Gun Debate again.. sigh

[Evilash]

Many people have been posting on various Websites that it would be great that everyone were allowed to Get gun conceal permits or that students and staff should be allowed to be armed.

My opinion is Now that its been released that this 23 yearold LEgal Alien resident who was an english major had the LEGAL right to actually purchase the 2 guns he used in this massacre based on the laws in Virginia. Genius is just one step from insanity. This was a highly Intelligent individual. He was methodical in what he did and he did it without any remorse. there have been sadly cases of law enforncement snapping and killing wives/ex-wives,girlfriends and family and friends. And these are people Trained and tested to be competent to use guns safely.

if you just whole sale allowed more people to be allowed to purchase guns.. sadly the chances of more tragedies would occur. just because of the statistical chances going up.

As to what should be done? I think people need to have their mental health assessed repeatedly. Not just once. Even if a person has a clean criminal record.. doesn't mean a person doesn't have the propensity for violence or can't snap.

[Alaric]

This makes no sense. While most people have a chance of snapping, it takes a special kind of person to go on a rampage killing strangers.

What would outlawing guns achieve? Well, we just saw a demonstration. Dozens of people slaughtered who were completely incapable of defending themselves.

If this kid snapped in a society where no guns existed, he would have found a way of killing people without a gun. Just like you said, he was intelligent. As we all know, when there is a will, there is a way.

He could have poisoned the food. He could have gone to a concert and stabbed random people with a kitchen knife. And in a tightly packed hall with music blasting, he would not get caught until get stabbed a great lot of people.

Not to mention that Timothy McVeigh along with Theodore Kaczynski never used guns at all.

[Ifitmovesnukeit]

I frankly don't agree with the idea that you can kill that many people "just as easily" without a gun in this particular case. This crime was only premeditated about a couple of hours or so in advance, and (having of course, not tried it myself) I don't think that's enough time to get hold of an illegal weapon if you've never tried it before. Poisoning food I imagine is too subtle for someone who flips like that, and again requires some planning. There is no way in hell you could kill 31 people with a knife or bat half as easily as you can with a gun. You have to get within arms' length of your victims, greatly increasing the chances they have of getting away and/or successfully defending themselves with their bare hands. You might get about 3 people at most before you're overpowered. Stricter gun control would no doubt prevent very short term insanity dives being as bad as they are since there won't be guns immediately available once you've decided you're going to murder as many people as you can, as quickly as you can. Saying that they could poison people or make home made bombs or something similar means you have to invoke this person having any semblance of self-control in order to plan it once they've flipped.

I am in no way saying guns need banning in the US though, I'm fully aware of the folly of that statement. I am convinced though that this person's access to a gun made it as deadly as it was.

You are, of course, correct if this person had been silently cracking up before this. He would have had time to acquire a gun by whatever means necessary.

[Alaric]

All I am saying is that a gun is not the deadliest of weapons.

In all modern wars, the greatest amount of casualties had been caused not by bullets but by explosives and shrapnel.

You can't really outlaw the sale of explosives, due to the fact that anyone can make them. Same goes for shrapnel, because any small metal object can serve as such. Note that Palestinians who blow themselves up in Israel do not use guns and yet are able to cause far greater damage.

Other "weapons" that have potential for causing wide damage and yet cannot be banned include power tools (nail-gun for instance), vehicles, gases and so on.

Banning guns alone will not do anyone any good. There are plenty of means to kill other human beings left.

However... of all the things I listed, a gun is the only truly viable means of self defense.

[Evilash]

No where did I say that we must ban guns. I said people should be held to the same standards that law officials and military are held to. People are giving psych tests to make sure they mentally have the sanity to understand the ramifications for owning and wielding a gun.

This is not done. I believe people should be tested before they are allowed to purchase a gun and if they pass.. they should be re-tested every 3months.

[kyleh]

Who would pay for that? Psych testing isn't cheap.

[Evilash]

The friggin Gun makers should foot the bill. But whats a few dollars for a shrink over a human Life.
OR is that not worth it?

[Alaric]

LOL! And the car makers should pay for people's psych testing for driving privileges. And so should the power tool makers. Ha-ha-ha!

