* Italy 2.44
* New Zealand 2.38
* Denmark 2.09
* Sweden 1.92
* Kuwait 1.84
* Greece 1.29
* Germany 1.24
* Hungary 1.11
* Ireland 0.97
* Spain 0.78
* Netherlands 0.70
* Scotland 0.54
* England and Wales 0.41
* Taiwan 0.37
* Singapore 0.21
* Mauritius 0.19
* Hong Kong 0.14
* South Korea 0.12
* Japan 0.05

Japan had the lowest rate, at 0.05 gun deaths per 100,000 (1 per 2 million people). The police in Japan actively raid homes of those suspected of having weapons.

Source:

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166

[ddmoit]

Scooter,

Assuming those figures are accurate, they still don't tell us much about the causal relationship between gun violence and gun control laws. There are too many variables.

For example, I would posit that gun violence is higher in locations where government has created black markets by outlawing certain economic activity - drugs for instance. Rather than ceasing to exist, these markets flourish, but now have no legal recourse for the settlement of disputes. Business rivals in these black markets tend to settle their differences with guns.

While innocents do get caught in the crossfire, most victims in the black markets knew the risks they were assuming by participating. The majority of citizens who do not participate in black market activities are not really exposed to the violence rates in the charts you provided. In other words, so long as I don't participate in black market activities, I don't really believe that I am 4 times as likely to be shot in the United States as I would be in Canada.

I'm not claiming the black markets account for all the differences here. I'm just citing one of many possible variables aside from gun control.

EDIT: Scooter, I don't mean to insinuate that you are suggesting a causal relationship. I assume you were just providing information to the discussion.:)

[Stu]

* Gun-free England not such a utopia after all. According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.18 And according to a United Nations study, British citizens are more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States. The 2000 report shows that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.19


2. Self-defense
A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict

* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day20. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.21

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.22

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.23

* Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission . . . without paying a fee . . . or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union—having three times received the "Safest State Award."31

* Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rate in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.32 FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period—thus putting the Florida rate below the national average.33


Source : http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

Alot more to read

[Shooter]

Scooter,

What is your point? That the police should start rounding up all of the guns in America?

[Scooter]

I just posted the numbers without comment or opinion.

It is interesting that you Dan, and I suspect everyone who saw those numbers, would surmise, suspect, or conclude that there is a relationship between gun control countries and gun deaths.

[muley]

Cmon Scooter, the USA is an immigrant country, many relegious, politcal, and cultural attributes throw into one pot, your gonna have problems, relating that to gun control is stupid. Personally, I don't give two rats arses about what other countries are doing, or what people from other countries say. This is our country, where the constitution prevents nut jobs from stealing our guns. Where our firearms keeps the government in check, as the founders intended. I don't have to worry about the random psycho, because I am armed to the teeth. These evening I skipped the four wheeler up the mountians with my Glock .45 semi-auto and three 13 round Hi-capacity clips in my saddle bags. On the front rack was my DPMS PAnther Arms .223 assualt rifle complete with three 30 round clips, and 140 rounds of back up in the back box. On the side mount was my Winchester XTR Featherweight 30.06 with pre '64 chambering and Leupold VII 3x9 scope, 5 in the gun, 5 in the stock carrier. Now, ain't life grand? :clap2: My son, age 9, can completely dissemble and reassemble my Ruger MarkII .22cal, he can load the clips, insert, pull action, work the safety and fire with surprising accuracy. My lovely and talented wife carries a AE .357 Magnum, to equalize any dangerous situation. At least a few times a month I go over in my head scenerios with which I would shoot somebody, you have to mentally prepare for self defense as well. Combined with shooting an average of several hundred rounds per month thru various firearms, I have taken personal responsiblity in protecting myself, and others, w/o relying on the police or anybody else. All citizens have a moral obligation to do the same.

[Shooter]

Scooter,

I would surmise or suspect that no other country has well over 200 million known weapons legally in the hands of its population, not too mention the numbers that go beyond the registered weapons. The correlation in the statistics that you posted is not taking other factors into account.

It would be an impossibility for the police to round up all of these guns. If they started rounding up just the guns that are registered, there would be no police to do anything else. Not too mention that the only guns that they would be taking were registered weapons that were mostly in the hands of law abiding citizens.

