BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 08:35 PM

Mick--

I disagree, as you might guess. The toll taken by semi-automatic handguns----needlessly----has put the burden of proof that ordinary citizens need them on the pro-gun side.

And statistics do not prove by any stretch of the imagination that handgun controls have caused more violence.

The main problem with the discussion now is that there are far too many single-issue voters still in the US for whom "gun rights" is that one issue. They don't have to think--but they sure as hell vote.

Until that changes, gun control measures have no chance.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 06:10 PM

Dear Patty O'Furniture

I happen to know a gun enthusiast who did manage to shoot his balls off with a shot gun. Wishing such an accident on a mudcat member while you snipe as a guest is crude and cowardly. So the next time you try to sieze the high ground, get out of the mud first.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 02:47 AM

Kat - good link!

Interesting that she mentions a higher incidence of mental health issues among immigrant children. I can certainly understand why. They have so much to overcome. I also believe that some cultures reject children with mental health issues.

I also found it interesting that criteria for in-patient care seems to differ widely from State to State and country to country. I know that in Canada, the jails are full of inmates that should be in mental health facilities. Instead they are part of the revolving door from prison to street and back again. What a sane idea to consider the history of the person rather than wait for imminent danger or an assault. Why should families endanger themselves for lack of adequate facilities?

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 02:26 AM

OK, so this guy was insane. How many of the 12,000 or so killings by shooting in the US per year are committed by the insane, and how many by the 'sane'. That might make an interesting statistic for the gun-freaks to distort and manipulate.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 12:56 AM

There is an excellent op/ed piece HERE written by the sister of a mentally ill young man who has been violent. She has some very wise things to say, imo.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: GUEST,gun owner
Date: 28 Apr 07 - 04:31 PM

Some of the founding fathers in the U.S. were round and about the ages of the students at VT. The media keeps referring to them as "kids" to elicit your knee-jerk reaction to protect children. College students in their 20's and 30's aren't children. The students at VT shouldn't have been denied their right to carry a concealed weapon. These shootings always happen in unprotected places.

As far as Peace & Jews, what does Israel have to do with Jews? Israel is a nation, not a religion. And Judaism is a religion, not a race. I don't follow you. Lots of countries torture, but it's not codified as policy in their laws.

The Executive Branch of the U.S. has said it can arrest, torture and kill at will. Congress is not opposing this assumption of dictatorial powers, and neither is the U.S. Supreme Court. All members of all 3 branches took oaths to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and now they want to take away your rights under that constitution. They have you thinking it's your "right" to suck the brains out of partially-birthed children, but it's NOT your right to own guns. It took generations to get to this point of ignorance, but I mean you HAVE to wake up to what's going on at some point.

If just one of the students killed at VT had aimed a gun at Cho, chances are Cho would have immediately shot himself. The suicide in these shootings occurs at the moment the person killing perceives a loss of total control. An armed shooter could have stopped this without firing a shot.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Apr 07 - 03:55 PM

Ron, we are just not going to get anywhere. As I said, I don't have to give reasons (or should I say that the reasons have been given many times in this debate) as they already have the right. It is you that wants to take away the right, hence the burden of justifying the position is yours. Ordinary citizens already own guns, aren't using them for violent crime, and are responsible. As to the stat's, I would refer you to the discussion I had with Bill D. As I pointed out to him, the studies are readily available, compiled by folks with the same agenda as yours, that demonstrate any number of points I have made. When I posted these, and they were just the beginning of what is available, I got a post back that indicated he was trying to wade through it. And this was a study done by the Clinton administration.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Apr 07 - 03:35 PM

Mick--I agree completely about the political downside of pushing gun control now. I myself pointed out that it's likely the gun control issue is one of the main reasons Bush has been polluting the White House for 6 years.

So our talk is just an academic exercise at this point.

But you still don't say why ordinary citizens should have handguns. Your statistics on violence in areas with handgun controls are suspect--both sides have been using statistics, as they say, as a drunk uses a lamppost--not for illumination but for support.

