BS: Gun Crime

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: Slag
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 01:56 AM

Now there's a bit of specious logic! "To blame the actors for the roles they have to play..." I thought we had abolished slavery. Here are those fat cat Hollywood moguls forcing those poor, poor actor to act in movies against their moral imperatives.

It's not like anyone's holding a gun to their heads. Could they be prostituting their convictions for the almighty Dollar?

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 11:39 PM

It's so ironic that so much is made of what happened on the Virginia Tech Campus since this occurs every day in a far more severe way in Iraq. It's easier to get a handle on 20 or so people being killed than 600,000. Not that the Virginia incident isn't horrible. Just magnify that by a few hundred thousand and you have what's going on in Iraq.

Does it suprise anyone here that there is gun crime when the biggest criminal is in the white house?

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 02:35 PM

to quote myself
I don't want to pry anything out of anyone's cold dead hand. I just want fewer dead cold hands.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 12:04 PM

This bears repeating, imo:

"If It Were Up To Me" by Cheryl Wheeler

Maybe it's the movies, maybe it's the books
Maybe it's the bullets, maybe it's the real crooks
Maybe it's the drugs, maybe it's the parents
Maybe it's the colors everybody's wearing
Maybe it's the President, maybe it's the last one
Maybe it's the one before that, what he done
Maybe it's the high schools, maybe it's the teachers
Maybe it's the tattooed children in the bleachers
Maybe it's the Bible, maybe it's the lack
Maybe it's the music, maybe it's the crack
Maybe it's the hairdos, maybe it's the TV
Maybe it's the cigarettes, maybe it's the family
Maybe it's the fast food, maybe it's the news
Maybe it's divorce, maybe it's abuse
Maybe it's the lawyers, maybe it's the prisons
Maybe it's the Senators, maybe it's the system
Maybe it's the fathers, maybe it's the sons
Maybe it's the sisters, maybe it's the moms
Maybe it's the radio, maybe it's road rage
Maybe El Nino, or UV rays
Maybe it's the army, maybe it's the liquor
Maybe it's the papers, maybe the militia
Maybe it's the athletes, maybe it's the ads
Maybe it's the sports fans, maybe it's a fad
Maybe it's the magazines, maybe it's the internet
Maybe it's the lottery, maybe it's the immigrants
Maybe it's taxes, big business
Maybe it's the KKK and the skinheads
Maybe it's the communists, maybe it's the Catholics
Maybe it's the hippies, maybe it's the addicts
Maybe it's the art, maybe it's the sex
Maybe it's the homeless, maybe it's the banks
Maybe it's the clearcut, maybe it's the ozone
Maybe it's the chemicals, maybe it's the car phones
Maybe it's the fertilizer, maybe it's the nose rings
Maybe it's the end, but I know one thing:

If it were up to me, I'd take away the guns.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 11:43 AM

"in particular why a semi- automatic loader is not a requirement for, say, taking upland game"

Requirement? How was upland game taken BEFORE semi-auto weapons? There is a huge difference between 'needed' and 'helpful'. In very few cases is hunting needed for survival. If you live in inland Alaska, and depend on wild game for your sustenance, I will happily grant you an exception. I would consider each application for gun ownership on its merits, and grant exceptions to restrictions on a case-by-case basis.
   Are you a trained law officer who needs to have a firearm at all times? Fine. Do you work at a profession which causes you to occasionally confront people who might threaten you or someone you work for..(a bodyguard for a famous person)...ok...we'll work it out. Are you a marksman who shoots competitively with special weapons? Ok, I am willing to trust you if you have passed the eaxms.

But don't give me that "My family has always owned guns, and I want a weapon in the house for self-defense" nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 11:23 AM

Slag,

Hollywood is not owned by Sean Penn, Bruce Willis, or any other movie star. It is owned by right-wing moguls who control the content and output of the movie industry.
To blame the actors for the roles they have to play to placate a sanguinary public is specious logic. The movie magnates know what the public wants. They want blood and they will serve it up to make money.

