|
16 Apr 07 - 12:31 PM (#2026953) Subject: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Alice Horrible event starting in a dormitory and then moved to classrooms in the engineering building where a student shot at least 20. breaking news now |
|
16 Apr 07 - 12:33 PM (#2026956) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Alice 20 killed, 28 injured are the first numbers being reported. One student did the shooting, also dead now. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 12:37 PM (#2026965) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Charley Noble Alice- There may have been 20 wounded and one dead according to CNN reports that I've just seen. Your title of this thread should be changed unlss you have better sources. Would you please contact one of the Joe Clones via the Quick Links and request that they change the thread title. The news is alarming enough without making it seem worse. Charley Noble |
|
16 Apr 07 - 12:38 PM (#2026967) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Charley Noble My apologies if you are correct. Charley Noble |
|
16 Apr 07 - 12:38 PM (#2026968) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Alice NBC news reported 20 dead, 28 wounded. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 12:41 PM (#2026972) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Alice A quite detailed description of how he moved across campus from the dorm to the classroom shooting was given on the NBC tv special report. Some students tried to hold the classroom door closed with their bodies to keep him out, but he shot through the door. Madness, when will it end. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 12:45 PM (#2026975) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Rapparee They are saying 22 dead, 20 hurt now, with the shooter dead. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 12:45 PM (#2026976) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Charley Noble According to ABC News and a Canadian report: At least 1 dead, others injured in Virginia Tech shooting; suspect arrested Canadian Press Published: Monday, April 16, 2007 BLACKSBURG, Va. (AP) - Officials say gunfire that erupted in a dorm and classroom at Virginia Tech has killed one person and wounded 17. A hospital spokeswoman says 17 students have been treated for gunshot wounds and other injuries. The university says police have confirmed that a suspect has been arrested. Students have been told to stay inside and away from windows. And police were sweeping the campus and worked to establish whether the gunman acted alone. On its web site, Virginia Tech says the shootings at opposite ends of the campus caused "multiple victims,". All entrances to the campus were closed and classes cancelled through Tuesday. Charley Noble |
|
16 Apr 07 - 12:46 PM (#2026978) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Liz the Squeak When you stop allowing people to have guns... but even then, it will only slow it down. Our borough is investigating a second killing, both victims attended the same school, but they were killed 3 weeks apart. This is terrible news, memories of Columbine and other schools are too near the surface already. LTS |
|
16 Apr 07 - 12:52 PM (#2026989) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Charley Noble Apologies appear to be in order. CNN is reporting that at least 20 students were killed. Here's a link to their story: Click here for CNN Sorry, Alice. Charley Noble |
|
16 Apr 07 - 01:11 PM (#2027008) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bee I feel so sorry for all involved in this tragedy. I've been listening to CBC reports and it is just as bad as reported elsewhere. Local hospitals have confirmed at least 21 injured/wounded, and authorities now say 21 dead. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 01:22 PM (#2027020) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Alice When you send your kids off to school, you worry about many things, and since Columbine, campus shootings are part of that worry. I know murders happened before Columbine, too, but these massive attacks just seem to keep coming. What is the solution? |
|
16 Apr 07 - 01:24 PM (#2027024) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: bobad "What is the solution?" What is the cause? |
|
16 Apr 07 - 01:30 PM (#2027032) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Alice Humans attack others for many reasons. A location like a campus or office building or shopping mall gives the attacker easy access to crowds of people. Horrifying. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 01:35 PM (#2027036) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: bobad That's the problem isn't it? Finding a solution when there are many causes. I guess one would have to look for some commonality - the one that comes to my mind is the availability of guns in America. But of course we all know that guns don't kill people, people kill people. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 01:45 PM (#2027045) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Rapparee Virginia Tech is a four year college; it's more akin to the McGill killings than Columbine. Or the Texas Tower. But I don't know any more about it than anyone else right now. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 01:46 PM (#2027047) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Alice If little girls in an Amish school aren't safe, how can we predict who will be attacked. I am feeling sick for the people involved in Virginia. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 01:47 PM (#2027050) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: bobad You probably meant to say the Dawson College shooting in Montreal rather than McGill, Rap. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 01:54 PM (#2027061) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Alice Headlines show climbing death toll. My heart goes out to all those there who are dealing with this. My first thought when I heard the news say Virginia was that many Mudcatters are there. For anyone reading this in the future who is touched by these killings, am so sorry for your loss. "ABC News has confirmed that there were two separate bomb threats last week at Virginia Tech that targeted engineering buildings. The first was directed at Torgersen Hall, while the second was directed at multiple engineering buildings. Students and staff were evacuated, and the university had offered a $5,000 reward for information into the threats." |
|
16 Apr 07 - 02:12 PM (#2027080) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Jim Lad My most sincere condolences to the families of those lost on this tragic day. A special prayer tonight for all of you in Virginia. With deepest sympathy. Jim |
|
16 Apr 07 - 02:15 PM (#2027084) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Shaneo So people kill people , not guns , I have heard that statement thousand's of times ,it's a cop out probably started by some greedy gun lobby. it's this thing in the American constitution that gives civilians the right to carry guns , now that's asking for trouble. If a man walks into a school with a gun and starts shooting , there's a good chance he will kill many before he is caught. If a man walks into a school with a knife and starts knifing the kids there's a much better chance of getting the knife away from him before he kills many. How many children must die before the law is changed to stop civilians carrying guns. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 02:31 PM (#2027093) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Alice To have bomb threats to the engineering building last week and now this shooting, there are reports of an off campus incident that may have been connected to this. So much more yet to be uncovered, so much pain now. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 02:41 PM (#2027097) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Rabbi-Sol CBS News is now reporting 29 dead. SOL ZELLER |
|
16 Apr 07 - 02:41 PM (#2027098) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Rapparee |
|
16 Apr 07 - 02:46 PM (#2027104) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,meself "You probably meant to say the Dawson College shooting in Montreal rather than McGill, Rap." No, he's thinking back ten years ago or so - there were twenty some women shot and killed at L'Ecole Polytechnique, part of McGill. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 02:47 PM (#2027105) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Stilly River Sage 31 dead. Geez. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 02:47 PM (#2027106) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: katlaughing No words come to me right now except I feel a profound anger and sadness and dismay. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 02:49 PM (#2027108) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: bobad "L'Ecole Polytechnique, part of McGill." L'Ecole Polytechnique is part of Universite de Montreal. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 02:55 PM (#2027111) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: nickp And Blacksburg is a lovely quiet town. I've cvivited it several times and always felt very relaxed there. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 02:56 PM (#2027113) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,meself Okay, that makes more sense. Anyway, I imagine that's the one Rap was thinking of. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 03:00 PM (#2027114) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Big Mick The first thing that must be said is to express grief and sorrow for the families involved. As to those that want to turn this into a gun debate, I ask you if it would have been less shocking if this sick individual had done a Tim McVeigh and filled a auto trunk (boot) with fertilizer and kerosene and blew up the building? Bobad did ask one intelligent question. What's the cause? Figure that out and you will end these things much sooner than some phoney gun ban. That will just leave weapons in the hands of irresponsible criminals. Mick |
|
16 Apr 07 - 03:02 PM (#2027115) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Another sad day. I remember the shootings from the Library Tower of my school, Univ. Texas, in 1966. Sixteen killed by the sniper with a rifle. Shock then and shock today. Was the shooter a student? When I last listened, that was not determined. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 03:07 PM (#2027121) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel I recorded hours of the live broadcasts as they were coming in. The horrendous mistake : The shooting started at 7 AM killing people. the campus was not shut down. The shooting resumed at 10 AM killing several dozen people. The College president said there was no link between the shootings. The shooting was by the same gunman. The FBI has taken over without offically reported request probably due to a patriot act statute. Sadly the local FOX channel here only had Holly MOrris, the fluff perky morning person, to cover the shootings. She yapped happily and put a positive spin on everything just as Fox reporters were trained to do but in this case it was obscene. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 03:10 PM (#2027122) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Stilly River Sage I'm sure the political response will be totally inadequate. And the NRA will put some spin on this to insist that the right to bear arms is not related to this massacre. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 03:12 PM (#2027125) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel The school had 2 bomb threats and now this. The gunman chained the main doors shut so there was no exit for the victims. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 03:16 PM (#2027129) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bainbo If you're interested in seeing it, the BBC is streaming live coverage. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 03:16 PM (#2027131) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel 32 dead, eight still critical. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 03:48 PM (#2027153) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Strollin' Johnny Outlaw guns. In the western world (Europe, North America) no-one except the farmer needs to have one. There's meat a-plenty to be had at the supermarket, so the hairy-arsed, testosterone-fuelled 'hunters' have no justifiable argument to try to cover their primitive blood-lust. It's true that people kill people, but those bastards would find it much harder with their bare hands and at close range. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 03:59 PM (#2027167) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Riginslinger "It's true that people kill people, but those bastards would find it much harder with their bare hands and at close range." They could always poison the water. Or preach two separate religious doctrines and let the people kill each other. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 04:07 PM (#2027178) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Rapparee Apparently the school waited two hours or more after the shootings in the dorm to do anything further. To me, that's unconscionable. And if there were bomb threats last week, why in the world didn't the police take them seriously? |
|
16 Apr 07 - 04:08 PM (#2027179) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel The wounded number 26, 8 critical |
|
16 Apr 07 - 04:09 PM (#2027181) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Wesley S It's interesting to me that the first quotes from the President refer to his support of second amendment rights. I would have thought it would have been better to address that later. From MSNBC: White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said that President Bush "was horrified and his immediate reaction was one of deep concern for the families of the victims, the victims themselves, the students, the professors and all the people of Virginia who have dealt with this shocking incident. His thoughts and prayers are with them." "The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed." |
|
16 Apr 07 - 04:11 PM (#2027185) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,meself Mister Sensitivity. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 04:15 PM (#2027192) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Amos There are huge gaps missing in this picture. Sigh. I am sure the papers will stretch it out, and keep this one alive for a week, profiling the victims and running every recall by anyone who was within hearing distance and comparing it to all the earlier similar asinine massacres. Thisis th ekind of madness that makes me want to go back to Arcturus. A |
|
16 Apr 07 - 04:19 PM (#2027199) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,petr IM not particularly in favor of easy access to guns. But the causes are more cultural than simple availability of guns. If you look at a country like Switzerland - where by law citizen are required to keep a loaded military gun at home - there is very little gun violence. Elliot Layton the man who studies murder has some valid points about gun violence and violence in general. (for instance the Yanomamo- have a murder rate 5000times the US, they encourage their kids, from an early age 2-3 even, to hit each other with sticks) and there are the Kalahari bushmen who are so nonviolent they are shocked that people would spank their children. Its a terrible and sad day, I feel for all those families.. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 04:22 PM (#2027200) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce Officials: Gunman dead after bloody campus rampage POSTED: 4:14 p.m. EDT, April 16, 2007 Story Highlights• Police chief says at least 22 people are dead; congressmen report 32 • Four hospitals report 29 wounded • Attacks mark deadliest school shooting in U.S. history • Student describes situation as "mayhem"; says 2 students jumped from window (CNN) -- A lone gunman is dead after police said he killed at least 21 people and perhaps more Monday during shootings in a dorm and a classroom at Virginia Tech -- the deadliest school attack in U.S. history. Officials said the shooting incidents occurred two hours apart. It was not clear if the gunman was killed by police or if he took his own life. Virginia Reps. Tom Davis and Randy Forbes said they were told that 32 people, including the gunman, were dead. The two said they were given the new death toll by Gov. Tim Kaine's chief of staff. The governor's office was unable to confirm that number and the Virginia Tech Police Department, which is leading the investigation, said it didn't know where the higher death toll originated. In a separate interview, Forbes said he heard the shooter was a student, but he emphasized he had no solid information on the shooter's identity or his motive. "Some victims were shot in a classroom," university police Chief Wendell Flinchum said. (Watch the police chief explain where bodies were found ) Spokespersons for hospitals in Roanoke, Christiansburg, Blacksburg and Salem told CNN they were treating 29 people from the shootings. Sharon Honaker with Carilion New River Medical Center in Christiansburg said one of the four gunshot victims being treated there was in critical condition. Scott Hill, a spokesman for Montgomery Regional Hospital in Blacksburg, where 17 wounded students were taken, said he wasn't expecting any more victims. "Today the university was struck with a tragedy that we consider of monumental proportions," said university President Charles Steger. "The university is shocked and indeed horrified." (Map of Blacksburg) The killings mark the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history, surpassing attacks at Columbine High School in 1999 and at the University of Texas in 1966. One person was killed and others were wounded at multiple locations inside a dormitory about 7:15 a.m., Flinchum said. Two hours later, another shooting at Norris Hall -- the engineering science and mechanics building -- resulted in multiple casualties, the university reported. (Campus map) The first reported shooting occurred at West Ambler Johnston Hall, a coed dormitory that houses 895 students. The dormitory, one of the largest residence halls on the 2,600-acre campus, is located near the drill field and stadium. Amie Steele, editor-in-chief of the campus newspaper, said one of her reporters at the dormitory reported "mass chaos." The reporter said there were "lots of students running around, going crazy, and the police officers were trying to settle everyone down and keep everything under control," according to Steele. (Watch police, ambulances hustle to the scene ) Kristyn Heiser said she was in class about 9:30 a.m. when she and her classmates saw about six gun-wielding police officers run by a window. "We were like, 'What's going on?' Because this definitely is a quaint town where stuff doesn't really happen. It's pretty boring here," said Heiser during a phone interview as she sat on her classroom floor. Student reports 'mayhem' Student Matt Waldron said he did not hear the gunshots because he was listening to music, but he heard police sirens and saw officers hiding behind trees with their guns drawn. "They told us to get out of there so we ran across the drill field as quick as we could," he said. Waldron described the scene on campus as "mayhem." (Watch a student's recording of police responding to loud bangs ) "It was kind of scary," he said. "These two kids I guess had panicked and jumped out of the top-story window and the one kid broke his ankle and the other girl was not in good shape just lying on the ground." Madison Van Duyne said she and her classmates in a media writing class were on "lockdown" in their classrooms. They were huddled in the middle of the classroom, writing stories about the shootings and posting them online. The university is updating its more than 26,000 students through e-mails, and an Internet webcam is broadcasting live pictures of the campus. The shootings came three days after a bomb threat Friday forced the cancellation of classes in three buildings, WDBJ in Roanoke reported. Also, the 100,000-square-foot Torgersen Hall was evacuated April 2 after police received a written bomb threat, The Roanoke Times reported. Last August, the first day of classes was cut short by a manhunt after an escaped prisoner was accused of killing a security guard at a Blacksburg hospital and a sheriff's deputy. After the Monday shootings, students were instructed to stay indoors and away from windows, police at the university said. "Virginia Tech has canceled all classes. Those on campus are asked to remain where they are, lock their doors and stay away from windows. Persons off campus are asked not to come to campus," a statement on the university Web site said. The university has scheduled a convocation for 2 p.m. ET Tuesday. Classes also have been canceled Tuesday. In Washington, the House and Senate observed moments of silence for the victims and President Bush was reportedly "horrified" by news of the attacks. "His thoughts and prayers are with them, and we are monitoring the situation," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 04:22 PM (#2027201) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bill D Sadness....that anyone feels that the deaths of innocent people will somehow assuage HIS feelings or 'punish' anyone for imagined offenses. But because some humans develop these mindsets, it will keep happening from time to time. Easily available guns just make it easier. I am against easily available guns, but I also realize how difficult it would be to change the gun laws OR the gun mentality in this country. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 04:33 PM (#2027208) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel Strictly my own broad brush perspective and NOT an excuse, but the young people in Virginia have a unique white pride predjudice that is pallatable in their interaction, speech, "nicknames for others", shaved head haircuts and confederate traditions. A minority student there would find it challenging. A psychotic minority student there could go beserk. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 04:36 PM (#2027210) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Wesley S You're right. That's a broad brush. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 04:36 PM (#2027211) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bill D beardedbruce..please post the LINK!...there is no real purpose in 2 screens full of detail here. Those who wish can go read it. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 04:42 PM (#2027217) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel video streaming http://media.myfoxdc.com/live/index_streaming3.html |
|
16 Apr 07 - 04:44 PM (#2027219) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,Tunesmith A previous poster said: "What's the cause? Figure that out and you will end these things much sooner than some phoney gun ban. That will just leave weapons in the hands of irresponsible criminals". The thing is, I don't think criminals are interested in running amok at a college! BTW. I'm from the UK, and, in all of my life, I've never even seen a hand gun. Although young people living in inner-cities probably have. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 04:55 PM (#2027227) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/16/AR2007041600533.html?hpid=topnews |
|
16 Apr 07 - 05:00 PM (#2027233) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel Did W really exprees his concern that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed? I wish he had only said it was horrible. I wonder if he has ever repeated, "You'll have to pry my gun from my cold dead hands" |
|
16 Apr 07 - 05:45 PM (#2027270) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Slag It is with great sorrow for our nation and in particular for the families and friends of the victims that I write. My heart goes our to you all. I would that it were not so. No amount of words can touch the horrible grief that follows such a tragedy and I can say this from personal experience. God bless you. I could not help but note the political sniping that began early on in this thread. Save that for another thread. There is coincidentally, ironically, another thread going on right now about gun laws. Post it there and save this one for condolences. I might note in passing that gun laws did not slow this mad man down one whit. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 06:20 PM (#2027314) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bobert Oh, man, oh how hurtfull and sad this news is... The P-Vine and I have been on the road all day and didn't have so much as a clue until we got home about 30 minutes ago and, bang!!! Ahhh, yeah, okay, that many young Amercians dir evry 10 days in Iraq and I feel guilt for paying taxes for that to happen but... ...those folks in Iraq, at the very least, knew that signing up for the military involved some risk but... ...for college kids to be gunned down??? This is a sad, sad day... Right now I don't even want to get into the stupid argument with the righties about handguns... Maybe later... Right now, I am feeling so very sad for those kids and their families and think that I'll just leave it at that and really don't feel like talkin' on Mudcat tonight about this or any thing else so... ...I'll be back maybe tomorrow or the day after that... Peace to all, Bobert |
|
16 Apr 07 - 07:41 PM (#2027356) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Peace There will be two more families mourning. The death toll is now at 33. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 08:42 PM (#2027397) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: jaze "Guns don't kill people, people do" That's bullshit. People WITH guns kill people. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 08:45 PM (#2027400) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Big Mick People with cars kill people, people with knives kill people, people with homemade bombs kill people, people with fists kill people,............what's your point??? |
|
16 Apr 07 - 08:45 PM (#2027404) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Charley Noble The college administrators will be haunted for years for not cancelling classes after the initial round of shooting. Really horrible! Charley Noble |
|
16 Apr 07 - 09:15 PM (#2027420) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,gun owner The college administrators at Virginia Tech banned handguns on campus too. Virginia has a concealed handgun law, and there was a heated exchange at Virginia Tech over this issue 2 years ago. The students should have been armed so they could take out the shooter. In 2002, just down the road at Appalachia Law School, a couple of students got their guns from their cars and stopped a similar incident. Disarming people is nuts. I bought 4000 rounds of ammo this weekend to disperse to family members. All firearms we have are legal, all users responsible. I feel sad for the families of those killed. Shouldn't have happened. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 09:29 PM (#2027429) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bill D I shudder at the thought of THOUSANDS of students running around armed. There 'might' be fewer mass murders, but I'll BET you there'd be more incidents involving guns...including more accidents and more impulsive bits of 'self-defense' against everything from insults to imagined break-ins. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 09:41 PM (#2027439) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bill D "People with cars kill people, people with knives kill people, people with homemade bombs kill people, people with fists kill people,.." except for 'homemade bombs', Mick, those are not valid comparisons...and homemade bombs are not that common or easy....or 'fun'. Cars & knives and fists all have everyday, legitimate uses. Guns are made to shoot things. VERY few people have the need to shoot something daily. Knives are indeed deadly...but if the guy had been using a knife, he would likely have been subdued - and one can run from a knife...or hold up a book...etc... Cars? Aww...c'mon! Bricks next? I DO understand the arguments of those who enjoy guns for peaceful purposes...and *IF* you can figure out a way to confine them to persons who can be trusted, I'll shut up.... Sadly, as I have said, I do not know how to either limits guns to sane people, or to remove guns if the law were changed....we have gone so far down this path that I despair. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 09:44 PM (#2027441) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Azizi My deepest condolences to all who have lost loved ones and whose loved ones have been injured by this gunman. "There must be a reason why. I don't know." |
|
16 Apr 07 - 10:01 PM (#2027453) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: TIA "The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed" Aw Fuck. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 10:02 PM (#2027454) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Rapparee Bill, homemade bombs are far too common. They can and are made with common materials, materials found in your kitchen. We picked up a 12 gauge shell outside the library. It had been rigged to (possibly) detonate when thrown. A teenager was killed down in Utah when he went to inspect a bomb he and his friends has made from a two-liter pop bottle (and other stuff) and had thrown into his back yard. The bomb didn't detonate until he was bending over it. And I know of no way to prevent the spread of the knowledge of how to make such things. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 10:02 PM (#2027455) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Peace Why polute this thread with THAT thing? |
|
16 Apr 07 - 10:03 PM (#2027456) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: TIA I've taught there. It's the most beautiful campus in the world (I've seen lots). I was trying to talk my daughter into going there. I think I still will. It's just random fucking bullshit. My god I can't imAGINE THE PARENTS OF THOSE KIDS (AND PROFESSORS). i'M GOING TO THROW UP. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 10:08 PM (#2027461) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: TIA Out of all the people here on the 'cat, the odds are that someone has someone there. My god I'm sorry. It's just devastating. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 10:17 PM (#2027464) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Rapparee TIA, I have friends who teach there. |
|
16 Apr 07 - 10:29 PM (#2027471) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Stilly River Sage Bill D is right. The weapons have been around too long, there is no way to squeeze them out of the culture. They'll just turn up somewhere else on the black market. The students should have been armed so they could take out the shooter. And take out other students in the process. Nothing like a group of excited people with handguns to go from one disaster to another, larger one. Nope. But at least take away the automatic and semi-automatic weapons. No one needs those. SRS |
|
16 Apr 07 - 10:42 PM (#2027475) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bill D (of course bombs are far too common...any device meant to harm others is too common. Yes they are 'too' easy to make...IF you study a bit & go to some trouble and plan....but they are harder to use! NOTHING is so easy and easily concealable as a handgun. Handguns have a mystique also...having one gives a feeling of power for many, and they are MUCH easier to deal with than building something. I would be overjoyed there were NO handguns and if all we had to worry about was kids building bombs.) |
|
