Va. Tech Shooting

[iman]

You are. of course, wrong as it relates to owning fully automatic weapons. Individuals are permitted to own such weapons, as long as they have the requisite tax stamp. Try reading the Federal gun laws before you comment incorrectly and look so foolish!

The right to keep and to bear arms is Constitutionally protected. Even the goofy left have conceded this to be an individual right. Witness the Federal Court decision, striking Washington DC's gun ban as Unconstitutional. More guns do NOT mean more killings, I would recomend the book "More Guns. Less Crime". It is an intelligent study that concludes that counties that allow individuals to carry firearms, experience less crime.

And yes, gun companies like to sell guns so as to make a profit. That's the way it works in a free enterprise system!

Well, I guess I do look foolish! Why haven't I put the Federal Gun laws on my reading list? Maybe this summer at the beach?

Actually, the only legal automatic weapons are those domestically manufactured prior to 1986 or imported prior to 1968 and must be registered with the BATF and a tax stamp purchased and these weapons are still subject to state and local law.

Maybe if we regulated all firearms as rigorously as automatics we wouldn't have the present slaughter going on in the US. Maybe all gun owners should have to buy a $200 tax stamp to help pay for the carnage.

Am I right in believing that the argument being made on these boards is that if we allowed and encouraged all college students at all colleges to carry firearms that our campuses would safer? Do you make this argument with a straight face?

 

[playwithmemonkey]

That is, I think, where the difference in both conceptions lies:

- One armed person could (maybe) have stopped a lot of carnage.
- NO armed (unstable) person would (definitly) have meant the carnage didn't occur in the first place.

The criminals will always have their guns. The only people who will be prevented from getting them with gun control are the law abiding citizens.

 

[69Strat]

Out of all those variables, had the law been passed to allow concealed carry then all it would have taken would have been one adult with good aim.

A more likely scenario would have been additional casualties, including armed faculty members being shot at by police tactical units who mistook them for the shooter.

 

[texpatriot]

A more likely scenario would have been additional casualties, including armed faculty members being shot at by police tactical units who mistook them for the shooter.

I'm sorry, and these tactical units were where while all of this was going on?

 

[69Strat]

I'm sorry, and these tactical units were where while all of this was going on?

Coordinating a tactical response with the campus police that were on the scene and who are tasked with security.

 

[degrandm]

Pot...calling kettle black! You guys disgust me. You've already cast aside the memory of those innocents who lost their lives and are shoring up your own political positions.
A little respect for 32 dead people is in order here.

i agree our hart and prayers should be with the VT students and their families. not this political bull crap on ( gun control or no gun control ) jest my two cents

 

[Marvels]

So is this a thread for remembrance/mourning or political lobbying?

 

[brettea79]

Not just like everyone else.

He's a trained police officer.

A vigilante gun nut doesn't have the training, or dicipline, that police officers have.

And it's interesting you left that out of your initial post -- pretending it was just some average joe armed citizen rather than a trained police officer.

And I think its interesting that you left out that he was off duty. The point stands, he was someone with a gun, not called to the scene that could defend himself and others w/ a conceal firearm. If he wasn't there the I can't imagine the results.

And so then, are you suggesting that if one has "the training, or disciple," than he/she is qualified to legally carry a firearm?

 

[texpatriot]

Coordinating a tactical response with the campus police that were on the scene and who are tasked with security.

While innocents were getting killed.

I just knew that government was the answer!

 

[texpatriot]

So is this a thread for remembrance/mourning or political lobbying?

All of the above?

 

[NickCole]

Gun regulation cannot be fully discussed without acknowledging the change that happened when Republicans controlled Congress and that immediately after taking over, Democrats took action to bring back the assault weapon ban.

Gun regulation is a legislative issue; failing to mention Congress and the difference between Democrats and Republicans on the issue is ... well noting who is bothered by mention of it is revealing.

 

[Marvels]

All of the above?

Well, we all can't mourn/remember forever. On to the blaming!

 

[NickCole]

Well, we all can't mourn/remember forever. On to the blaming!

If I die in a massacre like this I hope those who mourn and remember me use their grief to try to fix what's made these killings a part of American life.

 

[NickCole]

And here's some more perspective.

You know how upset we are that 33 were killed this week in a single attack?

How about living with this:

At least 157 people were killed and dozens were wounded Wednesday in four bomb attacks in Baghdad ...

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/04/18/iraq-violence.html

 

[rd13w5]

Prayers and condolences for the victims and to the families left to pick up the pieces of their lives with out those they loved!

 

[Kulindahr]

^Respect for dead people means that we should do what we can to prevent more of these episodes.

We do not allow individuals to own Thompson submachine guns, Browning Auto rifles or fully automatic weapons. Those weapons are banned because they are too dangerous and no one has a right to such weapons. We don't allow people to carry around TNT or plastic explosive for the same reason. No one claims that "TNT doesn't kill people, people kill people".

The country is flooded with guns because the manufacturers and their lobby make money from the sales. Gun owners need to get over the adolescent notion that owning or carrying a weapon somehow empowers them. It is just common sense that more guns mean more killings in the same way that selling TNT at Walmart would mean a lot more explosions.

Just like this country is flooded with MacDonalds because the owners and their lobby make money from the sales, and is flooded with books because the publishers make money from the sales, and is flooded with cars because the manufacturers make money from the sales, and is flooded with aspirin because the manufacturers make money from the sales...
Manufacturers make money because they supply a product people want.