I don't see any gang bangers or felons or criminals in general saying, "well heck, it is now illegal to have guns, so I guess we have to give up our stolen or unregistered guns." Ain't gonna happen and the only people with guns will be the criminals who don't care about the laws to begin with.

Being for or against gun control is a moot point. Gun control is a political pipe dream that could never possibly be effective even if implemented.

[Shooter]

FWIW - there are on average 15,500 murders annually. Around 65% or 8K something are due to firearms.

There are 41,000 something deaths on average related to automobile accidents. That is almost 5 times as many. Maybe we should have automotive control instead. It could possibly save more lives annually.

[rmb1606]

It is a very strange place these days this world we live in....Children that believe the only way to solve a problem with a fellow classmate, a scorned relationship with a teacher, or as in this case a jolted lover is to kill innocent people. I have been a fireman in southern california for 16 years and i have seen death in its various forms some by tragic accidents, some by natural causes....But I will tell you this...There is nothing and i mean nothing that can justify the taking of an innocent life. Sure you see on the evening news the Liquour store owner that gets shot in a senseless robbery or a drive by shooting in a bad neighborhood. But this was a campus of learning, a place of knowledge with so many young and promising lives.

I believe it is time for people in this great country of ours to realize that things have gotten out of control...That society cannot continue in its present state. Parents need to really understand that children are not something that we just concieve and hope they learn all lifes lessons from someone other than you...In a nutshell take responsibilty for your children. sit and listen. In closing remember in the Leave it to Beaver days kids were great..Now we are in a different world...kids run the roost..if you dont believe me go to a local restraunt and take a look...The world is not going to raise your children for you...Please take responsiblilty for your own children. They deserve more than 20$ a day and an occasional credit card shopping spree.

[John K]

rmb,

How about a name to go with your post. :)

You are absolutely correct in what you said. I wonder how many of these crimes are from people who came from two parent working families, where the kids are basically left to raise themselves?

[ddmoit]

rmb (first name, please?),

I too agree with your sentiment, and try to practice it myself as a parent. Good parents can rear good kids in just about any environment.

But, I'm not going to bet my life on other people following through with it.

John, to your point on two working parents - I know that it's hard to do these days, and I don't fault people who can't, but my kids have had one parent home for their entire lives (oldest is 15 now). For the past 6 years, it has been me. We've made some economic sacrifices to do it, but it's something the wife and I agreed to from the start. We even managed to get the kids to private schools until just this past year. (I drive a '92 Dodge Spirit that needs to last me a few more years as well. :yeah: )

[Stu]

Dan,

I agree ...... Me or my wife have always been home with my daughter after school.....my wife has always worked school hours and I can take off when ever. Aslo we had her start playing soccer at 4 years old and she played until she was 18 and know she's going off to college. I think kids need to be involved in other things after school and they need ((( discipline ))).
Alot of parents fail there kids.

[ddmoit]

Discipline. I never fully appreciated it until I began to study economics. An economic perspective really sheds some light on discipline.

It is nearly impossible to improve your lot in the future without making some sacrifices in the present. That's what discipline gets you.

To put it into more economic terms, if you always consume everything you produce (no saving), you will never amass any capital necessary to become more efficient at producing. This is true for businesses and households.

[Bri]

if you always consume everything you produce (no saving), you will never amass any capital necessary to become more efficient at producing.

Gee Dan, you sound like one of those crazy environmentalists. ;) :nod:

[ddmoit]

Actually, I'm a wacko environmentalist's nightmare, because I love consuming and amassing capital. I've left many a foot print.

[Shooter]

rmb,

I agree wholeheartedly. It all starts in the home with the parents and how they raise their children.

On the other hand, I do not necessarily agree with the two working parent deal. Two working parents can just as successfully raise well rounded, well behaved, wonderful children with a higher standard of morailty. Kids can go off to school and parents can go to work. It is the quality of time that is spent together that counts the most.

[oogabooga]

Matt (MHI), I suspect that the shooter didn't go on a rampage at the local Police Station or Army Base, not because they would be heavily armed, but rather that the people he hated most were all around him at the campus. I doubt whether he gave a rats about the risk of being shot himself (crazy people tend to be like that).

Muley, me ridiculous?, from what I understand Virginia has some of the lamest gun control laws in the US, and the fact that some psycho could legitimately purchase the guns to achieve this mass murder is no coincidence.