Violence is a way to make money and the owners of the major movie studios, corporations, know how to exploit this commodity.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: pdq
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 11:19 AM

same source...explanation of aliens and guns...


Persons Who Are Aliens and Are Illegally or Unlawfully in the
United States

    As proposed in Notice No. 839, the term ``alien illegally or
unlawfully in the United States'' is defined as follows:

    Alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States. (a) Aliens
who are unlawfully in the United States or are not in a valid
nonimmigrant or immigrant status. The term includes any alien--
    (1) Who has entered the country illegally;
    (2) Nonimmigrant whose authorized period of admission has
expired;
    (3) Student who has failed to maintain status as a student; or
    (4) Under an order of deportation, whether or not he or she has
left the United States.
    (b) The term does not include aliens who are in ``immigration
parole'' status in the United States pursuant to the Immigration and
Naturalization Act (INA).

    The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) suggested that the
definition be modified to better reflect the terminology used in the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The commenter states that the
INA uses specific legal terms to refer to the status of aliens in the
United States. Therefore, INS recommends that the proposed definition
be amended to read as follows:

    Alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States. Aliens who
are unlawfully in the United States are not in valid immigrant,
nonimmigrant or parole status. The term includes any alien--
    (a) Who unlawfully entered the United States without inspection
and authorization by an immigration officer and who has not been
paroled into the United States under section 212(d)(5) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA);
    (b) Nonimmigrant whose authorized period of stay has expired or
who has violated the terms of the nonimmigrant category in which he
or she was admitted;
    (c) Paroled under INA section 212(d)(5) whose authorized period
of parole has expired or whose parole status has been terminated; or
    (d) Under an order of deportation, exclusion, or removal, or
under an order to depart the United States voluntarily, whether or
not he or she has left the United States.

    ATF agrees with the INS that the wording of the definition for this
particular category of prohibited persons should reflect the
terminology used in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Accordingly,
ATF is adopting INS' proposed definition into the final regulations.
    The DOJ Office of Policy Development asked whether the proposed
definition of illegal aliens would cover asylum applicants. According
to the INS, asylum applicants are not lawfully in the United States and
would fall within the definition.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 11:16 AM

BB you are right. I meant semi-automatic weapons which can be easilly modified as Bill D has mentioned. Now that's not false information.

If it were up to the NRA, automatic weapons would be available. Fortunately someone in politics had the temerity to stand up to them.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: pdq
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 11:14 AM

from the ATF based on post Brady Bill clarification...


Persons Who Have Been Adjudicated as Mental Defectives or
Been Committed to a Mental Institution

    The terms ``adjudicated as a mental defective,'' ``committed to a
mental institution,'' and ``mental institution,'' as proposed in Notice
No. 839, are defined as follows:

    Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) A determination by a
court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person,
as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness,
incompetency, condition, or disease:
    (1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or
    (2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own
affairs.
    (b) The term shall include a finding of insanity by a court in a
criminal case.
    Committed to a mental institution. A formal commitment of a
person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or
other legal authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental
institution involuntarily. The term includes a commitment for mental
defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for
other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a
person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary
admission to a mental institution.
    Mental institution. Includes mental health facilities, mental
hospitals, sanitariums, psychiatric facilities, and other facilities
that provide diagnoses by licensed professionals of mental
retardation or mental illness, including a psychiatric ward in a
general hospital.