There are many reasons for violence to go up--or down-- in a given area--other than handgun control.

If you'd like to give some specific examples of areas where violence went up when handgun control was introduced, we can look at them.

But as of now your argument seems to boil down to--we should have handguns because we want to.

Not good enough--considering the carnage handguns cause--a lot more than ropes or poison.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: katlaughing
Date: 28 Apr 07 - 02:44 PM

And, what happens if the "well regulated militia" are all over in Iraq? Just thinking out loud!:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Apr 07 - 02:06 PM

Ron, once again you attempt to shift the burden. The public already has the right, to varying degrees, to own these weapons. I understand your desire to change the premise, but I can't agree. When one is attempting to take away a right, they must justify their reason for doing so. So far, I have heard plenty of emotional opinion as to why law abiding, responsible citizens should be forced to give up the right to own a weapon. But I have heard precious little of what would be accomplished by doing so. That is because the statistics don't support the desired outcome.

Perhaps it would help if I gave a bit of background as to how I have come to this place of understanding. Those of you who know me and something of my background, know that my politics run very much to the liberal, progressive side. I have spent a lifetime pursuing what I see as justice in social, labor, and environmental causes. During the 2000 United States Presidential election, I was the Director of/and an advisor to Gore's Michigan campaign. I knew that I would end up discussing the gun issue, as it is a very big issue in the State of Michigan. I determined that I would try to wade through the data, weed out the slanted numbers from both sides, weed out the propaganda from both sides, and determine for myself as to whether these laws had the desired effect. I did this because my life experience in urban and rural areas around the country were in conflict with the platform of my party. And I was in a position that didn't allow me to duck it. I had also seen my party crippled by allowing Newt and the boys to wedge the gun issue, and the abortion issue, with working class folks that had far more reason to vote Democratic than Republican. The result of that was a lot of years of legislation, Supreme Court appointees, and damage that will take several generations to recover from. And all this because we were operating from an emotional place instead of what the numbers seemed to tell.

I completely understand where folks are coming from, in light of Columbine and Virginia Tech. I understand the anger, and the desire to just rid the country, indeed the world, of these weapons. But that is an emotional desire that isn't realistic, and can't be accomplished. Then folks ask to control these weapons. But the problem is that where stringent gun control is in effect, the violent crime rate goes up. As to Ron's contention about suicide, my response is that anyone who is determined to kill themselves will do so. If a gun isn't available, then a rope, or jumping, or poison, or the tailpipe of a car, is. I just don't buy into that as being a good reason to take away the rights of decent, law abiding, responsible citizens. When one takes the percentage of crimes committed as a percentage of the legally owned guns, or gunowners if you like, the number is negligible. Violent crime is committed by criminals using illegal weapons. But the damage done by the legislation and appointments of right wing legislators, has resulted in war, and misery far beyond any perceived benefit gained by these well meaning efforts.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Apr 07 - 12:25 PM

Also, the "right" of a person to own a handgun must be balanced against the harm such guns have done and continue to do. Just the suicide numbers--mightily contributed to by handguns--are daunting. And for males, it appears guns are the chosen instrument of suicide--and less likely to recover from than pills, for instance.

With the recent multiple killings due to easy availability of handguns--and the likelihood of more-- I'd say the burden of proof is now clearly on the pro-handgun side to show that the general public should have access to them.

Many police seem to agree with me, and not with you.

So what are the compelling reasons the public should have this access?

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Apr 07 - 12:14 PM

Thanks, Mick, for your cogent statement of your position. Wish everybody on the pro-gun side was as logical.

But I'd still have to say that the 2nd Amendment has clearly to do with the militia--and a "well-regulated" one at that. Does it not? Where is the "well-regulated militia" these days, if not the National Guard? There is clearly not a militia now made up of all able-bodied men over 16.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Apr 07 - 09:36 AM

Ron, sorry, I have been a bit busy. I have only been popping in, and have been avoiding this discussion as it seems the loonies on both sides have taken over. But I will add what I can.