[Groovus Maxximus]

Psych testing for M rated video games would be next and so on..................:shame:.

[Evilash]

What is a Gun designed for? To Hurt living breathing beings.
Whether it be animals or human beings.

Whats a car used for? to get from point a to point b.
There is a huge difference between the 2.
Yes accidents can happen with cars.. But they Are not designed specifically with hurting others.

GUNS ARE.

So keep using that flawed defense of guns.

[Groovus Maxximus]

If the U.S. banned guns from citizens then only the criminals would have guns.

[gorilla325]

Who would pay for that? Psych testing isn't cheap.
not to mention, those tests are not very accurate. :(

[zauggru]

Both Hitler and Castro took away all private gun ownership when they got into power.

[Alaric]

What is a Gun designed for? To Hurt living breathing beings.
Whether it be animals or human beings.

Whats a car used for? to get from point a to point b.
There is a huge difference between the 2.
Yes accidents can happen with cars.. But they Are not designed specifically with hurting others.

GUNS ARE.

So keep using that flawed defense of guns.

Huh? What does this have to do with ... ah never mind.

When you break into my house I will probably want a tool designed especially for taking care of that situation. And guess what? Now that you know that I am armed, who would you rather attack, me or a guy like you, who hates guns, is afraid of them and has no means of defending himself?

So yea, guns are designed to kill people. That's their purpose. That's good.

If one of those 32 students shot back things would have been different. Alas, the government told them that they can't have guns, because the government was gonna protect them. DID IT? DID IT?

Tell you what, I'll give up all of my weapons, when I am confident that the government will defend me. Ha-ha-ha!

[Evilash]

the gunman Was a psychotic who was allowed to buy guns based on a loophole that prevented his previous psychological VOluntary evaluations to show up on record. Since it was voluntary it never gave off a red flag. so he was allowed to buy them. Most likely this loophole will be removed and this will prevent that from happening again.

Also thank god a bill that attempted to allow workers to bring their guns to work.. was blocked.

I understand evaluations can be flawed.. But its better then nothing. and thats what we have right now. So Since everyone else here are blind gun lovers.. what do you Recommend then to Prevent the minority of gun owners who are not Sane from killing the majority of those who don't have guns and don't care to have one? How many more cases of Proud Gun owners who snap who kill people will it take before the rest of you say.. Ok enough is enough lets set some guidelines and laws to prevent the these nuts from making the rest of us Look like uncaring psychotics?

[kyleh]

Would simply calling you a blind gun hater summarize you effectively? What is it with the internet and simple black and white summaries of people?

Also, you seem to be implying that there are not laws that govern gun ownership, which seems a bit short sighted.

[Chip]

Criminals are law breakers. Do you think a new batch of laws are going to stop people from using a weapon to harm others? The law is not deterent enough but people able to protect themselves maybe and if not a deterent it will at least give them a fighting chance instead of being slaughtered as we have just seen. making laws to prevent the legal owning of a firearm will only hurt those that obey the law.

[Evilash]

I said what I said because when the day The Gun lobby steps up and says..
Look we just had this tragedy.. Its plain to see we need to address issues that allow individuals from freely buying guns who have NO business owning one.

Instead Any time a logical law is put forward to prevent something like this from addressing they SCREAM MY Constitution and spend hundreds of millions to defeat it. And another tragedy still occurs.

So again.. Show me a case where the NRA for example has said LEts do something to prevent these horrors from happening? instead of blocking ANYthing or Trying to put out laws like the one that said lets have workers bring their guns to work?

[Alaric]

Wow. Just wow. You and logic have never even been in the same universe, have you?

Let me try one last time. I will try to make each statement as short as possible (at the expense of proper grammar).

criminals kill people
with guns
it against law
they still do
you ban guns
they still do
because they criminals

if ban guns
THEY STILL DO

understand?

okay?

if ban guns
cant shoot criminals
they shoot you
can't shoot back
they kill you
and someone else
can't shoot back
because no guns

understand?

okay?

if guns
criminals kill
if no guns
criminals still kill

okay?

criminals kill anyway

no guns
no defense

understand?

okay?