    Four Federal agencies and three State agencies commented on ATF's
proposed definitions. Two State agencies questioned the meaning of
``lawful authority'' as used in the proposed regulations. In ATF's
view, ``lawful authority'' as used in the proposed regulations clearly
means a government entity having the legal authority to make
adjudications or commitments, other than courts, boards, or commissions
which are specifically mentioned. Therefore, the final regulations do
not further define ``lawful authority.''
    Another State agency asked whether the proposed definition of
``adjudicated as a mental defective'' must include a court finding of
insanity in all cases. The proposed definition includes a determination
that a person, as a result of mental illness, is a danger to himself or
to others. The term also includes a finding of insanity by a court in a
criminal case. These are separate and distinct definitions. Therefore,
a determination of mental illness under the first part of the
definition would give rise to firearms disabilities and would not
require a court finding of insanity.
    DOD commented that the Uniform Code of Military Justice was
recently amended to include procedures for the commitment of military
personnel for reason of a lack of mental responsibility. Consequently,
DOD recommends that the following be added to the definition of
``adjudicated as a mental defective'':

    The definition * * * shall also include those persons found
incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of
mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.

    DOD's proposed amendment will clarify the meaning of the term
``adjudicated as a mental defective'' with respect to the military and
ATF is adopting the suggested change into the final regulations.
    In its comment, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs correctly
interpreted the proposed definition of ``adjudicated as a mental
defective'' to mean that any person who is found incompetent by the
Veterans Administration under 38 CFR 3.353 will be considered to have
been adjudicated as a mental defective for purposes of the GCA. Section
3.353 provides that a mentally incompetent person is one who, because
of injury or disease, lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage
his or her own affairs.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: saulgoldie
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 10:30 AM

I don't know if it has been mentioned on this thread (which I did not read all of). However, the 2nd ammendment says "well regulated militia" which hardly applies to the majority of gun owners. Furthermore, the times were vastly different then then they are now.

If we feel we must change our government, then we can vote for a new one. It is much more civilized and less messy than shooting our way there. Sadly, less than half of our citizens choose to participate. How many of those non-voters own guns with which they would be willing to fight to overthrow the government?

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: pdq
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 10:25 AM

as far as US gun ownership...

Ineligible Persons

The following classes of people are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition:

*        Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.
*        Fugitives from justice.
*        Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.
*        Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.
*        Illegal aliens.
*        Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.
*        Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
*        Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
*        Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.
*        Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.
*        Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.


Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition. Under limited conditions, relief from disability may be obtained from the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, or through a pardon, expungement, restoration of rights, or setting aside of a conviction.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: pdq
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 10:15 AM

Absolutely. The Constitution Of The United States applies to US citizens only. Rights are often extended to non-citizens by choice, but that is not required.

Illegal aliens are very specifically prohibited from owning guns.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 10:08 AM

Can gun possession be curtailed for noncitizens without violating the 2nd amendment?

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: pdq
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 08:59 AM

Machine Guns

Machine guns are a class of firearms that are fully automatic, i.e., they continue to fire bullets as long as the trigger is depressed and ammunition is available.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) imposes an excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of machine guns. 26 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq. The NFA defines a machine gun as:

any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manually reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.


26 U.S.C. § 5845(b).

The NFA also requires that the manufacture and transfer of machine guns be recorded in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. 26 U.S.C. § 5841.

In 1986, Congress banned the transfer and possession of machine guns, except those transferred to or in the possession of the United States or any department or agency thereof. 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). Congress did not, however, prohibit the continued transfer or possession of machine guns that were lawfully possessed prior to the law's effective date.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(4), it is unlawful for any licensed importer, manufacturer, dealer or collector to sell or deliver any machine gun except as specifically authorized by the Secretary of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms "consistent with public safety and necessity."

According to the ATF, in 2000 there were a total of 278,958 registered machine guns nationwide. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Firearms Commerce in the United States: 2001/2002, Exhibit 9. The four states with the greatest number of machine guns were Texas (19,415), Connecticut (17,289), Florida (15,285), and California (14,916); those with the fewest were Delaware (146), Hawaii (246), Rhode Island (416) and North Dakota (1,019). Id.


www.lcav.org



{BTW, the only homocide ever committed with a legal, registered machine gun was by a cop. He caught his wife cheating on him.}

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: Slag
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 03:24 AM

I really want to ask Bill D how he knows so much about hunting and those things necessary and sufficient to accomplish the same, in particular why a semi- automatic loader is not a requirement for, say, taking upland game. Ahhh, but that gets tedious.