16 Apr 07 - 10:47 PM (#2027479) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Rapparee By the way, I've spoken to my friends and they are fine, although shook. Who wouldn't be? |
|
17 Apr 07 - 01:31 AM (#2027532) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Big Mick Bill, all of the points you make are simply gratuitous assertions on your part. I own weapons, they don't make me feel powerful. They also don't have a mystique except to the deluded. I believe I am at least as qualified to speak as to what guns have....i.e. mystique, give feeling of power, etc. Why do I feel this? Because I have been around gun owners my entire life. I was raised with them in my family. Most of my friends owned them. They were prevalent in the area I grew up in. Virtually no one I know ever treated guns in an irresponsible way, nor have I ever seen anyone among the people I have known who ever considered going for a weapon to address a problem or grievance. I have a lifetime experience, Bill, and haven't seen it outside of military life. As to the contention that you would rather deal with bombs, would you? It was silly of you to say so, buddy. Ever seen what about four bags of fertilizer will do? The last point I would make, Bill, relates to your contention that handguns have no everyday, legitimate use. I would contend they have many everyday, legitimate uses. You know it too, or do I need to enunciate them. As to the reason I posted those comparisons, it was an answer to the ignorant and gratuitous post by jaze just before it. And in case anyone wonders, Bill D is a great friend of mine. I consider him a marvelous debater on most subjects. He backs his arguments with facts and solid logic. On this issue, in fact this is the only issue, I think he is off base. But he thinks the same of me....... Mick |
|
17 Apr 07 - 01:46 AM (#2027535) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: dianavan I am so sad. I feel absolute despair. My heart goes out to the families of those killed and injured. I can't even imagine the number of people traumatized by this event. So much senseless damage. So many lives torn apart. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 02:34 AM (#2027548) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: autolycus Big Mick - your weapons don't make you powerful. The weapons possessed by the UK,France,Israel,Russia,US certainly make THEM feel very powerful. Same mindset. And the mindset is not merely an individual matter,Bill. It belongs to a society - see post above about violent and peaceful cultures. Ivor |
|
17 Apr 07 - 03:17 AM (#2027561) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Slag So much for preserving the thread. It's amazing Peace, you and I can differ so much and yet I find so much agreeable with your wisdom--- sometimes! This is such a horrible thing and my gut reaction is to have a world without weapons or violence. I long for that day to beat the swords into plowshares but I'm not so foolish as to think that by disarming, it will somehow stop the haters, the psychotic, the greedy, the power-hungry and all their ilk, from committing atrocities like this from happening. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 06:40 AM (#2027625) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Big Mick Ivor, please reread my post and then comment. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 07:35 AM (#2027670) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Strollin' Johnny It was stated on UK TV this morning, by an American commentator, that c. 3,000 'children' (his word) are shot in the US every year. That's THREE F**KIN' THOUSAND! How can the hairy-arse, small-dick "My gun makes me a Big Man" brigade continue to try to justify their utter stupidity? The one and only purpose for a gun is to propel a deadly projectile, IOW to kill. Those pricks can argue all they like, deny till they're blue in the face, but they can't change that fact. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 07:57 AM (#2027690) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce Bush: Shootings impact 'felt in every American classroom' POSTED: 8:37 p.m. EDT, April 16, 2007 Story Highlights• President Bush says Virginia Tech shootings "felt in every American classroom" • Attorney General Gonzales says federal agents already on Virginia Tech campus • Speaker Pelosi leads a moment of silence on House floor WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Monday that the mass shooting at Virginia Tech, the deadliest campus violence ever in this country, affects every student across the nation. "Schools should be places of safety, sanctuary and learning," Bush said in reaction to the deaths of more than 30 people on the campus. "When that sanctuary is violated, the impact is felt in every American classroom in every American community." Bush spoke with Gov. Timothy M. Kaine and Virginia Tech President Charles Steger. (Watch what Bush pledged to do to help the investigation ) "I told them that Laura and I and many across our nation are praying for the victims and all the members of university community that have been devastated by this terrible tragedy," Bush said in the Diplomatic Room of the White House. "Today our nation grieves with those who have lost loved ones at Virginia Tech," he said. "We hold the victims in our hearts. We lift them up in our prayers and we ask a loving God to comfort those who are suffering today."' Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said agents from the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives were already on the campus, aiding local authorities in the investigation. "We are committed to providing support and assistance to those authorities as well as to the victims of this crime for as long as necessary," Gonzales said in a statement issued by the Justice Department. "I am deeply saddened and angered by these senseless acts of violence," Gonzales said. "My deepest condolences and prayers go out to those affected by this horrific crime, especially those who lost loved ones." Gonzales had been scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday regarding the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, but that testimony was postponed because of the Virginia shootings. In the House, which returned Monday from a two-week recess, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, interrupted the proceedings to lead a moment of silence in remembrance. (Watch Speaker Pelosi express Congress' sympathy for the shooting victims ) "As the Virginia Tech community struggles with the mourning and questioning that is certain to follow, the continued prayers from this Congress are with the students, their families, the faculty and the staff at Virginia Tech," Pelosi said. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 07:59 AM (#2027691) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Strollin' Johnny BTW, for those who don't believe that Firearms Control works, consider this - in the whole of the UK (population 60m) in 2005/6 there were 50 (yes, that's FIVE-ZERO) homicides by shooting, and 74 in the previous year (source: Home Office Statistical Bulletin ISSN 1358-510X, 25.1.07). How would that extrapolate against a population the size of the US (at a guess 400m) - between 340 and 500? So how many homicides were there by shooting in the US last year? QED. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 08:02 AM (#2027693) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,Black Hawk on work PC Strollin' Johnny - The one and only purpose for a gun is to propel a deadly projectile, IOW to kill. Those pricks can argue all they like, deny till they're blue in the face, but they can't change that fact. The only prick on this site is you. Target firearms are designed, manufactured and used to punch holes in paper. Yes they are capable of killing in the wrong hands but so is a hammer etc. When will people stop to actually think instead of making ignorant, uninformed remarks. In the aftermath of Dunblane in the U.K., innocent shooters were penalised for the actions of a deranged person. Handguns were banned & confiscated. Handgun crime in the U.K. has risen at an incredible rate. Stop trying to lay blame (I know it makes you feel better but it does not help) but instead try to get politicians to make it not worthwhile for a criminal to use a gun, knife, candlestick or whatever. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 08:08 AM (#2027697) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce SJ, This is NOT the appropriate thread to discuss this. ( feel free to start another) ALL of us look at this as a tragedy: YOUR trying to make it a discussion of gun control is, while perhaps worthwhile in another thread, not a positive contribution. BTW, US population is 300 million. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 08:23 AM (#2027706) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Escamillo It´s hard to find words to express our sorrow for the tragedy. Me, my family, friends, and everybody I know, are much concerned and talking all the day about the Virginia incidents. We in Argentina have seen some similar cases with one or two victims, but there is a common characteristic of the individuals who caused the tragedy: a history of discrimination, isolation and disrespect against these persons, by members of the students community, ignored or accepted by the authorities, who encourage the spirit of competition, differentiation, division of people into winners and losers, into members and not members of internal groups or teams, etc. A sane person will never have a criminal reaction, but let´s sum a hostile social environment, to a psychotic personality, to a growing tension, to the wide availability of lethal weapons which are terribly easy to carry and use, to some particular incident, and we have all the elements for a tragedy. It will be hard to recover from so much pain, but we have to do something to find the causes and amend the policies which are failing. Un abrazo - Andrés, from Buenos Aires |
|
17 Apr 07 - 08:28 AM (#2027711) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Rapparee I now know that I knew, slightly, one of the dead students. Also, a prof at the local U. has found out that his son, a student at VT, was hurt when he jumped out a window -- badly sprained ankle -- and he and his wife are quite naturally greatly relieved. The news this morning says that the shooter was an Asian student at the university, and that's about ALL that's new. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 08:30 AM (#2027712) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Rapparee I'm concerned about copycat events, especially now that the school year is winding down and those whose grades are less than expected. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 08:35 AM (#2027718) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,Black Hawk Well said BeardedBruce! Give the families space to grieve. They have my sincerest sympathies. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 08:37 AM (#2027721) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bobert Well, though now is not the time, a ***reasonable*** discussion about handguns in the US is long overdue... But not now... Bobert |
|
17 Apr 07 - 09:22 AM (#2027757) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Strollin' Johnny Bearded Bruce - I understand what you're saying, but I'd suggest that this is absolutely the place to discuss the stupidity of allowing free access to firearms for anyone who wants them. Were it not for firearms this thread would not exist, and the world would be a happier place. However, I'm as sad as the next man about this tragedy, and I'll respect the views of others and butt out. Apologies to anyone who I may have offended (except, of course, the stupid gun-freaks). S:0) |
|
17 Apr 07 - 09:30 AM (#2027762) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: katlaughing It would be better over on the Gun Crime thread, SJ, though I do agree with you. HERE is a link to the school website and what they have to say, with the shooter's identity, etc. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 09:49 AM (#2027772) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Strollin' Johnny OK, mea culpa. I allowed my feelings of revulsion to get the better of me. Apologies all round and sincere condolences to those affected by this tragedy. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 09:50 AM (#2027773) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce Student Gunman Identified Tuesday, Apr. 17, 2007 By CAITLIN SULLIVAN/BLACKSBURG AND KATHERINE ROONEY/WASHINGTON The gunman responsible for Monday's wave of terror which killed 32 people at the Virginia Polytechnic and State University was identified by police Tuesday morning as Cho Seung-Hui, 23, a resident alien originally from South Korea. Cho, a senior studying English, lived on campus. Related How to Make Campuses Safer Unlike high schools, most universities can't beef up security with a metal detector or two. So what can be done to protect students? His killing spree had begun 7:15 a.m., with the shooting of a woman and a male resident adviser on the fourth floor of a dorm building on campus. Kristen Bensley, a freshman who lived below the floor where the shooting occurred, told TIME, "There were rumors going on about [the assailant] was fighting with his girlfriend or something of that nature." Bensley suspected the gunmen may have been a a resident of the dorm, or have been admitted by a resident, because entry to the building requires a "passport," a card that one has to swipe in order to open doors before 10 a.m. If so, one question that arises will be how he managed to keep so much ammunition unnoticed. Two weapons have reportedly been recovered, one 22 caliber, the other a 9 mm. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 10:13 AM (#2027794) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Burke With 2 hours between the dorm shooting & the classroom shooting, the gunman had plenty of time to get more ammunition in between. Apparently the Univeristy officials thought they were dealing with a relationship conflict gone terribly wrong. I know lots of students sleep late, but it seems like IM's & the like would have spread the word on campus about something happening, even without official actions. The others killed have not been officially identified, but the television news programs had some identites based on friends or relatives who had been notified or students in the classrooms attacked. As I heard the descriptions of the triple major RA, a dancer, professors who were leaders in their fields, the losses seem so much more palpable. I hold all the students, faculty & thier families in my prayers. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 10:24 AM (#2027797) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: John MacKenzie If you're prepared to carry a gun, then you must be prepared to use it. If you're prepared to use it, then you must be prepared to kill someone. If you're prepared to kill someone, you're a potential murderer. If you didn't own a gun, none of these options would be open to you. There's no such thing as a responsible gun owner, only a person who's prepared to kill under the circumstances they think they can dictate! Gun control is the only answer. Tell the NRA to fuck off! Giok |
|
17 Apr 07 - 11:56 AM (#2027867) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Desdemona This is just a complete nightmare, I feel like my head is going to explode just thinking about it. The way the university handled this situation was absolutely inexcusable, and there's going to be holy hell to pay (to say nothing of the 30+ families whose lives will never, never be the same). More than two hours after two students were brutally murdered on campus, people were still blithely waking up, taking showers, eating breakfast, packing their backpacks and heading off to class with no idea of the enormous danger they were in, and even at that point the best effort made to alert them was via E-MAIL?! I don't know about you, but my experience of college students (and professors!) is that they roll out of bed at the last possible moment, especially if they have morning classes, and there is no guarantee they'll have (or take) time to check their e-mail to see if they're in imminent peril of being shot in German class. It's appallingly, needlessly, senselessly tragic how many times and at how many junctures the ball was dropped by the authorities charged with these students' safety and welfare. After the first shooting it was "assumed" the gunman had run away and left campus...oh, that's all right, then, back to business as usual?! Why on earth wasn't the local media alerted? That first incident should have been on the radio, on the television, announced over every loudspeaker on campus and in every forum anyone in that community had access to AND e-mailed. Had they done so, it's very likely that a number of lives might have been spared. I heard some "expert" on the news opining that to have done so would have risked causing a panic. Well, what did they get instead? Panic and the mass slaughter of innocent people. I'm sick at heart that such a thing could happen: that a young person so sick and damaged should have gone unrecognized, that he had such ready access to such deadly weapons, and such an ungodly amount of ammunition, the feebleness of the response to the deaths of two young people in a place where they are supposed to be safe and free to develop their minds, that so many of their peers and teachers had to die as a result of that feebleness...I'm with Giok: the NRA can fuck off, we need stricter gun control and we need it yesterday. ~D |
|
17 Apr 07 - 12:17 PM (#2027875) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: bubblyrat The newspapers in England today are full of pictures of hugely overweight policemen and heavily-armed security guards who, it is reported, were all running around,screaming and shouting at students to raise their hands or be shot,and tackling to the ground and hand-cuffing those students who ,terrified and panic-stricken, were trying to run from the scene . Can this be true ?? What a way to react to a crisis !! |
|
17 Apr 07 - 12:22 PM (#2027880) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Charley Noble There's not a "lesson" that I want to learn from this massacre, although many have already been offered and more candidates are awaiting their unvailing. Some radio talk-show host is probably already calling for all resident aliens to be deported, but not for stricter gun laws or stricter enforcement of what we have. This is just such an opportunity for the Bush Administration to persuade the people to hunker down while they provide more protection in the police state of hell they would like to create. When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. Somewhere, old Satan is smiling at his fun. Charley Noble |
|
17 Apr 07 - 12:34 PM (#2027890) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bill D Mick...I went to bed before you posted....but "Bill, all of the points you make are simply gratuitous assertions on your part. I own weapons, they don't make me feel powerful. They also don't have a mystique except to the deluded." I carefully SAID "gives a feeling of power for many",...and they only NEED to have that mystique and give a feeling of power for a few. " I would contend they have many everyday, legitimate uses. You know it too, or do I need to enunciate them." Nope...they are handy for trained, legitimate law officers & security personnel, who often need them to confront kids on the street who have them illegally. "As to the contention that you would rather deal with bombs, would you? It was silly of you to say so, buddy. Ever seen what about four bags of fertilizer will do?" Yes...but you read far too much into what I said. I do not anticipate kids holding up 7/11s with bags of fertilizer. *IF* all I had to worry about was that a kid with a grudge would go out and try to buy fertilizer, I'd be relieved....(and insert several other counter examples here). " Virtually no one I know ever treated guns in an irresponsible way, nor have I ever seen anyone among the people I have known who ever considered going for a weapon to address a problem or grievance. I have a lifetime experience, Bill, and haven't seen it outside of military life." But the stories of those who DO are in the news every day! YOU, Mick, hang out with more sensible folks, I guess. But you also know very well that there are multiple thousands of weapons out there in the hands of those who do not have the same attitude as you. You have lived in large, dangerous cities....you KNOW that there are places where you would need to be very careful, lest you meet the kind you prefer to ignore in your argument. Sorry, Mick...but you compliment me on my debating skills, then you throw me big, fat blooper pitches. As I say...show me how to limit gun |
|
17 Apr 07 - 12:41 PM (#2027898) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Leadfingers Whatever your viewpoint on the posession of guns , its a bloody mess !! |
|
17 Apr 07 - 12:54 PM (#2027910) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bill D (I see the pleas to limit this thread to 'sympathy' etc., but obviously that's not going to happen. I doubt any of the victim's families are going to be reading this.) and frankly, I am weary of the use of weak, fallacious arguments about how 'hammers' or knives or autos are also deadly in the wrong hands. Fine...I stipulate that I 'might' be assaulted with a brick on a dark street, or that a disgruntled student 'might' drive his car into a crowd. That is not the point!!! The point is that we have guns...ESPECIALLY handguns inaddition to those dangers....we NEED hammers & bricks and cars. I at least have a chance with a kid waving a brick or knife! Let guns be restricted to those who genuinely NEED them...let ammunition be **tightly** controlled. Let penalties for being found with a gun or ammunition in violation of licenced NEED be VERY severe! Let legitimate collectors of firearms be subject to surprise inspections to see that their collection is secure, and in some instances, rendered incapable of firing! (removed firing pins..whatever) ........nawwww...I don't expect to win. The gun lobby is WAY too powerful. The culture is too far down this road to easily change to the UK model. And I do not feel safe.....and I'm not going to go BUY a gun, pretending that it would make me feel safer. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 01:01 PM (#2027915) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Rapparee Bill, the answer is to change the culture. But I don't expect that to happen. I would like to know why a "domestic dispute" in a dormitory wasn't handled by the campus cops to start with. If a quarrel had reached the point where a Residence Assistant was called in, why wasn't it handled as a similar quarrel would have been off the campus and the police called? I've known of students at a major US university who thought that they shouldn't be held responsible for anything from underage drinking to assault and battery to rape because "I'm a XXXXX student." (The argument didn't hold.) |
|
17 Apr 07 - 01:07 PM (#2027919) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: dianavan "...the feebleness of the response to the deaths of two young people..." Feeble is putting it lightly. I suppose because they 'assumed' it was a domestic dispute, there was no need for a lock down? That tells you how seriously they take domestic disputes! Don't they realize that those who kill during a domestic dispute are enraged and are a danger to everyone? Pity the women of Viginia. I work in an elementary school and I can assure you we have emergency response procedures in place and we have drills at least once a year. We all know the difference between code yellow and code red. It is far more likely that you will find a gun on a university campus so what kind of excuse does the administration or the police have? Absolutely none! It is sad and disgusting that anyone would even want to commit such a horrible act but the response was equally apalling. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 01:15 PM (#2027923) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Jim Lad I dropped in yesterday to offer my condolences to those affected by this tragedy. I am thoroughly disgusted with the way some of you manage to turn Tragedy into Trash. I'll start a "Sympathy" thread for those interested (if no-one else has) and respectfully ask that you keep your debate out of it. Sincerely. Jim |
|
17 Apr 07 - 01:35 PM (#2027949) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel All of the issues in this thread have been discussed on the Diane Reem show today. The issues are not trash unless nothing is learned or improved! All of us are revulsed by horror in different ways. I did not know there are ~ 17,000 violent assualts on US college campuses every year, few of which involve guns. However the US does rank #11 in random gun violence if you exclude things like civil wars in other countries, some of which we supply the guns. I do apologize for comparing all Virginia youth to the kind of teenage kids you see in Virginia Shopping Malls. The students at Virginia Tech are a wonderful diverse and comsmopolitan group of people. The tragedy of the holocaust survivor senior professor killed yesterday, while trying to save others, is somehow compounded by the fact that it was on Holocaust rememberence day. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 01:37 PM (#2027953) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bill D That's fine Jim... but since the 'debate' is alread here:(I considered a 4th thread...but who knows the best way?) Mick says "Virtually no one I know ever treated guns in an irresponsible way, " I knew one. Back before I had thought through all the implications of the gun situation--in fact, I lived in his basement apt. for a year.....he knew guns quite well. He owned a shotgun, and a couple of rifles and several handguns. He favored his .45, however. He often walked around with it loosely concealed in his back pocket! Once, at a county Young Democrats meeting where there was a contentious election, he was surprised by being nominated for a position. He walked up to decline the nomination with that .45 half uncovered bulging obviously. At another meeting of the NAACP, the gun FELL OUT of his pocket on the floor! He smirked, picked it up, and went on talking. This guy fancied himself a 'protector'...a swashbuckling knight. He knew another man who he considered 'dangerous', so he would drive on nightly patrols with armament by his side. (He wanted ME to learn to load and use both the .45 and the shotgun...he considered one 30 min. lesson to be adequate. I was bemused & confused, trying to humor him.) One night, he got a call from a woman we both knew, who said something like, "Mac..can you come over...I am really upset..." so...he came down, grabbed ME, and "C'mon Bill...we have to go...you drive!"....Off we went, just a few blocks. As I pulled up to the curb, he opened the door, and...so help me, ROLLED out of the car as it was still moving, .45 in hand, and rushed in a crouch up to the door...where the startled woman said "Mac...what in the world are you doing? I was just tired & upset and needed to talk!" Now, this was a GOOD guy. He meant well...and fortunately, nothing ever happened that would put him in a sad newspaper story. But it is easy to see how there might have been. Mac could SO easily have decided he saw a 'danger' and used that gun too quickly. Perhaps if Mick had known Mac, he could have talked some sense into him...but I really doubt it. And I wonder how many other similar stories there are? Mac decided *I* needed a gun, and procured for me a 5 shot .22...just in case. I shrugged and hid it away.........guess what? It was stolen in a burglary. It was pawned...and they wanted me to BUY it back. I declined. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 01:49 PM (#2027963) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Mrrzy My nieces know both one of the men who jumped out the window (after which the gunman killed everybody left in the classroom) and the woman who survived the main classroom attack and has been on CNN. This time it wasn't a white guy, though. Anybody saying he was at the right age to be coming down with schizophrenia? |
|
17 Apr 07 - 02:11 PM (#2027982) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel well you did, and you are right that it is a possibility |
|
17 Apr 07 - 02:14 PM (#2027984) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel A man came to VT a year ago to discuss the role that first shooter video games play in creating school killers. There is even a Columbine challenge video game in which players can hone their skills. The military has paid for some of the games to help depersonalize trainees to kill with calm exactitude. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 02:19 PM (#2027991) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce Outlaw English majors! And Basketball. ................................................................. Gunman came to U.S. at age 8 from South Korea POSTED: 2:00 p.m. EDT, April 17, 2007 Story Highlights• Gunman was 23-year-old senior English major • Cho Seung-hui listed Centreville, Virginia, as hometown • Gunman, family described as quiet CENTREVILLE, Virginia (CNN) -- The gunman in Monday's massacre at Virginia Tech was Cho Seung-hui, a 23-year-old senior English major from Centreville, Virginia, Virginia Tech Police Chief Wendell Flinchum said Tuesday. Cho took his own life as police closed in on him, according to Col. Steve Flaherty, Virginia State Police's superintendent. Thirty other bodies were found in Norris Hall along with Cho, officials said. Two people were killed earlier Monday in a college dormitory. Cho, a South Korean national, was a legal resident of the United States, emigrating from his native country when he was 8, according to the Department of Homeland Security. He lived in a Virginia Tech dormitory, but not in the one where the first of Monday's shootings took place, university officials said. "It certainly is reasonable for us to assume that Cho was the shooter in both places, but we don't have the evidence to take us there at this particular point in time," Flaherty said. Police searched the residence at the home address he listed in Centerville, a suburb of Washington, on Monday night, CNN's Bob Franken reported. Neighbors and a postal worker who delivered mail to the residence described the family as friendly but quiet, Franken reported. No one was home at the white, two-story townhouse residence Tuesday. Cho was a loner, according to Larry Hincker, the associate vice president for university relations. Authorities are having a hard time finding any information about him, Hincker said. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in Washington that Cho was a legal permanent resident and had a green card. Cho "was very quiet, always by himself," neighbor Abdul Shash told The Associated Press. He said the family was quiet, and Cho often played basketball, according to an AP report. Fairfax County Schools in Virginia issued a statement Tuesday saying Cho graduated from Westfield High School in Chantilly, Virginia, in 2003. The school's Web site describes it as an "Honors" high school. Court records obtained by the AP show Cho got a speeding ticket from Virginia Tech police on April 7. He was cited for going 44 mph in a 25 mph zone, the AP reported, with a court date set for May 23. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 02:41 PM (#2028010) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel I just got a recorded phone call from the superintendent of our schools. He/it said a letter was coming home with the kids today with suggestions to how to deal with the VT shooting incident with our children. On TV there are damage control speeches with Bush in attendence. IF VT were sued 2 million dollars for every dead and wounded person in these gun deaths they would certainly be facing bankruptcy or closure unless the NRA were to help. Yes let the NRA help pay VT for the loss of these fine people. I am sure there are no members of the NRA willing to surrender their guns or support gun laws similar to the UK. Let them pay a tribute, not a fine, for every gun death in our country. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 02:55 PM (#2028023) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel The letter says we should pray. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 03:18 PM (#2028044) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: akenaton Time the silent majority in America asserted themselves. The only time gun deaths make the news is when multiple tragedies occur. American gun laws are a national disgrace....on a par with what you laughingly call an administration...Ake |