If more guns mean more killings, then we shouldn't have condoms, because they mean more sex, or cars because they mean more accidents, or tall buildings because they attract terrorists with airplanes....
As for people killing people -- yes, TNT doesn't kill people, people do. Cars don't kill people either -- people do. Hospitals don't kill people -- doctors and nurses do (in fact once in the hands of a surgeon in a hospital you are statistically far more likely to die than once you're in a room with a gun).

In fact, more guns do not mean more killings. The U.S. has the highest rate of gun ownership since colonial times, and by that logic we should be dying in droves. But the truth is that in state after state after the common-sense laws letting people protect themselves have been passed, violent crime against people has dropped.

You want common sense? Common sense says that if some of those students had been armed, they would have been able to shoot back and stop the slimeball.

 

[Kulindahr]

Bigotry was protected by the Constitution at one time as well.

. . . .

When the right to keep and bear arms was written into the Constitution, the arms were muskets, not semi-automatic weapons.

The first line above is false.

When the right to keep and bear arms was written into the Constitution to protect an inherent right, the arms it protected were the finest military weapons of the time. And at least one Supreme Court decision has acknowledged that those are exactly the sort of arms meant to be in the hands of citizens.

 

[Kulindahr]

What you fail to mention is that the police tactical units that responded to the shooter have extensive training in combat shooting, since that is one of the skills of their job. On the other hand, your nutty professor is not only taking the law into his own hands, but is unlikely to have that level of training with firearms, and would probably end up shooting innocent bystanders.

Moreover, having members of the faculty that are armed would create a nightmare for law enforcement trying to identify the "actual" shooter, in the event he wasn't neutralized by your nutty professor, in a more realistic scenario.

It makes infinately more sense to provide more training to those tasked with
the security on campus, and to implement the use of additional CCTVs, rather
than have the faculty take the law into their own hands, which you seem to be big on.

My final comment to your totalitarian position:

your position makes human life worthless. It assumes everyone is a little child to be taken care of. And it assumes that police somehow have more rights than regular citizens. All three are false.

Law enforcement has no rights whatsoever. Their authority is derived from the inherent rights of the citizens, and they are the servants of the citizens. The attitude that citizens should get out of the way and let the cops do the job belongs to the time of the Kaisers, not to the time of America. It is one of the propositions the Revolution was against! The ONLY reason law enforcement carries firearms is because the citizens have delegated that authority -- they have not surrendered it; indeed they cannot. And if a citizen wishes to exercise his/her right, it is the job of the police to stay back out of the way. The police are the secondary line of defense, not the first, for free citizens; reversing that priority is a theft of liberty.

You seem unable to post without introducing fantasies and falsehoods and accusing people of things that were never said. You've already shown your military incompetence, because you don't even know what is and isn't an assault weapon. At this point I take it that your "military experience" is another fantasy, like those you bring to the board.

You should first go and learn what liberty is, and then educate yourself about weapons, before venturing into these discussions.

 

[Kulindahr]

Jackoroe, you are indeed right. Semi Valley in California is considered one of the safest citys in the nation and gun ownership laws are very loose. On the flip side, gun ownership in DC is very restricted and the murder rate per capa very high. So high in fact that the city temp restored gun ownership.

Virginia gun laws hold college campuses at a Level 3, meaning NO guns on campus. If campus security were able to carry firearms the outcome may have come out differently.

Not only is he correct, but polls from before this already showed that over 80% of Americans believed schools on all levels would be safer if teachers carried weapons. And the common-sense reaction of Americans to situations like this tells it even better: after every one of these events, individuals purchase handguns, and get training.

That's common sense because people know what the courts have regularly ruled: that the police have no responsibility to protect anyone in particular. Indeed, these days (I know from talking to new cops) in police academies they are taught that their own protection is their first priority -- remember, they sat outside at least one high school working on their plan, while kids were still being shot inside.

It's interesting that these things never happen at inner city schools. After Columbine, one intelligent reporter went to an inner city school one the East coast, and asked people at random if they ever thought such a thing would happen there. The answer he got from students, security, faculty, and administrators all boiled down to one thing: "Fuck, no! Half the homies here got their own guns, and the mother'd be shot dead!"

People who want to shoot lots of people know where to go: where no one can shoot back. And as brettea79 informed us, Virginia Tech was a perfect place to go.

Thanks to those who made it a Level 3, 33 people are dead.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yeah there's a bright idea.

Shootout at the OK Corral.

What you fools picture for America is very very sad.

One or more adult with bad aim would have made the situation worse.

Ask Pat Tillman's family about what happens when good people aim a gun badly.

Even counting such incidents, when civilians aim a gun at a bad guy, they hit an innocent person far less frequently than the police do.

Given that fact, we might consider going back to when the cops had no weapons, but their job was "to raise the hue and cry, and rouse the well-armed citizens".

Nick, what you fools picture for America is disaster. It is exactly what violent criminals fantasize about: a disarmed population, like sheep to the wolf. Violent felons know just how many cops it would take to actually "protect" everyone -- a team of cops in line of sight of every last person in the country. And they know people won't put up with the expense, so they love the idea of the open field with only them and the cops being able to have guns.
Violent criminals stay away from households with Fraternal Order of Police, National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, Jewish Alliance for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, and similar stickers, but they don't mind those so much; those are labeled positions that don't move. What they fear is citizens carrying as they will, because they don't know who's a sheep and who's a sheepdog.