A more interesting point a couple of you have brought up is Hollywood's incredible love affair with the gun! In this hotbed of liberal activism and idealism hardly a movie gets made that doesn't have murders by the dozen, explosive violences, explosives, chainsaw massacres, torture, rape, rape and more rape. And who do we see portraying these these gun wielding role models? Why, Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, Sigourne (?) Weaver, Matt Damon, etc. etc. You know, the Anti- gun crowd. What hypocrisy! What gall!

They make their livelihoods by the sword and they by and large tell the common man he shouldn't have a gun? And not only that but many of them pack heat for real. Why? Because THEY ARE SPECIAL and you and I aren't! What crap! Are their lives so much more important than yours or mine?

These people are closet aristocrats who believe they are better than everyone else. They don't believe you have what it takes to think for yourself or to know what is good for you. They want to think for you. I find this a distinguishing characteristic among most Democrats I've heard. That's the whole idea behind Big Government, entitlements, nave-to-the-grave health care ("large stitches, he's just an enlisted man"), repressive gun laws and the rubber room mentality toward the peons.

Control the ignorant masses. What? They're NOT ignorant? Well, we'd better fix that. Get control of the teachers through their unions. Stop teaching history, ethics, patriotism, etc. Let's just make them feel good about themselves. Pass them along. No one flunks. Free Rittalin for the kids who can't stand boredom. Soma coma!

Well, I could go on but I'm sure most of you would rather I didn't. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. But, because you say "We see" your sin remains and you will die in your sins".

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 08:34 PM

Kat -- the two boys involved planned to kill Cassie and her boyfriend, and then go on stabbing a list of some 20 people they'd put together. Her boyfriend is alive only because he left early that night -- I understand that he's in therapy and actually doing well.

I'm following this case because a member of my Board of Trustees is the public defender defending one of the boys. He (according to a phone call I had with him and talking with his father) is NOT in the best psychological shape since he can't share his knowledge with anyone else. His dad thinks that he might need some counseling himself when this is over.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 06:44 PM

"How can there be ANY gun crime in Great Britain? Don't they have all those so-effective gun laws the rest of us are supposed to admire?

Maybe they should look at Switerland...."

Don't be so disingenuous BB. Even with an increase in gun usage by criminals we have less killings in the UK per year than you do each DAY, and don't try to tell me the USA has 365 times as many people as Britain.

Don T.

P.S. I suppose support for guns is to be expected from someone whose Mudcat initials are ammo, Eh, BB?

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 06:41 PM

oh, yeah...we do need to fret over armed bears!

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 06:30 PM

Virginia has lax gun laws, at least by Australian standards. According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Virginia does not require licensing of gun owners or registration of weapons. You can walk into a shop and just buy a gun. There is no cooling-off period to prevent crimes of passion.

But it does have a "one handgun a month" law and police keep records of gun sales at licensed dealers for a year. There are no restrictions or tests on guns sold at gun shows, swap-meets or privately. The one-a-month limit does not apply to rifles or shotguns.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: TIA
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 06:20 PM

So, why does the USA have the highest rate (per capita and absolute) of gun violence of any industrialized nation?

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 06:20 PM

As Ebbie said, As far as protecting oneself against a government is concerned, keeping weapons for that purpose imo is a silly and vain hope. In the day, there were no fast highways or fleets to travel on them, there was no database detailing the location of homes and their owners, there frequently were no military or police authorities close to those homes.

exactly.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 06:13 PM

Oh, yeah, Bill? What about if one is hunting those bears we've all armed? They got the semis or the autos?:-) What're ya gonna do when one of them opens fire?

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 06:08 PM

"Private ownership of automatic weapons has been restricted since 1933, and prohibited since 1968."

and you KNOW the problem with that, bruce! Legal SEMI-automatic weapons ARE easily available, and instructions on how to convert semi to full are easily available. 'semi' is also misleading, as rapid fire with some of those items can barely be distinguished from full auto!