|
17 Apr 07 - 03:39 PM (#2028064) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: gnu Since this thread now includes "debate" and "opinions", allow me.... Some nut goes nuts with a gun. Someone must be punished. Punish all of the gun owners. That is truly fucked up. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 03:43 PM (#2028066) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce Some people seem to think it is ok to try to make political points off even a tragedy of this magnitude. But then, they would rather pass more "feel-good" laws that don't work than to try to deal with the real problems. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 03:49 PM (#2028070) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Captain Ginger But tragedies are perfect for scoring political points. A far bigger tragedy gets played out on the streets of Baghdad on a weekly basis, and people see no problem scoring political points off that. For me, to kill other people in the name of a faith or an ideology is far more of a tragedy than to do so because of a psychotic episode. Yes, it is a tragic and appalling episode - similar to many that seem to have happened in the US. But compared to Iraq or Chechnya... |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:03 PM (#2028077) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: akenaton right on Cap'n. Your message rings of truth more strongly than all the crocodile tears on Mudcat... "From my dead cold hand"....fucking scum....Ake. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:08 PM (#2028081) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Slag Gee, I must have missed some of the news!!! How long was this psychotic a member of the NRA? Did the NRA teach him to be a loner? Did it teach him how to kill people with malice aforethought? Is the NRA a criminal organization? If so why haven't arrests been made? Just what does the NRA stand for? What do they do? You know, it would be interesting to see a research study on the political leanings of those who commit murders, mass murders and the like. The prejudicial hatred spewed out by some of the posters herein drips of venom and murder against many law abiding folks who are responsible gun owners who seek to obey all the legal contortions necessary in order to protect their families and neighbors from criminals and the deranged and to enjoy a hobby and a sport. Am I supposed to believe that their hearts are in the right place? American gun laws a disgrace? Hardly! The books are full of odious and restrictive gun laws as well as useful ones which increase mandatory sentences for those who abuse their rights. Laws cannot change the hearts or minds of haters and killers nor can they stop the same from arming themselves in some fashion. That fact alone necessitates the law abiding to be armed in some manner or we will be sitting ducks such as these unfortunate souls were at VT. Get real. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:13 PM (#2028088) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: akenaton Slag ....have you lost it completely? That heap of shit is not even worthy of a reply Its more full of holes than those pesky "redskins" |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:14 PM (#2028090) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Jean(eanjay) I think NRA is National Rifle Association. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:16 PM (#2028091) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce "That heap of shit is not even worthy of a reply" Sort of what I thought about your diatribe... |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:19 PM (#2028094) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Jean(eanjay) NRA |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:21 PM (#2028098) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce But it is nice to know all the support for the removal of rights to provide for imagined security. If we just mandate a single world religion, and force everyone to comply with it, think about how much less conflict there will be. Freedom of speech was never meant to include such things as the Internet and television: After all, the Founding fathers did not think about that. No group of over three people should be allowed to assemble, to prevent tragedies like the killings. If they had to be in groups of two or three, think how many fewer would have been killed. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:22 PM (#2028100) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Captain Ginger Get real Reality as in VT, Columbine, the Amish shootings and plenty of others I suppose. But, heck, it's a small price to pay for freedom. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:23 PM (#2028102) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce "The National Rifle Association, or NRA, is a non-profit group for the promotion of marksmanship, firearm safety, and the protection of hunting and personal protection firearm rights in the United States, established in New York in 1871 as the American Rifle Association. It sponsors firearm safety training courses, as well as marksmanship events featuring shooting skills and sports. The NRA is sometimes said to be the single most powerful non-profit organization in the United States. It predicates its political activity on gun ownership being a civil liberty protected by the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and is the oldest continuously operating civil liberties organization in the United States. According to its website, the NRA has 4.3 million members" OK, we better outlaw the ACLU as well: Can't have those pesky rights interfere with anybody's idea on how to make the world a safer place. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:24 PM (#2028104) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: akenaton Didn't really expect you to be a supporter of the "gun lobby" BB. I used to have a little respect for your opinions. Goin' for a bit of easy sympathy vote these days are we?? |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:24 PM (#2028105) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce Care to give ONE case where the criminal DID NOT violate the LAW????? Oh, I guess we should pass more laws that are not enforced... |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:26 PM (#2028106) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce "Didn't really expect you to be a supporter of the "gun lobby" BB." If you devalue part of the Bill of Rights, what justification do you have for ANY rights? |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:27 PM (#2028107) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce "I used to have a little respect for your opinions." Never that I can recall. "Goin' for a bit of easy sympathy vote these days are we?? " Yes, YOU and the others demanding the removal of rights ARE. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:29 PM (#2028108) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: akenaton To my knowledge the "right to bear arms" actually refers to militias. Please correct me if I am wrong...Ake |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:31 PM (#2028112) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: bobad The Language of the 2nd Amendment The 2nd Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." One way in which the NRA constructs its mythical 2nd Amendment is by changing the language of the real one. The NRA's political ads consistently omit the part about the militia being necessary to a state's security. Indeed, the abridged version actually appears on the edifice of the NRA's Washington, DC headquarters. The NRA's deliberate omission of the militia language speaks volumes, because it is precisely that language that expresses the purpose, and limit, of the right to keep and bear arms. As the United States Supreme Court wrote in its fullest discussion of the Amendment's meaning, the "obvious purpose" of the Amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of state militia forces. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939). The Court added: "It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." Therefore, the necessity of maintaining effective state militias is, by the language itself, the only concern of the Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms exists only to the extent necessary to meet that concern. There is nothing in the Amendment's language even remotely suggesting a constitutional right to keep and bear arms for hunting, self-protection, target shooting or other individual pursuits unrelated to the operation of state militias. http://www.guncite.com/hci2nd.html |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:31 PM (#2028113) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Captain Ginger Not for the first time, I'm rather glad that 4,000 miles and the chill Atlantic divides me from folk like Slag and BB. With such articulate and noble champions for the Land of the Free, it's little wonder that half the world seems to hate the US and the other half laughs at it. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:32 PM (#2028114) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Riginslinger What about tightening up the restrictions for non-citizens to posses guns, or the kinds of guns they possess. Would that violate the 2nd amendment? |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:33 PM (#2028115) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce "To my knowledge the "right to bear arms" actually refers to militias. Please correct me if I am wrong...Ake " You are wrong- THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Like "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. " and "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects," ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bill of Rights Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:37 PM (#2028123) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce "Our nation's primary gun law is the 1968 Gun Control Act, passed in the wake of the murders of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Senator Robert Kennedy. Major Provisions: Established categories of prohibited firearms purchasers and possessors. Convicted felons, fugitives from justice, illegal drug users or addicts, minors, anyone adjudicated mentally defective or having been committed to a mental institution, anyone dishonorably discharged from the military, illegal aliens, anyone having renounced U.S. citizenship. Licenses and set standards for gun dealers. Establishes licensing fee schedule for manufacturers, importers, and dealers in firearms; sets record-keeping standards; requires licenses to be obtained from the Secretary of the Treasury; requires serial numbers on all guns. Prohibits the mail-order sales of all firearms and ammunition. Prohibits the interstate sale of firearms. A handgun purchaser may only buy a gun in the state in which he/she resides; however, long gun sales to individuals in contiguous state that did not violate either state law, were allowed. (Today, long guns may be purchased from gun dealers in any state, regardless of purchaser's state of residence). Sets age guidelines for firearms purchased through dealers. — Handgun purchasers must be at least 21. — Long gun purchasers must be at least 18. Prohibits the importation of non-sporting weapons. The importation of "Saturday Night Special" handguns and some semiautomatic assault rifles (the 43 weapons covered in the 1989 Bush Administration ban) as well as two military shotguns have been barred under this section of the law. Sets penalties for carrying & using firearms in crimes of violence or drug trafficking. Prohibits importation of weapons covered in the National Firearms Act and extends NFA restrictions to machine gun frames and receivers and conversion kits (i.e., parts to make machine guns). Prohibits importation of foreign-made military surplus firearms. Prohibited the sale and manufacture of new fully automatic civilian machine guns (effectively freezing the number of them in circulation). This provision was adamantly opposed by the NRA. In fact, some of its most radical members did not want the McClure/Volkmer bill to pass if it contained this provision. Immediately following the enactment of this law, the NRA announced that "its highest priority" in the next Congress would be to repeal the ban on machine guns. To date they have not introduced legislation to do this. Prohibited the sale of parts or "conversion kits" - used to make semiautomatic firearms fully automatic. Classifies silencer parts and kits as weapons falling under the National Firearm Act." http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=1968&menu=gvr |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:37 PM (#2028124) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: akenaton I appear to be RIGHT BB |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:40 PM (#2028127) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Captain Ginger It's OK, Ake - I don't think he's yet grasped the concept of the conditional clause. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:41 PM (#2028130) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Escamillo We have seen the ceremony at VT some minutes ago. It ended in a paroxysm of applauses, football hurras , shouting "we are the VT", and loud wows. This is what I said above, and this is the subject that (IMHO) should be addressed immediately, in the US, in my country and all the world. An educational institution is not a football team. No internal brotherhoods should be allowed, no competitions be promoted, no seek for any kind of internal or external championship be accepted, and especially no discrimination or mockery against others in or out of the institution be tolerated. To achieve this, it is not necessary to amend the constitution or create new laws, it is only a matter of orientation from the politic and educational authorities, it is their duty. And we as parents can claim for a change and get it done. This will not solve the problem of the easy distribution of firearms, and will not cure psychotic personalities, but will surely configure a social environment where students could develop feelings of solidarity instead of anger and revenge. And of course, we all know that we in particular, or our children, never became murders just for having been discriminated from some team. Let's see the problem in general, not in particular. Un abrazo - Andrés |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:42 PM (#2028131) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce "Prohibited Persons The original GCA prohibits firearms purchase and ownership by certain broad categories of individuals thought to pose a threat to public safety. However, this list was in contradiction between the House and the Senate versions of the bill, and led to great confusion. This list was later augmented, modified, and clarified in the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986. The 1986 list is: Anyone who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year. Anyone who is a fugitive from justice. Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution. Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United states or an alien admitted to the United states under a nonimmigrant visa. Anyone who has been discharged from the US Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions. Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United states, has renounced his or her citizenship. Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner. Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. (See the Lautenberg Amendment.) A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year cannot lawfully receive a firearm. Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information." |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:43 PM (#2028132) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Captain Ginger Oh dear, could someone put BB out of his misery before he slips up with his cut and paste and ends up posting part of his lower bowel to this thread! |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:45 PM (#2028136) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce "March 12, 2007 Last Friday a federal appeals court in Washington DC issued a ruling that hopefully will result in the restoration of 2nd Amendment rights in the nation's capital. It appears the Court rejected the District of Columbia 's nonsensical argument that the 2nd Amendment confers only a "collective right," something gun control advocates have asserted for years. Of course we should not have too much faith in our federal courts to protect gun rights, considering they routinely rubber stamp egregious violations of the 1 st, 4th, and 5th Amendments, and allow Congress to legislate wildly outside the bounds of its enumerated powers. Furthermore, the DC case will be appealed to the Supreme Court with no guarantees. But it is very important nonetheless for a federal court only one step below the highest court in the land to recognize that gun rights adhere to the American people, not to government-sanctioned groups. Rights, by definition, are individual. "Group rights" is an oxymoron. Can anyone seriously contend that the Founders, who had just expelled their British rulers mostly by use of light arms, did not want the individual farmer, blacksmith, or merchant to be armed? Those individuals would have been killed or imprisoned by the King's soldiers if they had relied on a federal armed force to protect them. In the 1700s, militias were local groups made up of ordinary citizens. They were not under federal control! As a practical matter, many of them were barely under the control of colonial or state authorities. When the 2nd Amendment speaks of a "well-regulated militia," it means local groups of individuals operating to protect their own families, homes, and communities. They regulated themselves because it was necessary and in their own interest to do so. The Founders themselves wrote in the Federalist papers about the need for individuals to be armed. In fact, James Madison argued in Federalist paper 46 that common citizens should be armed to guard against the threat posed by the newly proposed standing federal army. " |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:46 PM (#2028139) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce "Today, gun control makes people demonstrably less safe-- as any honest examination of criminal statistics reveals. In his book "More Guns, Less Crime," scholar John Lott demolishes the myth that gun control reduces crime. On the contrary, Lott shows that cities with strict gun control--like Washington DC--experience higher rates of murder and violent crime. It is no coincidence that violent crime flourishes in the nation's capital, where the individual's right to defend himself has been most severely curtailed. Understand that residents of DC can be convicted of a felony and put in prison simply for having a gun in their home, even if they live in a very dangerous neighborhood. The DC gun ban is no joke, and the legal challenges to the ban are not simply academic exercises. People's lives and safety are at stake. Gun control historically serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government." |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:47 PM (#2028140) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: bobad |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:48 PM (#2028141) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: akenaton Sounds like good sense Andres. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:49 PM (#2028142) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Captain Ginger The 'founders' also advocated slavery and the confiscation of Native American land. Should that, too. be sacrosanct? It seems to me that the constitution is about as useful as Isadora Duncan's scarf. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:49 PM (#2028143) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce Captain Ginger, Sorry if a discussion of the rights that some of us support is so annoying to you. Feel free to require everyone to think just like you, and act like YOU want them to. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Constitutional Legal Scholars Acclaim Federal Court's Overturning of D.C. Gun Ban WASHINGTON, March 14 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- On March 9, a federal appeals court in the District of Columbia has overturned the 31-year-old ban on keeping handguns in homes in the nation's capital city, ruling that the ban is unconstitutional. The panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit became the nation's first federal appeals court to overturn a gun-control law by declaring that the Second Amendment grants a person the right to possess firearms. Two Independent Institute research fellows were involved in the plaintiffs' case. "The Founders' true intent of the Second Amendment is vindicated by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Parker v. D.C. (2007)," said constitutional legal scholar Stephen Halbrook. "Rejecting the perverse 'collective rights' view that this Bill of Rights guarantee protects governmental units rather than persons, the Court squarely holds that law-abiding individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, and thus that D.C.'s ban on possession of handguns even in the home is unconstitutional." Halbrook, who has written extensively about the second amendment, is the author of the Independent Institute's forthcoming book, The Founders' Second Amendment, which is being published by Stanford University Press. In addition, Independent Institute Research Fellow Don B. Kates, Jr. notes that, "The Founders of this nation strongly endorsed the right to arms; as Thomas Paine put it, 'arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe and preserve order in the world....' The D.C. Circuit court opinion effectuates that constitutional tradition." "Based on the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, this ground-breaking ruling overturns one of the longest-running and most restrictive gun bans in the U.S.," said David Theroux, President of the Independent Institute. "Washington, D.C., has led the nation with the highest murder rate for most every year of this ban's existence. The federal court's decision upholding the individual's right to self-defense should be applauded by all those who care about the civil liberty protections of the Bill of Rights." |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:51 PM (#2028145) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: artbrooks The "militia clause" is apparently going to the Supreme Court again, based upon the recent ruling on the DC government gun control law. It will be interesting to see if the current Court upholds the 1939 decision. It has been my impression that the NRA and other segments of the gun lobby have been trying very hard to keep this out of the courts for a long time. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:53 PM (#2028148) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce Captain Ginger, read my 17 Apr 07 - 04:21 PM - YOU obviously feel that since the times have changed, rights should be forfeit whenever YOU disagree with them. If you want to make a case for changing the 2nd amendment, do so- but until it is changed, it remains as valid as the others, and you alter it at the risk of losing those, as well. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:53 PM (#2028149) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: akenaton Are you unaware BB that your "Armed citizens" live under one of the most tyrannical governments in the world?? |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:54 PM (#2028151) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce "It has been my impression that the NRA and other segments of the gun lobby have been trying very hard to keep this out of the courts for a long time." It has been my impression that the NRA and other segments of the gun lobby have been trying very hard to get this into the courts for a long time. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:55 PM (#2028153) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Captain Ginger Not so much a discussion, BB, as a one-man barking session. As I have said, I'm thankfully unaffected by your 'rights' and your 'freedoms' and am merely gaining some vicarious amusement from prodding you and watching you inflate like a proposterous little puffer fish in a frenzy of cutting and pasting. I do like to think that I have the right not to remain silent. It would, after all, take a heart of stone not to laugh. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:58 PM (#2028157) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Stringsinger It's too easy to get guns. There ought to be more restrictions on the purchase of firearms. A person ought to prove his mental competency to own them. I'm sure it was fairly easy for the young student to acquire his weapon. Some of the arguments presented in favor of unlimited control of firearms makes me wonder about those arguers' mental competency. When the NRA is criticized, the defenders begin to sound like angry hornets. Why should anyone doubt those with their anger showing under certain circumstances wouldn't use a gun irresponsibly? BB you polluted the argument by bringing in the ACLU which has probably defended gun-owners in the past. There is a sensible approach to all of this that has to do with diffusing the anger on this issue. This is an issue regarding the ownership of guns and who should be able to have them. Until this issue is solved, the Center for Disease Control will continue to cite gun violence as one of the leading health problems in the US. So to all of you hot heads who are so angy about your guns being taken away, your anger undercuts your argument. For those with cooler minds and logical thinking, who should have guns and who shouldn't could be given more serious thought. Frank |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:59 PM (#2028160) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Slag Yup Cap'n Ginger, 4000 miles of cold Atlantic Ocean. That's the same Atlantic that our gun toting GIs had to cross to save your bloody asses from the peaceful and loving appeasement which good old Neville Chamberlain negotiated with Adolf. The same ocean that more than a million NRA donated rifles crossed to provide means for a homeland defense for you peace loving English folks. Your time's coming because you have NOT learned from your past. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 04:59 PM (#2028161) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce "I do like to think that I have the right not to remain silent." Actually, what you advocate is a situation where the government CAN force you to remain silent. Or give up any other right that the Powers That Be decide are a threat to "the public good" as defined by the Powers That Be. But if you want that, feel free to argue with me. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 05:01 PM (#2028163) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce "BB you polluted the argument by bringing in the ACLU which has probably defended gun-owners in the past." Please look up "sarcasm". |
|
17 Apr 07 - 05:02 PM (#2028165) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Captain Ginger Er, Slag, you missed out the bit about speaking German! And isn't it customary to say 'save your sorry asses' when talking about how the US won Dubya Dubya Two without any help from those goddam Commies? Now trot off and play with your toys, there's a love. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 05:06 PM (#2028168) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Peace I fail to see how fighting with each other will get any questions answered. That aside, I goddamned guarantee you this: Give me a thousand in cash--coin of the realm--and I could go into any large city in North America and acquire a handgun or rifle within 12 hours. The legalityillegality of guns is a farce. If I needed a piece I would get one. It's that simple. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 05:08 PM (#2028172) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Charley Noble I'm amazed how ballistic the debate can get when I leave for a couple of hours. This time I don't think I'll even bother to return. Charley Noble |
|
17 Apr 07 - 05:08 PM (#2028174) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Big Al Whittle The USA entered the war because the Japs bombed your fleet at Pearl harbour, not to do us any special favours. You'd probably still be doing target practice otherwise. Sorry to defile such a thread, but you have no right to insult our country - just because you can't face the fact that allowing any idiot to buy a gun is not a good idea. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 05:12 PM (#2028176) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce "Give me a thousand in cash--coin of the realm--and I could go into any large city in North America and acquire a handgun or rifle within 12 hours. The legalityillegality of guns is a farce." 1. I agree with you. So why shgould more ineffective laws be of any use, except to disarm the law-abiding citizen? 2. Name a single country that the statement would NOT be true. Those with more restrictive laws like Russia, England, and others still have gun violence. 3. Look at the countries with a requirement for fully automatic weapons in the home ( Israel, Switerland). Is there more or less crime there than in the restricted nation, like Russia? |
|
17 Apr 07 - 05:15 PM (#2028181) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: akenaton very true Bruce, but a proper legal framework to control the ownership and use of firearms would create a less macho mindset in a large section of the American public, as well as placing guns in their true context... Glad to see you still here.....best wishes A |
|
17 Apr 07 - 05:17 PM (#2028184) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: bobad The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training and a mandatory period of service in the Rekrutenschule (the "recruits-school"), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men still remain part of the militia either in a home guard or reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers). Each such individual keeps his army-issued personal weapon (the Sig 550 5.56x45 mm assault rifle for enlisted personnel, and/or the SIG-Sauer P220 9 mm semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home with a specified quantity of government-issued ammunition (50 rounds 5.6 mm / 48 rounds 9mm), sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unlawful use takes place. The emergency ammunition is the only ammunition that requires accounting for during inspections.[1] From Wiki |
|
