Virginia Tech

---

Quote:The reason for the right to keep arms was to keep the citizens of the country armed so thta if the gov should step out of line again it couldnt become a dictator ship, the citizens could stand up adn defend themselves against it. well there was that as well as, individual states arent allowed to keep troops seperate from the federal military, so they must rely on citizen militias should federal support not be available for some reason if a country were to invadeso its not just about hunting and defending the home, so much as rebelling and being able to do so with a modicom of hope should the government turn sour,as well as defense of stateso simply banning them wouldnt be the best interest,given others statements that if they want it theyll get it,but making everyone go through a strict course on the subject like others have said for a license to own and operate any firearm as well as requiring the purchase of a decent gun safe and trigger lock either with or before purchasing a firearm and im sure there are other ways to go about it, i dont know but do you have to have a permit for a shotgun as in one youd buy from wal-mart? or does it just apply to handguns and rifles or what have you?

now gravity, i have to ask you, Why? why do you feel the need to have so many guns? Anyways, I know that its written in your constitution that "all americans have the right to bear arms" but you gotta realize, that was written a few hundred years ago when there were savages and bears and cougers all around and each day you were lucky to be alive, I personaly think that you need to change your constitution, and dotn act liek that is some unspeakable evil that will foreever shatter your identity as americans, I would actualy respect the Americans more if they had the balls to change their constitution to reflect the change in times.

Quote:The reason for the right to keep arms was to keep the citizens of the country armed so thta if the gov should step out of line again it couldnt become a dictator ship, the citizens could stand up adn defend themselves against it.That's a lovely comfortable myth that keeps US citizens feeling warm and cosy. Pity it never works and never will. The last time any appreciable numbers of citizens took up arms against the Government (to defend their right to keep slaves) was the Civil War, and they lost. Since then there has been the occasional small skirmish (e.g. Waco), which the government always wins. Of course they will - they can afford better weaponry, and are better organised.When the government of Alabama turned out its troops to prevent blacks attending white colleges, there was no armed uprising against it. When the Federal government then sent its troops in to protect blacks attending white colleges, there was no armed uprising against it. In each case, people knew who was going to win.Quote:there have been many cases on record where a concealed carry permitee has stopped a crime.If the availability of guns reduces the number of crimes, one wonders why the American violent crime rate per head of population is higher than that of comparable nations with fewer guns. If Americans without guns would commit even more crimes, presumably Americans must be a more criminal people. (I don't believe this at all, but it seems to arise inescapably from the premiss.)

I've been thinking about this some more. First, I should apologise for my intemperate, offensive language above. I shouldn't post when I'm upset.I think many people think there are good, ordinary, people, and there are criminals, and the two are quite different, white hats and black hats, people like us and people not like us. I believe this is a very mistaken view. I believe anyone can be a murderer. Anyone can be really angry, and want to lash out, either at someone in particular, or at other people in general. It certainly happens to me from time to time. I am held back by feelings that this is wrong; but when anger is strongest, these are weakest. I am also held back by lack of opportunity.Now I don't believe I am ever going to kill anyone; but I don't feel all that removed from those who do. I think they are people like me. Perhaps they have weaker feelings of conscience and morality; perhaps they are just more overwhelmingly angry. And perhaps they have more opportunity.There will, in any society, be people who are upset, disturbed, angry, consumed with a grievance. Most of them will punch holes in walls or similar things, because there's little more they can do. But if they can easily get a weapon that will kill at a distance, before they are overpowered - that allows them to do real damage - occasionally they will do so, because they can. But if that's hard to do, it is less likely to happen.The same, I believe, holds for many other violent crimes. Most criminals aren't people who are resolved to commit crimes no matter what - it depends how easy it is. I therefore suggest that easy availability of effective weapons creates opportunities for crimes that otherwise would not have been committed.

Originally Posted By: IneligibleI therefore suggest that easy availability of effective weapons creates opportunities for crimes that otherwise would not have been committed. It also creates a deterrent for crimes that have yet to be committed. In a pre-meditated situation like this one, the knee-jerk reaction with violence theory doesn't work. If there had been somebody else around with a gun, the shootist would have been dead sooner and more folks would still be alive.