This is in addition to the fact that NO ONE needs even a semi-automatic to go hunting with.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 05:50 PM

Well said, Frank.

Rapaire, sorry to say because it sounds kind of crass, but at least there was only one killed with the knife. A gun changes that equation considerably.

Slag said: I don't believe they are teaching that difference in the schools today. The NRA's legislative goals are to protect the second amendment rights. Everyone has the right to defend their life, the lives of their families and friends and neighbors and ultimately the right and responsibility to defend their nation. They firmly believe that without this right the nation would sooner or later degenerate into a tyranny with NO rights of the individual. And this was the exact same fear that was expressed by the Founding Fathers and the framers of our Constitution.

I don't think the onus should be on the schools. Parents need to teach their children the difference between freedom and license. I also do not believe the NRA is so altruistic and balanced in their goals. They have become quite paranoid and extreme and I say that having gone to their classes for young teens when I was the only girl in attendance.

Our administration has fostered a Culture of Fear. It has always been there, but the bastard shrub has had almost eight years of growing it to gargantuan proportions until it invades the lives of everyone even those who feel very secure. We cannot build a Society of Peace based on a Culture of Fear. When we give all of our energy, spoken and written words, and thoughts to the negativity of a Culture of Fear, we reap the results. When we give over our thoughts, words and deeds to Peace, we reap a much more positive result and can help end the violence suffered such as the past day.

Ours is not the same fear the Founding Fathers held when contemplating their tenuous hold on freedom. They had a much more positive outlook, they were fired up with excitement and frontiers of new beginnings. Today's fear lacks any balance thanks to the shrub and others and thanks to the People buying into it totally. Seek a Culture of Peace through whatever appropriate actions, thoughts and words you may and help our poor old world to overcome the pervasive violence of today.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 05:34 PM

Cassie Jo Stoddard, 16, was stabbed to death (14 out of 23 wounds were fatal) in September, 2006. The sale of the knives used were restricted to those 18 and over, but those arrested for the murder had a friend buy them for them.

I've said it over and over: the problem lies in a culture that glorifies violence in movies, games, videos, and in the actions of its leaders.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 05:14 PM

Frank,

"With automatic weapons made available and defended by the NRA as ok to own"

FALSE STATEMENT. Private ownership of automatic weapons has been restricted since 1933, and prohibited since 1968.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 05:08 PM

There is a cultural aspect to gun crime. In the US, we are told by the white house that pre-emptive strikes on a foreign country without provocation is in the national security interest.

With this kind of message coming from the top, why shouldn't there be gun crime?

With more money being spent today then ever before on the industrial military complex building bigger weapons and support for private mercenary armies, why shouldn't there be gun crime?

With a wild west mentality, people are purchasing hand guns for self defense regardless of how successful they would be in using them if they were ever assaulted. Why shouldn't there be gun crime?

With automatic weapons made available and defended by the NRA as ok to own, why shouldn't there be gun crime?

With movies glorifying (300) violence and making it seem heroic and TV shows depicting the use of weapons as solutions for problems, why shouldn't there be gun crime?

Let's diffuse the gun culture that is so apparent in the US today.

Let's face the issue about who is really qualified to own guns.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:57 PM

How can there be ANY gun crime in Great Britain? Don't they have all those so-effective gun laws the rest of us are supposed to admire?

Maybe they should look at Switerland....

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: Slag
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:46 PM

Dear Kat. I too, was taught respect for the gun, its proper use and safe handling. The last thing I ever want to do is be forced to use one in a confrontation which threatens my life or the lives of my family. These are all choices we have to make individually. I taught my children the same. And I believe the much maligned NRA also promotes the same.