17 Apr 07 - 05:20 PM (#2028188) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce As would the control of freedom of speech to prevent inciting unrest, the prevention of public gatherings, and the restriction of religion to ones that the Powers That Be can depend on for support. But I do NOT advocate the removal of basic rights for the appearance of safety, especially when the laws to be inacted have been shown, repeatedly, to not be effective in reducing crime. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 05:23 PM (#2028190) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce OK, we can prohibit women from gun ownership. After all, why should theyhave any means to defend themselves? We can always trust the police to be right there to protect us. ( SARCASM: Please note the recent murders of women by men who have court orders against them, yet then pour flammable liquid on the woman and set them on fire.) |
|
17 Apr 07 - 05:25 PM (#2028192) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: akenaton OH fuck what's the point!! |
|
17 Apr 07 - 05:35 PM (#2028205) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: McGrath of Harlow If most Americans do actually want to have gun ownership as a legal right, that's their business. What strikes me as strange is a situation where this is seen as a constitutional right, rather than as a matter to be determined on a democratic basis of what most people actually want. That doesn't really seem too democratic, especially since the amendment involved is so very strangely worded, with that "properly regulated militia" qualification hanging in the air. In the list of important things to have, guns seem pretty low in the list. And yet all the other things - mobile phones, computes, cars. jobs, health care - are left to sink or swim on their own, without any constitutional amendments. Is there another country in the world where there is this kind of special preserved protection for guns? Plenty of places where gun ownership is relatively easy, but that's another matter entirely. If the Swiss decided it might be a good idea to change their law they'd just have a referendum to determine whether to do so or not. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 05:37 PM (#2028209) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,TIA So, why does the USA have the highest rate (per capita and absolute) of gun violence of any industrialized nation? |
|
17 Apr 07 - 05:37 PM (#2028210) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: katlaughing TAKE IT TO THE GUN CRIME THREAD, PLEASE! Let's keep this as a condolence thread. Do your debating in the other. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 05:41 PM (#2028216) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: John MacKenzie A condolence/obit thread has been started kat. G |
|
17 Apr 07 - 05:43 PM (#2028220) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Captain Ginger Darn, I thought this was the 'let's poke pointy sticks at the funny rednecks' thread... |
|
17 Apr 07 - 05:45 PM (#2028222) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: akenaton I've got my threads all in a twist! |
|
17 Apr 07 - 05:51 PM (#2028230) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: katlaughing Yes, Giok, I know, but this one did NOT start out as a gun debate. There IS a thread for that. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 05:54 PM (#2028236) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: John MacKenzie It's been part of the discussion since about the 9th post, not much we can do to change it now! G. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 05:59 PM (#2028248) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bill D there is no point...Those who simply WANT guns will twist any argument in order to have them. I have never seen so many fallacious 'straw man' arguments in such a sort space....many of them by my friend beardedbruce. "shall we ban English majors?"...right. cute. That vague clause in the 2nd amendment was written in a totally different time. The founders never saw an AK-47 or a Glock. (How many would that disturbed fellow been able to shoot with a muzzle-loader?) Whether the founders intended for every citizen to have the right to keep firearms around **AT HOME** or not...which I doubt was the intent, it is time for that clause to be either amended or clarified to specifically state that weapons are to be possessed BY "a well-ordered militia" and issued TO qualified members OF that militia when necessary. I note that the smoke had not cleared until a gun advocacy group actually released a statement saying that IF their idea of allowing students to carry concealed weapons had been followed, 'this might have been avoided'. And when the cops rush in and find 27 students with guns, who do they look at? I submit- we have tried allowing guns to damn near anyone who asks for them for years now. It's time to try it the other way and SEE if reducing the number of guns AND legal gun owners doesn't also reduce gun violence. ...and for crap's sake...if you are going to advocate for a position, at least TRY to stick to relevant facts! and bruce...***I can find the Bill of Rights when I need it***....PLEASE deliver us from tedious copy/paste of specious arguments and slanted irrelevancies. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 06:14 PM (#2028270) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Ebbie A case can be made, imo, for arming oneself against intruders into one's home, if one is comfortable with balancing that need against the possibility of a youngster getting hold of said weapon. My guess is that statistics are available. 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. I can just imagine my fighting off a tank with my popgun, or holding the door against troops intent on breaking it down. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 06:19 PM (#2028281) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: katlaughing Exactly, Ebbie! |
|
17 Apr 07 - 06:37 PM (#2028303) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bill D The point has been made that IF your home is invaded, and unless you are trained and comfortable with having guns, you are VERY unlikely to have a weapon right at hand, and that it is more likely the criminal will end up adding YOUR gun to his collection... Also, if you DO have a gun, and IF you shoot at an intruder, you'd better be sure they fall inside! otherwise, they...or their relatives..may sue you, claiming 'no proof of criminal intent' or something similar. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 06:39 PM (#2028307) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,meself Although, those war-like lads of Afghanistan seem to be holding their own with their popguns ... not to mention those war-like lads of Iraq ... |
|
17 Apr 07 - 06:41 PM (#2028308) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bobert Well, I was really hoping that the VT kids and professors who were killed would be buried before the gun debate entered at full throttle... I have made no attempts to hide my feelings in past threads how I feel about handguns and will look forward to voicing those thoughts again when the ***timing*** is appropriate... I remember after Columbine, Bill Clinton was asked why he hadn't propsed stronger handgun controls and he said, "Because the votes aren't there in Congress"... Well, I don't know if the votes are there this time around but I certainly expect a vigorous debate not only among the population by also Congress over the next few months... BTW, posting right wing, pro-gun, NRA cut 'n pastes is not a discussion... Discussions involve ***ideas*** and not endless propaganda collected by folks who profit financially from the proliferation of handguns... Might of fact, discussion should rarely involve cut 'n pastes... Integrating research is one thing... Accepting reems and reems of propaganda as fact isn't research... I'll be looking forward a real discusssion about handguns when the ***timing*** is more respectfull to those who have been killed... Bobert (Former NRA member) |
|
17 Apr 07 - 06:41 PM (#2028311) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: gnu No sweat, Bill. Willing to fill out the forms. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 06:45 PM (#2028317) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bill D popguns? They have a bit more than popguns... |
|
17 Apr 07 - 06:48 PM (#2028318) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,Canadienne you are quite correct Bill I'm sorry but when is there a more compelling time to discuss gun control? |
|
17 Apr 07 - 07:10 PM (#2028338) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: gnu There ya go. When burglars and such knock on your door and ask politely if they can come in and take whatever they want.... make them tea! |
|
17 Apr 07 - 07:44 PM (#2028360) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Ebbie Yes, indeed, there are more than popguns involved in Iraq, not to mention that the only tanks there are fighting for, not against our lads. And to watch our lads break down doors chills my bones. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 08:42 PM (#2028416) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: frogprince Just something that struck me as bizzare, as I did happen to read BBruces paste of those prohibited from gun ownership: "Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner." Why in God's name doesn't that line end with the word "threatening"? |
|
17 Apr 07 - 09:56 PM (#2028472) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Slag Threadbare! Rest in peace you victims of another madman. There's no peace here on this thread. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 11:29 PM (#2028531) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,meself Nope. "popguns? They have a bit more than popguns... " "Yes, indeed, there are more than popguns involved in Iraq" Yes - and there are more than popguns stashed in cellars, garages, warehouses, barns and bunkers all over the USA. Don't kid yourselves. |
|
17 Apr 07 - 11:37 PM (#2028536) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Mrrzy Gun purchased legally a week or so ago. Apparently he was one sick puppy already - if the campus cops had realized that instead of just going Oh, just a domestic dispute, nothing big, perhaps somebody might have shut the door after one of the *first* few times he popped his head into the class before coming back finally and shooting... |
|
17 Apr 07 - 11:57 PM (#2028544) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Ebbie I have no idea, Guest/meself, how many bigger-than popguns are hidden in "cellars, garages, warehouses, barns and bunkers all over the USA" and I don't know how you know but anyone who uses an AK47, say, against a tank or a squad of troops must plan to go out blazing-with the emphasis on 'go out'. If the day should ever come in this country when citizens must rebel against a tyrannical government that is being enforced by a military/police force, I would say, we must do what we must. Conceivably a suicidal citizenry would turn the government around- ya think? In a bitter slice of irony this happened in Japan today: TOKYO - The mayor of the Japanese city of Nagasaki was shot to death in a brazen attack Tuesday by an organized crime chief..." Today |
|
18 Apr 07 - 12:16 AM (#2028555) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,gun owner The media and the politicians haven't waited to start the debate over handguns, so why should the people who will be the most affected by it not debate? First of all, did this guy really say this?: Democratic Sen. Barack Obama says the killings at Virginia Tech University were "the act of a madman on some level" that probably couldn't have been prevented. But, he said Monday night in Milwaukee, the tragedy offers America a chance to examine violence in our culture, including the "verbal violence" expressed by radio personality Don Imus in his rant about the Rutgers University women's basketball team.... http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/4/17/204951.shtml If he said that, then out of the gate they're trying to tie this bloodshed to "verbal violence." Amazing. Don't forget that 45 days after 9/11 we had the USA PATRIOT Act, and under that act you are a domestic terrorist if you break a federal or state law. Looks like the politicians are gearing up for an omnibus "violence" bill that will outlaw EVERYTHING. |
|
18 Apr 07 - 12:48 AM (#2028562) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,meself "go out blazing-with the emphasis on 'go out'" My impression is that there are a good many who would be willing to do just that. And, yes, I think "a tyrannical government" would have a very difficult time with a popular rebellion in the US, if it ever came to it. If it was the tyrannical government that had the popular support, then it might be a different story. |
|
18 Apr 07 - 03:11 AM (#2028591) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Peace Gun owner: You have omitted a few things what Obama said. Here's the rest. "So much is rooted in our incapacity to recognize ourselves in each other, to not realize we are connected fundamentally as people," he said, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Obama also cited a 1968 speech by Robert F. Kennedy after Martin Luther King Jr. was shot and killed, in which Kennedy said any violent loss of life degrades America. And even though it's been nearly 40 years since then, Obama says it seems like little has changed regarding violence in American culture. "The reason we don't do anything about it is not technical . . . it's because our politics is broken. We've given up believing we can change things. So we turn away . . . and start worrying about ourselves." I realize you put a link to the article, but maybe most folks won't look for the rest. Just making sure folks get to see it. |
|
18 Apr 07 - 03:50 AM (#2028623) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,Bob I watched a programme on British television last night about a guy who murdered his parents and got off on a charge of manslaughter. I started a thread about it, someone moaned about it because of the events in Virginia it was poorly timed. Hence my thread was closed, (Murder or Manslaughter) For the love of God what was such a programme got to do with this thread ? Should they moan to Independent Television for showing it? Clearly the old network still alive and kicking on mudcat. Anyone any idea of the times of church services this coming Sunday ? Has mudcat a Christian Sunday School ? Get real. |
|
18 Apr 07 - 09:31 AM (#2028819) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,gun owner This is the "Letter to the Editor" I've been mailing out: New Omnibus Anti-Gun/Anti-Speech Law Coming? According to Newsmax.com, Senator Barack Obama said, "the tragedy offers America a chance to examine violence in our culture, including the "verbal violence" expressed by radio personality Don Imus in his rant about the Rutgers University women's basketball team...." http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/4/17/204951.shtml If he said this, then we should be on the watch for omnibus legislation outlawing all types of "violence." Don't forget that 45 days after 9/11 we had the USA PATRIOT Act, which makes you a "domestic terrorist" if you, among other things, break a federal law or a state law. The U.S. Congress passed the PATRIOT Act as a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 then said later they didn't have time to read the thing before voting on it. The same thing could be shaping up in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings. Congress could be pressured to vote on a sweeping "anti-violence" bill that would take away our guns, our right to free speech, and our rights, period. |
|
18 Apr 07 - 09:47 AM (#2028839) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: catspaw49 CNN reports that two Secret Service Agents were injured yesterday in the accidental discharge of a firearm near the White House. Yes, guns are safe in the hands of trained professionals. Spaw |
|
18 Apr 07 - 10:13 AM (#2028864) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Stilly River Sage The straw men are flying thick and fast on this thread! Behold, obfuscation at its rhetorical finest--the NRA is trying to not get pinned to the wall. Let's put it this way: Pro-gun folks are entrenched in their views, just as the gun-control folks are. But the pro-gun folks, if they're honest, MUST be feeling a twinge of doubt about now. They protest too much the positive aspects of individual gun ownership. Act on that twinge. Accept that regulating hand guns is necessary (note, I didn't say hunting rifles.) Your way hasn't worked, so do something different. I won't be moved by crocodile tears for the poor gun manufacturers and Washington lobbyists. They knew what they were doing. Now its time to pay the bill. SRS |
|
18 Apr 07 - 10:21 AM (#2028872) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: saulgoldie On another note, does it occur to anyone else that Iraq sees more than 32 violent deaths EVERY DAY?!! |
|
18 Apr 07 - 10:56 AM (#2028919) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bill D If you have been reading my posts, you would know that I beat the editorial cartoonist of the Washington Post by a day. (Thank you SRS, you reinforce the point very well.) |
|
18 Apr 07 - 11:04 AM (#2028932) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bee Guest gun owner, with your 4000 rounds of ammo for the relatives and your exaggerated paranoia, you are a poster child for some kind of gun control! |
|
18 Apr 07 - 11:09 AM (#2028939) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel CAPT GINGER nice of you to join us and weigh in your opinion, facts and hopes for the future. |
|
18 Apr 07 - 11:09 AM (#2028940) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel 127 dead today at the hands of a suicide bomber. |
|
18 Apr 07 - 01:03 PM (#2029051) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,gun owner 4000 rounds is about a year's supply for my family. We rarely buy beef or chicken, and you have to practice to bring down deer. Lots of time at the target range. And then there are the most precious cartridges of all--the ones in the handguns of the less robust members of the family. I've noticed that when people accuse gun owners of paranoia, it's usually the accuser who is insecure. No offense, but guns keep Americans safe--safe from attackers and (if the need ever arises) safe from a government that admitted to raping with acid at Abu Grahib. As far as having to justify guns in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting, have you people noticed that these mass shootings occur in gun-free areas? The voters of the state of Virginia wanted to be able to defend themselves, so the state legislature passed a concealed handgun law, but then a non-governmental organization (the university) took that right away from its students. Again, refer to the Appalachia Law School incident of 2002. Students with weapons stopped a shooter. There was an incident in Pearl, Mississippi, too, where a school administrator stopped further killing because he had a gun in his car. I think that was 1997 or 98. A really sad trace of government involvement in the Virginia Tech incident is the way in which the students apparently knelt down and accepted their deaths. Schools drill for this kind of thing constantly now, and the students are taught to not cause problems. This is the result. |
|
18 Apr 07 - 01:10 PM (#2029056) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bill D "...the way in which the students apparently knelt down and accepted their deaths." that is crap! He stepped in and started shooting! You would jump up and head FOR him? You'd simply be 2nd in his sights. 'Maybe' if 10 people all rushed him.....but do you really believe you can instill THAT reaction in a random group of students? Now if he had come in with a knife.....or a baseball bat.... |
|
18 Apr 07 - 01:15 PM (#2029063) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel There has been mention of being a loner, possible mental illness and a flat affect to his personality. I wonder what role, if any, religion played in the killer's life. |
|
18 Apr 07 - 01:16 PM (#2029064) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Desdemona Personally, I can think of no more chillingly dystopian scenario than a college campus on which all the students are carrying firearms...o, brave new world, indeed! {{{{shudderr}}}} ~D |
|
18 Apr 07 - 01:20 PM (#2029066) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,gun owner But isn't the media reporting that this young man, with just two pistols, killed 33? How would that be possible if his victims didn't comply in some way? The college had been running lots of "drills" too, from what I've read, and in those lockdown drills you sit and wait for the police, don't you? Is there evidence that anyone fought with this man? Maybe the reporting I've read has been wrong on this. Here is a good site, if you want to know how an oppressed group feels about gun ownership in America. Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership. Great group. They know what can happen when a citizenry is disarmed-- April 18, 2007 Why We Cannot Just Be Quiet and Mourn In the hours and days just after the mass murder-suicide at Virginia Tech last Monday, many people felt it would be more sensitive and polite if the advocates for gun rights would sit quietly and allow the personal and national mourning to take place without a lot gun policy arguments. April 17, 2007 Don't Give an Inch! We've all heard about yesterday's tragic mass shooting on the Virginia Tech Campus that left 33 dead, including the gunman. Our deepest condolences go out to the families of those victims.As can be expected, gun-prohibitionists are crawling out of the woodwork to lay the blame squarely on the availability of firearms. But how can they? http://jpfo.org/ |
|
18 Apr 07 - 01:23 PM (#2029070) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel Bill I think the phrase "knealt down" was meant metaphoricly sarcastic. I have heard how the holocaust survivor professor threw his body into the path of multiple gunshots effectively shielding 6 others from the dealdy fire. I have heard how 5 students barrackated the door from the gunman and suffered gunshots through the door but still held firm. I have heard how the kids helped one another escape through a 20 foot high window. I have heard many stories of sacrifice and heroism , none of which included kneeling down to die. |
|
18 Apr 07 - 01:29 PM (#2029079) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel methinks the gun advocacy people protest too much. Only gun hating liberals, who are like termitles and cockroaches CRAWL OUT OF THE WOODWORK. They want to eat the foundations of our democracy and infect our food stores with their dirty little feet. Mr. gun owner I don't want to pry anything out of anyone's cold dead hand. I just want fewer dead cold hands. |
|
18 Apr 07 - 02:12 PM (#2029110) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: katlaughing ..law enforcement official who read Cho's note described it Tuesday as a typed eight-page rant against rich kids and religion. The official spoke on condition of anonymity. "You caused me to do this," the official quoted the note as saying. Cho indicated in his letter that the end was near and that there was a deed to be done, the official said. He also expressed disappointment in his own religion, and made several references to Christianity, the official said. And, this is what gun advocates were doing WHILE our children were being murdered (from HERE): Within minutes of the shootings, a radio talk show had callers on the line to defend guns. And while shooting victims were still fighting for their lives in area hospitals and dead bodies still lay on the floor of the crime scene, people were actually phoning into their local radio station to remind their neighbours the American constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. One caller hastened to repeat a favoured slogan of the National Rifle Association: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." |
|
18 Apr 07 - 02:19 PM (#2029116) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel The NRA gives away $30,000,000.00 every year to Congress in their lobby efforts to preserve their interpretation of gun rights. $30 million is less than 1 million for every VT person slain. Surely the NRA could step up and put that money into the hands of the victims family at least once in their lives. |
|
18 Apr 07 - 03:54 PM (#2029223) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Gulliver Just two little observations: Copycat killings: On my first visit to the US, around 1990, I was driving around Texas listening to the radio and heard of a road rage incident in (I think) California where a motorist shot another dead. The following day there was another similar incident, and in the next couple of weeks around ten copycat shooting incidents in several states, spreading eastwards. Gun crime: One of my best friends, and his brother, returned to Ireland after living a year near Boston because of the amount of gun crime where they lived, people getting shot every week. Guns kill--it's just doesn't make sense allowing people to carry them around, IMHO. |
|
18 Apr 07 - 04:10 PM (#2029240) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel Gulliver, it is as bad as you say. Kids here know it. In Boston I was returning my Sbbaro pizza tray to the enclosed trash bin when I lifted the lid too fast and the lid made a loud BANG. 8 children no older than 13 ducked for cover or ran hunched over for the exits. The US has 30,000 gun wounds a year. That is about a 100 a day. __________________________________________ The day following the Coumbine Schoold shooting there was an NRA convention in Columbine Colorado. The then president of the NRA was Charelton Heston who opened his speech with "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!" which is part of a NRA slogan - 'If you try to take my gun away from me, you will have to pry it from my cold dead hands'. I guess some people in the UK are not familiar with the popular slogan 'cold dead hands' so I just thought I would elaborate. |
|
18 Apr 07 - 04:34 PM (#2029258) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,TIA BLACKSBURG, Va. - More than a year before the Virginia Tech massacre, Cho Seung-Hui was accused of stalking two female students and was taken to a psychiatric hospital because of fears he was suicidal, authorities said Wednesday. full story Yet he can still legally buy a gun in VA? And we don't need gun control? Sheeesh. |
|
18 Apr 07 - 05:47 PM (#2029303) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: katlaughing There is an interesting op/ed piece by an American of Korean descent in the L.A. Times. I liked this conclusion, esp., I will not be able to completely shake my sense of responsibility as a Korean American for this tragedy. But I'm going to try. And when young people are stressed or depressed, let us reach out across all ethnic and racial boundaries and try to help them see that, in every culture, violence is not the solution. |
|
18 Apr 07 - 06:27 PM (#2029334) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel High School classmates of the VT killer said he played Counterstrike to the max. http://www.steampowered.com/v/index.php?area=game&AppId=240 All of Counter-Strike: Source's maps will be powered by Havok physics, which provide for rag-doll death animations and full-physical weapon modeling. As we witnessed, it's not uncommon for player characters who get torn up by rapid fire from the heavy-duty M249 PARA machine gun to tumble in one direction while their weapons go flying in another. The game will also feature enhanced particle effects for its explosions and heavy gunfire, which should make intense gun battles all the more exciting--though, like with the current version of Counter-Strike, these settings can all be dialed down or turned off. Counter-Strike is currently enjoyed by many hardcore fans who play the game at 800x600 resolution with all detail settings turned down just to make sure that they have the best performances and frame rates available. The new game will let you do this, if you so choose, and it will feature scalable graphics options that should even allow it to be played on lower-end systems. http://www.gamespotasia.com/pcgames/previews/story/0,2000009270,30077723,00.htm This ia the same training game that precipitated 16 murders by a student in Germany which then played a role in the Chancellor elections in Germany. This game is brought to you by electronic arts and a subsidary division of the United States Department of Defense. |
|
18 Apr 07 - 06:49 PM (#2029349) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel From the military's point of view, the benefits of training with this game include keeping the shooters heart rate at 60 beats per minute and the disassociation of the shooter with the targets when eventually doing the "real" thing. |
|
18 Apr 07 - 07:19 PM (#2029374) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bill D ....and he mailed a package to NBC between the shootings with rantings and poses...blaming everyone but himself. Obviously mentally ill. |
|
18 Apr 07 - 07:44 PM (#2029403) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel http://www.schillerinstitute.org/new_viol/grossman_hzl.html Mentally healthy kids are easily trained to kill. EIR: Why do you think nobody noticed this for one full year, because everybody says he behaved completely normal? Grossman: Because there are literally tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of children like him, and they are all training to do the same thing, and the media tell us that this is normal! We have commercials on TV in America, we have commercials for the violent video games, and we're told that doing this is as normal as eating potato chips. Why should anybody be concerned about something that the media tell us is as normal as buying a pair of socks, or eating potato chips? EIR: There was a case in 1996, in Port Arthur, Tasmania, in Australia, in which where some combat shooter killed 35 people, wounding 22. And the point was made that the killed-to-injured ratio, was 1.6:1, which is exceptionally good. Now, in the case of the Erfurt boy, he killed 16, and wounded, I think, 6 or 9. You have a killed-to-injured ratio of 2.5:1, approximately. Now, can you really acquire that kind of skill, which puts you in a special forces kind of level? Can you get that from computer games alone? Grossman: Absolutely. I'll give you another case, the Paducah, Kentucky case [of 14-year-old killer Michael Carneal]. EIR: Yes, I'm familiar with that case. Grossman: A stunning case. You know, I train the FBI, I train our Green Berets, and nobody in history can find an equivalent achievement of marksmanship skills. He fired eight shots, got eight hits on eight different kids, five of them were head shots; the other three, upper torso. Three of those children, with just one 22 caliber bullet—a 22 caliber bullet is a very small, anemic round—he put one 22 caliber bullet in every child. Three of them were killed, and one of them is paralyzed for life. Now, this is the kind of supernatural shooting skills we're seeing. Part of it is visualization. |
|
18 Apr 07 - 08:07 PM (#2029424) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,harpy Another victory in the battle against hand gun ownership and use: NRA-driven Gun Bill Fails in Florida |
|
18 Apr 07 - 08:30 PM (#2029442) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,Kaleea, at a different computer A terrible thing, which in hindsight they are now finding evidence of Mental illness. Too bad that "the system" is not set up to really help those who are mentally ill cause it would "cost too much" of government money. What irritates me about the vast amount of media coverage is that the various networks keep saying it's the worst massacre in American history--NO it is not! There have been numerous well documented massacres of the indigenous peoples of North America aka "Native Americans" aka "Indians" aka Mexican Americans carried out by American troops as sanctioned & ordered by the US government--massacres numbering many times over that of the latest one. How quickly "we" forget. |