Hmmm, seems strange to me that on one hand the US seems to be happy with their citizens arming themselves to the eyeballs yet gets all uppity when Iran, Iraq or North Korea want to build nuclear weapons. If I use the reasoning of some who have responded here you shouldn't have any issue with it, I mean the US has nuclear weapons too right?, you could use those for self defense. :stupid2:

Rob.

[Bri]

Actually, I'm a wacko environmentalist's nightmare, because I love consuming and amassing capital. I've left many a foot print.

The truth is Dan, environmentalists don't have a problem with consuming or amassing capital....as long as you don't screw over your neighbour or the planet to do it. There's nothing wacko about that.

Ooops sorry.... :topicoff:

[Ron]

I'm pretty sure that this type of killer is a coward and that he wouldn't have been able to obtain guns like those if there weren't legal outlets for them.It was very easy for him to purchase the weapons.

Here in the Toronto area we have gun crimes too.I bet there would be more of them if anyone could obtain a licence and just walk into a store and buy a handgun with multiple rounds.

I don't know anyone with such weapons and I really would have no idea where to procure them.I suppose if I really had to have one and was to venture out into the most crime ridden neighbourhoods at night enquiring about getting a gun,I'd be putting myself in danger.

[John Bridge]

" . . . the simple inescapable fact is that incidents such as this occur in the US with far greater frequency than anywhere else on the planet. To suggest that there is no correlation between their frequency and the "ease" with which fire-arms are available in the US is stunning obfuscation."

I don't mean to pick on Jeremy. I've heard all sorts of statements here I could take issue with, but it strikes me that of those who have posted, three of the strongest proponents of gun control live in other countries. And while I'm fully aware they have traveled somewhat extensively in this country, I am equally sure they have little idea of how the place works. I consider all of these folks to be my friends, by the way. :)

It's not just a gun control issue. It's not about liberals and conservatives. It's not about nut cases easily obtaining weapons. And it's not about legality or illegality.

It is a fact that in this country we have a written constitution that reflects the values that are at the core of what makes up the nation. We can argue about it, but until it's altered one way or the other, the Constitution affirms the inherent right of people to defend themselves by the best means available to them. The idea wasn't hatched in this country; it evolved through eons of human history. It's a basic idea. Here we have it written down. It is an "inalienable right." You can't reject it, even if you want to. You can only argue about it until we all decide to sit down together and reject it. That won't happen in my lifetime. :)

Frenquency? We have 300 million people in this country. There are 30 million in Canada and maybe 60 million in Great Britain. Let's talk percentages. :)

When I was a kid nut cases were locked up regardless of age, and criminals of every age were locked up, too. We had "reform schools" for errant boys. We don't have those now. We certainly had guns in those days, machine guns and automatic pistols, too. Almost every boy grew up learning how to shoot, and if he didn't, he was drafted into the service and gained that expertise there. But things were different back then, weren't they? Remember in Britain when the bobbies were unarmed? Where did all that go?

[muley]

Well Ooga, I'm going to let JB's post stand for what I believe, as he is much more tactful in his approach then am I. We do things our way here, but thanks for your expertise on the American way of life none the less. :)

[jjwq8]

John,
You assumed that my post proposes gun control. It does nothing of the kind. It is the "ease" issue I raise. Control of access to firearms is the the issue, as you rightly state. Not numbers or types. Police in the UK are still unarmed. Only special squads have the authority to carry firearms and they require very specific orders drafted for the specific purpose before they are authorized to discharge them. The Menezes case (the Brazilian man shot dead in error after the tube bombings) is still a major cause celebe in the UK and quite rightly too. The authorities shot and killed a completely innocent individual in error.
Even professionals get it wrong.
Britain is becoming a more violent society. Guns are part of the equation, but nothing like the part in the US. Quoting statistics back and forth proves nothing save the accuracy or validity or bias or otherwise of those compiling the numbers.
Surely a better yardstick would be to ask your police whether they would like to see access to firearms made more difficult.
And this of course is a moot point but when the right to bear arms was written, it was for muskets and flintlock pistols that took a comparative lifetime to load and discharge. I wonder would the framers have kept the same wording if they had known what it would lead to.