First off, I have to take issue with the style and predicate you attempt to have the debate on. One of the things that you say is that the burden is on the law abiding, responsible handgun owners to justify their continued ownership of handguns. I disagree mightily. Those of us that have had the right to own these weapons have no burden to prove. Rather, those that would take away an existing right have the burden to prove why it is necessary. This has been my contention since we started this debate. I have asked many times that those that would take away my right to these legally owned, and responsibly used weapons what it is they will resolve by doing this. I have asked them to give me data which supports their contention. What I get is oblique references but no hard fact. I believe the reason for that is because the data, once one filters out the horseshit from both sides, doesn't support the contention that taking the guns, be they handguns or long guns, of law abiding citizens will solve anything. I believe that the good folks (and I mean that sincerely) who want this done are either over simplifying the resolution (typical among us Yanks) or they have another agenda, such as banning hunting. So I reject the premise that the burden lies with the gun owner. They are already acting in a lawful manner, and are simply exercising a right (read carefully now, I didn't say Constitutional right) that our society has granted.

Let's talk about the Constitutional issue for a moment. As I have said before, I don't think a Second Amendment argument is legitimate. It simply marginalizes those that use it, and in the long run it won't be the determining factor. But I must point out with all respect, Ron, that once again you attempt to establish a premise that isn't so, and then argue it from there. Earlier you said, "Bill of Rights:   I and others have pointed out that there was a reason for the 2nd Amendment--at the time of the Bill of Rights. That reason is now gone--since the functions of the "Militia"-- (which at the time would likely have been any able-bodied male over 16)-- have now been taken over by the National Guard." Your statement implies that the reason for the Second Amendment no longer exists hence the Amendment is no longer valid. But the Constitution, as the founders created it, recognized that this was an instrument that would have to change with the times. Hence the ability to amend it. Yet, with all the argument over this amendment, no one has yet sought to remove it. There are those that would, but the American electorate won't support it. If the Constitution of the United States is to be deemed to be the working basis of our system of laws, then the ability to amend it not being exercised means the people of this country don't see this as the problem. I would say to those of you that think your position is correct that the means to gain your objective lies before you. The burden is on you. You simply need to exercise your right to begin a movement to change the Constitution.

I am writing this on the fly, but I hope it adds to the discussion.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 09:49 PM

Hey Ake--

Mick represents the pro-gun position well--if he has time to drop in. Admittedly he is one of few who can. Most of the rest are a bit off the wall, to put it mildly.

But I really would like a reasonable person to try to give the argument in favor of the general public's access to handguns. So we can hear if there is in fact a reasonable argument.

Haven't heard one yet, it's true.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 04:58 PM

Some fuckin' hopes!

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 11:43 PM

Yup, no doubt, Gun Owner--what we need is every student in every class to be armed to the teeth.

YOU MEAN I ONLY GOT A C PLUS?

I HAVE SOMETHING IN MY KNAPSACK THAT SAYS I DID BETTER.



And you're absolutely right, all you would have had to do is wave your pistols in front of the Supreme Court and they would have thought twice about Kelo.


Hey Mick--are you out there?   This discussion needs a rational person to represent the pro-gun side.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 09:49 PM

a spokesman for George BUsh said the day after the shooting...
the president believes there is a right for people to bear arms,
but that all laws must be followed..

he hit the nail on the head..

if only those homicidal maniacs who arm themselves to the teeth
would just follow laws!

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Peace
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 09:45 PM

And to show you how fulla shit you are you Jew hating sonuvabitch, here is a quotation from Amnesty's site:

'"Torture is a problem, not a solution
Torture is a real problem around the world with many hundreds of thousands of victims. Amnesty International has documented torture in more than 150 countries, including the United States. In more than 70 countries, it is widespread. People in 80 countries have died as a result of torture. The victims are mainly detained on minor criminal charges, including women and children, and the methods include rape and brutal violence.'