|
18 Apr 07 - 08:38 PM (#2029450) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,Bob In my day most of the crimes people committed never received the socially acceptable term "Mental Illness". Some crimes were known by the correct term "BADNESS" People shouldn't confuse the two. |
|
18 Apr 07 - 08:41 PM (#2029455) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: catspaw49 That's true Bob......YOU shouldn't. It's too early to tell all the factors here butmental illness sure as hell plays into it. Spaw |
|
18 Apr 07 - 08:55 PM (#2029466) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,meself "Most" of the crimes ... would this one have fit into that category, back in your day? |
|
18 Apr 07 - 08:57 PM (#2029468) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Big Mick Give it a break, Bob. This young man has a history of mental illness. He was admitted to a mental health center, where the report indicated he was a danger to himself and others. His professor was so uncomfortable, she removed him from class, went to the administration, went to the police. His fellow class members filed complaints on him. I have said right along that taking guns, including handguns, from law abiding citizens makes no sense. Let me further tell you that this young man should never have been able to purchase a handgun with that history. If the gun shop failed to run the appropriate checks, then the bastard needs to go to jail for a very long time. If he ran the check and the system failed then something needs to be done to rectify that. And harpy, you want to lay a bet that the bill passes when this all blows over? Mick |
|
18 Apr 07 - 09:05 PM (#2029472) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,Bob Few people escape from Mental institutions and go on killing sprees. Most people how suffer mental illness do more harm to themselves. Did this guy escape from one ? has he been treated for years for a condition ? If he couldn't accept his ex girlfriend didn't want him any more is that not immaturely or lack of ability to move on due to jealousy ? Always the same old story, no one ever does anything out of temper or badness any more. The amount of amateur psychotherapists willing to blame society for all the ills in the world never fails to amaze me. I grew up in a time when you were judged by a jury and a judge and your crime was placed upon your own shoulders. Today the amount of people the defence calls upon wins the case. His grandmother died when he was six. His father was a cross man. He never enjoyed a happy childhood. His problems started then. I came from a family of five boys and three girls. My father had a drink problem. My mother had more problems, finding money to feed us, cloth us and keep us warm. She was a saint God bless her. None of us ever got ourselves into trouble. I can only image if I don't pay my taxes next year and end up in court, there won't be a dry eye in the house when I tell them my life story of 64 years ! There is a lot of badness in the world today, don't find excuses for it. |
|
18 Apr 07 - 09:48 PM (#2029514) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Ron Davies SRS made an excellent point (16 Apr 2007 10:29), a point which has been swallowed up in a classic Mudcat battle. Obviously there is some strong feeling against being disarmed: fine--even though it's evident that the 2nd Amendment was to address two fears: the fear of an overpowerful government and the fear of a standing army--both based on recent experience-- (at the time of the Bill of Rights)-- with the British government. Standing army is obviously now a fact and, as has been already noted, I think, if the US government wanted to do so, the presence of guns in households would be no barrier to having its way. Fear of this seems to be confined these days to the same giant intellects who fear the "UN black helicopters". At any rate, the point SRS made was: who needs to have automatic and semiautomatic weapons? Both of Cho's weapons were semi-automatic. If not so, the carnage would not have been quite so easy for him to accomplish. Also the size of the clip could possibly be regulated. Keep in mind that according to reports (AP, I think), none of the dead victims had less than 3 bullets in him or her. The semi-automatic nature of his weapons played a role in this. |
|
18 Apr 07 - 10:18 PM (#2029532) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Ron Davies Actually there might have been another reason for the 2nd Amendment--fear of Indian attacks--which seems to have gone down recently. But there really are some issues-- brought up by the thread-- which are worth dealing with---beyond Slag's absurdly garbled history and other attractions of that sort. |
|
18 Apr 07 - 10:27 PM (#2029544) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,meself So, Bob - this guy's girlfriend breaks up with him, he kills her and 31 strangers - and you don't think he's mentally ill? Do I have that right? |
|
18 Apr 07 - 10:31 PM (#2029546) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bill D It wasn't his girlfriend...he had no girlfriend. Yes, he was mentally ill....but in a dozen interviews, no one has said that he made any threats. |
|
18 Apr 07 - 10:38 PM (#2029553) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Peace Guest Bob is of the opinion, if I have read comments on another thread properly, that people who do stuff like this are bad. Mental illness is just an excuse the defense attorney uses to get reduced sentences for his/her client. Mental illness does not exist in Bob's world. |
|
19 Apr 07 - 12:02 AM (#2029617) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bill D well, that's a nice, easy way to view the world. I hope none of Bob's family ever has serious problems. |
|
19 Apr 07 - 01:42 AM (#2029680) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: catspaw49 "Well, that's a nice, easy way to view the world. I hope none of Bob's family ever has serious problems." Too late...... Spaw |
|
19 Apr 07 - 02:55 AM (#2029707) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST I find it interesting that posters on this thread after branding all gun owners as murderers and blood thirsty killers now start defending the youth who actually did kill people. They are so intense about their perceived gun control catch-all answer that they forgive a mass-murderer within days yet villify innocent sportsmen. Funny old world |
|
19 Apr 07 - 02:58 AM (#2029709) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: akenaton Nice and personal once again! Don't blame Bob, who makes his point with sincerity. Blame the social services who failed to pick out this young man and the society which allowed him to gain access to automatic weapons. Some people just can't wait to turn on anyone who expresses opinions which are in the least "controversial"......Ake |
|
19 Apr 07 - 04:53 AM (#2029753) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,Bob Thank you akenaton. |
|
19 Apr 07 - 08:59 AM (#2029872) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Ron Davies Yet again, why does anybody other than police need semi-automatic or automatic weapons? Waiting for answers from the pro-gun posters. |
|
19 Apr 07 - 09:00 AM (#2029873) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Ron Davies (And of course the US military will have access to them)--we're talking about civilians here. |
|
19 Apr 07 - 10:20 AM (#2029953) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: katlaughing Kaleea, excellent point. Too many do forget that! |
|
19 Apr 07 - 10:51 AM (#2029994) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel "I find it interesting that posters on this thread after branding all gun owners as murderers and blood thirsty killers now start defending the youth who actually did kill people." I see no evidence to support that observation. jeez guest, what else have we done to you? I would not be surprised if Cho troll the killer might have communicated annonymously on the web, since he rarely talked in real life. |
|
19 Apr 07 - 11:04 AM (#2030014) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bill D It has been explained in tedious detail the last 2 days WHY, even after Cho was identified as having problems AND been temporarily held and counseled, that there was no legal means to hold an adult longer than 48 hours without either his consent or a direct threat or specific identifiable danger!! He had acted weird...he had NOT attacked anyone or threatened to do so. Should laws be changed? Maybe so...THEN we will be hearing all the complaints about how 'weird' people are being harassed unfairly and held in institutions against their will. We can't have it both ways... I do not know the answer. |
|
19 Apr 07 - 11:10 AM (#2030022) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Desdemona There's no way of looking at this tragedy that can make any sense of it. Clearly the young man was deeply disturbed, and there's no profit at this point in dwelling on "how things might have been different" unless it leads to concrete changes that might prevent similar disasters in the future. I see that the University is going to award the students who were killed posthumous degrees in their fields of study. I think that's a very nice gesture; with commencement only weeks away, it's hard to fathom what an emotional occasion it will be...so sad. ~D |
|
19 Apr 07 - 11:11 AM (#2030024) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Big Mick Once again, friend Ron, you folks try to shift the premise. This isn't about why I need semi automatic weapons. I already have them. It is about why you should be allowed to take them away. I purchased them and use them in a completely legal way. They are stored safely, all in my home know the appropriate safety rules. You folks toss the term "semi automatic" out as if it were a perjorative. A shotgun used for rabbit hunting is often a semi automatic. A 30-06 hunting rifle can be a semi automatic and an assault weapon, even though it is the most common weapon used in hunting for large game. Any firearm, including a revolver, can fire as many times as you pull the trigger. I own weapons like these, I teach all in my family to use them safely. We have been hunters and fishermen for generations in my family. It, along with camping, boating, canoeing and hiking, are part of our families heritage and culture. The most important point in this debate, IMO, is that the weapons owned by the huge majority of law abiding gun owners are not the weapons that are used to commit violent crime. The weapons used to commit violent crime are usually obtained illegally. You want to know what happened at VT? The various agencies weren't talking to each other. This kid had been evaluated by pro's as a danger to himself and others. If the system were working properly, he would never have gotten those weapons. But my opinion is that he was psychotic and would have found another way to make his point. I would believe you are all sincere if you were attacking the real problem. But you are not. You are simply using the lame old tactic of attacking the visible scab and not treating the infection under that scab. It makes us feel good. But it won't stop these horrible tragedies. Mick |
|
19 Apr 07 - 11:15 AM (#2030027) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Big Mick Bill, we cross posted. While it is true that there was no legal way to hold Cho, if the agencies were talking to each other, if (in this age of incredibly powerful computers)the system had recorded this young man's mental problems, then he would not have been able to purchase the firearms. |
|
19 Apr 07 - 11:20 AM (#2030040) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: katlaughing Mick, ya can't have it both ways. First you say he couldn't have gotten the guns if all the agencies and authorities had communicated well with one another, then you say he would have gotten guns no matter of if it was illegally or not. I don't think any of us can state such absolutes, either way. We were not there, we don't know what judgements went on or not...how in the world can we be so sure of what would be without first-hand knowledge? |
|
19 Apr 07 - 11:23 AM (#2030042) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Amos All badness IS a form of mental illness, Bob. That's where it comes from. Complete sanity is the desire and ability to postulate optimum solutions to the problems of broad survival for self and others. This is a theoretical optimum from which we all, to one degree or another, fall short (except for Little Hawk). The big question is, how does the random oppression of life in the material universe (gravity, force, heat, things banging into each other) become internalized in the individual to bring about "badness"? What do you think "badness" is, and how do you think it comes about? What kind of decisions would a person have to make, in order to become "bad" in your Manichean notebook, and why would he/she make them? A |
|
19 Apr 07 - 11:30 AM (#2030049) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel Big Mick is right The problem was that the Virginia gun law is different than the Massachusettes gun law. In Massachusettes Cho would not have been given a gun because they have an extensive police review and vetting system. A policeman has to sign off on the request based on all available records. In VA only a search for felony convictions is made; |
|
19 Apr 07 - 11:34 AM (#2030057) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce BollD, The founding fathers were interseted in a FREE PRESS- They had no idea about the internet where a lie could sprerad around the world in a few minutes. I guess there should not be any right to free speech, unless it is on public corners, or done on a hand-powered press. Yes, we could make the whole world a lot safer- all we need to do is have an absolute dictatorship and remove anything that might be dangerous. I do not wish such a situation. And YOU were the one who said:"I see the pleas to limit this thread to 'sympathy' etc., but obviously that's not going to happen. I doubt any of the victim's families are going to be reading this.)" and made this thread into a gun/anti-gun debate. Most of those who were discussing it had agreed it was not the time, nor the thread. |
|
19 Apr 07 - 11:43 AM (#2030067) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel Today the religious nutter side of the killer is being parsed. Mental illness, drugs, religion, guns, loner, predjudice none of it is an excuse, just ingredients in a recipe for disaster http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/vtechsplash2_neff.jpg |
|
19 Apr 07 - 11:44 AM (#2030068) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Amos "...But a close look at the patterns of murderous violence in the U.S. reveals some remarkable consistencies, wherever the individual atrocities may have occurred. In case after case, decade after decade, the killers have been shown to be young men riddled with shame and humiliation, often bitterly misogynistic and homophobic, who have decided that the way to assert their faltering sense of manhood and get the respect they have been denied is to go out and shoot somebody. Dr. James Gilligan, who has spent many years studying violence as a prison psychiatrist in Massachusetts, and as a professor at Harvard and now at N.Y.U., believes that some debilitating combination of misogyny and homophobia is a "central component" in much, if not most, of the worst forms of violence in this country. "What I've concluded from decades of working with murderers and rapists and every kind of violent criminal," he said, "is that an underlying factor that is virtually always present to one degree or another is a feeling that one has to prove one's manhood, and that the way to do that, to gain the respect that has been lost, is to commit a violent act." Violence is commonly resorted to as the antidote to the disturbing emotions raised by the widespread hostility toward women in our society and the pathological fear of so many men that they aren't quite tough enough, masculine enough — in short, that they might have homosexual tendencies. In a culture that is relentless in equating violence with masculinity, "it is tremendously tempting," said Dr. Gilligan, "to use violence as a means of trying to shore up one's sense of masculine self-esteem." The Virginia Tech killer, Cho Seung-Hui, was reported to have stalked female classmates and to have leaned under tables to take inappropriate photos of women. A former roommate told CNN that Mr. Cho once claimed to have seen "promiscuity" when he looked into the eyes of a woman on campus. Charles Whitman was often portrayed as the sunny all-American boy. But he had been court-martialed in the Marines, was struggling as a college student and apparently had been suffering from depression. He told a psychiatrist that he absolutely hated his father, but he started his murderous spree by killing his wife and his mother. The confluence of feelings of inadequacy, psychosexual turmoil and the easy availability of guns has resulted in a staggering volume of murders in this country. There are nearly 200 million firearms in private hands in the U.S., and more than 30,000 people — nearly 10 times the total number of Americans who have died in Iraq — are killed by those guns each year. In 1966 Americans were being killed by guns at the rate of 17,000 a year. An article in The Times examining such "rampages" as the Charles Whitman shootings said: "Whatever the motivation, it seems clear that the way is made easier by the fact that guns of all sorts are readily available to Americans of all shades of morality and mentality." .... (From a TImes column on the recent shootings) |
|
19 Apr 07 - 11:46 AM (#2030070) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce Ron D, You state: "Yet again, why does anybody other than police need semi-automatic or automatic weapons?" Since no-one other than police ARE allowed to have fully automatic weapons, I presume you bring them up just to confuse the issue. As for semi-automatic ones, there are presently laws in place which limit the number of rounds in a clip that can be made or imported from the time of the law on. |
|
19 Apr 07 - 12:11 PM (#2030094) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Big Mick Actually, kat, you need to sharpen up your reading before making a point. What I said was, But my opinion is that he was psychotic and would have found another way to make his point. I know you want to be right, but I didn't say the other way was with a gun. As I have said before in this debate, it is very easy to fill the trunk of a car with fertilizer, and with some kero and a few ingredients, make a bomb capable of killing a great many people. A psychotic such as Cho, with decent computer skills, and a premeditated devotion to carry out this act, could have carried off his killing very easily. Should we ban fertilizer? This man was committed to doing what he did. He chose guns as his weapons. Were those not available to him (as they shouldn't have been if the instant check system worked properly) he surely would have found another method to address his perceived grievances. Mick |
|
19 Apr 07 - 12:17 PM (#2030100) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: katlaughing Fair enough, Mick, yes, he could have chosen another way, but it seemed inferred he would have found guns some way by your earlier sentence in that paragraph "The weapons used to commit violent crime are usually obtained illegally." I don't give a damn if I am right as long as whatever I work on brings about a change for peace. |
|
19 Apr 07 - 12:21 PM (#2030106) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Big Mick You are to be applauded for wanting to bring peace. If you are sincere in that, and I believe you are, work on things that will truly change things for peace. The facts just don't support the contention that gun control will do that. There was no inference in my earlier post. It was very straightforward. Mick |
|
19 Apr 07 - 12:43 PM (#2030119) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Strollin' Johnny "There are nearly 200 million firearms in private hands in the U.S., and more than 30,000 people — nearly 10 times the total number of Americans who have died in Iraq — are killed by those guns each year." This in a country where virtually anyone can have as many guns as he or she wishes. There are less than 100 homicides by shooting per annum in the UK, where strong gun controls exist. <100/60m*300m = <500 should be the number for the US. Instead it's >60 times that number. Very few UK residents will ever see a gun, except in the hands of the armed forces/police ARUs. Only a very tiny minority will ever handle one. Why don't these butt-stupid gun-head fools see the correlation? How can they continue with their denials? |
|
19 Apr 07 - 12:44 PM (#2030121) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Wesley S As far as gun control goes I keep thinking that the faster the gun shoots the longer you should have to wait to buy one. A black powder muzzle loading rifle for instence - 1 or 2 days. A 9MM pistol such as the one used in this event - 90 days. I have no problem with folks wanting to own guns. I just don't think that every type of gun needs to be purchased at a moments notice. |
|
19 Apr 07 - 02:03 PM (#2030177) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bill D beardedbruce, sir: I count 13-19, depending on your reading, posts debating the gun laws BEFORE your suggestion that the subject matter be limited....and even more before my comment which you quote. *I* did not "(make) this thread into a gun/anti-gun debate." But YOU, once again, offer up a straw man refutation of my points, presuming to compare a theoretical ban on free speech to THIS situation. Mick...I will agree with you one one thing...*IF*, as is likely, private ownership of a wide variety of firearms is to continue, we desperately need a comprehensive, nation-wide computer system with databases of not only LEGAL owners, but of those judged NOT to be trusted with firearms. Now, as a working idea, I think that it might be a good idea to rule that ALL firearms permits are to expire, in say, two years, and that ALL owners must re-apply within that period, with severe penalties for anyone found with unregistered guns after that. And VERY severe penalties for anyone found abusing the gun laws...either in sales or use. Further, in my opinion, we need ONE set of laws, so that someone from DC cannot drive an hour into Virginia and buy what they wish. We need a FULL review of weapons and ammunition types and technology and revised laws reflecting a saner designation of things like 'semi-automatic', so that kids don't find it easy to get AK-47s....and must PROVE why they need certain types of clips! Those are just quick brainstorming ....there might be more. |
|
19 Apr 07 - 03:17 PM (#2030260) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel "butt-stupid gun-head fools" That is just mean knee jerk rehtoric ! i think you meant "gun-stupid butt-head FOOLS" which is a kinder gentler and more truthful rhetoric |
|
19 Apr 07 - 03:54 PM (#2030307) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Peace "I just don't think that every type of gun needs to be purchased at a moments notice. " So the kid goes into the store and says, "Please give me 15 jujubes, three pieces of bubble go\um, eight honeymoons and 25 tubes of airplane glue. |
|
19 Apr 07 - 03:57 PM (#2030310) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce BillD, You state: "so that someone from DC cannot drive an hour into Virginia and buy what they wish. We need a FULL review of weapons and ammunition types and technology and revised laws reflecting a saner designation of things like 'semi-automatic', so that kids don't find it easy to get AK-47s." 1. Someone from DC cannot drive an hour into Virginia and buy what they wish. ALREADY prohibited by the 1968 gun laws. 2. "We need a FULL review of weapons and ammunition types and technology and revised laws reflecting a saner designation of things like 'semi-automatic', so that kids don't find it easy to get AK-47s." Straw man argument- Since AK-47 are fully automatic, they are prohibited to ALL of us at the present time. So, how can kids ( Who are prohibited by the 1968 Gun Laws from owning firearms) get them "easy, or otherwise? Or are you saying that there needs to be ENFORCEMENT OF THE PRESENT LAWS?????? |
|
19 Apr 07 - 04:40 PM (#2030360) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bill D "Or are you saying that there needs to be ENFORCEMENT OF THE PRESENT LAWS??????" Yep...and some STRONGER laws too! and, your 1 & 2 are nitpicking, semantic avoidance of my points. The FACT is that gun laws are weak in Virginia and tight in DC. and part 2...let's just truncate it, so that you can't twist the point with my careless use of an example. (too bad I don't know more gun lore, so I could have used the PROPER example) " "We need a FULL review of weapons and ammunition types and technology and revised laws reflecting a saner designation of things like 'semi-automatic', ..." better? |
|
19 Apr 07 - 04:45 PM (#2030369) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Peace Gun laws make it really difficult for honest folks to get guns. |
|
19 Apr 07 - 04:48 PM (#2030375) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel The biggest obstacles for guns to get into DC are the bridges. |
|
19 Apr 07 - 04:52 PM (#2030385) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce "The FACT is that gun laws are weak in Virginia and tight in DC." Yet crime is higher in DC, with the tight gun laws, and lower in Virginia, with the weak gun laws. I can more easily justify making the laws WEAKER in DC to lower the crime rate than you can justify making the ones in Virginia stronger ( which, from all indication past amnd present would increase the crime rate). "" "We need a FULL review of weapons and ammunition types and technology and revised laws reflecting a saner designation of things like 'semi-automatic', ..." Why?? There is presently a perfectly good definition. |
|
19 Apr 07 - 04:54 PM (#2030388) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce "The biggest obstacles for guns to get into DC are the bridges. " It is against the PRESENT laws to bring any gun into DC. Are you saying that by passing more laws, the criminals will suddenly decide to obey them? |
|
19 Apr 07 - 09:21 PM (#2030624) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,gun owner I heard an interesting statement today. Someone pointed out that the shootings at Virginia Tech occurred on a campus WHERE A GUN BAN WAS IN EFFECT. So how can anyone conclude from this incident that guns should be banned elsewhere? |
|
19 Apr 07 - 09:35 PM (#2030629) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Ron Davies BB-- I suspect, that as often seems to happen, you are overstating the case. My sources tell me you are incorrect in saying that ordinary citizens are prohibited from owning fully automatic weapons. It is quite difficult to get a permit, expensive, and you have to be willing to submit to very restrictive conditions--but it is possible. Given your track record, I'm afraid I will have to take the word of my main source--who has no ax to grind--over your assertions. Unless you can provide written proof--with source. Even if you can come up with such a source, it's a side issue. Obviously nobody will try to take away semi-automatic rifles. But the main question seems to me why the general public should have easy access to semi-automatic pistols. I'm sorry--the convenience of those who like to shoot pistols at shooting ranges may just have to take second place to the worthwhile goal of cutting down on easy access to semi-automatic pistols. Sport shooters can use rifles--or revolvers. We need a convincing argument from the pro-gun group as to the necessity of easily concealed semi-automatic weapons--or semi-automatic pistols at all for the general public-- weapons which are all too easy to use to settle arguments--and are used for this. |
|
19 Apr 07 - 11:04 PM (#2030679) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,gun owner Now this is interesting-- Jeff Weise, the Red Lake High School killer was on prozac , "Unabomber" Ted Kaczinski, Michael McDermott, John Hinckley, Jr., Byran Uyesugi, Mark David Chapman and Charles Carl Roberts IV, the Amish school killer, were all on SSRI psychotropic drugs. Since these deadly drugs are prevalent in almost all mass shooting incidents, where is the call to ban prozac? Why is the knee-jerk reaction always to attack the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans to self-defense... On the Senate floor in 1977, Senator Ted Kennedy said, "The Deputy Director of the CIA revealed that over thirty universities and institutions were involved in an 'extensive testing and experimentation' program which included covert drug tests on unwitting citizens 'at all social levels, high and low, native Americans and foreign." One such victim of these experiments was Cathy O'Brien, who immediately after the shootings re-iterated the revelations in her latest book, that Blacksburg Virginia is a central location for mind control programs that are still ongoing today.... Either way you cut it, Seung-Hui Cho was a victim of brainwashing and mind control. The right questions are not being asked and the finger of blame is being pointed in the wrong direction, ensuring that another tragedy like the VA Tech Massacre is almost guaranteed. http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/va_tech_shooter_was_mind_controlled_assassin.htm So, we're being misdirected. The politicians and media make guns the issue instead of the brain-rotting drugs. The "New Freedom Initiative" was written by the drug companies and made law by the federal govt, and the goal of the New Freedom Initiative is to get half of America's school children on these hallucinogenic, hypnotic drugs. They permanently destroy your child's brain chemistry, and they are always involved in these school shooting cases. |
|
19 Apr 07 - 11:30 PM (#2030689) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Peace "Jeff Weise, the Red Lake High School killer was on prozac , "Unabomber" Ted Kaczinski, Michael McDermott, John Hinckley, Jr., Byran Uyesugi, Mark David Chapman and Charles Carl Roberts IV, the Amish school killer, were all on SSRI psychotropic drugs." Is there any proof for that statement? |
|
20 Apr 07 - 12:35 AM (#2030722) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,gun owner I know Kaczinski and the Amish school shooter were on the drugs. The writer of the piece is reputable and does his research. I'm sure he's accurate. Harris & Klebold...at least one of them was on an SSRI. I think that was Paxil or Luvox. I'm sure a name-by-name search of the killers would confirm the statement. Probably turn up many, many more too. And this is really insidious because the makers of these drugs wrote the legislation to force mandatory psychological testing on all school kids. Tests will turn up "problems" and there will be a pill for every problem. These SSRI drugs will be over-prescribed, the kids will play violent point-of-view video games, and then if they become too stressed by teasing or tests or whatever, they'll just act out one of the games. Bad, bad drugs. And it's the DRUGS that should be the focus of the media attention, not the guns. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 12:43 AM (#2030725) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Peace If indeed that is the case, then the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor aspect SHOULD be looked at. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 02:19 AM (#2030755) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Peace "With backlash growing against media organizations for repeatedly broadcasting video clips of the Virginia Tech killer, major U.S. networks on Thursday said they would drastically limit the use of the footage. NBC News — which received the package of videos and documents — and its cable outlet MSNBC said in a news release that it would limit the use of the images to not more than 10 per cent of its airtime." |