[Moosehead92]

Look. Have you seen anybody here saying they should ban guns all together? Automatic & Semi-automatic guns should be banned. I agree that people should have the right to own a firearm. I just think it should be harder to get. Now in America, if a criminal is seen with a powerful firearm, nothing can be done about it. Right? If they change the laws to outlaw certain weapons, if anyone is seen with that weapon, it will be taken away.

If your logic makes sense, how come nothing has happened in Australia? Huh? The laws used to be the same as America, but since a massive shooting at Port Arthur, Tasmania, the laws were changed to outlaw all automatic & semi-automatic weapons. You also have to be a member of a hunting club or some sort of certified gun collector organisation to own any sort of weapon.

According to your reasoning, criminals should still be killing people here. Are they? No. Because if the criminals are ever seen with any sort of gun, it is taken away. Before the laws, they could be seen with the gun and people could know that they might use it for something against the law, but nothing could be done to have it taken off of him.

You call our point of view blind? How about yours. You can't even accept the fact that America has one of the highest death rates of shootings. It is also one of the easiest places to buy a gun. That is simple logic.

Again, I'm not saying that guns should be outlawed all together, but people who have no business owning a gun shouldn't be able to have one.

I don't know if this is true, but I heard that in Virginia you don't even need a gun license. You just need to show proof of age. That is just stupid.

[Alaric]

Don't start this again. Just because the media didn't make a big deal out of shootings in Australia, that doesn't mean they don't happen.

The Port Arthur Massacre occured on April 28, 1996. According to your logic, after that there should have been no more shootings because of the laws change.

http://www.ballistics.com.au/images/stats.gif
Notice, this is just robberies. Obviously other types of crimes involved guns as well.


Now, just so you know fully automatic weapons are illegal to own in the US. So are muzzle loaders for some reason. Still I don't see what is wrong with me owning a couple of Glocks.

If I ever lose it and decide to go on a rampage, I won't even bring a firearm. Like people said many times before, the best way to do A LOT of damage is with explosive/ incendiary devices. And those are easy to make and cannot be banned.

[Alaric]

Don't start this again. Just because the media didn't make a big deal out of shootings in Australia, that doesn't mean they don't happen.

The Port Arthur Massacre occurred on April 28, 1996. According to your logic, after that there should have been no more shootings because of the laws change.

Here is a chart for type of weapon used in armed robberies in Australia 1996-1999.
http://www.alaric.ws/junk/stats.gif
Notice, this is just robberies. Obviously other types of crimes involved guns as well.


Now, just so you know fully automatic weapons are illegal to own in the US. So are muzzle loaders for some reason. Still I don't see what is wrong with me owning a couple of Glocks.

If I ever lose it and decide to go on a rampage, I won't even bring a firearm. Like people said many times before, the best way to do A LOT of damage is with explosive/ incendiary devices. And those are easy to make and cannot be banned.

[Groovus Maxximus]

Take notice of the 2% Syringe usage...now that is kinda funny. That must of been very threatening...lol. Sorry Alaric I was not making fun of your post that just seemed funny to me. :p I do agree with what you are saying. Please continue.

[Wingnut]

Now, just so you know fully automatic weapons are illegal to own in the US. So are muzzle loaders for some reason. Still I don't see what is wrong with me owning a couple of Glocks.



Uh.... no and no.

You need a Class 3 license, a gob of cash, and like a 3 year wait but if you wish to own an M60, SAW, M16A2 or whatever, you can own one. The expense in terms of time and money is prohibitive, but they are not out and out banned.

Muzzle loaders banned? WTF??? I have a black power muzzle loader sitting my closet at the moment. Most States offer an extended hunting season for primative weapons, such as a muzzle loaders. In fact, you can now get some awesome muzzleloaders for hunting. Check out Thompson's Muzzleloaders (http://www.tcarms.com/firearms/muzzleloaders.php).

[Wingnut]

No where did I say that we must ban guns. I said people should be held to the same standards that law officials and military are held to. People are giving psych tests to make sure they mentally have the sanity to understand the ramifications for owning and wielding a gun.