I don't like racists, no matter how they disguise their rhetoric. Fuck you.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Peace
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 09:37 PM

"The U.S. and Israel are the only two countries in the world that have codified torture as national policy."

Get in touch with Amnesty International. They will tell you politely that you are misinformed. I ain't as polite as they are. I'll just tell you you're fulla shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: GUEST,gun owner
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 09:29 PM

I'll repeat once more...the current U.S. govt has admitted to raping with acid at Abu Grahib prison. Gun ownership is more relevant than ever. The U.S. and Israel are the only two countries in the world that have codified torture as national policy. Gun ownership is more relevant than ever. The Kelo decision by the U.S. Supreme Court says anyone who can make more money with your land than you can is eligible to steal your land. Gun ownership is more relevant than ever. I could add a thousand items to this list.

Something I find distressing about the VT shootings is how people keep referring to the dead as "kids." Wasn't the age range of those shot between 19-30? I'd bet there are vets of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq going to school there, too. Those aren't "kids" at that school, and the media telling you that adult college students are incapable of protecting themselves with guns is sheer brainwashing. We trust our lives to people in that age group every day, so why are they not trustworthy enough to carry concealed handguns as Virginia law outlines? If some of those 20-somethings had had concealed weapons in their backpacks, it would've been a short shooting spree. All these shootings take place in "gun free" zones because even "maniacs" know better than to open up when people will shoot back. "Kids."

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Peace
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 09:02 PM

Guns don't scare me. Idiots with guns scare me.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 08:46 PM

Sorry--"Sister Souljah"

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 08:43 PM

Gun Owner--

Why pick on the 2nd Amendment? Because the government is fearful of people having guns?

Uh, not exactly.

It's because:

1) Guns kill a bit more easily than, say, exercising freedom of religion.
2) The 2nd Amendment has outlived its usefulness--as discussed earlier.

Your paranoia about government is entertaining, if not sensible.

It's interesting that this particular regime--which is squarely on the side of gun owners, you may not have noticed--is more prone to abuses of power than any we've seen for a long time.

It's also of note that, though I'm a card-carrying member of BLA-- (Bush Loathers of America--perhaps you'd care to join?)--I am not afraid of government---while you seem petrified at nefarious plans it may have--which, it seems, only you know.

Why don't you tell us your wrenching personal saga of mistreatment by government--that causes you to fear it so intensely? (The story could be diverting--at least until Mick gets back.)


Sister Soujah syndrome--QED





Memo to Mick: if you're out there, can you drag this discussion back on track--by addressing my earlier question?

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 08:35 PM

Well, kinda, gun owner... The 2nd Amendment if read in it's entirity links ownership of guns to a standing militia...

This isn't exactly a carte blanch green light for anyone to own guns, regardless of "certain laws"...

Now, let's get real here... All the handguns in American wouldn't stop one F-16 or B-1 bomber flyin' at 20,000 feet... I really don't think the handguns are keeping our governemnt honest...

Exhibit A: Geore Bush and Dick Cheney

Exhibit B: Halliburton

If this governemnt wanted to control handgun ownership, this government, especially under George Bush, could pull it off with a few hundred million $$$s worth of PR... This government couldn't care less...

Guns, Budweiser and NASCAR... All tools to keep the masses somewhat content and their attention away from the real danger of this governemnt which is, of course, steeling tax money from the working class to give to the rich people who own this governemnt...

Bobert

p.s. BTW, why don't we let 3 year olds play with guns???

Hint: It's friggin' dangerous and a purdy stupid idea...

p.s. BTW, Part B, why do we let just about anyone else play with guns???