[John Bridge]

I'm convinced the framers would have kept the same language. It wasn't only pistols and muskets; there was no proscription of a fellow keeping a cannon in his front yard, either. :D

Hand gun bans almost caught on, and were in fact instituted in certain cities and states, but recently the gun ban in Washington D.C. was ruled unconstitutional. The pendulum has swung.

Restrictions on "ease of access" constitute gun control, and it only hinders honest citizens, as has been stated. We have a form of it here in Texas. There are background checks nowadays before a person is "allowed" to buy a fire arm. Gun control pure and simple. When I was 18 (whenever the hell that was) I could walk into any gun shop in the country and walk out with a weapon. I can't now. It's like cancelling everyone's driver license because there are drunks on the road.

As Muley stated, honest and law abiding citizens don't abuse guns. Armed people go way out of their way to avoid altercations and other situations in which they might be tempted to use the weapon. It is the wackos and criminals who use fire arms in the commission of crimes. There is no way to keep that from happening by imposing restrictions on the populace at large. And if there were, it would still be unconstitutional. :)

[Stu]

John,

You are right on the money !! :tup2:

[MudMaker]

John,
That was dam near eloquent!!!!!! :clap2:

[ddmoit]

I'm in total agreement with JB's post.

I am always surprised at how many people cannot seem to distinguish between the stated intent of some particular legislation and the actual consequences of that legislation.

[Scooter]

Muley-the USA is an immigrant country, many relegious, politcal, and cultural attributes throw into one pot, your gonna have problems, relating that to gun control is stupid. Yes, but most of the countries on the list are immigrant as well, Israel, being just about 100% immigrant.My son, age 9, can completely dissemble and reassemble my Ruger MarkII .22cal, he can load the clips, insert, pull action, work the safety and fire with surprising accuracyWow--I'm impressed Muley. Thats really something for a 9 year old. I'm not real sure if I was in the Wyoming college admissions department, that life skill would carry the day over calculus, physics, and languages, but hey thats still an impressive achielvement.

And Shooter--Gun control is a political pipe dream that could never possibly be effective even if implemented. The Brady Bill has worked alright, and would work better if fully funded.

John--Frenquency? We have 300 million people in this country. There are 30 million in Canada and maybe 60 million in Great Britain. Let's talk percentages. My post did. Read it.As Muley stated, honest and law abiding citizens don't abuse gunsHuh? Cho got his gun legally, John. Maybe you are talking Colembine, where they kids were juvies, but Cho was a "law abiding citizen." I'm convinced the framers would have kept the same language. It wasn't only pistols and muskets; there was no proscription of a fellow keeping a cannon in his front yard, either. You have no idea what the framers would have done. If you are clairavoient, then you are in the wrong business.

Bottom Line: There are ways to control, not criminalize, guns--using ammunition that can be traced, fully funding the Brady Bill, banning swap meet sales of guns, stopping ebay sales of gun magazines by requiring a background check for those as well, and controlling gun licensees. All these would help.

[MudMaker]

Hi Scooter,
You're all wet - but we love you anyway..... :gerg:

[ddmoit]

Cho got his gun legally, John. Maybe you are talking Colembine, where they kids were juvies, but Cho was a "law abiding citizen."

I think murdering 32 people disqualifies him from "law abiding" status.

Presumably, the 32 victims were law abiding, but they were prevented by gun control from defending themselves.

[MudMaker]

You know,
Been thinkin about this and it seems there has been no mention of the Military element there.. When I went, ya had to be in the Military. The only other way you could get directly in was to have gone to a Community College and enter as a sophomore..
You had P.I. call at 6 a.m. (Freshmen) marched to breakfast (not lunch) and Retreat (Dinner). All Cadets lived on the Upper Quad.. AirForce and Army..
I was AirForce..
Now the Military presence is small in comparison to the civilian population.
Had the Military guys been able to Carry at Tech, the 32 may have been a lower number...
Scooter, if this nut had not been able to get a gun, trust me, he would have found another way to off 32 people.. You just can't stop crazies....
They knew this guy had mental difficiencies but no one could either help him or committ him.. Thankx to Organizations like the A.C.L.U.....
Had this been a Socialistic Society, this may have been prevented.. That way the Government could have off'd him and solved the problem years ago... and no, I'm not suggesting Socialism..... That's just Crazy Talk...