But when the political aspects of gun ownership and regulation is the topic the discourse changes. The freedom and rights of the citizens presents a problem. Freedom means the right to determine your own course. Freedom is a dangerous thing. Each person must shoulder the responsibility for proper behavior. There is a big difference between freedom and license. Freedom means you are free to do the right thing. License means you are free to do anything you want. I don't believe they are teaching that difference in the schools today. The NRA's legislative goals are to protect the second amendment rights. Everyone has the right to defend their life, the lives of their families and friends and neighbors and ultimately the right and responsibility to defend their nation. They firmly believe that without this right the nation would sooner or later degenerate into a tyranny with NO rights of the individual. And this was the exact same fear that was expressed by the Founding Fathers and the framers of our Constitution.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 09:53 AM

Norris Hall gunman identified; ballistics match at both crime scenes
Posted 9:15 a.m., April 17, 2007

The Virginia Tech Police Department has confirmed the identification of the gunman responsible for the multiple fatalities at Norris Hall on the Virginia Tech campus Monday, April 16, 2007.

The individual has been identified as Cho Seung-Hui, 23. Cho was enrolled as an undergraduate student in his senior year as an English major at Virginia Tech. Cho, a South Korean native, was in the U.S. as a resident alien with a residence established in Centerville, Va. Cho was living on campus in Harper Residence Hall.

A 9-milimeter handgun and 22-caliber handgun were recovered from Norris Hall. Ballistic tests on the evidence seized from the Norris Hall and the West Ambler Johnston Residence Hall scenes were conducted at the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) lab in Maryland. Lab results confirmed that one of the two weapons seized in Norris Hall was used in both shootings.

"At this time, the evidence does not conclusively identify Cho Seung-Hui as the gunman at both locations," said Colonel W. Steven Flaherty, Superintendent of the Virginia State Police. "With this newfound ballistics evidence, we are now able to proceed to the next level of this complex investigation."

State, local and federal investigators spent the night collecting, processing and analyzing evidence from within Norris Hall. The deceased were recovered from at least four classrooms on the second floor and a stairwell of Norris Hall. The gunman, who took his life, was discovered by police in a classroom among the victims.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 09:43 AM

Trouble is most parents aren't doing that these days, Rapaire.


Here's what I wrote about this in 1997 and it holds true, for me, today: CLICK.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 08:49 AM

I have a few books, purchased legally, from "The Anarchist Cookbook" to the US Army's "Improvised Munitions Handbook." They were all obtained long before the recipes therein were put on the World Wide Web.

Topics include the preparation of potassium cyanide to making your very own Sten gun from scratch (and by that I mean from pieces of metal).

I bought these items, by the way, so that someone else couldn't.

As my mother said to all of her four children when she sent me off to learn to shoot, under qualified instructors, at the local rifle range, "There are too damned many guns out there and I want you kids to know enough to handle them safely and not be afraid of them."

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: Slag
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 03:55 AM

I saw film of that incident. A rare, and I might add, very fortunate man Commissioner Jalbert was (is?).

I've seen elephants run amok. I've been bitten by dogs more than a couple of times by the "dog who would never bite anyone". Police officers sometimes go crazy and kill some one. There have been fist fights on the floors of Congress. More than a few duels have been fought to the death by politicians here in these United States. Presidents are assassinated. Fathers or mothers sometimes go nuts and murder their whole families.

IT'S NOT A PERFECT WORLD. Be aware. Be alert. Have plans A, B and C and maybe D, E, and F too. If you can't afford a bodyguard 24/7 you've got to do it yourself. Granted, these are rare events. But even so, in a nation of 300 million people plus a few million who have no right to be here, you are going to here of these horrible events at alarming intervals: Stockton, Columbine and now Virginia Tech as well as many other lesser known events.

Bill D, if you are cruising this thread, you are so wrong about the ease with which one can make a very effective bomb and they can be much easier to conceal than a handgun. I don't believe you have to be very imaginative to figure out a pipe bomb from household materials. I really don't want to say much about it because it could give some nut case a big idea and that's the last thing we need. The point is that no law ever stopped a determined person from having a lethal weapon. A stick, a knife, a board with a nail in it. A prisoner in San Quentin made a fully functional semi-automatic handgun from little bits of pipe, springs and metal scraps he scavenged. The outlaw will always find a way to arm himself. If you want to be a victim, well, OK, that's your choice. Please leave me free to make my own choice on the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 11:52 PM

Here's a detailed interview with Jalbert.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 11:34 PM

I got thinking about this incident as I read these posts ...

