Virginia Tech

---

"A 99% effective security check would meam 1 in 100 hand-guns would get through the safety net
How many guns does it take to kill 30 people?"

i totaly agree, gun-control in any country is or will ever be perfect, but soem of you americans think that the best way to stop people using guns, is to give other people guns? what kind of fucked up logic is that? "i wont shoot you because you have a gun? no, I'll shoot you FIRST because you have a gun." have you peopel never heard the saying "two wrongs dont make a right"?

I've been out of town this week and hence not posting. And I'm glad I wasn't. My first thought/feeling on Monday (other than shock, horror, and grief) was the frustration that comes when these assholes kill themselves. Now there's no one to get mad at, or yell at, or convict, or sentence. And that's sometimes hard to deal with.The second thought was kind of a frustration at the constant news coverage about gun laws and what V. Tech should have done and arguments about this that and the other. I think those are valid points for discussions that need to be had. But, my gosh, do we have to start all that within 2 hours of a tragedy? Can't we process it on a human/emotional level first? Let the healing process begin? Let these kids and the families get on with their lives first? Then start kicking into bitch mode. I dunno, it just seems like within hours of the massacre, those poor folks lost lives were just a catalyst for more arguing and fodder for talk show blah blah blah.As for all the talk about guns...Someone said stuff like this happens cause you can buy a gun at Wal-Mart with your shoes. That couldn't be more wrong. This kind of stuff happens cause some guy with evil intentions commits an evil act. Do you honestly think that if these guys (Cho, Klebold and Harris, etc) couldn't get their guns legally (which most of them don't) they wouldn't have them. Not true. Another point...consider the fact that these kinds of shootings typically happen in a setting where thy know there will be no guns. School, post offices, etc. If one teacher in Columbine or Va. Tech had been carrying a gun, maybe the killings would have still happened, but you can bet your butt the death toll would have been smaller.As for the concern someone mentioned about having a gun and not having sufficient training...that's ludicrous. Even an Engineering professor with a gun but little training could have taken that prick out, or at least disabled him to the point where the shooting would stop. Who cares if he took out two desks and a pencil sharpener and the process.I'm not saying it's a good thing this guy should have a gun. He shouldn't have. We know enough about him now that makes me think he should have been in some database somewhere that would have prevented his buying one. But - then again - he did a lot of planning and apparently wasn't stupid. He would have gotten his gun. The problem, as I see it, is that these guys are able to go into these settings and create a scenario that's much like shooting fish in a fish bowl. You give one of those fish a gun, and fewer fish are gonna die.AS for me...and I'm not kidding here...I seriously considering buying a gun and getting a concealed weapon permit.

i made the comment abotu being able to buy new shoes and a new riffle at wal mart, and that is infact, a bad thing, just because your constitution says you have the RIGHT to bear arms, does not mean that you should, and infact, i think that americans with guns are like 4 year olds with knives, bad idea all around. Why do I say this? because, you peopel have it ingraind into your phychie that having guns is a good, normal thing, well, i personaly have only ever seen two guns up close and both were old antique riffles that couldnt shoot, anyway, i dont know if you know this, but the VT guy suposedly got those guns legaly, and d'ya know, you guy's dont have the 7 day cooldown time before you can buy a gun like we do here in canada, your only limit is 1 a month, awww, poor you! thats only 12 guns a year! i MAY decide to purchase a revolver when i live on my own, but i would infact feel more comfortable with a baseball bat or something, why? because i wouldnt have the guts to shoot a man for trying to rob me, the VT guy, different story, I'd shoot him, but not to kill, wound only, I believe that life and death are not mine to comand and dole out, who am i to take another mans life away from him?

Apoc...I don't even know where to start with you...I'm Canadian too, legal PAL-Restricted and non-restricted (been licenced for 4 years now)...just want to get that out of the way. We don't have a 'cool down' here in Canada...period; because our Firearms licences (and our laws) prohibit mentally or legally unstable people from purchasing firearms. The delay from purchasing a firearm to bringing it home is from bureaucratic delay (Since you have to acquire an ATT [Authorization to transport] to move a restricted firearm)Okay, onto the meat of it...First off, you dislike firearms, and you bash American's for having them, then you flip-flop by admitting you'd use one for personal protection? Hypocrite...Secondly, you've never handled a firearm; you have no respect or knowledge of them. People like you scare the shit out of me (Because frankly, it's the people who buy them for protection and don't respect them who end up causing STUPID accidents)Thirdly, you WILL NOT be able to get a restricted firearm (read: handgun) unless you are a member of a gun club; of which you have to be an active member in target shooting (No club will have you if you keep the gun with harmful intentions, you cannot use a firearm for defence)Boring legal stuff:Lastly, if you use any sort of weapon (And that includes a baseball bat) against another person who is not armed with the same thing, you WILL be held criminally responsible. (It's called use of force+1..whatever you need to counter the attack, and the minimal amount thereafter to prevent being attacked again)If you even point a gun at someone in your house, you will be charged with using excessive force, pointing a firearm (max 5 years), dangerous use of a firearm (max 2 years), improper storage (max 2 years), and assault. If you shot him, you would be looking at min 4 years, max of 14...if he died you'd be looking at min of 4, max of LIFE.Disclaimer: This is CANADIAN law, not US.

You apparently have little knowledge about guns, gun laws, or what the average American is like.Get some more knowledge, then come back and we'll talk.

I'm going to avoid my first thought which was "Ignorant little twit" and continue to my constructive portion:

I agree, No guns in the WORLD would be a better thing. You know the problem with complete gun control? The people who you don't want having guns, Criminals and potential criminals, are the only ones who will have them.

Unfortunately the truth; I'd be behind every anti-gun nut if I KNEW that banning them legally would eliminate them around the world and prevent violent crime from ever occurring again.

Such a blanket, ignorant statement to make.

well, someone once said "there are two thigns that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity and the universe i'm not to sure about" now that i re read my post i feel liek making an angry post at myself cause it really wasnt well thought out at all, in my deffence, I've had a fever and been sick for the past few days, not in my right mind. I do think the world would be a better place with no guns at all, and I've revised my havign a gun for self deffence stance, because now that i think about it again, i really wouldnt be comfortable havign a gun. the only thing that irritates me more than a hypocrite is a hypocrite that when faced with his own hypocricy wont admit what a hypocrite he is. hope you's can all forgive me for being such a silly little boy...

Dude, don't sweat it. We've all done it.