[Scooter]

Dan: I think murdering 32 people disqualifies him from "law abiding" status. Well, under that logic, everyone is law abiding until they kill. Makes no sense to me. I just don't think that the unfettered, unrestrained, unrestricted, unconditional right to own any type gun helps advance the ball much. If you like the level of violence in the USA (We're Number One), then that violence is the price we as a society pay for that right to bear arms. If you're OK with the 32 dead, then great. Thats one winning statistic that I personally could live without.

Mud Maker: Scooter, if this nut had not been able to get a gun, trust me, he would have found another way to off 32 people.. You just can't stop crazies...Thats my point. The guy got the gun legally. So short of making it more dificult to obtain firearms, I don't know that this could have been stopped. The guy was over 21 and had no felony convictions, and certainly would have passed any background check.

There isn't a legal, political, moral, or religious answer to this problem. Ultimately, I accept the fact that bad things happen to good people, and you just have to accept it and move on. I know of no other way to "explain" this tradgedy, except that the kids parents are more responsible than anyone. I don't know how they can live with themselves.

[Oldrem]

According to the National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 50, No. 15 (September 16, 2002), Americans died from the following causes in 2000.
All causes 2,403,351 100%
1. Diseases of heart 710,760 30%
2. Malignant neoplasms 553,091 23%
3. Cerebrovascular diseases 167,661 7%
4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases 122,009 5%
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries) 97,900 4%
6. Diabetes mellitus 69,301 2.9%
7. Influenza and pneumonia 65,313 2.7%
8. Alzheimer's disease 49,558 2%
9. Nephritis, nephrotac syndrome [etc.] 37,251 1.5%
10. Septicemia 31,224 1.3%
11. Intentional self-harm (suicide) 29,350 1.2%
12. Chronic liber disease and cirrhosis 26,552 1.1%
13. Essential (primary) hypertension [etc.] 18,073 0.8%
14. Assault (homicide) 16,765 0.7%
15. Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids 16,636 0.7%
All other causes 391,904 16.3%

[John Bridge]

What do you mean, eloquent? It's downright profound. :D

Scooter, the guy broke the law when he plotted the crime. When he bought the gun he was a criminal as far as I'm concerned.

[flatfloor]

So lets ban all of them. ;)

[Bri]

As Muley stated, honest and law abiding citizens don't abuse guns.

Well, that's not entirely true. How many people in a fit of rage have killed a family member or neighbour because they had a gun handy.
Don't get my wrong, I'm not trying to suggest anything to you fine folks. Having guns is American as apple pie and baseball. An outsider isn't going to understand that anymore than trying to figure out why Jerry Lewis is a god in France. Sometimes you just gotta go with the flow. :crazy:

[dl]

Thats my point. The guy got the gun legally. So short of making it more dificult to obtain firearms, I don't know that this could have been stopped. The guy was over 21 and had no felony convictions, and certainly would have passed any background check.

Scooter, he was not legally qualified to buy the gun - the problem was that Virginia (and many other states) do not properly report mental health data to the feds so he was able to pass the background check. There is a bill in congress now to force states to report mental health data but some pro-gun groups (not the NRA) are stalling it. More details in the story below.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/us/21guns.html?hp

- DL

[Scooter]

My understanding was that while he was "troubled" and had some mental demons, he was not insaine. I have to tell you that given my contact with some of the members of this Board, I question their mental stability to own a gun. :D

[Lazarus]

"In its proper constitutional sense, the term [militia] means all
the able-bodied people who can be trained and disciplined to act in
the community's defense when it's attacked. Since it encompasses every
able-bodied person, it does not refer to those---such as the police, the
military, or even the National Guard---who formally compose the official
defense forces of the nation. Every citizen able and willing to act in an
emergency becomes a potential defender against attacks aimed at the general
population. Unfortunately, because of the anti-gun folly of the leftist
media and politicians, we have lost sight of this vital element of our
defense... The anti-gun crowd seeks to establish a modern version of [the
medieval era], a kind of bureaucratic feudalism, in place of the republican
self-government established by our Constitution... The answer is not gun
control, but self-government, self-defense, and self-control. We must act
to live as free people, else like sheep for the slaughter, we will die,
and freedom with us." ---Alan Keyes

[Lazarus]