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: GUEST,gun owner
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 09:34 AM

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

The problem is Americans are no longer taught the U.S. Constitution. Kids are now taught the U.N. Charter. On the U.S. immigration test there is an asterisk by the 2nd Amendment. Only Amendment that has one. It says citizens can own guns (*subject to certain laws). All 10 Amendments have been violated by "laws," so why pick on the 2nd in that way? Because the govt is fearful of people owning guns. Guns keep governments honest. Gun ownership in the U.S. is and always was intended to prevent a repeat of the governmental abuses seen under the British.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 09:08 AM

Thanks d & Ron, I guess 'something' would be better than 'nothing'.

Sitting over here in highly-urbanised UK, it's hard to understand why anyone would ever want a 'hunting' gun - especially when so much 'hunting' seems to be heavily-weighted in favour of the 'hunter', and it's not done for food per se, it's done for 'sport', with the food-supply it might produce being a secondary consideration. It's not really sport AFAIC, just legal satisfaction of primitive blood-lust.

Maybe these people should hunt each other? An afternoon on the receiving end, getting a coupla rounds up their own arses, might just change their minds.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 08:24 AM

In fact, Johnny, you don't even want to mention rifles in connection with gun control. That just confirms the worst fears of the other side--and allows them to make the slippery slope argument against any attempt at restricting guns. An argument which works like a charm--and probably was a main factor in the expiration of the assault weapons ban.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 07:47 AM

Mmmmm, thought that was it d. I understand the logic, but I'd prefer it if all guns were history. Still, if we got rid of the handguns, that would be something to celebrate.
Cheers,
S:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 07:47 AM

Also, Johnny, from a standpoint of practicality, no control effort which includes rifles has a prayer in the US. The hunting lobby is just too strong.

The main push, as Dianavan says, has to be--when it happens--which again from a political standpoint won't be for a while yet--to reduce the current easy availability of semi-automatic pistols--particularly those that are easily concealed.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 02:01 AM

"By our readiness to allow arms to be purchased at will and fired at whim; by allowing our movies and television screens to teach our children that the hero is one who masters the art of shooting and the technique of killing... we have created an atmosphere in which violence and hatred have become popular past times" - Martin Luther King, November, 1963

This quote came from an article worth reading.

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html

Studies examining the effects of legislation on death and injury rates in Canada have also suggested that stricter controls reduce gun death. A more recent study suggests that changes to Canada's gun control law have had an effect on accidental firearm death rates, particularly in males.(Boyd, Neil. "A Statistical Analysis of the Impacts of the 1977 Firearms Control Legislation: Critique and Discussion." Department of Justice Canada. 1996.)

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 01:50 AM

My opinion on that, Johnny, is that handguns are much easier to conceal and are the weapons of choice for most criminals. Sure, you get the odd rifle-toting criminal, but not usually. Handguns are easy and convenient and can be used in the heat of the moment. Using a rifle takes a great deal more pre-meditation. Most rifles are used for hunting, not crimes. Its also a lot harder for a child to handle a rifle. Any idiot can use a hand gun and lots of them do.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 12:30 AM

OK, here's a question - not flaming, just asking. Why ban handguns, but not rifles? OK, OK, I know the old toffee about 'handguns are easy to conceal and rifles aren't', but didn't the sniper-guy who shot a few innocent passers-by over a period of a week or two (Washington? Philadelphia? don't remember the exact location) use a rifle? It was pretty well-concealed. And (I could be wrong here - apologies if so) wasn't it one of them thar harmless huntin' rifles that never hurts no-one?

Just askin'

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 10:17 PM

Hey Mick,




Hi Mick--

This doesn't really have to deteriorate into yet another name-calling session. You know a lot of us have a lot of respect for you--for what you do as well as what you believe.

Admittedly Peppermint Patty or whatever she calls herself is not doing the cause of rational discussion any good--just as your friend and mine,   Mr. Gun Owner is not the most helpful participant.

So why don't both sides do a Sister Souljah for those ostensible supporters of each side? --and those of us who want to actually discuss the topic can continue.