|
20 Apr 07 - 04:08 AM (#2030794) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: dianavan Amos quoted a very good point of view, "What I've concluded from decades of working with murderers and rapists and every kind of violent criminal," he said, "is that an underlying factor that is virtually always present to one degree or another is a feeling that one has to prove one's manhood, and that the way to do that, to gain the respect that has been lost, is to commit a violent act." I would add that the use of a firearm makes it much easier for those with low self-esteem (cowards) to perform acts of violence. When you use a weapon, you are placing an object between you and the victim which makes it easier than using your fists or other parts of your body. Depending on the weapon (club, knife, gun, etc.), the person assaulting the victim has an opportunity to distance himself accordingly. The criminal is able to avoid or deny personal responsibility or risk any harm to himself. With a gun, you don't even have to make contact. Its the perfect weapon for a coward. A person who is mentally unbalanced can say to himself, I didn't feel anything, therefore I didn't do it. It wasn't me, it was someone else that made me pull the trigger. Its their fault for making me do this. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 04:18 AM (#2030798) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Wordsmith Which is basically what the VT shooter said in the first video I saw broadcast on NBC the night of the day it was received. I do feel it is an issue of self-esteem, as well as mental illness, that motivates these senseless killings. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 04:41 AM (#2030809) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Strollin' Johnny Another good reason for removing guns from circulation. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 04:49 AM (#2030813) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Strollin' Johnny I'd go further and say that anyone who feels they *need* to keep a gun because it makes them *safer* or *stronger* or *superior* in some way, has a psychological problem anyway, and is probably the least suitable person to be allowed one. And there seem to be a lot of them around in the US. (Farmers are excepted from this, of course). I've never had a gun, never will have one. I feel perfectly safe. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 08:56 AM (#2030973) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce "My sources tell me you are incorrect in saying that ordinary citizens are prohibited from owning fully automatic weapons. It is quite difficult to get a permit, expensive, and you have to be willing to submit to very restrictive conditions--but it is possible." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Prohibits importation of weapons covered in the National Firearms Act and extends NFA restrictions to machine gun frames and receivers and conversion kits (i.e., parts to make machine guns). Prohibits importation of foreign-made military surplus firearms. Prohibited the sale and manufacture of new fully automatic civilian machine guns (effectively freezing the number of them in circulation). .... Prohibited the sale of parts or "conversion kits" - used to make semiautomatic firearms fully automatic. http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=1968&menu=gvr ____________________________________________________________________ Actually, it IS possible to obtain the VERY restricted permits to own fully automatic weapons- BUT NOT for "ordinary citizens". Police units, and museums are permitted to apply for the class three permits. Of copurse, that is like the law in Montgomery County, MD- The Police are REQUIRED to take your application for a permit to carry a concealed weapon ( with fee and fingerprinting, and a backgroun check) - But unless you are a police officer, you will never have it acted upon- they have to take the application, but are not required to ever issue the permit, or give any reasons for not doing so. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 09:10 AM (#2030993) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce Under the Gun Control Act of 1968 as amended in 1986, it is presently a Federal felony, punishable by a five year prison term and a $250,000 fine, for a convicted felon to be in possession of an assault weapon. That law covers all felons -- convicted by a state, country, municipal or Federal court. It covers any firearm that any Member of Congress could possibly define as an assault weapon. If a criminal in possession of an assault weapon is involved in the drug trade, or has three prior felony convictions on his record, the law calls for him to serve a mandatory 15 years in Federal prison, and pay up to a $250,000 fine. That's for simple possession of an assault weapon. It is a crime for a felon or drug dealer to be in the same room with an assault weapon. The use of an assault weapon by a convicted felon in commission of a crime is also a five year Federal felony, and could also bring a $250,000 fine. It covers guns with large magazine capacities. The alteration of a semiautomatic assault weapon into a full-auto machine-gun is a ten year Federal felony with a $250,000 fine. Possession of an untaxed, unregistered fully automatic firearm is a 10 year Federal felony, with a $250,000 fine. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 09:32 AM (#2031016) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,gun owner Americans were effectively disarmed by the gun control act of 1968. Large portions of it were literally translated from Hitler's gun control act. The one he enacted before he began cleansing German society of homosexuals, the educated, and other "undesirables." Under the 1968/86 gun control act, you cannot own a machine gun unless you pay ruinous fees and agree to numerous self-restrictions. The one way to ensure in America that you are not threatened by guns is to commit a crime with one. Mandatory jail time. Gun laws are abundant and are strictly enforced by police like the Rodney King beaters. Giving away your right to bear arms will put you at the mercy of police like that AND at the mercy of criminals who are always going to have guns. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 09:44 AM (#2031028) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel If we act RIGHT NOW with stricter gun laws we will notice the effect in the relativly short time it will take all the new guns on the streets now to rust rust away into an unusable artifact. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 09:47 AM (#2031032) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: bobad "Americans were effectively disarmed by the gun control act of 1968." Number of firearms in the US: 223 Million (Source: US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime, 7/95, from ATF data) |
|
20 Apr 07 - 10:01 AM (#2031051) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Captain Ginger So, if Rodney King had pulled out a gun he would have been saved a beating, eh? The cops would have said, "Oh, sorry sir - we realise now that you are a responsible american. Have a nice day!" Honestly, 'gun-owner', you really are a terrific ambassador for arseholes. God help America if you are a typical example/ |
|
20 Apr 07 - 10:10 AM (#2031061) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Strollin' Johnny Amen Cap'n. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 10:24 AM (#2031083) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel OK everyone, we know HOW he did it. He used guns But WHY DID HE DO IT???????????????????????????????????????? This is not in his defense, but pertains to his situation. The answer is not in psychosis or the "manifesto" or the serotonin reuptake inhibitors or the violent Korean movie or his pathological shyness due to a brain malformation....no Love never found him, Love never saved him. He probably died a virgin. George Carlin said imagine the last guy, The guy who has it worse in some regard than everyone else on earth. Imagine the guy who admires a girl from afar and she takes him to court for stalking and then he text messages another girl and she gets a court order to stop or the last girl who got a restraining order..3 strikes and he's out. Having nowhere else to go except a crazy embarrased internal revenge he goes postal. OK this scenario is somewhat tongue in cheek, but for a really shy person who tries awkwardly 3 times to reach out to a girl, until he has to invent a girlfriend to limit the other guys' ridicule and each time he tried to date, he was taken to court. That is some kind of luck only the "last guy" could have. This is not in his defense, but rather, his possible situation. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 10:30 AM (#2031089) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel For all the psycho babble you will ever will hear about this, no talking head will ever say, "he needed to get laid" but believe me folks, it had something to do with it. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 10:49 AM (#2031111) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel opps, I guess I crossed the line by humanizing the killer. love understanding forgiveness? It was one of Christ's teachings afterall. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 10:51 AM (#2031116) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,meself Undoubtedly, Donuel. But surely his difficulties with women were as much a result as a cause of his problems. I don't imagine these women went to the legal authorities simply because he asked them once or twice to go for a coffee. They obviously perceived that he was dangerous, and they were - quite rightly, I would suggest - very scared of him. Realistically speaking - what is the alternative to a lonely, unbalanced, emotionally and sexually frustrated young man sitting alone in his room playing video-games night after night? |
|
20 Apr 07 - 11:50 AM (#2031169) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel Sex immersion therapy. It doesn't exist and would be condemned by religions and politicians alike. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 12:30 PM (#2031194) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,meself Yeah - that's why I said "realistically speaking" ... |
|
20 Apr 07 - 12:45 PM (#2031215) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel If it did exist, can you imagine all the melingering horny guys lining up... "yeah doc I gotta problem, I need it bad". "Are you a threat to yourself or society?" "UMmmm, ahh sure , yeah thats the ticket!" |
|
20 Apr 07 - 12:46 PM (#2031217) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,gun owner Rodney King's not the point in the example above. The behavior of the police is the point. If America were disarmed, we'd be protected by--what? Cops who hide behind trees when there is a real crisis, but then beat the defenseless when the opportunity arises. Look at what happened to the "undesirables" in Germany after the citizens were disarmed. There's bound to be video on Youtube of Jews with yellow stars on their coats being beaten by cops and mobs. That happened because the country was first disarmed. And in America we have a government that admits it raped with acid at Abu Grahib. And it has killed 2/3's of a million Iraqi civilians in the past 3 years. And it has said that here at home you can be picked up and disappeared for "suspected" terrorism, with the definition of terrorism now being the breaking of a federal or state law. Not only should more restrictive gun laws be dismissed out of hand, we should repeal the 1968 gun law, which makes full auto weapons illegal. A government that will cluster bomb women and children with depleted uranium will not hesitate to destroy you and your family. American citizens need to get back on as even a playing field as possible with our rogue government. I don't watch television, so I don't get the daily dosages of propaganda, but America is apparently now undergoing the media-induced traumatization that took place just after 9/11. After that incident, we were told we had to give up liberty for security. That was absurd on the face of it (giving up liberty leads to tyranny, not security--apples and oranges), and now Americans are apparently being traumatized with a horrific video while they're being told this won't happen again if we give up guns. Giving up guns will only INSURE it will happen again. Do any of you really think someone like Cho won't get the guns if he wants them? My fear now is that we'll see even more and worse examples of this, soon. End of the school year, the media glorifying Cho, psychotropic drugs being forced on school kids, graduations and "last chances" coming up. If a rash of these shootings DOES occur, remember that the media shapes opinion, and they traumatized the country for a reason. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 12:50 PM (#2031220) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel Actually on HBO there is a program called Real Sex and they show various sex immersion groups all over the world. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 12:56 PM (#2031228) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,282RA >>OK everyone, we know HOW he did it. He used guns But WHY DID HE DO IT???????????????????????????????????????? This is not in his defense, but pertains to his situation. The answer is not in psychosis or the "manifesto" or the serotonin reuptake inhibitors or the violent Korean movie or his pathological shyness due to a brain malformation....no Love never found him, Love never saved him.<< He was crazy--period. He was just plain nuts. >>He probably died a virgin.<< Yeah so? A lot of people died virgins and didn't commit mass murder. >>George Carlin said imagine the last guy, The guy who has it worse in some regard than everyone else on earth. Imagine the guy who admires a girl from afar and she takes him to court for stalking and then he text messages another girl and she gets a court order to stop or the last girl who got a restraining order..3 strikes and he's out. Having nowhere else to go except a crazy embarrased internal revenge he goes postal.<< You're making a case for the guy doing this because he couldn't get a date and that it ridiculous. He couldn't get a date for the same reason he shot a bunch people--he's totally nuts. >>OK this scenario is somewhat tongue in cheek,<< Well yeah. >>but for a really shy person who tries awkwardly 3 times to reach out to a girl, until he has to invent a girlfriend to limit the other guys' ridicule and each time he tried to date, he was taken to court.<< First off, shyness wasn't his problem. Mental illness was. He couldn't get a date because the girls he contacted were scared of him as was everyone else. Girls don't go to the police because you asked them for a date and they didn't want to. They go to the police because they're scared of you. And from what I see, those girls had every reason to be. >>That is some kind of luck only the "last guy" could have. This is not in his defense, but rather, his possible situation.<< Doesn't sound possible to me. It doesn't make sense to say that it wasn't just because he was lonely (especially when he obviously preferred to be alone) but also because he was unbalanced. You may as well say it was simply because he was unbalanced. Lonely shy guys don't do this. A severe mental psychosis is the only thing that I think can possibly account for it. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 01:03 PM (#2031237) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel They say the serial killer was a charming affable guy and a deacon in his church. Yeah , you never can tell. They say the killer was a loner and never talked to anyone, Yeah, you never can tell. Profilers will tell you that killers are most often pshycho-sexual mad men. I say at the bottom of most of these insane killers is a perversion of sex for one reason or another. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 01:27 PM (#2031273) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel If I have one overview, it is this. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If that cure in your mind is less guns or more guns, or more litigousness or less, or more therapy or less, more drugs or less, more sex or less sex...what matters is that we are looking for that ounce of prevention. We may be opinionated blind men feeling an elephant and have different answers, but we are looking. Ann Frank said, "Despite everything, I think people are good at heart". It is a good world. And we will continue looking for that ounce of prevention. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 01:36 PM (#2031281) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Georgiansilver Whatever we think, the world has a lot of 'abnormal' people in it and they will do what they will do and other people...deemed more in touch with reality will analyse and dissect and debate and argue over whatever happens. The sad fact is one can never stop random acts by random people who randomly work out a plan to randomly or specifically do damage, kill or whatever. It is O.K to say well somebody is to blame...at the end of the day...the person to blame is the perpetrator...... Yes we must take all possible steps to stop this happening again so is there going to be a total ban on guns in the US....No! So guns are available to ANYONE who wants one...if they can't get one legally then surely they are so plentiful they can be procured by crime or deception or just plain cash. If you want to stop gun crime....stop guns!!!!! |
|
20 Apr 07 - 01:42 PM (#2031286) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel "The sad fact is one can never stop random acts by random people who randomly work out a plan to randomly or specifically do damage, kill or whatever." a premise that is both realistic and pessimistic. Positive realism will get us there faster, if not in a better mood. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 01:56 PM (#2031298) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,saulgoldie |
|
20 Apr 07 - 01:56 PM (#2031299) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bill D from way above: "Gun laws make it really difficult for honest folks to get guns." indeed...and NO gun laws make it really easy for honest and dishonest folks to get guns. Who do you think will get the most? "Yet crime is higher in DC, with the tight gun laws, and lower in Virginia, with the weak gun laws." comparing a STATE, largely rural, to a city with all the urban problems? Fascinating use of data. "Why?? There is presently a perfectly good definition." No...there certainly is not. The definition needs to specifically exclude several categories. ...and the prohibitions against various things like conversion kits are happily obeyed by criminals, hmmm? You are tap-dancing among misleading statistics and clever Gerrymandered definitions. I am trying to look at practical realities. A 'practical reality' to gun fanciers is any situation that will allow them to own whatever they wish. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 01:56 PM (#2031300) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,sau |
|
20 Apr 07 - 02:01 PM (#2031305) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: dianavan gun owner says, "Do any of you really think someone like Cho won't get the guns if he wants them?" Lets face it, ordering a gun by mail and walking across the street to pick it up is alot easier than finding a gun through criminal means. Lets get back to why guns make it easier to kill than any other weapon. Guns allow you to distance yourself from the act. Almost any other weapon requires action on the part of the killer. When you feel alienated from society, what better way of remaining apart than putting a gun between you and the victim(s). Its the perfect weapon for the mentally unstable. btw gun lovers - Your right to shoot animals or play target games does not and should not supercede my right to safety. How does your gun ownership protect my defenceless child sitting in a classroom? |
|
20 Apr 07 - 02:01 PM (#2031306) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,saulgoldie (Oopsie! I forgot that the "enter" key does several things. Like send the post.) What I meant to say is that just because we may never stop each and every bad event is no reason not to do everything we can to limit those to as few as possible. And we CAN definitely dramatically reduce these events. For one thing, we need to go back to the 80s when mental health suddenly "became" no longer society's problem and undo that boneheaded approach. Good bless Reagan. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 02:04 PM (#2031311) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce BillD, YOU were the one stating "and, your 1 & 2 are nitpicking, semantic avoidance of my points. The FACT is that gun laws are weak in Virginia and tight in DC.". I was replying to YOU. If the circumstances are different, why would you want the same solution, especially where it has been shown NOT to work? "...and the prohibitions against various things like conversion kits are happily obeyed by criminals, hmmm?" YOU are the one stating that if we pass laws the problem will be solved. Since anyone can make a gun with 2 pipes, a 2x4 ( or part of one) and a nail, ( as the US made and dropped to the French Resistance in WWII) the fact that criminals will NOT obey the law is even more reason NOT to have additional unenforcable laws. Or will the criminals suddenly obey the law if it is serious enough? It seems to me that someone willing to murder will not obey other laws, and the facts of the effects of past legislation shows me to be correct. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 02:07 PM (#2031319) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: open mike this thread seems top have become a general chat about guns, gun control, etc. related to the Virginia Tech episode, there was a copy-cat sort of event yesterday in Yuba City, in northern calif. Yuba City threat |
|
20 Apr 07 - 02:34 PM (#2031344) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bill D "YOU are the one stating that if we pass laws the problem will be solved." Show me where I said any such thing!! I HAVE said that gun owners have had the laws their way for a long time, and I don't like the results... and it's time to see if stronger, ENFORCED restrictions will help. I even posted suggestions. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 02:40 PM (#2031353) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce BillD, So, IF I were to say "I HAVE said that Free Speech advocates have had the laws their way for a long time, and I don't like the results... and it's time to see if stronger, ENFORCED restrictions will help." About Imus, YOU would not want to argue with me? The Bill Of Rights is not something that should be ignored, for when one attacks the rights that one does not use, it endangers the rights that one supports as well. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 03:30 PM (#2031391) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce BillD, YOU stated: "Now, as a working idea, I think that it might be a good idea to rule that ALL firearms permits are to expire, in say, two years, and that ALL owners must re-apply within that period, with severe penalties for anyone found with unregistered guns after that. And VERY severe penalties for anyone found abusing the gun laws...either in sales or use. Further, in my opinion, we need ONE set of laws, so that someone from DC cannot drive an hour into Virginia and buy what they wish. We need a FULL review of weapons and ammunition types and technology and revised laws reflecting a saner designation of things like 'semi-automatic', so that kids don't find it easy to get AK-47s....and must PROVE why they need certain types of clips!" |
|
20 Apr 07 - 03:32 PM (#2031393) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce Is this not saying that the additional laws that you advocate will help the situation? If not, why would we want to have them? Perhaps the word "solve" is the problem: Care to suggest how I should describe your reason for these already-proven ineffective additional laws? |
|
20 Apr 07 - 05:10 PM (#2031456) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Lonesome EJ I just sent the following email to my Denver NBC affiliate. If you feel as I do, I suggest you also communicate your feelings on this. To NBC news I wanted to express my shock and disgust at the reprehensible action of NBC and its president in airing the "press package" created by the Virginia Tech killer. Apparently there was never a hesitation on NBC's part, and no concern that such publicity might be exactly what such sick individuals are lusting for. To disguise this action as a need to know more about the killer's motivation is nothing but a spin on the real motive... Sheer profit. Congratulations on your further encouragement of such acts, as I see you as complicit in them. I somehow doubt, though, that the President of NBC, were his family killed in a mass slaying, would feel that the murder's press package deserved public promotion. Ernest Johnson |
|
20 Apr 07 - 05:18 PM (#2031463) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: katlaughing Excellent letter, LeeJ. I was appalled to see clips of it running on the TV Guide channel on cable, when my grandson was in the room. Thankfully I had the tv on mute and quickly changed the channel back to PBS Kids. That kind of stuff should never see the light of day, except for any necessary court proceedings, if any were necessary in such a case. No publication, no viewing, no nothing. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 06:44 PM (#2031506) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: frogprince "we should repeal the 1968 gun law, which makes full auto weapons illegal." If I found out this guy lived near to me, I would be just about as spooked as if Cho did. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 06:56 PM (#2031512) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: McGrath of Harlow So everyone who knew him thought he was pretty crazy. He'd been a patient in a mental hospital recently, and yet he had no difficulty in walking into a shop and buying the guns he used... "Only in America" - I certainly hope that's true. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 07:50 PM (#2031566) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Georgiansilver In the UK we do not have the right to bear arms...........so no-one, unless approved by a strict licencing investigation and approval through application to the Police, can own one......but the criminal element seem to get them quite easily for the 'right cash'. In the US, surely guns are so so plentiful that anyone...and I mean anyone could get one for the 'right cash'... or am I misleading myself? |
|
20 Apr 07 - 08:23 PM (#2031580) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,meself Good stuff, Lonesome. Although, according to NBC sources, there WAS "a hesitation" on their part - they thought about it, discussed it - then showed it. Commentator on CBC this morning said that Cho had "extorted a billion dollars worth of free publicity" from the news media. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 08:29 PM (#2031585) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Georgiansilver Well it didn't do him a lot of good did it? |
|
20 Apr 07 - 08:35 PM (#2031588) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,meself No - and it won't do much good for the victims of the next publicity-seeking lunatic inspired by the thought of all the attention the media will give his video-taped ravings. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 08:43 PM (#2031594) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bill D bruce! I said I advocate changes! How is that claiming "the problem will be solved."? "The Bill Of Rights is not something that should be ignored"...again...STRAW MAN... I am not ignoring it, I am upset at its ambiguity and its lack or relevance to modern society, and I explained why! You seem to thing that posting the 2nd amendment over & over will MAKE it clear & relevant. I disagree that it should be a given that anyone who is not a convicted felon should be allowed to possess most of the weapons under question. I believe that **IF** there were many fewer guns in private hands, and if those that were, were smaller and not semi-automatic, that there would be FAR fewer firearms used in crimes. THAT point may be debated & discussed...but I will not sit still for Gerrymandered data and technical points about weapons design to be used to 'prove' something that I didn't say. for the last time, THIS sort of remark: "So, IF I were to say "I HAVE said that Free Speech advocates have had the laws their way for a long time, and I don't like the results... and it's time to see if stronger, ENFORCED restrictions will help." will be answered with pretty strong language. It is NOT relevant to the topic, and it is NOT something I would have said, and it is NOT a proper refutation of anything! |
|
20 Apr 07 - 11:47 PM (#2031688) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,gun owner The 2nd Amendment was intended to prevent a repeat of what had just happened in America--a tyrannical government. Thomas Jefferson was in favor of providing civilians with military-grade arms, to keep government honest. So when the government starts passing laws against guns, it is doing so only to protect itself. And once all challenge to authority is removed, it can do whatever it wants. I'm for allowing responsible people to own any firearm they desire, which seems to upset some. But then I get upset when I hear people whining because they can no longer suck the brains out of partially birthed babies. Below is a link to a good article about SSRI drugs and their link to mass-murdering. Old article. A shame this garbage is still on the market. A shame too that people are debating guns instead of the drug companies doing chemical lobotomies on our young. http://www.steelhorsemag.com/SSRI.htm By the way, I worked with a man who was taking Anafranil (a SSRI drug), and he beat another man to death after drinking a single beer. He didn't recall the attack later. Beat him to death with a pair of pliers and a can of jalapenos. I kid you not. Then he stabbed him repeatedly with a pair of scissors and a broken hoe handle. So you don't need guns to do the damage. |
|