"The trouble with gun control laws is they target the law abiding. 'If you
disarm good people but not the criminals, instead of making things safe for the
potential victims you may unintentionally make them safe for the criminals,'
said Dr. John Lott, coauthor of a massive study on guns and crime... Both crime
rates and shooting deaths have declined in most states which have adopted
'concealed carry' laws, says Dr. Lott. The decline in 'multiple victim
public shootings' has been especially pronounced, he said. 'Bill Landes of
the University of Chicago law school and I examined multiple-victim public
shootings in the U.S. from 1977 to 1999 and found that when states passed
right-to-carry laws, the rate of multiple victim public shootings fell by
60 percent. Deaths and injuries from multiple victim public shootings fell
even further, on average by 78 percent, as the remaining incidents tended to
involve fewer victims per attack,' Dr. Lott said... In applauding the defeat
last year of a measure in the Virginia legislature to permit those with
concealed carry permits to have a gun on campus, Associate Vice President
Larry Hinckler said Virginia Tech's strict gun control policy made students
feel safer. But there is a difference between feeling safer and being safer,
as Virginia Tech has learned to its sorrow."

[Lazarus]

Ann Coulter stepped in to this issue as well....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Instantly, on the day of the shooting at Virginia Tech, the media were already
promoting gun control and pre-emptively denouncing right-wingers who point
out that gun control enables murderers rather than stopping them. Liberals get
to lobby for gun control, but we're disallowed from arguing back. That's how
good their arguments are. They're thatgood. Needless to say, Virginia Tech is
a Gun-Free School Zone---at least until last Monday. The gunman must not have
known. Imagine his embarrassment! Perhaps there should be signs. Virginia Tech
even prohibits students with concealed-carry permits from carrying their guns
on campus. Last year, the school disciplined a student for carrying a gun on
campus, despite his lawful concealed-carry permit. If only someone like that
had been in Norris Hall on Monday, this massacre could have been ended a lot
sooner. But last January, the Virginia General Assembly shot down a bill that
would have prevented universities like Virginia Tech from giving sanctuary
to mass murderers on college campuses in Virginia by disarming students
with concealed-carry permits valid in the rest of the state. Virginia Tech
spokesman Larry Hincker praised the legislature for allowing the school to
disarm lawful gun owners on the faculty and student body, thereby surrendering
every college campus in the state to deranged mass murderers... Others
disagreed. Writing last year about another dangerous killer who had been
loose on the Virginia Tech campus, graduate student Jonathan McGlumphy wrote:
'Is it not obvious that all students, faculty and staff would have been safer
if [concealed handgun permit] holders were not banned from carrying their
weapons on campus?' If it wasn't obvious then, it is now." ---Ann
Coulter

[muley]

BRI: Did you know that over 80% of convicted murderers have prior violent felonies? Did you know that 77% of all spousal murderers have prior domestic violence arrest? Why is that important? It is important because in both instances it is ILLEGAL for said individuals to purchase or possess firearms.
Scooter: The USA has 432 gun laws and restrictions. You make it sound as though anybody can waltz in and purchase a firearm. There are several hundred guns that are illegal to own or possess, including fully automatic weapons, shotguns under a certain lenth etc. IMHO there are too many laws on the books already, I especially hate the full auto restriction. :drevil:

[Theold--scottyb]

Its very easy to buy a gun off the street. Go ahead and make any laws you want. Its not going to stop anyone.

[sdaniels7114]

Those of you who own guns, how would you feel if your's was stolen and subsequently involved in a crime?

Say its in a gun safe well-hidden in your house. The house being patrolled by a big mean dog who just eats anybody you don't know?

What if you leave the keys in the car and a gun in trunk?

What if you sell a gun to a person who seems legit; but turns out to not be?

I've no doubt that none of the proponents on this thread have ever robbed a liquor store in their life; but the guns come from someplace and that isn't an illegal arms maker. Those guns are born as legitimately as any you own.

What about making it illegal to store guns in an insecure manner? I don't just mean fines. I mean you're on the hook (to an extent) for anything that happens with that gun in the future if you don't store it with the big mean dog and it ends up stolen?

