Va. Tech Shooting

[NickCole]

Your source is tobacco.org? An anti-smoking website?

First you somehow managed to miss the link completely, then when I reposted it for you, you don't see that the original source is the Akron (OH) Beacon Journal, April 8, 1999.

Bet you forget to put your right foot in front of your left when you're walking.

 

[NickCole]

Wow, so I'm supposed to be a detective and figure out your sources for you?

If you clicked on the link I provided, at the top of the article it clearly lists the source as "Akron (OH) Beacon Journal, April 8, 1999."

Normally people don't have to holler for Columbo to find what's at the top of the page.

 

[divcurl0]

A bit of common sense is all it takes to know that the students at Virginia Tech would have been better off if some of them had been able to use firearms to defend themselves. But for those who don't get common sense, I'd like to point out that according to the Department of Justice report concerning violent crime in 1987-1992, someone engaging in self-defense with a firearm, against a violent criminal, was only 20% likely to suffer an injury, while those making no defense were 50% likely to suffer an injury.

Yeah, but surely the more important statistic that you're omitting is that it is *much more* likely that innocent people suffer an injury at the hands of other innocent people (ie. in 'accidents') under the current US firearm legislation. This is reason enough for imposing much more strigent regulations on gun control.

I think parts of the US constitution are very well though through, but the 2nd amendment is simply not appicable in a modern context.

I also really dislike the emphasis put on the right of the individual because it fosters a culture of immaturity and irresponsibility, in the "I have the *right* do X, and you can't stop me" sense. Why should the rights of other not to be shot be trumped in this reckless way?

 

[Kulindahr]

Yeah, but surely the more important statistic that you're omitting is that it is *much more* likely that innocent people suffer an injury at the hands of other innocent people (ie. in 'accidents') under the current US firearm legislation. This is reason enough for imposing much more strigent regulations on gun control.

Well, in 2003 (latest year I found data for) 762 people of all ages in the U.S. died from a gun accident (National Safgety Council). As for accidents with firearms, those have fallen to the lowest level in a century. And both are lower than the likelihood of being injured or killed by a firearm in the hands of a criminal.

I think parts of the US constitution are very well though through, but the 2nd amendment is simply not appicable in a modern context.

Not applicable?
Do you somehow believe that there is no more need for self-defense? Check the title of this thread...
Do you somehow believe that governments no longer turn tyrannical, or corrupt, or to a police state? Check the current administration in Washington.
The Second Amendment is predicated on the fact that there are evil people who will try to take away life and liberty. The only condition under which it would not be applicable would be if there were no longer any such people.

I also really dislike the emphasis put on the right of the individual because it fosters a culture of immaturity and irresponsibility, in the "I have the *right* do X, and you can't stop me" sense. Why should the rights of other not to be shot be trumped in this reckless way?

The rights of the individual are based on the foundational concept of a civilized society: "You own yourself". That concept is also the foundation of responsibility -- in fact, where self-ownership, and thus individual rights, is not held high, is where immaturity comes in, because it allows every individual to shift blame and to play victim.
"Why should the rights of other not to be shot be trumped in this reckless way?" is a false accusation. There is no such thing as a "right not to be shot", any more than there is a right not to be rained on, or not to get stuck in traffic, or not to have to ship your brand new DVD player back because it doesn't work.
There is a right to life. But that right does not trump the right of anyone else to self-defense, or to making mistakes, or to driving, or to any other thing. If you want to remove guns from society because of some "right not to be shot", why not start where things are far more dangerous -- say, the right not to get hit by another car?
The "I have the right, and you can't stop me" isn't the result of individualism, but of its corruption -- it's the result of weak-willed parents not enforcing rules, and a wimpy court system not imposing consequences, and of a society which lets people blame others for their own actions. It arises not from rights, or their emphasis, but from confusing a "right" with an "entitlement", and consequently believing that one isn't truly accountable, and that society owes every person some sort of good outcome.
That's why it's important to go back to the foundation of individual rights: you own yourself. From that base, there's no weasling out of individual responsibility.

 

[chance1]

Have you tried to buy a gun lately? It isn't all that easy!
Americans have a right (well, everyone does, just most places won't allow it) to get a gun, guaranteed by the Constitution; no one has a right guaranteed by the Constitution to get a DVD. But it is a LOT harder to get a gun than a DVD, in spite of those words "shall not be infringed".
You like waiting periods, huh? I congratulate you on being in favor of ex-boyfriends being able to enter the houses of former girlfriends and the girlfriends aren't allowed to buy the one item that could save their lives.