20 Apr 07 - 11:58 PM (#2031691) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Ron Davies BB-- Have you ever read the 2nd Amendment? Here it is in its entirety: " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Do you have any idea what the meaning of that is, or the purpose? What's the first mention? Very good--Militia. Go to the head of the class. So that's the goal of the right to bear arms. And how many gatherings of the Militia have you attended recently? How many do you think Cho attended? If you don't believe the right to bear arms has to do with the militia, check Amendment 5. It's about crimes and whether you will be held to answer for a "capital or other infamous crime" "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces or in the Militia". So obviously the "Militia" is another armed force. However, it stands to reason that if you are not in that armed force, you are not part of the militia. In that case the "right to bear arms" is not your right. And don't bother with the garbage of all able-bodied men being in the militia. If so, what part have you played in the militia recently? And it may do you some good to read some history. If you do, it will become clear that 3 problems were to be addressed by the 2nd Amendment: 1) fear of an overpowerful government 2) fear of a standing army 3) fear of Indian attacks I think we can agree that the danger of Indian attacks has gone down recently. The other 2 were directed , as I said earlier, at recent experience (at the time of the Bill of Rights) with the British government. If you disagree, please specify exactly why. Things have changed, you may have noticed. (Or perhaps you haven't noticed.) Fear of a standing army? Do you still have that? Perhaps fear of an overpowerful government? As I said earlier, if you have this fear, it's interesting, since you voted for the current regime. But you and like-minded individuals may not have much luck against the US military. Or perhaps you think differently And spare us the pious mouthings about the sacrosanct nature of the Constitution. Times change. Have you heard of the 3/5 compromise? Do you know what happened to it? Perhaps you think it should still be in force--after all, it's in the Constitution. How about the 18th Amendment? Is that still in force? And in the Bill of Rights itself, try the 7th Amendment--"where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved". Is that still in force exactly as written--"twenty dollars"? The Bill of Rights, like the Constitution, changes to meet new circumstances. When you join the militia, you can apply for your right to bear arms. An argument can easily be made that the "Militia" could be seen as the National Guard--emphatically NOT every male over 16. And don't bother with "if this right is abrogated, all other rights are in danger". That's patently absurd. Freedom of speech, religion, etc. are still important--I imagine you agree. "A well regulated Militia" is no longer so pressing a need, for reasons I have cited. Furthermore, as noted, in general the National Guard fills the role. Do you? |
|
21 Apr 07 - 01:16 AM (#2031708) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Lonesome EJ I believe in stricter control of guns. I don't believe that anyone should be free to own any firearm that is produced. I believe that automatic weapons, plastic non-detectable firearms, and armor-piercing, "cop-killer" rounds should be outlawed. I believe that people who advocate the freedom of access to such items are lunatics, frankly. Having said this, I don't think Virginia Tech is apropos to a gun control discussion. I don't believe that lax gun laws were the culprit in the case of Cho. The flaw here is in inadequate legal means to confine and disarm an obviously disturbed person, the failure of some individuals to take appropriate action, and the insatiable hunger for gory details and prurient matter by both the media and its customers...us. |
|
21 Apr 07 - 05:31 AM (#2031800) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: akenaton As I've said somewhere above, the "right to bear arms" creates the wrong climate in your society. It allows a young man who is obviously highly disturbed to gain access to dangerous weapons without too much notice being taken. In the UK this would have been very unlikely to occur. Here, most of the psychopaths turn out to be people who have their guns legally...members of "gun clubs" ect. I very much agree with those on this thread who contend that any private citizen who wishes to own or use a firearm....for any purpose, is is some way "disturbed". I include all you brave hunters in that... Now if you were prepared to enter the jungle in pitch darkness,armed with a spear..to pit your wits against the wild beasts...I might be prepared to change my opinion.......Ake |
|
21 Apr 07 - 05:32 AM (#2031802) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Strollin' Johnny Well said dianavan, you are so, so right. And Ron D., good points, and well made. Unfortunately, none are so blind as they who will not see. I despair at the stupidity of the gun-freaks. Shame they don't all take up crochet. Or, even better, cricket. S:0) |
|
21 Apr 07 - 05:35 AM (#2031803) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Strollin' Johnny Nice one Ake, I find it impossible to believe that anyone in 21st-century-USA **needs** to **hunt** (which isn't hunting at all, just a one-sided slaughterfest driven by blood-lust). |
|
21 Apr 07 - 05:45 AM (#2031811) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Captain Ginger Oh dear, I must be disturbed. I keep firearms for dealing with pests and for filling the pot. As a result my stock and vegetable garden go largely unmolested and my freezer has venison, pigeon, rabbit and duck in it. That said, I have no desire to own a pistol, and neither do I see any need for a semi-auto firearm of any kind unless the owner has a registered disability. And I certainly have no wish to live in a society where just about anyone could get hold of such weapons. The UK gun laws allow me to do what I need to do, and that's fine by me. |
|
21 Apr 07 - 06:08 AM (#2031817) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: akenaton I'm prepared to grant absolution to you Cap'n. Providing you keep up the good work on these pages :0). Johnny...good to hear from you....hope all is well.....Ake |
|
21 Apr 07 - 06:15 AM (#2031821) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: akenaton BTW Cap'n....AS one who ended the scourge of "TERIBUS" armed with nothing stronger than your intellect, I find it strange that you should require a 12 bore to exterminate the cockroaches, or "keep the wolf from the door" in the culinary dept....Ake |
|
21 Apr 07 - 08:18 AM (#2031873) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Strollin' Johnny Cap'n, I've said elsewhere that I have no problem with anyone who holds an appropriate and registered firearm for pest control (and I include pigeons and rabbits, inter alia, as pests). I live in a pretty rural area, and I'm aware that it's a necessity. I don't agree that ducks are pests, nor deer, although they may well be in the eyes of others, and I may have to accede to the views of those with greater knowledge of their behaviour. I don't especially disapprove of hunting for food if that's the only method available to obtain meat. What I do disagree with, vehemently, is the kind of 'trophy' hunting that goes on, where the **brave hunter"" (spit!) poses for photographs, grinning like a loon, over the corpse of a beautiful animal he's just shot from long range and in complete safety. This is NOT hunting. It's simply slaughter carried out in order to satisfy a primitive urge and, IMNSHO, to get over being deficient in the wedding-tackle department. |
|
21 Apr 07 - 08:28 AM (#2031880) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Captain Ginger Alas, I suffer from more than cockroaches in these parts - we have an active and voracious fox population which takes the lambs given half a chance, and the rabbits breed like, er, rabbits if left unchecked. I leave the cockroaches to the cats (who clearly have no taste. Ugh!) I agree that ducks aren't pests (I just like mallard and teal and my local butcher charges a fortune for them) - though Canada geese are (and also pretty tasty, to boot). Deer in the UK need management because they have to fit into man-made territories, and the population's self-management strategy in the face of that involves starvation and a lingering death for the less fit specimens. I agree, though, that 'trophy hunting' is pathetic. |
|
21 Apr 07 - 08:35 AM (#2031884) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,meself "I don't especially disapprove of hunting for food if that's the only method available to obtain meat." What on earth makes any other method of obtaining meat superior to hunting? |
|
21 Apr 07 - 10:23 AM (#2031938) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: frogprince "Well, sometimes we'd travel right down the Green River To the abandoned old prison down by Adrie Hill Where the air smelled like snakes and we'd shoot with our pistols But empty pop bottles was all we would kill." That's from Paradise, by John Prine. I grew up in Minnesota, in that kind of rural "gun culture", save that none of the kids I hung out with had a pistol. The guns weren't that much of our lives, and had nothing to do with a disregard for human life. I still have my .22 rifle, which I haven't fired in 30 years. In our area of Michigan, we are commonly over-run with more deer than the area can sustain, unless all the farmers simply plant their crops and leave them there for the herds to prosper on. I don't hunt for at least two reasons; I have no taste for the kill, and if I tried to respond to the sudden appearance of game, my responses would be a clumsy jumble and I would be a hazard. I've also worked for awhile with a (white)city kid who came to work with a pile of photos of his friends and himself playing with the arsenal that made them big men in their own minds. You don't even have to have mental illness to create a nightmare when you have that culture and an abundance of guns, and it makes precious little difference who originally purchased a given gun legally. |
|
21 Apr 07 - 10:44 AM (#2031952) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: katlaughing Here's what Colorado's Senator is doing to try to help our schools be safer. It has helped in Colorado, I hope it gets implemented nationwide: Safe2Tell. |
|
21 Apr 07 - 01:13 PM (#2032037) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,gun owner The Brits have been disarmed and brainwashed. And they never fought the royals for their independence, as Americans did, so they will never understand that you have to be armed to keep your government in check. Gun ownership in the U.S. is not about hunting rodents, it is about putting fear in the people who would enslave us. And there are plenty of gun crimes in Britain. And plenty of violent crimes not involving the use of guns. Hasn't "home invasion" skyrocketed since guns were outlawed? And aren't they now talking about banning knives? The attempt to deprive Americans of their constitutional right to defend themselves has already begun. Several resolutions and bills have been introduced into the U.S. congress as a result of the Blacksburg shootings (this while they tell us not to discuss the incident out of "respect"). The most insane proposal I've come across is the one by Dennis Kucinich. Don't have the # in front of me, but it would create a new bank-breaking Department of Peace and Non-Violence. Democrats now control congress and just voted to continue the Iraq war, so the hypocrisy of talking about peace and non-violence is obvious. Kucinich also has a new bureaucracy in mind which would screen all Americans for "mental illness." The American Psychiatric Association has increased its list of mental illnesses to include things like "pain after an injury," so if Kucinich has his way, all Americans will be forced to take SSRI drugs. Chemical lobotomies. Nazi eugenics. And the militia in my area, by the way, is whatever the sheriff says it is. The only law enforcement person I'm answerable to when I'm at home (aside from one with a signed and specific warrant) is the county sheriff. He can order me to help with law enforcement, if he deems it necessary. That's part of life in a free society. You don't make trouble, but you help end it when the duly-appointed authority asks for your help. We all understand our obligations in this regard, so that makes us well-regulated. It doesn't get much simpler than that. |
|
21 Apr 07 - 01:44 PM (#2032060) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: akenaton Mr Gun owner...Could you tell me what part your lovely weapons played in the emancipation of the blacks, or the freedom of those native Americans?? Were the lynch parties "well regulated militias"?....as they were often led by "law officers". Were the rifles of the US cavalry there to ensure freedom and "democracy" for the indigenous people?.....or to exterminate them.....Ake |
|
21 Apr 07 - 02:01 PM (#2032073) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: robomatic On the subject of firearms regulations, today's New York Times has an article as to existing federal law which if adequately supported by Virginia STATE law, would have made it impossible for the perpetrator of this week's outrage from legally purchasing a weapon: US Rules Made Shooter Ineligible I've known several 'silent loners' in the day. One guy who was a pretty quiet guy even in a crowded room, verbally abusive when approached, a co-worker who described how, after his car was burglarized, he waited on the roof of his trailer home with a weapon the next night in case the thief returned, another who described in detail how much he hated his family (or anyone in his life who got close to him). Have yet to find this kind of thing in a woman. |
|
21 Apr 07 - 02:32 PM (#2032093) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Strollin' Johnny Don't waste your time Ake, he's as bonkers as Choo. "And there are plenty of gun crimes in Britain. And plenty of violent crimes not involving the use of guns. Hasn't "home invasion" skyrocketed since guns were outlawed? And aren't they now talking about banning knives?" Gun owner - Some facts for your poor tired brain cell to absorb:- 1) We have between 50-80 homicides by shooting in an avaerage year in the UK, population 60m. The US has around 30,000 shooting homicides a year, in a population of 300m. 80 divided by 60 multiplied by 300 gives a figure of 400. 30,000 divided by 400 = 75. The US 'homicide by shooting' rate per head of population is 75 times that of the UK - Surely even you can see a correlation there with the comparatively lax gun controls in the US? If you can't, maybe you need to enrol back at High School (I'm assuming you've left already). 2) Guns haven't been 'outlawed' in the UK. Our laws provide, as they always have, for registered ownership of certain types of firearm by citizens who are able to prove justification for having them. However, the rules for registration are considerably more rigorous than in the US, and 'needing to feel safe' or 'self-protection' aren't considered good reasons for holding a gun licence. By 'outlawed' I'd guess you mean the prohibition of certain weapon types following the Dunblane massacre. Unlike the lily-livered US government, our political leaders had the balls to identify and deal with the issue of automatic and semi-automatic weapons in private ownership. 4) It has never been suggested here that the prohibition following Dunblane had any effect on burglary statistics (which is what I imagine you mean by the rather hysterical expression 'home invasion'). It could be true that burglary/housebreaking statistics may have increased a little (as they may well have in many other highly-urbanised areas like the UK) but, as hardly anyone here posseses, or has ever possessed a gun, the cause can have little or nothing to do with the ban. In fact, it's generally recognised that these petty offences are, in the main, driven by the increase in drug-abuse here. 4) Certain types of knife (e.g. flick-knives, or switch-blades as you might call them) have been banned for a great many years. There is a discussion at the moment regarding a possible ban on other knives which exceed a certain blade length, or have certain types of blade. In many people's opinion (including mine) that's a very good thing, and at least we have the will and the guts to face the problem. |
|
21 Apr 07 - 02:38 PM (#2032097) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Captain Ginger Kinell, gun-owner, I don't know what hick redneck supermarket tab you read to get your views on the UK, but they're kinda quaint! I'm very glad you're on the other side of the Atlantic - the thought of a bunch of trigger-happy fuckwits like yourself running around playing cowboys and indians with real guns is...well, we might start to approach the gun crime stats of your beloved USA. Anyway, carry on - you're doing a great job for the anti-Americans. Any European reading the sort of drivel you're posting will only be reinforced in his or her belief that there are parts of the US where civilisation would be a good thing. |
|
21 Apr 07 - 02:46 PM (#2032102) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: robomatic What was murder rate in UK prior to restrictive gun laws? Could it be the US is inherently more violent, irrespective of gun laws? And the US has gun laws, as I noted above, they are simply not applied. |
|
21 Apr 07 - 03:04 PM (#2032120) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Strollin' Johnny "What was murder rate in UK prior to restrictive gun laws?" As these laws have prevailed in the UK for most, if not all, of the 20th Century, and possibly some time during the 19th, I don't have that answer, nor do I see any relevance in the question. The world has changed rather more than somewhat over that period. It's right now we need to consider, and the facts are pretty conclusive. And you may well be right that the US is inherently more violent than the UK, but allowing everyone to run around armed to the teeth absolutely will not make it less so. I'm astonished that, at a time when the mantra is being preached that smacking a child is bad because teaches and instils violence in him/her, it's regarded by many Americans as their 'right' to possess the means to inflict the ultimate violence. What kind of message does that give out? There are some seriously confused people over there in La-La-Land (as we Brits affectionately refer to the Land of The Free) :-) :-) |
|
21 Apr 07 - 03:48 PM (#2032143) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: gnu Gun owner said... "... so they will never understand that you have to be armed to keep your government in check." People didn't get this even after Hitler's gun laws in the 30's. Now, how did that work out for the average Joe? Why would they suddenly wake up now? Most are too stunned to understand that that the reason the USA is so free is that the common people have the ability to vote.... by ballot or otherwise. |
|
21 Apr 07 - 05:02 PM (#2032184) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: katlaughing Oh, yes, creating a Dept. of Peace and trying to end Ruling by Fear will really break the bank. Why, I'll bet it could run past that cheapie Iraq War even: (my emphasis) From 2006 - The Congressional Research Service has just released a new report on the past and possible future costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pending Congress' action on the new emergency supplemental, which should complete fiscal year 2006 expenses, the costs will be up to $439 billion by the end of this year. But that's just the tip of the iceberg; details follow. The full report is available at www.cdi.org/smrp. If Congress approves the $71 billion emergency supplemental to pay for the ongoing cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the new total for the war expenses will be $439 billion, according to a new report released on April 24 by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). For the war in Iraq, $320 billion will have been spent; $89 billion for Afghanistan, and $26 billion will have gone toward enhanced security, including combat air patrols, in and over the United Sates. The Department of Defense (DOD) estimates its "burn rate" of monthly expenses at $6.4 billion in Iraq and $1.3 billion in Afghanistan. CRS points out that DOD did not include the cost of replacing worn out equipment and upgrades to facilities in theater. Adding those and a few other costs calculates to a monthly "burn rate" of $8.1 billion in Iraq; $1.6 billion in Afghanistan, and a total burn rate of $9.9 billion per month. |
|
21 Apr 07 - 07:43 PM (#2032273) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,Tired of band-wagon hitchers Strollin' Johnny - As these laws have prevailed in the UK for most, if not all, of the 20th Century, and possibly some time during the 19th, I don't have that answer, nor do I see any relevance in the question. The world has changed rather more than somewhat over that period. Wrong again stroller. First UK gun laws were passed in the 1920's following a discussion in parliament concerning the Russian Revolution. There was fear that this could happen in Britain & thus guns had to be registered. Also, since the banning of handguns (not just semi-autos & revolvers) crimes involving handguns have risen. This from home office figures! Look them up if you are interested in the truth but I doubt if you will bother! |
|
21 Apr 07 - 08:03 PM (#2032280) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,just tired of the gun lobby "Home Office Figures Show Violent Crime to be Falling Overall but Firearms Still Haunt the UK Crime Scene January 2002 The gun lobby has made much of the recent crime statistics for England and Wales claiming that violent crime, especially firearm related crime, is on the increase. They argue that this 'proves' that the handgun ban introduced in 1997 is not working and should be repealed. In the month before Christmas 2001, four TV documentaries concerned with firearms and crime were broadcast in Britain. GCN members and supporters took part in these when invited and the debates these programmes generated prove beyond any doubt that the case for retaining our existing gun controls needs to be strongly reasserted against the gun lobby's claim that the legislation was unfair and unworkable. Any debate about the crime statistics and what they reveal is fraught with problems but the following facts attempt to clarify the picture. In fact, overall violent crime appears to be falling and firearms were used in only a tiny minority of offences. Contrary to the impression given in some media reports and eagerly seized upon by the gun lobby, the streets of Britain are not 'awash' with illegal guns, notwithstanding the serious criminal problems in some cities" the whole report here - not quite the picture that Guest 7.43 would have us believe but not one for complacency either! |
|
21 Apr 07 - 08:07 PM (#2032283) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Joe_F http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liviu_Librescu Moved in on trouble. Rest in peace. |
|
21 Apr 07 - 08:18 PM (#2032291) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: katlaughing Thanks for that link, JoeF. It led me to a condolence page for his family: http://www.chabad.edu/templates/articlecco.html?AID=504498. |
|
21 Apr 07 - 09:15 PM (#2032312) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,meself May we remember his name long after we've forgotten that of his killer. |
|
21 Apr 07 - 10:31 PM (#2032355) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,gun owner My family prefers hunted meat to supermarket meat largely because of the chemical additives. Bovine growth hormones are some of the worst. The link below goes to a story about 2 reporters who were fired when they were investigating the stuff. They were supposed to write a positive story on it, but they didn't, and they were fired. This was a precedent-setting case in the U.S. and explains in part why so many members of the media knowingly lie now when they "report." They have to report what they know to be lies or risk being fired. Fascinating story, if you're not familiar with it: http://www.foxbghsuit.com/bgh2.htm Aknahten...race card, race card, race card. The media already tried to play the race card by harping on Cho being Korean. Americans didn't buy it. That game's played out. And the U.S. Civil War was unnecessary. The U.S. was the only major country to ever fight a war to end slavery. England ended the practice a few years before using financial methods, and the same was being discussed in the U.S., but then the European bankers and arms merchants entered the picture. The English monarchy is a blight on humanity. They're so bad they forced the sanest minds of the day to draft the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. If it hadn't been for the right to bear arms, Americans wouldn't have been able to defend the country in the War of 1812. I'm sure you DO hate the thought of Americans owning guns. And as far as home invasions being petty offenses (in Storllin' Johnny's first point #4 above), that perspective is hard to accept. Maybe Brits don't mind having old people beaten in their homes, but in the U.S. people are killed for home invasions. Assault numbers are about equal for the U.S. and the U.K., but I suspect if homeowners in Britain had true weapons, the deaths from home invasions would be substantial. I feel sad for the old people of Britain who are not allowed to defend themselves. I'll move over to one of the gun threads with this stuff. My input here should be on the drugs that lead to these shootings and the calculated response by disingenuous politicians. |
|
21 Apr 07 - 10:41 PM (#2032359) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,patty o'dawes I feel sad for the old people of Britain who are not allowed to defend themselves. Reflexes and faculties diminish with age. You are advocating 'old' people would be safer armed? What's the weather like on your planet? |
|
21 Apr 07 - 10:59 PM (#2032367) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,meself "Americans wouldn't have been able to defend the country in the War of 1812" Wait a minute - who was defending what? Sign me, A Patriotic Canadian |
|
21 Apr 07 - 11:18 PM (#2032375) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,meself Says wiki: "The war started badly for the Americans as their attempts to invade Canada were repeatedly repulsed by General Isaac Brock commanding a small British force, composed largely of local militias and Native American allies." "Despite years of warlike talk, the United States was unready to prosecute a war, for President Madison assumed that the state militias would easily seize Canada and negotiations would then follow." "America's leaders had assumed that Canada could be easily overrun. Former President Jefferson optimistically referred to the conquest of Canada as "a matter of marching." Many Americans had migrated to Upper Canada and it was assumed (by both sides) they would favor the American cause. They did not. In Lower Canada, much more populous, support for Britain came from the English élite with strong loyalty to the Empire, and from the French élite who feared American conquest would destroy the old order by introducing Protestantism, anglicization, republican democracy, and commercial capitalism. The French habitants feared the loss to potential American immigrants of a shrinking acreage of good lands.[1]" "American Brigadier General William Hull invaded Canada on July 12, 1812, from Detroit with an army mainly composed of militiamen. Once on Canadian soil, Hull issued a proclamation ordering all British subjects to surrender, or "the horrors, and calamities of war will stalk before you." He also threatened to kill any British prisoner caught fighting alongside an Indian. The proclamation helped stiffen resistance to the American attacks. "Despite the threats, Hull's invasion turned into a retreat ... " "A final attempt in 1812 by American General Henry Dearborn to advance north from Lake Champlain failed when his militia refused to advance beyond American territory. In contrast to the American militia, the Canadian militia performed well. French-Canadians, who found the anti-Catholic stance of most of the United States troublesome, and United Empire Loyalists, who had fought for the Crown during the American Revolutionary War, strongly opposed the American invasion. However, a large segment of Upper Canada's population was recent settlers from the United States who had no obvious loyalties to the Crown. Nevertheless, while there were some who sympathized with the invaders[2], the American forces found strong opposition from men loyal to the Empire." "Late in 1813, after much argument, the Americans made two thrusts against Montreal. The plan eventually agreed upon was for Major-General Wade Hampton to march north from Lake Champlain ... " ... On October 25, his 4,000-strong force was defeated at the Chateauguay River by Charles de Salaberry's force of fewer than 500 French-Canadian Voltigeurs and Mohawks." Etc., etc. |
|
22 Apr 07 - 12:46 AM (#2032404) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: robomatic sorry about that. FWIW I'd vote against doing it again! pleas inform your native allies. |
|
22 Apr 07 - 03:11 AM (#2032430) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Strollin' Johnny Guest "Gun-Owner": - in common with a great many of your countrymen, your insularised education and upbringing has ensured that you know nothing of life in the UK. Your comments are based on the kind of scare-mongering crap that the media use in order to sell copy. The UK is generally a pretty peaceful place, considerably more so than the US, and a huge increase in idiots waving guns about will not make it safer - the reverse would happen and we would turn into the kind of society you have over there. Guest "Tired of Band-Wagon Hitchers" - if that's so, why did you just hitch to a pro-gun band-wagon? And I said that the UK gun laws have been in existence for "most if not all of the 20th Century, and maybe some of the 19th" - well 87 years since 1920 sounds like "most of the 20th Century" to me (and a bit of the 21st). I have, in fact, looked up the satistics, and I've quoted some of them here on this thread. I'm not interested in this or that type of gun, I want rid of the whole lot of them, and the people who have to have them to make them feel good about themselves. The simple fact is that gun controls work, the US with weak controls has a hugely disproportionate rate of shootings in comparison with the UK with it's controls. QE-fuckin-D. Guest "Patty o'dawes" - thanks, that's a very valid point. Thanks for making it. |
|
22 Apr 07 - 07:16 AM (#2032501) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,Tired of Band-Wagon Hitchers Never let facts stand in the way of a good story eh Johnny. Change course as ya go, nit-pick when its suits, generalise the same. I haven't jumped on any bandwagon pro or anti. Just pointing out facts that you misrepresent to put over your very bigoted views. Wanting no crime at all is worthwhile but realistic methods of achieving this should be debated not pre-conceived prejudices which have been proved in the past not to work. The point is that handguns were banned in mainland Britain but has had no effect on street crime. Nor has it anywhere else. I understand there are parts of America where guns are not allowed but still have high crime rates. |
|
22 Apr 07 - 08:28 AM (#2032525) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Strollin' Johnny I didn't change course, I simply elucidated on what I'd said earlier. I don't misrepresent - any numbers I've quoted are from the UK Government website. And other statements I've made are based on 60 years' experience of living in the UK. Do you live here? Unlike the US, street crime in the UK very seldom involves firearms - very seldom indeed. Neither are our police armed with guns. They are simply not needed because of the low gun-crime rate here (which is what my points have all been about). Few guns = low gun crime rate. Surely even a flamer can understand that? Now go away and play with your guns - any luck you might shoot your own head off before you hurt someone else. |
|
22 Apr 07 - 09:56 AM (#2032575) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,meself "FWIW I'd vote against doing it again! pleas inform your native allies." Okay - but it's going to be awkward; I just got them all fired up with a big speech about the evils the Americans would like to inflict upon them, as opposed to the generous rewards they could expect from the Great White Mother for their loyalty. It was quite a taxing imaginative exercise, really. Now I'll have to explain that it was all a misunderstanding, and the Great White Mother never really intended to give them anything anyway ... |
|