But what I'd say is it depends on who has the burden of proof that gun restrictions are not a good idea. You seem to think that those in favor of gun control have to justify their position. I'd say that after Columbine, VA Tech--and other examples of killing sprees by handgun--that those who don't want restrictions have the burden of proof as to why not.

Why not ban further sale of handguns--(except revolvers)--except to the military or police?

Rifles would not be touched. Hunters therefore should have no gripe.

It doeesn't seem to me that the convenience of those who like target-shooting should take precedence over public safety. And the main goal, it seems to me, should be to keep semi-automatic pistols from easy availability--which they now enjoy--and which contributes to the carnage the US experiences every year.

As I said earlier, it's just too easy now to solve a argument with pistols--and it happens a lot.

Obviously a main focus should be on restricting the opportunities of the mentally ill to buy handguns. But as you can tell from the VA Tech massacre, that is not always easy. Better communication between states and other authorities would help.

But still I'd like to know what you consider a compelling argument in favor of the general public's access to handguns.

As you know, the Second Amendment argument is a very weak reed.

Yes, I'm fully aware that this is just an academic exercise--since it's pretty clear that one of the main reasons Bush has been polluting the White House for 6 years is that the Democrats were perceived as not strongly enough in favor of guns----so no gun control legislation is going anywhere soon.

But still I'd like your views on this. I think we can have a useful discussion--and all participants should be able to refrain from invective.

It is a worthwhile topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 09:43 PM

I haven't been knee jerk yet, old buddy. I have tried to get folks to enunciate the basis for which they justify taking away a right that law abiding citizens have. I have asked them to justify their position with facts. I have asked them to just tell me what, exactly, the problem is that they will solve by taking guns, and that includes handguns, from law abiding citizens that are responsible in their use of these weapons. As of this moment, I have yet to get an answer. I believe the reason for that is because the data doesn't support the position, and their is clear evidence of higher crime rates in States with very restrictive gun laws.

Mick
(gun owner)
(former NRA member)

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 09:35 PM

So this is where the guns thread has gone....

First of all, bb, there is a certain level of ***reasonalableness*** in the argument that the Founding Fathers didn't envsion the menu of weapons that wetre to be offered to the general population some 250 year into their future...

And lets keep in mind that this right to bear arms was tied to a standing militia... Like how many folks who are pakin' 9 mm's are part of some militia...

I mean, can we get real here for one friggin second???

You, and others, say that you have a right to own handguns, which were used pretty much as cap'n'ball dueling pistols when the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd ammendment, that will spew out deadly slugs of lead as fast as you can pull the trigger???

Is that your argument, bb???

On the other thread about guns you challenged me to show how the internet is different than the developemnt of more deadly handguns and I pointed out that Thomas Jefferson sated that the success of democracy would depend on an "informed electorate" and therefore Thomas Jefferson would be very much in favor of anything that spread ***informaton*** that would better inform the masses...

Okay, there are mnay laws on the books that would help cut down on senseless gun violence if they were enforced... Enforcement is a politican statement... We have laws that say you can't drive over 65 mph on I-95 but folks do 75 ot 80... So politics do enter into enforcement... But beyond enforcement there are some conversations that are still waitin' to be played ou7t...

One such coversation is that when folks who have some reasonable concerns about handgun proliferation voice their concerns they get the NRA knee-jerk reaction from gun owners???

Like, what's that all about???

Do you all own stock in Smith & Wesson, or what???

Why can't the rest of us ask some questions without being made into some tree-huggin' commies???

I mean, let's get real here... It's our country, too!!!

Bobert
(gun owner)
(former NRA member)

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: GUEST,gun owner
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 08:51 PM

So now "predictable" people shouldn't be allowed to own guns. That's nice to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 07:26 PM

I see, overbearing, in your mind, is when I ask questions for which you don't have an answer.

Nice phoney Irish accent, btw.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: GUEST,patty o'dawes
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 06:57 PM

Don't flatter yourself. It is my standard response when met with an over bearing agressive eejit such as yourself.