[muley]

Gun control is another popular liberal ideology that simply doesn't stand the test of scruntiny. Almost every popular argument fowarded be the Pro-gun control/anti-America crowd can easily be refuted by the statistical data, and equally important, common sense. There is zero evidence to suggest that gun control acts to achieve its so called intention, yet mountains of evidence to suggest that it is ineffective. Gun control is best left to ideoligical utopian zealots, who typically operate outside the realm of common sense and reality anyway. The debate is moot. Guns are a part of American heritage, history, and life. There are protected under the US Constitution for good reason. An unarmed citizen is defensless against those who wish to make them a victim. Perhaps one day, and this is a dream, we can learn to place the blame where it belongs, on those who commit violent crimes. The average sentence for all forms of murder in the USA is a whopping 7 years. Rape will get you even less, and child molesters are let out again to molest yet again. Heres a thought: If you kill, rape, or molest, it's one strike and your out, period. Now there is some effective anti-crime law. At some point in this country the offenders became the victims, and the guns became the offenders, in retrospect, perhaps ole billy was right.

[muley]

Steve, I personally would love to see a "smart gun" that will not operate w/o the users imprint or the like. This would be great for LEO in particular. You also bring up the point of personal responsiblity, and that too I agree with. However, I am not prepared to convict somebody of a crime bacause their gun was stolen and used in the commission of a crime, no more so than I am willing to convict a person whose car was stolen and used in the commision of a crime. My guns are locked in a safe, where they belong when not in use. When my son was born I made the decision to lock up my handgun that I slept with, it is located in a small firesafe under my bed. The NRA has a safe that opens with a thumb print, offering quick access and secure possession in one package. :yummy:

[MHI]

As long as it works when you need it....:)

[John Bridge]

Bri, :)

It's not illegal to have guns in Canada. The guns can't be "restricted," though, or you go through ten miles of red tape. None of my cartridge weapons are approved, so I'm going to import a 12-guage shotgun. I've got to submit a form and pay a $50 fee.

You have to declare the reason you want the gun. One of the possibilites is defending yourself against wild animals. I've heard that although there are big cats and grizzlies out west, all the real animals are in Ontario -- party animals. :D

[MudMaker]

Those of you who own guns, how would you feel if your's was stolen and subsequently involved in a crime?

That's true for cars too. Let's ban cars..
I'll bet there are more people killed in the act of stealing a car than there are because of a stolen gun from a law abiding citizen...
The Liberal mindset is if you have a problem - create a law that solves that problem... Eventually you won't be able to do anything...

[HS345]

The Liberal mindset is if you have a problem - create a law that solves that problem... Eventually you won't be able to do anything...
I would just add, create another law to solve the problem that the law you created to solve the problem didn't solve, or something like that. :wtf:

[MHI]

They should have a law against suicide bombers. Just think if such a law existed, then there would be no more suicide bombings.

If someone steals one of my guns and uses it in a crime, then someone else should have the right to have a gun and shoot that MF that stole my gun.:)

[MudMaker]

While we're on the subject, lets get rid of Doctors... Do you know how many people Doctors kill in a year? It's ten thousand times more than gun accidents or stolen guns in murders from law abiding citizens..
Hospitals..... how many people die in hospitals? Those places are death traps...
Cars? need I say more? Amusement parks?.... Building construction?.. Look at the number of people that die there in a year...
Tornados, Hurricanes, sunami's, dust storms... Just think of the posibilities for saving lives if we just had laws prohibiting them.....
Manufacturing.... Now there is a veritable treasure chest for preventing deaths.
Farming.... Just too many deaths there a year too...
Mountain climbing... There's one of my favorites.. There should be a law against that too.....
Swimming... Sharks.... No more..
and do you know how many accidents a year there are in the bath tub? Outlaw them... We don't need no stinkin tubs...
Food... lots of problems there.. Constantly killing animals..
Dogs bites... Get rid of them.. Not necessary...
Rogue elephants.... Out...
Grass... Gone, too many lawn mower accidents..
Fire.. there's another good one.. Let's get rid of that one once and for all...
Gee, guns don't seem so bad afterall when you put things in perspective... :scratch:

[ddmoit]

Can anyone top this example of poor judgment and taste?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22147248/

:shake:

[Shooter]

Those douche bags need a good ole fashioned ass whoopin!

[sandbagger]

the ass-whoopin' really ought to go to the host of the party and other guests who didn't boot these idiots out the door as soon as they walked in. :noid:

[MudMaker]

Yes.... Bad Judgement and Poor Taste...
They will most likely regret their actions at some point in their lives.

[dgunnels]

Extremely poor taste. You couldn't even call that a jest. Shame on them.