This is not done. I believe people should be tested before they are allowed to purchase a gun and if they pass.. they should be re-tested every 3months.


Unless they started something new, I don't know of any mental health tests they give to military members. They may submit the elite of the elite to tests on occasstion, but certainly not the average soldier, even the average infantry trooper.

As for cops, I find it hard to believe that most police forces across the nation, who are always crying for more money for the basics, are subjecting their officers to mental health test. I can see a short form at the beginning to weed out the wackjobs, but even still mullets slip through the cracks.

About the only universal training that the military and law enforcement get is time on the range with their service weapons.

[Alaric]

Automatic weapons are banned in most jurisdictions as far as I know. Perhaps I am wrong. There is no federal law prohibiting them, if that's what you mean. But even the price and the waiting list aside, in most states you just can't get one.

Muzzle loaders are tricky. Once again there is no federal law (obviously), but you will be very unpleasantly surprised at how many silly local laws there are.

Handguns... same thing. Many jurisdictions ban them outright.

I live in a suburb that allows guns. The town where I work has banned them. As you may have guessed we didn't have a robbery in years. The one where I work had a number of robberies in just the past few months. They also had a murder not long ago.

And in Chicago they even banned BB guns in addition to every other possible kind of gun there is. Does that prevent gang shootings, robberies and murders? Absolutely not. People keep getting shot and have no means of defending themselves.

The government promised to defend them instead. Ha-ha-ha!!!

[Wingnut]

Automatic weapons are banned in most jurisdictions as far as I know. Perhaps I am wrong. There is no federal law prohibiting them, if that's what you mean. But even the price and the waiting list aside, in most states you just can't get one.

Muzzle loaders are tricky. Once again there is no federal law (obviously), but you will be very unpleasantly surprised at how many silly local laws there are.

Handguns... same thing. Many jurisdictions ban them outright.

I live in a suburb that allows guns. The town where I work has banned them. As you may have guessed we didn't have a robbery in years. The one where I work had a number of robberies in just the past few months. They also had a murder not long ago.

And in Chicago they even banned BB guns in addition to every other possible kind of gun there is. Does that prevent gang shootings, robberies and murders? Absolutely not. People keep getting shot and have no means of defending themselves.

The government promised to defend them instead. Ha-ha-ha!!!

I'd have to look at which STATES ban automatics, and I don't think even California does as I have read of shooting clubs that go out into the desert and waste rounds. Municipalities, sure, but not out right States. And in the case of Municipalities, there are often execeptions for things like dealers and other private (non law enforcement) citizens.

As for muzzle loaders, again I don't know what States or any cities that ban them. I can only see these as being ancient laws, not something new. A muzzle loader is hardly the concern of today's anti gun activists. I'd see it more as an old safety issue once breech loaders and better were readily available.

Handguns are a banned in many cities, but I agree bans don't work. We can't keep our streets free from the massive amounts of illegal drugs, I don't see how we can keep them free of guns.

[Moosehead92]

Alaric: Your graph is from 1996 - 1999. Since the Port Arthur shootings were in 1996, the laws were still coming into effect during these three years.

http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/public-health/chorep04/inj/inj_gunknifedth_table.htm#table

Now you tell me that the rate of gun deaths hasn't dropped since 1996.

http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/public-health/chorep04/inj/inj_gunknifedth.htm
How the deaths are broken up.

[Evilash]

Yeah in our local paper those Stats were sighted as proof that good enforced gun control laws can work. of course it will fall on deaf ears sadly here in the states.

[kyleh]

Like I posted in the other thread, the rate of violent crime in the US has been dropping for the last 15 years very consistantly. Gun deaths would be included in that statistic.

[Grendel]

In Switzerland, between the ages of 21-32, every single man is given an automatic rifle, and required to keep it at his home. That means at in a country of 6 million people, there are around 600,000 automatic rifles in private homes. And after that period is complete, they can keep service pistols. Yet inspite of this Switzerland has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world, in searching I saw numbers in-between 1.1 and 2 per 100,000 people with less than half of those being caused by firearms.