I've never understood that point of view, even tho Chance mentioned the town where it works. Giving everyone weapons just ccreates a MAD situation, Mutually Assured Destruction. And you'll also have people shooting left right and center thinking that they're doing a public service. Trained professionals such as the police and army are trained to know when to use their weapons and when not to. Put a gun in the hand of a normal person and you'll have people trying to swat a fly with bullets!

Originally Posted By: thor

Originally Posted By: Ineligible

I therefore suggest that easy availability of effective weapons creates opportunities for crimes that otherwise would not have been committed.

It also creates a deterrent for crimes that have yet to be committed. In a pre-meditated situation like this one, the knee-jerk reaction with violence theory doesn't work. If there had been somebody else around with a gun, the shootist would have been dead sooner and more folks would still be alive.

We could play "what if" until we are blue in the face. What if one student went to shoot the "shootist" but missed and pissed off the "shootist" even more causing more deaths? There are many scenario's that could be played out.

I didn't see any offensive language in there.

From Gizmodo. -----------------------------------Not content in just blaming video games and video game creators, Jack Thompson's now blaming Bill Gates for what happened at Virginia Tech. An exerpt:Quote: As you know, I similalry [sic] went on NBC's Today Show with the DC Beltway Sniper still unidentified and at-large a few years ago and told Matt Lauer and the nation that the triggerman would most likely be a teen video gamer trained on a sniper video game. The tarot card was a clue, but there were other clues. I was right, as Malvo trained on your Microsoft game, Halo. NBC reported that three months later, and it was part of the criminal trial of Malvo. Mr. Gates, your company is potentially legally liable the harm done at Virginia Tech. Your game, a killing simulator, according to the news that used to be in the Post, trained him to enjoy killing and how to kill. You knew five years ago that your on-line game, Counterstrike, so clearly figured in the massacre by a student in Erfurt that the event and the game impacted the race for Chancellor in Germany at the time! Yet, here you are, five years after "Erfurt," still marketing Counterstrike. having done nothing to disable the server(s) for this mass murder simulator, and it looks like "Virginia Tech" is a consequence. There's more going on in the world than Vista. Just ask the bereaved Virginia Tech families. Mr. Gates, pull the plug on Counterstrike today, or do we need more dead to convince you? "Virginia Tech" was the 9-11 of school shootings, and it appears Microsoft is in the middle of it, in more ways than one.Jack's still spouting his anti-game rhetoric even though the warrant for the killer's dorm room documented that he had no games in his possession. Not to mention that Microsoft doesn't even have anything to do with Counterstrike other than making Windows. Unless you're going to hold Bill Gates responsible for the killer-trainer that is Minesweeper, we're pretty safe in saying that Bill Gates had nothing to do with anything.

Jack Thompson is a lunatic.

He is indeed, he's an ambulance chaser! He couldn't give a shit about these shootings, he's taking advantage of these events (as he has in the past) just to get his name out in the spotlight.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(attorney)His Wikiquotes are always good for a laugh. He's like...a Male Anne Coulter.

First off, If I may offer our condoledces to every family member and friend affected by this tragedy
Indeed to every American citizen from your president down
We had our own Virginia Tech In Port Arthur, Tasmania and we understand the horror
Whilst the USA and Australia are closely aligned culturally we have a small few but vitally different views on gun culture
After our 'Port Arthur' tragedy we had from our governments down a massive rethink on firearm availability
As a result we have seen nothing like the magnitude of this in thirteen years
This involved a government funded 'buy-back' of weaponry not to the benefit of our society
I guess the different attitude is based on Australia not being won out of war, our indigeonous poulation did not fight back European settlement
We only had kangaroos, not grizzly bears beating our early settlers doors down
May I ask, If there were not a firearm in the US today, would you see a need to introduce them?
The non US world is very quick to condemn the US for the Americanisation of the globe, but the big mac, MTV, Oprah and Jerry Springer were never forced on us
The fire-arm culture is one aspect I am glad we passed on
Eddie says the problem is security on campus?
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 don't know that the gun culture of your nation will ever change, but until it does, you will always have settlement days like Columbine and Virginia Tech as a trade off in the presevation of your freedoms

"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.