Tell me, if you want to start a newspaper, do you have to pass a test, and wait a period?
If you want to go to church, do you have to pass a test, and wait a period?



There's ignorance speaking. There are millions of semi-automatics in the U.S. of A., and hardly any of those are ever used in a crime, or in any threatening way. Semi-automatics are no different than any other currently, commonly lawful weapon: you pull the trigger once, you get one shot; to shoot again, you pull the trigger again.
The only people I've ever known of who I don't like having semi-autos are cops, because its cops I hear about and talk to people who were there about, cops who fire all ten rounds in their weapon into a boy who was scared and wouldn't stop screaming.



Rights are NOT to be controlled; they're rights.
"Rights must be controlled" is a nice summation of the philosophy that ran the late, failed Soviet Union. Their Constitution guaranteed freedom of religion -- but that right had to be controlled, no? I guaranteed freedom of the press, but that right had to be controlled, no? It guaranteed freedom for (unwarranted) search and seizure, but that right had to be controlled, no? It guaranteed the right to vote -- but that right, too, had to be controlled!

Control -- by the government -- is precisely the reason there is a guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms: so that when government control gets out of line, it can be stopped.



I would rather that Cho and others like him be able to get a gun than that we all have to be what Pelosi and htose like her want: that we all be sheep.
But I would more rather that the government stop making new rules for about twenty years and clean up what we have, because from listening to the schools officials and doctors interviewed on the matter, it was government rules that prevented them from restraining the killer. In a free country, a concerned counselor could have consulted with a colleague, and then with a school official, and sent out a notice to local gun shops, "Don't sell this guy a weapon." Of course in a free country, other students would have been armed and stopped him before the death count passed five.

Chance, you and other keep missing something: a high school shop building has everything needed to build a gun. The local machine shop could build a gun. I could sit down and order from Sears on-line everything I need to build a gun. Heck, if I'm not stuck on using gunpowder, I could drive over to Fred Meyer right now and buy what I need to build a gun!
For that matter, I could go out into the garage, grab a few items, and head into the basement to build a crossbow. I could build a slingshot and a homemade grenade. I could fashion a blowgun accurate to fifty yards. With a quick trip to first an auto parts store, and then a grocery store with a garden section, I could whip up some cannisters with which I could kill a few hundred people, horribly, in just minutes -- anyone who sits down and thinks about their college chemistry education could.
Which means that anyone determined to kill people, and anyone who doesn't care about the law, can get a weapon. The technology is, as they say, out of the bag.
Which is, again, part of why the Constitution guarantees the inherent right to keep and bear arms: the evil individuals of the world will get what they want to do their evil deeds, and the best defense of the good is to, as my handgun safety course emphasized, "stop the threat" -- and that means a gun.

Not that easy to buy a gun? I think Cho getting a gun kind of messes up ur point there

I think the Constitution was written some time ago - pre semi automatics - things have kinda changed a bit? I would suggest the same analogy for terrorists being afforded geneva convention rights - things have changed so drastically, time for a re-think

a newspaper never killed anyone - bad guys with guns are more likely to kill someone than an op ed piece

why are you comparing cho's gun/actions to pelosi's antics - apples and oranges - the attempt to compare is scary bad - I agree with the idea of giving educators/counselors more leeway but him getting the gun is not good

I just don't get why u love guns so much

 

[NickCole]

I think I agree with Chance.

But that's just too weird so I have to think about this!

 

[Kulindahr]

Not that easy to buy a gun? I think Cho getting a gun kind of messes up ur point there

I think the Constitution was written some time ago - pre semi automatics - things have kinda changed a bit? I would suggest the same analogy for terrorists being afforded geneva convention rights - things have changed so drastically, time for a re-think

a newspaper never killed anyone - bad guys with guns are more likely to kill someone than an op ed piece

why are you comparing cho's gun/actions to pelosi's antics - apples and oranges - the attempt to compare is scary bad - I agree with the idea of giving educators/counselors more leeway but him getting the gun is not good

I just don't get why u love guns so much

If the Framers had known of semi-automatics, they would have been even more firm that every citizen ought to have the latest and best firearm -- remember that the primary point was that the ordinary citizen must be allowed to "keep and bear" the latest in (personal) military technology.