Now I am not saying gun control in the U.S. isn't the right answer, but there are deeper problems in our society, than the number of guns amongst the populous.

[Untouchable2K]

" If the world keeps selling guns, and making them, gun violence will continue to dwell on the earth "

Thats all i got's to say.

[kyleh]

As long as there is a living thing on this planet, violence will continue. That seems a bit more accurate. :)

[Untouchable2K]

Yea, but we are only talking about gun violence, not violence as a whole. Also, what seems to be more accurate is the fact that, it is satan who is driving people into violence, you know the king of wickedness.

Just my opinion tho, because we have different opinions, i gather.

[Alaric]

Satan is driving people into violence.......

.................

.................

.................

[zauggru]

The lamest excuse in the world: someone made me do it. Cho made the choice to kill. Satan didn't make him do it. People didn't make him do it. His unsuccessful stalking attempts didn't make him do it. He choose to do it.

[Untouchable2K]

I didnt say it was a excuse, as some think it is an excuse. What i'm saying is, we all make choices , this is true. But satan can drive/influence people to do things, even tho people make a choice to do things.

Satan temps us into doing bad things. The dude who shot and kill 32 people, well he made a choice to do it, but satan tricked him into thinking bad thoughts and he fell for his tricks.

This whole thing with guns, well if mankind will stop selling guns and making them, well gun violence will slowly decrease, and stop. But do you think people are going to stop making and selling guns?

Nope. Kinda like the cigarettes company. They know damn well cigarettes are killing people, but do they care? Nope, they care more about thierself and money then they do about love and righteousness and people well being.

Mankind is the cause of their own destruction, simple as that.

[Alaric]

Is this guy for real?

[anthonyX]

I am not sure what you are trying to say (untouchable2k). I believe in evil and I believe that there is a Satan but I don't think that satan is the one causing people to be evil. I think that people make choices to be good or evil. If one chooses to do evil then that person will become evil. The shooter was an evil person. When you have no conscience and no appreciation of life then you are evil. There was a time when he did things that were wrong and he knew it and made that choice. I think of it like being a druggie you start out on the small stuff but soon graduate to the heavy stuff.

[Groovus Maxximus]

I think from the ages of 21 - 32 the US government should give out a can of sillystring. :D

[Untouchable2K]

I am not sure what you are trying to say (untouchable2k). I believe in evil and I believe that there is a Satan but I don't think that satan is the one causing people to be evil. I think that people make choices to be good or evil. If one chooses to do evil then that person will become evil. The shooter was an evil person. When you have no conscience and no appreciation of life then you are evil. There was a time when he did things that were wrong and he knew it and made that choice. I think of it like being a druggie you start out on the small stuff but soon graduate to the heavy stuff.

You do know that there are many scriptures that make it clear that satan is in this world deceiving the world. Sadly i cant seem to find any at the moment, but i know its there. Yes we make choices in life, but satan can trick us.

The secret is, you cant fall for his tricks, and if you do, you will fall. If someone would get on tv saying satan is deceiving the world, you will look crazy/insane, because in this world [in this time], GOD and his word is separated.

In other words, GOD is kinda put aside these days.

On this gun issue, i only see one real solution. And that is to rid guns from the face of the earth. Impossible? Nope.

[BloodySloth]

How in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is getting rid of all guns on earth a viable solution? Even if through some bizarre distortion of reality all guns were somehow successfully removed from use across the entire globe, it wouldn't solve a damn thing. It's not like your next mass murderer is going to change his mind because all guns have apparently vaporized. He's going to grab one of the thousands of varieties of death-dealing devices humanity has created and will continue to create for the span of its existence.

Personally, I don't care what your religious beliefs are, they can't be applied to this problem. Unless you personally have a plan to go down into Hell, defeat Satan, and restore peace and prosperity to the world, there is no point to bringing him into this discussion. This needs to be treated as a human problem if you want a human solution.

[Groovus Maxximus]

Well said.

[NyteByte]

It's impossible to reason with the gun control loons, so don't even try. They just don't get it.