Out of respect for the thread subject - which isn't you. I will leave you to stamp your feet alone. Just be careful you don't shoot your balls off now.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 06:51 PM

Cute tactic, it is what you usually revert to when you don't have an answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: GUEST,patty o'dawes
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 06:32 PM

Very sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 06:30 PM

Now there is an intelligent response. Of course, you have the answer and can back it up, yes? Oh, I forgot, you just sit over on the other side of the pond and bitch about American society.

Stick to something you know about. You won't look like such a troll.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: GUEST,patty o'dawes
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 06:24 PM

The tone of responses from some of the pro - gunners on this thread are very predictable. And make them the least suitable to hold a loaded gun.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 06:13 PM

Actually, dianavan, I was refraining from namecalling. But since you started it, let me just say that you are the fool, as usual. You use amateurish attempts to make your point such as,If it takes restricting my right to own a gun to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and/or the mentally unstable then so be it, and then act as if you have scored a point. But, once again, you simply use a gratuitous comment with no basis in fact. Perhaps you don't understand real debate, or what gratuitous assertions are. If you would like a basic primer, use Google. I will ask this again, and I will type slow. What exactly is the problem you think you will solve by taking the legally owned and used weapons from those that use them responsibly? If you come up with something, could you back it up with some data? What exactly is the problem you seek to resolve?

Now I expect you will come back with some off the wall comment again, act like anyone that has a different view must be a gun toting lunatic.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 04:59 PM

'"There are far more guns being used for criminal purposes than guns being used legitimately."'

Absurd.

BUT, there are too many guns being used for criminal purposes, that's for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Wesley S
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 04:02 PM

"There are far more guns being used for criminal purposes than guns being used legitimately."

I might be tempted to argue that one but I don't have any facts to back up my beliefs. How about you?

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 02:50 PM

Of course I don't think target shooting is a danger to children. Don't play the fool, Mick. If it takes restricting my right to own a gun to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and/or the mentally unstable then so be it.

Its too easy to obtain handguns and its too easy to conceal them. There are far more guns being used for criminal purposes than guns being used legitimately. In this case, I don't think my right to have fun should have any bearing on the issue. As to teaching kids responsibility, I think that there are other methods. In other words, legitimate gun owners can find alternatives. So can criminals but we don't have to make it easy for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 02:07 PM

And you are saying, then, that you were a danger to children while you were target shooting? You are saying that you are so unstable that you might kill someone? Or is it just others? Or is it even a small percentage? How would stopping you from learning to be responsible with firearms have made you a better person?

I might disagree with much of what you say, dianavan, but one thing is clear. You are a stable, interested person. The time you spent with weapons certainly didn't harm you. And no one's rights, children or otherwise, was threatened by you or your relatives enjoyment of those weapons. That is the case with such a huge percentage of legal handgun owners that it is clear that the criminals are the ones you should be venting on.

Your statement was a gratuitous assertion. If even one example exists contrary to your assertion, then it is wrong, gratuitous, and can be just as gratuitously denied. I know many folks that own handguns, enjoy them, and are not driven by fear or lacking in a sense of power. I am one of those. My defense of this issue stems from attacking an anti intellectual, emotion driven argument that won't resolve the problem that you want to resolve. You, along with the other anti gun folks, have never addressed what it is you hope to achieve by taking handguns, legally obtained and used, away from those who responsibly own them. Instead you throw out this stuff.

I expect better.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 01:54 PM

Sorry, I should clarify my last statement.

Only those who are motivated by fear and lack a sense of power, seek hand gun ownership.

Rifles are a different story entirely.

As to target shooting...

I grew up target shooting and its fun but I think that my right to have fun isn't as important as the rights of children to feel safe in their classrooms.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 01:52 PM

Police officers use them for reasons other than what you state, dianavan. Pretty silly statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: GUEST,gun owner
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 01:48 PM

Sorry I distress you people. I hope you realize the mistake you've made in trusting psychotic strangers with your well-being before it's too late.