Whether a newspaper has or has not killed anyone is irrelevant. You want to infringe on a right, so I'm asking why not infringe on all of them?

The murderer's action's and Pelosi's antics are not "apples and oranges", though they may be apples and pies.
I chose Pelosi as representative of the anti-gun, anti-freedom cohorts in Congress. They are a group which wants themselves, through the forces they can command, to be the only ones with guns. The murderer at V. Tech was, in that scenario, the only one with a gun. The essence of it is the same: taking away guns leaves everyone a victim, with no certainty of exercising the right to life. People denied their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms aren't human beings any longer; they're sheep -- livestock who live at the sufferance of the master with sheers for the fleece and knife for the throat. Reducing people to sheep, however content, is not an option if we want this country to remain truly America.
"Leeway" may be an insufficient word for what doctors and counselors ought to be able to do, though. "Freedom" covers it better -- the ability to do their job without strangling, entangling government regulations. If this were really a free country, the V. Tech murderer would never have gotten that weapon, because those medical types who'd had concerns would have, as I suggested, quietly told the area gun dealers that this kid ought not have such a weapon. Granted, an individual would have the right to challenge that, and if the docs were judged to be in error, they'd have to pay some restitution, but in this case over 30 lives would have been saved.

Why do I "love" guns so much? Because a personal weapon is the plainest, starkest declaration of independence on the personal level: it's a statement that the other guy's right to free action ends where it means harm to me. It's the affirmation of liberty and equality, the means by which a 14-y.o. girl can stop a 36-y.o. would-be rapist from invading her right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
And when crunch time comes, it's how a threat to self, home, family, friends, coworkers -- whatever -- is stopped, as that lone gunman at V. Tech could have been stopped.

If your point is that it would be better to stop him sooner -- no argument. But it was government interference with liberty that stayed the medical/counseling hand just as much as it was government interference with liberty that made the murderer's victims sheep for the slaughtering.
Both those failings need to be fixed: let the students be armed, but also let the doctors and psychologists and all do their jobs, and tell gun dealers a person shouldn't be armed. And if there are gun shows around, that information should go there, too.

 

[Andreus]

kul...

now you're saying you know what the founding fathers of america think of semi automatic weapons

you Do know how LOONY that sounds...

right?

the founders NEVER envisioned any such thing

you are just blind when it comes to this topic and u are simply reaching for straws in really weird ways

they envisioned an all male white landed votership who had the right to bear arms

if you arent in those classifications then the right to bear arms as they envisioned does not apply to you

are you so sure you want to go by their definition?

 

[Kulindahr]

kul...

now you're saying you know what the founding fathers of america think of semi automatic weapons

you Do know how LOONY that sounds...

right?

the founders NEVER envisioned any such thing

you are just blind when it comes to this topic and u are simply reaching for straws in really weird ways

they envisioned an all male white landed votership who had the right to bear arms

if you arent in those classifications then the right to bear arms as they envisioned does not apply to you

are you so sure you want to go by their definition?

It only sounds loony if you're ignorant of what they wrote. They explicitly said that the intent of the Second Amendment was that every member of the militia ("the whole people") have a (personal) weapon of the latest military technology. They even discussed the fact that military technology would improve, and they could in fact conceive of repeating weapons, because such things were dreamed of.

As for the right to keep and bear arms, if you'd bother to read what they said, that applied to every member of the militia, which they defined as "the whole people" -- not just "white landed" people.

 

[NickCole]

It only sounds loony if you're ignorant of what they wrote. They explicitly said that the intent of the Second Amendment was that every member of the militia ("the whole people") have a (personal) weapon of the latest military technology. They even discussed the fact that military technology would improve, and they could in fact conceive of repeating weapons, because such things were dreamed of.

As for the right to keep and bear arms, if you'd bother to read what they said, that applied to every member of the militia, which they defined as "the whole people" -- not just "white landed" people.

I'm familiar with the Federalist Papers, which is what I assume you're referring to. I know of nothing in them that would support what you're saying. Why don't you post a direct quote to support your point.