I have a CCW and carry everywhere I go. I haven't shot anyone yet (insane or otherwise), although in our continually degenerating society, it could be a possibility in the future. Who knows when I'll be sitting in my local Taco Bell and the next crazy person will come in and decide to go on a shooting rampage.

I will not let the gun control nutcases take my gun and turn me into a helpless victim. If they want to be victims, that's their prerogative, but you're not getting my gun unless you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

[Alaric]

If I could only have one gun, it would be pointed at the person who said I could only have one gun.

[BlackBeard]

Here's some food for thought: A 4-year old shot his 32-year old father today. Accidentally of course. But should homes have handguns? Kids accidentally injur and kill many people because of misfired guns. Last year, a shot out of a wall of a house killed a woman driving her car, nearly killed her husband who was in the passenger seat. The kid accidentally fired the rifle when showing his friend. Both of these incidents happened locally, but I could probably find news reports if I took some time (if people want proof).

In just those two incidents two people were killed. How does a pro-gun person approach arguing that people should have guns with those in mind? One was a handgun (4-year old) the other was a hunting rifle of some sort.

[stingray]

In just those two incidents two people were killed. How does a pro-gun person approach arguing that people should have guns with those in mind? One was a handgun (4-year old) the other was a hunting rifle of some sort.


How can you argue about anything when you are facing stupid people? How can you enforce existing laws, when people are negligent at home? Why do people keep loaded guns in reach of children? Why do toddlers drown in backyard pools? Why did Roy get bitten by a white tiger? Again, why does a majority have to be limited by an immature minority? Everyone talks about equality, but when push comes to shove, then suddenly the same rules don't apply.

[BlackBeard]

I'm all for Darwinism, unfortunately there are more idiots with guns than there are intelligent people. I feel pretty certain that more people die of accidental gun firing (including stray bullets) than defensive shots every year nationwide in the USA. And I'd also feel like I wasn't stretching the truth to say that guns rarely deter any crime from happening (unless a federal or state police force is holding that gun). It may deflect it, or cause tensions to rise on the spot. If everyone had guns there'd be so many shootouts. Wild West stereotype abound.

Speaking of which two (or three?) bank robbers used guns to get thier money. Later one shot the other to keep the take to himself. That's one death. If someone had pulled a gun in the pank, there would have been more deaths. That is what gun ownership seems so stupid to me. I never read about it saving anybodies life. Perhaps the news is lopsided on the issue and anti-gun?

EDIT: oh yeah, didn't an FBI agent get shot not too long ago by his own partner (accidentally)? I do think people who enforce the law should have guns, I just don't think people who hope to be vigilante's should have guns. Criminals will always be able to get guns. There will always be deaths from that, and no amount of guns from law abiding citizens will stop that. So I just don't understand the desire to own one. Throw down with the person, have a battle of fisticuffs, just don't shoot people you're angry with (for invading your home, or stealing something). Much better to beat them silly or have you get beat silly than either of you to be dead by a simple gun.

That's another reason I hate guns, it totally removes the need to fight. Fighting is natural, we should do it without killing (sure it may happen sometimes being beaten to death but I'll worry about those facts if we ever move to a more natural society again).

[stingray]

I'm all for turning the other cheek, but to quote Harrison Ford in Blade Runner, "I'd rather be a killer than a victim." In a country that values freedom over everything else, I find it hard to believe that people would choose being victimized over defending themselves should the need arise, because, believe it or not, when you are at the business end of a gun, all bets are off and you won't be intellectualizing over who is right and who is wrong or if the guy holding the gun is stupid.

Dead is dead. No ifs or buts about it.

[Alaric]

Storing a gun in such a way that your kid can get to it and shoot you is stupid. Thus, that man was an idiot.

Storing a gun in such a way that your kid can get to it and shoot you is illegal. Thus, that man was a criminal.

So why should I be sad when someone who is both an idiot and a criminal is shot?

No reason.

In fact I am glad that his kid found a mere gun, and not a circular saw.

[kyleh]

Here's some food for thought: A 4-year old shot his 32-year old father today. Accidentally of course. But should homes have handguns? Kids accidentally injur and kill many people because of misfired guns.

See, there you go. Children are the menace. Where are the child control laws?