22 Apr 07 - 12:59 PM (#2032676) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: dianavan I can see no reason that anyone should be permitted to own handguns or automatic weapons. If you want to cite the The 2nd Amendment, perhaps you could only allow the weapons that were manufactured in those days. As to "providing civilians with military-grade arms", we know that isn't going to happen. Guest gun owner - I too, dislike SSRI drugs but what proof do you have that Cho was taking drugs? As far as I'm concerned, he should have been heavily medicated and/or institutionalized. Teachers see these 'walking time bombs' all the time. What can you do if the parents won't co-operate? |
|
22 Apr 07 - 01:29 PM (#2032694) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,Tired of Bandwagon Hitchers Johnny, even though in your non-violent way you are wishing me fatal harm I still say you are missing the point. No matter what the rate of gun crime is in the UK the fact is it has RISEN since the handgun ban. Unlike you I do not pretend to have the answer. Greater minds than mine have not yet solved it. Yes, I live in the UK so dont feel so superior. No I am not a flamer, just someone who wants a REAL answer not based on pure bigotry. Try & debate the point instead of hurling insults, its obvious that you for one should never qualify for gun ownership in the UK. |
|
22 Apr 07 - 01:45 PM (#2032708) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,gun owner Dianavan, I'll look for stories about Cho and Prozac. The government has put a muzzle on many aspects of this story. The man's family is involved with the government in numerous ways. I read that one of his parents works as a "contractor for Condoleeza Rice," whatever that means. I did read one definitive statement that he was taking Prozac, though. The biggest problem with those SSRI drugs is in the detox phase. Takes weeks, so if you've been taking them for a while or in large dosages and then quit cold turkey, you become psychotic. And the school-drugging system is designed to fail. These shootings are a desirable to the people in charge. When one of these incidents happens, the people in charge get more control. There is no incentive to stop these events. There is no incentive to take people off the mind-altering, murdering drugs. They lead to more power being shoveled into the hands of the people who want power over you. The monsters who make the drugs and then lobby for them to be forced on schoolkids, and the monsters who pass the legislation to make the drugging possible, those people need to be removed from any proximity of power. As for your child being protected, life if full of risks. If s/he is in danger at school, then homeschool. What can I say? You can't protect those you love from all evil all the time. And power attracts the kind of people who shouldn't have it, so the answer is not in giving away your right to make choices to powermad psychopaths. They don't care about your kid. They just want more control. And limiting the rights of others in a severe way isn't the answer, because those same restrictions can be applied to you. I think removing SSRI drugs from the market and getting the military-developed video games off the market would be a good place to start in returning society to normal. The military has no right to peddle that garbage, though the ACLU will take up the case to make sure the things remain on the market. The games are brainwashing tools and should be regulated as tightly as radioative waste. Same with SSRIs. But every time one of the drugged-up video freaks shoots up a place, the media directs your attention to the guns involved, not the drugs and video games. Though the video game angle does seem to be getting some coverage in the Cho case. Maybe talking in meetings at your kid's school about the games and drugs would help alert others to the problem and make your corner of the world more safe. Even if all guns were "banned" tomorrow, the shootings would never stop. Heroin's banned, cocaine's banned, but does it do any good? Good luck. One last comment here on firearms--if the UK police go about unarmed, why did 4 of them execute a young man on the subway a while back? 4 taps to the skull with handguns, each one took a turn, from what I read. Strollin' Johnny tries to present a picture of the bobbie with his stick and nothing more in jolly old England, but they have cops executing citizens on the tube. As for the War of 1812, it was indeed a long series of miscalculations. I'm glad it ended the way it did, with Canada intact and the U.S. intact and the Brits sent back home. |
|
22 Apr 07 - 01:57 PM (#2032721) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Lonesome EJ "Dianavan, I'll look for stories about Cho and Prozac. The government has put a muzzle on many aspects of this story. The man's family is involved with the government in numerous ways" You gotta love it...conspiracy theory, paranoia, and unlimited access to firearms rolled into one big happy bundle. By the way, I own a couple of firearms, but the notion that I'm going to be called on by law enforcement in a back-up role strikes me as a classic "delusion of grandeur". |
|
22 Apr 07 - 09:43 PM (#2033004) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,gun owner Deputization on an as needed basis is still a pretty common practice in the U.S. Nothing too grand about it. I was out of the county the last time we had a murderer escape from a local facility, but the sheriff deputized several men for that incident. They didn't go out looking for the escapee armed with sharp sticks, either. You've been conditioned to think someone else will take care of your problems, EJ. That's another button being pushed with the Virginia Tech shooting--helplessness. From what I've read, the school should have been sealed and shut down after the first shootings (at 7:15 a.m.?) Instead, a call to FEMA resulted in a "don't do anything until we get there" response, so that means the federal government ordered locals to stand down. Because of that, an additional 30 died. The feds WANT this kind of incident, so they can take more rights and make us more dependent on them. I can't find an affirmation that Cho was on Prozac, but several articles say, "...Investigators believe Cho had been taking medication for depression," and some have speculated it was Prozac. Below is a link to a book written by a reporter who had problems after she was placed on Prozac: "...Most were prescribed psychiatric SSRI drugs for periodic depression, PMS, weight gain, insomnia, acne, smoking, and other minor issues. In return, the drugs have taken thousands of people's lives. One knowledgeable doctor attributed 50,000 needless suicides to Prozac alone...." http://www.truebooks.com/prozac.html Below are a couple of links to the same information in different format--pdf and html. The top one is PDF, lower one html. A short list of SSRI-related acts of violence: http://ssri-uksupport.com/files/homicidesSSRISandADHDmedications.pdf http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:Q-jAoPl9f5kJ:ssri-uksupport.com/files/homicidesSSRISandADHDmedications.pdf+prozac+murders+list&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us It's everywhere. Overwhelming evidence these drugs create murderous mental states. So addressing guns is like pruning the branches and not rooting out the problem. |
|
22 Apr 07 - 10:16 PM (#2033028) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Ebbie Today's news said that Cho's body was being tested for drugs and that it would take a couple of weeks before the results were known. |
|
22 Apr 07 - 11:01 PM (#2033074) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: TIA Still waiting for the drug test, but the gun test came up positive. |
|
23 Apr 07 - 12:05 AM (#2033115) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Janie Oh Please! Psychosis in reaction to Prozac withdrawal is very rare, and from what I have read in the lay press, there is every reason to suspect that Cho, in fact, had a major mental illness in the psychotic spectrum. If he indeed was prescribed psychotropic meds., and had actually been medication compliant for a time, then stopped taking the medications, any increase in psychotic features, including increased paranoia and delusions, would be much more likely to be the result of being off the meds., as opposed to withdrawal from the medications. There is every indication that he was guarded, paranoid, thought disordered, and that he had fixed ideas of reference, if not outright delusions, for at least the past year, and had other prodromal symptoms of a psychotic disorder for years before that. Most of the major psychotic disorders typically manifest themselves in late adolescence or early adulthood. There may or may not be prodromal symptoms, but when there are, those symptoms are subtle and are common to many other conditions. Psychotic processes and symptoms are not always florid. With some one who is guarded and paranoid, but not having outright bizarre hallucinations, they may simply appear odd or 'quirky', or simply very depressed. Psychotropic medicines, and especially antipsychotic drugs, can certainly have significant and sometimes serious side effects. Abrupt cessation of some of these medications can also cause significant and sometimes serious adverse reactions. Like any medical intervention, however, the potential benefits and potential costs must be weighed. For the vast majority of individuals who have psychotic disorders,the benefits of the medications to the individual especially, but also to society, outweigh the costs. I do not know how well the student health center was equiped to deal with students with major mental illness. However, in the absence of any previous history of violence, the law favors the right of the individual to refuse to engage in treatment. It is understandable that a tragedy such as this receives a huge amount of publicity and public scrutiny. It is in many ways appropriate. But there is a downside which needs acknowledged. The publicity that the Columbine massacre received made the unthinkable thinkable to a young man as ill as Cho appears to have been. Janie Janie |
|
23 Apr 07 - 02:20 AM (#2033141) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Slag When the likes of StrolinJohnny and Cap'n Ginger let their discourse sink to ad hominem attacks and name calling, they have demonstrated that they are not listening. They see only their side of the issue and any intellectual exchange there might have been has ceased: a perfect illustration of bigotry and closed mindedness. I will address on point of Strollin's as it was left undifferentiated, 30,000 gun deaths a year in the US. That said the last year for complete statistics was 2002 there were 30,342 firearms related deaths. 4144 were accidental, 17,108 were suicides, 11,629 were homicides, 300 were legal homicides (at the hand of a peace officer or armed citizen, justifiable) and 243 were of an undetermined nature. |
|
23 Apr 07 - 12:22 PM (#2033561) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Strollin' Johnny Aaahh, ONLY 11,629 homicides! It's a lot more than 50. So, Slag, a killing by a US policeman is a 'legal homicide', but a killing by a UK policeman is, according to 'GUEST: Gun Owner', an 'execution'? Proof positive of the perverse thinking of the US Gun-Heads on here. Accusations of bigotry and closed-mindedness, attempts to take the high moral ground, are the last refuges of scoundrels who know their argument doesn't stand up to close inspection or the application of a little common sense, but haven't the balls to face it. |
|
23 Apr 07 - 12:54 PM (#2033575) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce ""So, IF I were to say "I HAVE said that Free Speech advocates have had the laws their way for a long time, and I don't like the results... and it's time to see if stronger, ENFORCED restrictions will help." will be answered with pretty strong language. It is NOT relevant to the topic, and it is NOT something I would have said, and it is NOT a proper refutation of anything!" So, if YOUR rights under the Bill of Rights are endangered, THAT would be cause to complain, BUT wqhen the rights of Gun owners under the Bill of Rights are talked about, you will go along if you think it might make you safer. Well, ** I ** think that under those condiotions, I will have to support laws that restrict YOUR freedoms, since I can certainly come up with reasons that someone would be safer if you could not have free speech, or freedom of religion, or the other rights. It most certainly IS relevant, since the only reason YOU have those rights is the fact they are in the Bill of Rights: If you weaken the Constitution to get at something YOU consider a danger, you will have NO defense when others weaken it about something you consider to be good. |
|
23 Apr 07 - 12:58 PM (#2033577) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce "I believe that automatic weapons, plastic non-detectable firearms, and armor-piercing, "cop-killer" rounds should be outlawed. " *** ALL *** of which are prohibited bt present law. |
|
23 Apr 07 - 01:12 PM (#2033586) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce " If you want to cite the The 2nd Amendment, perhaps you could only allow the weapons that were manufactured in those days." As long as all of you are willing to give up the internet , all forms of transmitted word, and amplified public speaking- THOSE were not envisioned by the founding fathers, either. Or is consistancy too much to ask? |
|
23 Apr 07 - 01:22 PM (#2033592) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Captain Ginger BB, I'm afraid you're not making a lot of sense now! And slag, are you kidding me? Were there really more than 30,000 deaths from gunshots in the US? Really? Fuck me, that's mind-boggling! Mind you, in a few decades you'll have wiped each other out and left the world safe for the rest of us (if you haven;t wiped us lot out first!). |
|
23 Apr 07 - 01:32 PM (#2033601) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: open mike while searching for some lyrics online i came across a site that mentioned that Cho's room-mates said he had been listening to a song over and over again. The song was Shine by Collective Soul Village Voice article music video on You Tube here is an interview with the band interview with collective soul on CNN wierd..who knew this would become a music thread? |
|
23 Apr 07 - 08:53 PM (#2033899) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,gun owner Stalin, Hitler and Mao solved the problem of citizens doing harm with firearms. They outlawed guns. Of course, what followed wasn't too pretty. Disarmament is the first step toward genocide. Yes, Janie, the indicators were undoubtedly there, and "the system" failed and all that, but don't worry because the federal government will come to our rescue. Mandatory mental health screening of all Americans, forced drugging, prison-style school facilities and all that. You sound like an expert in this field, so please tell me why the American Psychiatric Association recently expanded it's list of "disorders" so enormously. To the casual observer it seems the move was made in order to cast a wider net over kids now being "screened" under the New Freedom Iniative. That was the law written by the drug lobby representing manufacturers of SSRI and SNRI drugs. A list of "disorders" is at the link below, folks. Poke around the links there and evaluate yourself honestly, see if you don't qualify for drugging under one of the categories: http://allpsych.com/disorders/disorders_alpha.html Off the bat I'd say all of America needs to be drugged for getting hysterical over a school shooting after we've let our govt kill 1000000 Iraqi civilians over the past 3 years. Isn't that a tad dissociative? SSRI drugs kill. It's proven. But rather than pull them from the market they're now going to force American adults onto them. The beta test has been done in the schools, and now it's time to move on to the next step. Dennis Kucinich and others will be introducing happy-sounding names to push this poison on us. Such animals need to be removed from office. |
|
23 Apr 07 - 10:58 PM (#2033982) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Ron Davies BB-- As I said, you've overstated your case. (20 Apr 8:56 AM). It doesn't help you. It is not possible for ordinary citizens to own fully automatic weapons? I have a friend at work--a true gun buff--who knows well somebody who has more than one fully automatic weapon. Automatic weapons are prohibited under present law? Wrong. As you yourself pointed out, the supply has now been frozen--but some are in private hands--and not just in museums. That is not prohibition. Re: 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. You have provided no evidence to the contrary. Your absurd pairing of "right to bear arms" with freedoms of speech and religion is, sorry to say, blatant scaremongering--and is not likely to play well on Mudcat--Mudcatters in general are brighter than that. If you hope for credibility, you'd best be a bit more careful in your allegations. So far, your record, on issues large and small, is not the best. |
|
23 Apr 07 - 11:11 PM (#2033989) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: katlaughing I find it scary that someone as paranoid as "guest, gun owner" actually has guns. |
|
24 Apr 07 - 12:03 AM (#2034013) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Janie Cars kill. Strawberries kill. Peanuts kill. Shrimp kills. Bees kill. Guns kill. Falls off roofs kill. Anesthesia kills. Cancer kills. The chemotherapy used to treat cancer kills. Psychotropic medications kill. Not taking psychotropic medications kills. Insulin kills. Not taking insulin kills. Clogged arteries to the heart kill. By-pass surgery kills. Prejudice kills. Ignorance kills. Drawing conclusions cast in stone with insufficent inforamtion or understanding kills. Blanket condemnation of psychotropic meds. in general, or SSRI's in particular is as foolish as blanket endorsement. If by 'system' you refer the public mental health system, I don't know that it failed. there is not information availble to draw a conclusion. Janie |
|
24 Apr 07 - 09:30 AM (#2034268) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,gun owner The reason for the 2nd amendment is to protect from abusive government. With the adoption of the John Warner defense spending act of 2007, the presidend assumed power over all state and national guard units in the U.S. So the 2nd amendment (an armed citizenry) is now more necessary than ever. If our local guards can be removed, relocated, etc., who's to secure the peace in a defenseless area? And the Federalist papers (discussions by the founding fathers about why they were doing what they did) make it clear the 2nd amendment supports the first. You can't maintain your right of expression (right to free speech, religion, to assemble) unless you can protect that right against people who would like to take it away. And government is the only organization large enough to take the right away, so it has to be held in check. With the fear of weapons. As far as shrimp, etc. killing people, those things aren't being FORCED on school kids. The toxic drugs are. |
|
24 Apr 07 - 10:18 AM (#2034318) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Peace Guns, guns, guns. Piss on 'em. I can make three kinds of gas--excluding farts; dozens of trips and deadfalls; a few explosives; devices to drive shrapnel into people who get unlucky; use simple things to gouge eyes, puncture skulls , kidneys, livers; doctor projectiles so they cause poisoning to the recipient's blood. Hell, the nice thing about guns is that they give the carrier a false sense of superiority. We have too many people who worship at the altar of guns. Worship at the altar of brains. 1) Vote the fuckers out and change the ;laws 2) See #1 |
|
24 Apr 07 - 06:31 PM (#2034799) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Ron Davies Intellectual giant gun owner-- "Who's to secure the peace in a defenseless area?" You're absolutely right--I can't think of a better group to "secure the peace" than a bunch of trigger-happy vigilantes. This fits right in with the brilliance of your other ideas, as well as your wonderfully incisive grasp of history. |
|
24 Apr 07 - 10:08 PM (#2034947) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Mrrzy Cars kill. Strawberries kill. Peanuts kill. Shrimp kills. Bees kill. Guns kill. Falls off roofs kill. Anesthesia kills. Cancer kills. The chemotherapy used to treat cancer kills. Psychotropic medications kill. Not taking psychotropic medications kills. Insulin kills. Not taking insulin kills. Clogged arteries to the heart kill. By-pass surgery kills. Prejudice kills. Ignorance kills. Drawing conclusions cast in stone with insufficent inforamtion or understanding kills. - Ah, but with which one can you walk into a room and kill or wound 50 people? What show did Charlton Heston say Guns don't kill people - bullets kill people. Guns just help bullets move really, really fast! |
|
24 Apr 07 - 10:47 PM (#2034972) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,gun owner I find it frightening that law-abiding citizens DON'T have guns. The U.S. Constitution has tools for its maintenance built in (2nd Amendment), but modern Americans have been brainwashed into believing such thinking is outdated. Truly amazing. Is it the constant terrorism the government throws at you under the guise of "news" that has turned you into a quivering mass of jelly that wants to be "taken care of?" Especially puzzling are the attitudes of so many "feminists." It seems you women would be made of sterner stuff, with your "empowered" attitudes. You throw off the yoke of male domination so that you can, what?...totally acquiesce to government domination? Your government admits to raping with acid at Abu Grahib, but you want to ban all guns so that same government can "protect" you and your single-parent child? What has HAPPENED to your thinking? You should immediately buy a handgun, take a course in shooting, and then take your kid out to the range and show him or her how to shoot. Lock the gun away at home in a quick access safe and you'll have a tool that may save you and your kid's life someday, too. |
|
24 Apr 07 - 11:25 PM (#2035003) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Mrrzy The 2nd amendment says well-regulated before it says right to bear arms, remember. If you aren't satisfying the initial clause(s) you do NOT actually yet have the right to bear arms. |
|
24 Apr 07 - 11:50 PM (#2035012) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Ron Davies What I find, not frightening, but a bit depressing, is that giant intellects like yours, o Gun Owner, are allowed to vote. It's too bad there isn't just a bit of intellectual rigor required--though it appears it may well be beyond your powers. To pick just one obvious example, despite your latest absurd statement, it is not the people who are impressed with the current regime's "war on terror" who are in favor of gun control. Rather such people, who are quaking in their boots, supporting Bush, and seeing threats in every person who doesn't look exactly like them--that is, anybody who isn't obviously of West European descent----are-- surprise, surprise---also the ones--like you, dear Gun Owner--who want to be armed to the teeth. The people who are in favor of gun control are also the ones who are actually willing to live in a world where not everybody looks exactly like them. You might try entertaining the idea sometime. |
|
25 Apr 07 - 02:54 AM (#2035068) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: dianavan guest gun o - Empowerment is not an attitude, its a fact. btw - Only those who are motivated by fear and lack a sense of power, seek gun ownership. |
|
25 Apr 07 - 05:35 AM (#2035140) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Strollin' Johnny Right on the button again, d. However, in some people's eyes, that probably makes you a bigot, just like me. Glad to be in your club. :-) |
|
25 Apr 07 - 10:20 AM (#2035308) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: katlaughing Only those who are motivated by fear and lack a sense of power, seek gun ownership. That's a pretty broad generalisation. I would not characterise Rapaire, Big Mick and, others whom I know to have guns, in that way, including my dad when he was alive. And, you know I do not stand with them on this issue. |
|
25 Apr 07 - 11:10 AM (#2035371) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Peace "btw - Only those who are motivated by fear and lack a sense of power, seek gun ownership." Some people depend on the gun to procure food. (That is, to hunt animals like elk, caribou, deer, moose.) Others need it to control coyote at calf time. Others use guns for target practice, exclusively. |
|
25 Apr 07 - 01:48 PM (#2035543) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,gun owner 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. |
|
25 Apr 07 - 01:52 PM (#2035546) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Big Mick Police officers use them for reasons other than what you state, dianavan. Pretty silly statement. |
|
25 Apr 07 - 01:54 PM (#2035549) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: dianavan 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. |
|
25 Apr 07 - 02:07 PM (#2035562) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Big Mick 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 |
|
25 Apr 07 - 02:50 PM (#2035611) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: dianavan 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. |
|
25 Apr 07 - 04:02 PM (#2035698) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Wesley S "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? |
|
25 Apr 07 - 04:59 PM (#2035753) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Peace '"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. |
|
25 Apr 07 - 06:13 PM (#2035817) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Big Mick 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 |
|
25 Apr 07 - 06:24 PM (#2035828) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,patty o'dawes 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. |
|
25 Apr 07 - 06:30 PM (#2035832) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Big Mick 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. |
|
25 Apr 07 - 06:32 PM (#2035833) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,patty o'dawes Very sad. |
|
25 Apr 07 - 06:51 PM (#2035854) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Big Mick Cute tactic, it is what you usually revert to when you don't have an answer. |
|
25 Apr 07 - 06:57 PM (#2035856) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,patty o'dawes 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. |
|
25 Apr 07 - 07:26 PM (#2035877) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Big Mick I see, overbearing, in your mind, is when I ask questions for which you don't have an answer. Nice phoney Irish accent, btw. |
|
25 Apr 07 - 08:51 PM (#2035927) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,gun owner So now "predictable" people shouldn't be allowed to own guns. That's nice to know. |
|
25 Apr 07 - 09:35 PM (#2035946) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bobert 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) |
|
25 Apr 07 - 09:43 PM (#2035952) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Big Mick 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) |
|
25 Apr 07 - 10:17 PM (#2035968) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
26 Apr 07 - 12:30 AM (#2035999) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Strollin' Johnny 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' |
|
26 Apr 07 - 01:50 AM (#2036026) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: dianavan 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. |
|
26 Apr 07 - 02:01 AM (#2036028) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: dianavan "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.) |
|
26 Apr 07 - 07:47 AM (#2036158) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
26 Apr 07 - 07:47 AM (#2036159) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Strollin' Johnny 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) |
|
26 Apr 07 - 08:24 AM (#2036183) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
26 Apr 07 - 09:08 AM (#2036201) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Strollin' Johnny 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. |
|
26 Apr 07 - 09:34 AM (#2036216) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,gun owner "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 |
|
26 Apr 07 - 08:35 PM (#2036719) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bobert 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??? |
|
26 Apr 07 - 08:43 PM (#2036724) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Ron Davies 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? |
|
26 Apr 07 - 08:46 PM (#2036728) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Ron Davies Sorry--"Sister Souljah" |
|
26 Apr 07 - 09:02 PM (#2036733) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Peace Guns don't scare me. Idiots with guns scare me. |
|
26 Apr 07 - 09:29 PM (#2036745) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,gun owner 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." |
|
26 Apr 07 - 09:37 PM (#2036747) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Peace "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. |
|
26 Apr 07 - 09:45 PM (#2036756) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Peace 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. |
|
26 Apr 07 - 09:49 PM (#2036757) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,petr 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! |
|
26 Apr 07 - 11:43 PM (#2036810) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
27 Apr 07 - 04:58 PM (#2037491) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: akenaton Some fuckin' hopes! |
|
27 Apr 07 - 09:49 PM (#2037660) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
28 Apr 07 - 09:36 AM (#2037902) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Big Mick 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 |
|
28 Apr 07 - 12:14 PM (#2037996) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
28 Apr 07 - 12:25 PM (#2038008) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Ron Davies 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? |
|
28 Apr 07 - 02:06 PM (#2038109) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Big Mick 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 |
|
28 Apr 07 - 02:44 PM (#2038141) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: katlaughing And, what happens if the "well regulated militia" are all over in Iraq? Just thinking out loud!:-) |
|
28 Apr 07 - 03:35 PM (#2038185) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
28 Apr 07 - 03:55 PM (#2038191) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Big Mick 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. |
|
28 Apr 07 - 04:31 PM (#2038206) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,gun owner 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. |
|
29 Apr 07 - 12:56 AM (#2038447) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: katlaughing 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. |
|
29 Apr 07 - 02:26 AM (#2038472) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Strollin' Johnny 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. |
|
29 Apr 07 - 02:47 AM (#2038480) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: dianavan 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? |
|
29 Apr 07 - 06:10 PM (#2038974) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Donuel 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. |
|
29 Apr 07 - 08:35 PM (#2039083) Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Ron Davies 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. |