What you seem to be referring to addresses the concern that the federal government could become a corrupt regime and build an army so large to squash the people. You seem not to have noticed that today the President of the United States is already Commander in Chief of an army that could squash the people. James Madison, nor any other Founding Father, imagined the technology the Commander in Chief has today at his fingertips. Not remotely. Arm every gun nut citizen with a semi automatic and the President still could blanket their territory with missiles that would wipe them out. The Founding Fathers didn't imagine the US federal government would have an army with anywhere near the military know-how and the weaponry and equipment it's had since WWII, and they certainly never envisioned a federal government with the power to wage war on the citizenry without having to send in ground troops.


Take Federalist 46 for instance. It addresses the concern of the people losing control of the federal government to a corrupt regime. Here's part of it and a link to the entire paper:

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

 

[Andreus]

the fifth ammendment was designed to empower the states against the tyrany of the federal government

the idea that it should be used as a reason to allow people to have semi automatic weapons is ludicrous and laughable

it indicates a fringe perspective that is found in the homes of tim mcveys and his ilk

its terrifying, to be honest, and not a joke at all

there are people dying in this nation everyday for NO GOOD REASON.

it needs to stop and it WILL stop when access to guns is more restricted, ownership of guns is made responsible, and manufacturers of guns are held liable.

untilo then we are going to get paranoid whackos and loonies that think george washington and thomas jefferson said it was OK to take a gun to school to kill people that made fun of him in class the day before

and that?

thats what you call unnaceptable

 

[69Strat]

They explicitly said that the intent of the Second Amendment was that every member of the militia ("the whole people") have a (personal) weapon of the latest military technology.

Only a fringer would entertain the thought that they should have personal weapons of the latest military technology.

As for the right to keep and bear arms, if you'd bother to read what they said, that applied to every member of the militia, which they defined as "the whole people" -- not just "white landed" people.

Except for the fact that "the whole people" excluded the Native American Indians that had no such rights, much less the right to their land. Any minority with the wrong shade of skin didn't fair much better.

 

[Andreus]

Only a fringer would entertain the thought that they should have personal weapons of the latest military technology.




Except for the fact that "the whole people" excluded the Native American Indians that had no such rights, much less the right to their land. Any minority with the wrong shade of skin didn't fair much better.

yah and we all know that the founders wanted their african slaves to be armed, right?

or the freemen that were there as slave labor? no they didnt and they made sure those people couldnt have power in the land in just this way

or any woman, for that matter?

believe me, i live in new england....

i have a clue as to what the founders meant

they meant that white male landowners had the right to beat down the federal government with their state run militia if the federal government became too reaching in its authority

what people today try to make it mean is ridiculous, dishonest and self serving

 

[69Strat]

yah and we all know that the founders wanted their african slaves to be armed, right?

That's a whole other topic in-itself.

I'm not against firearm ownership, but it needs to be better regulated and reflect modern day society.

 

[Andreus]

That's a whole other topic in-itself.

i think it's rellevant in that the founders did not want the non whites to own guns

they had conditions on who they thought ought to be armed

that is very important to this discussion

I'm not against firearm ownership, but it needs to be better regulated and reflect modern day society.

i am not against ownership, but i am all for responsibility, and its clear that the gun lobby, the gun owners, and the gun manufacturers are NOT being responsible to our society

 

[divcurl0]

Well, in 2003 (latest year I found data for) 762 people of all ages in the U.S. died from a gun accident (National Safgety Council).

This is the statistic that springs to my mind: you are 35% more likely to have your gun stolen or shoot someone else by accident than defend yourself from an intruder in your home. That to me is quite telling.

Not applicable? [wrt 2nd Amendment]
Do you somehow believe that there is no more need for self-defense? Check the title of this thread...

hold on there. there is no point bandying around imprecisely defined phrases. What do you consider to be "self-defence"?

Do you mean, for example, the right to defend yourself (assuming you've done nothing wrong) from an attacker who's probably gonna kill you? Or do you mean you mean that you've the right to shoot dead ('defend') say, a burgalar who enters your home and has the intention of 'unlawfully' taking away things that you 'own'. It's important to note that this person, by definition, has no intention of killing you.

Do you somehow believe that governments no longer turn tyrannical, or corrupt, or to a police state? Check the current administration in Washington.