One day in 1984, a crazed soldier named Denis Lortie went into the Quebec legislature and shot and killed three people, and wounded 13 others. As he sat in the Speaker's chair firing rounds from an automatic weapon at people cowering behind the seats, the commissionaire, who had just arrived at work, poked in his head to see what was going on. He quickly sussed out the situation - and began talking to Lortie. He persuaded him to let everyone go, then talked him into coming to his office. There, he continued to talk with him for about three hours, finally persuading him to surrender.

This newscast is here. The commissionaire, Jalbert, is seen near the end, walking out of the legislature with an unlit cigarette in his mouth, cool as a cucumber.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 09:41 PM

If someone with a firearm attacked others I would do whatever I could to take that person out. I hope that it would not be permanently, but I wouldn't waste tears if it were.

There is not now and never has been absolute security, not at home, not at school, not at work, not at play, no where. We can only accept the risks we face every day and if that means that someday I may have to kill someone to protect others, so be it. But it will not be with a gun.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: mg
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 09:06 PM

Someone on the security force on staff with a legal weapon perhaps could in some situations take someone down and save maybe dozens of lives. And there aren't just lone disturbed people now but terror networks so now is not the time to lay down all our arms. Just persuade the bad men and women to lay down theirs and then follow suit. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: Peace
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 07:28 PM

We glorify war; we give 'light' sentences to people who commit gun crimes; we expose kids to lots of violence on TV and in the movies. Does it strike anyone as logical that people then perceive the use of weapons as the thing to do to 'resolve' situations?

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: GUEST,Black Hawk - not logged in
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 07:18 PM

Guest 1SD - "So I would like to hear the reactions of the pro gun members here now."

I have every sympathy with the victims & families of todays events but I WILL NOT take the blame for it.

As Peace said, we did not pull the trigger.

I live in the UK with very strict firearms control but we have still had similar incidents. One with a home-made gun. The most infamous are Hungerford & Dunblane. Both these events utilised illegal weapons NOT legally held firearms.
Following Dunblane, I was insulted in my workplace (people shouted murderer every time they saw me) because I was a well-known medal winner. I take great exception to this attitude. They (and 1SD) probably drive cars but would not expect to be blamed for every road death.
Whenever an incident like this occurs, people like 1SD come up with the same sad, deluded message. More gun control! They never stop to consider that criminals do not bother about the law - that is what a criminal is, a lawbreaker!

Deterrent is the answer in my view.
As has been said. Possesion of a weapon during a crime = 5yrs on top of normal sentence for offence. Use of a weapon during a crime = 10yrs (or life) on top of normal sentence for offence. Both without remission, parole etc.

I will not post again to this thread because I feel that the families involved in todays events deserve more respect than to be used as a senseless bickering topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 06:34 PM

It is hard to know yet what we will learn about him....he 'may' have left a note....we just don't know so far. Early reports said he fist went to the dorm looking for his 'girlfriend', but didn't find her.

If we never find **ANYTHING** conclusive about his motives, we still may discover whether he had ever done anything which would have made him ineligible for a gun permit. (Even those high school kids in Colorado who did NOT legally possess all those guns found someone who provided guns to them. That person got into trouble. It didn't help the victims much.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: Big Mick
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 06:32 PM

Whoever is unbalanced enough to kill 30+ people, will find a way to do that. Taking the guns from folks that have every right to own them will not prevent this type of thing from happening. As I said before, one can kill large amounts of people with a couple of sacks of fertilizer. Would we then ban fertilizer? The logic is absurd.

UK'ers Let's hear your opinions on this.

Here is another bit of data I would like to see response to.