Hmmm, do you somehow believe that an army of civilians using sub machine guns can defeat their nasty goverment? If goverments become all those things, don't you think they would ban firearms altogether?!

The Second Amendment is predicated on the fact that there are evil people who will try to take away life and liberty. The only condition under which it would not be applicable would be if there were no longer any such people...

I note the use of the word "evil" (the concept invented by religious zealots). This in itself says a lot about Americans' misantropic world view, one which perpetuates an irrational suspicion and fear of others. needing a gun to 'defend' yourself against some imagined 'evil' is the ultimate act of cowardice.

The rights of the individual are based on the foundational concept of a civilized society: "You own yourself". That concept is also the foundation of responsibility -- in fact, where self-ownership, and thus individual rights, is not held high, is where immaturity comes in, because it allows every individual to shift blame and to play victim...

I understand what you are saying about individualism, and to the extent that "*you* are responsible for *your* actions, not anyone else's" (which I think you are suggesting), I agree with you completely.

This is where we probably differ: I think that the 'right to bear arms' actually masquerades as the 'right to defend your property' in the context of current legislation. The converse of your statement that:

There is a right to life. But that right does not trump the right of anyone else to self-defense...

implies that, and this is the crux, that you put the value of human life below some object like a laptop or tv (which happens to be secured through a morally fallable system in the first place)

Immaturity and irresponsiblity come in when people when people are exposed to a culture which condones the murdering of others if they happen to impinge on your rights in a non-lethal way: A culture in which violence and fear is normalised.

The "I have the right, and you can't stop me" isn't the result of individualism, but of its corruption -- it's the result of weak-willed parents not enforcing rules, and a wimpy court system not imposing consequences, and of a society which lets people blame others for their own actions.

It arises not from rights, or their emphasis, but from confusing a "right" with an "entitlement", and consequently believing that one isn't truly accountable, and that society owes every person some sort of good outcome. That's why it's important to go back to the foundation of individual rights: you own yourself. From that base, there's no weasling out of individual responsibility.

You are right, but your argument is circular. The lack of enforcement is because of the ever powerful gun lobby influencing politics and the judiciary. BUT the existence of this gun lobby arises from the misantropic formulation of the 2nd Amendment in the first place.

 

[opinterph]

Request For Information

Only a fringer would entertain the thought …

Other than esoteric slang, “fringer” does not appear to be a word in the English language. Please define.

 

[69Strat]

Re: Request For Information

Other than esoteric slang, “fringer” does not appear to be a word in the English language. Please define.

I'll be sure to enter it into Wikipedia to make it official.

 

[opinterph]

… it is *much more* likely that innocent people suffer an injury at the hands of other innocent people (ie. in 'accidents') under the current US firearm legislation. This is reason enough for imposing much more [stringent] regulations on gun control.

IF your assumption is accepted as “true,” does that imply “reason enough” to regulate the ownership of guns or are you suggesting that gun owners should be required to become more proficient in their use?

… the 2nd amendment is simply not [applicable] in a modern context.

The Amendment has not been repealed and no Supreme Court decisions have detracted from its current applicability.

… I also really dislike the emphasis put on the right of the individual because it fosters a culture of immaturity and irresponsibility, in the "I have the *right* do X, and you can't stop me" sense. Why should the rights of other not to be shot be trumped in this reckless way?

Like it or not, US law protects the rights of individuals.

With respect to the use of firearms (or other weapons) as a means of causing lethal injury to other persons, the legal basis for doing so (within the context of a normally functioning society,) is generally limited to the protection of life itself – not property, (such as a laptop or tv.)

How is that reckless?

No Nonsense Self-Defense​

.

 

[69Strat]

What's a fringer?

"Native American Indians" sounds a bit retarded. Why not just "Native Americans"? Regardless, "the whole people" being the citizens of the states... were these "Native American Indians" also citizens? If they were not then it doesn't apply to them, obviously. That's like suggesting any law in the US applies to Canada. Nice to know the "woe, poor natives" argument never dies... it just continues to be stale.

Were the slaves citizens too? Doubtfully, since they counted as 3/5s a person only for the purposes of representation, they otherwise had no rights.

In otherwords, since none of these groups had any rights and the laws were written, for the most part by white racists, then "the whole people" argument has little bearing to modern day society and its plight with firearms, unless, of course, you hold the view that only whites should own firearms?