In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S. Department of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States.
* "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."6 The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years."7
* The United Nations confirmed these results in 2000 when it reported that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.8

If I thought that law abiding citizens giving up their right to own firearms would have any positive measurable effect on violent crime I would support it. The evidence just doesn't support that.


Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 06:18 PM

And we will never in this life know the reasons of the person who did.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: Peace
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 06:15 PM

"So I would like to hear the reactions of the pro gun members here now."

None of the members here, pro or anti gun, pulled the trigger.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 06:13 PM

We live in a society where guns are pretty well accepted," said Jim Sollo, of Virginians Against Handgun Violence.

"There are 200 million guns in this society and obviously some in the wrong hands."

What an understatement.

One of the few times I ever disagreed with my dad was when he said if teachers were known to be armed, Columbine would not have happened. I don't know if that would be true or not, but I abhor the thought of our overgrown and unstable society stooping to such violent measures. I know when he was growing up in the wild west each person generally did carry a gun. They were taught extreme safety and also to never aim a gun unless they meant to use deadly force. It's the same way I was raised.

I had to tell dad that I couldn't agree, though, because our society has changed and grown so huge, so fucked up by past politicians and present and the people themselves. There are no easy answers, but I agree we need better laws that punish more severely when weapons are used during a crime more and also some way to get guns out of children's hands, etc. For one, I'd love to see an end to gun shows. They have them several times a year here and for some it is a jolly family outing. I cannot imagine something more surreal.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: Wesley S
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 05:59 PM

So why would anyone reasonably need to have a gun to defend themselves in a classroom? Or do we need to go through a metal detector in order to get onto a collage campus?

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: Slag
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 05:55 PM

Well, better this thread than the other re VT. The 2nd Amendment is not a slogan. It is the supreme law of the land. And I DO agree with you to some extent. There should be reasonable laws. I don't think anyone needs hand grenades or machine guns, mortars or land mines! We should all, however, have the means to meet threats to life, limb and property. Law doesn't get any more basic than that. Every living creatures follows that law or becomes extinct. You meet the threat at hand or you die as so many of these unarmed students and workers did. God help us, this is the world we live in.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 05:54 PM

Ok, Rapaire...I realize we do not know the history of this man yet....but he was young, and I 'suspect' he has no previous record of violence.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 05:35 PM

I'm not sure if now is the best time for calm debate. The right to bear arms is a cherished part of American idealism.


However the fact is that it is not working out very well for a lot of people - given the present make up of the population.

I don't want to be involved in taking cheap shots at another man's ideals of freedom. However when all this is off the headlines - please reconsider some of the cheap shots you've taken at my position on this thread. I'm not Hitler.

Gun control is worth thinking about - rather than sloganeering.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: Slag
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 05:28 PM

What a day for tragedy. My heart goes out to those who lost loved ones and to the entire nation. They were all a part of us.

To quote myself from a few entries above, "if you ever need a righteous and armed person to tip the balance of a bad situation to your favor don't deny me my right to keep and bare arms!"

Gun laws made no difference to the mad man who perpetrated these heinous crimes. Indeed, in just about every gun related crime, gun laws are broken. It seems the only effect of the law is to lay blame and determine punishment.

But the other, bigger effect of many of these laws is a chilling effect on the honest, law abiding citizenry! In fact, these laws are in direct contradiction of the second amendment which say that "the right of the PEOPLE (emphasis mine) to keep and bare arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED (again). I cannot help but think that if a few of the students had been armed there would have been a very different outcome. At the very least, they would have had a fighting chance.

No, it's not pleasant to contemplate but it is a truth from time immemorial: there are times when the only way to defend your life is with lethal force. Sticking your head in the sand or in some ill-conceived gun law will not change that truth. Like a good insurance policy, you hope you never have to use it but thank God it's there.

Subject: RE: BS: Gun Crime
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Apr 07 - 05:23 PM

Today I am waiting for more information before making any assumptions.