"In Virginia at the age of 13, you can buy a revolver at a supermarket."

[Unheard]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: highwire
If there was even the threat of a few armed and disciplined youngsters, or even oldster for that matter, to intervene, this event would NOT have happened.

Nonsense. The shooter clearly expected to die. The shooter was irrational (just listen to the videos) and the threat of others intervening would have had no effect.

I predict that if every single person in the U.S. 18 and older carried a firearm, the firearm-related death-rate in the U.S. would skyrocket. Just think of how many volatile incidents would be transformed from mere shouting matches (or fisticuffs) to the use of deadly force.

Anyone who thinks "more firearms" is the answer is deluded.

Just like it did in Switzerland right? Oh wait, it didn't, and every capable man over 18 owns a firearm. Don't blame the gun, blame the people who pull the trigger.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: shira

Anyone who thinks "more firearms" is the answer is deluded.

I'll tell you what, we've been trying the gun control thing for decades now and it is clearly not working. How bout we give the other side a chance now and see what happens?

Anyone can make assumptions.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: highwire
A lot of common sense there, lozina.

And remember, until the police get Star Treck transporters, their main function in matters such as the VT slaughter will be drawing chalk lines around bodies, not protection.

No its not "common sense." Being qualified to buy a handgun should be MUCH more involved. Such as, a psych evaluation and an interview by authorities concerning why one NEEDS a handgun.

Common sense aint so common.
Should you have all your writings and speech "approved" by the .gov before saying or publishing it?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: lozina
Why can't people realize that the problem is not how he got his firearms or even how he killed people generally, but how did our society fail to react sooner to this obviously mentally deranged kid before he became determined to kill as many people as he could before going out himself?

If we ignore all the warning signs and let people degrade to such a level, it does not matter what bans are in place. These people are essentially suicide bombers for crying out loud! Does your thick skull actually believe he is going to follow some law now before going and killing as many people as he can? Let's assume the anti gun crowd achieves this fantasy utopia where such a madman couldn't obtain a gun legally or illegally off the street. No the kid goes and builds a dozen pipe bombs and throws one into each classroom. Now what, we ban pipes from Home Depot?

Think about this too. This kid went to a Post Office and waiting on some line to ship out this package to NBC. He was walking there amongst other people yet he did not start his murder spree right there- why not? Perhaps because he did not know if some guy on line, right outside the post office, or behind the counter was carrying a handgun? He might have only been able to shoot one or two other people before he got shot himself. However, he knew that his campus was a "gun free" zone so he could waltz in there and shoot people with a sense of security knowing no one else had guns.

Let that be a lesson to the anti gun crowd knee-jerkers who fail to think things through. They think that if we ban firearms that suddenly people will not degrade into such madmen and won't be hell bent on killing other people. Yeah... right!

The more gun restriction, the more danger.

Nah, they can't do that. Then they'd have to look in the mirror and consider how cruel they are to other people on daily basis. It's easier just to ban guns. Forget the fact that the gun was illegally purchased. Forget that this was a "gun free" zone. The people's right to bully the mentally disturbed is sacrosanct!

 

[spittledip]

People lives should prevail over rights. People are more intent on keeping their "rights" protected than the lives of others. That is what it comes down to. Making gun laws tougher should not be such a battle if it means the possibility of saving lives.

edit: I don't think banning all guns is the answer b/c protection against criminals is an excellent reason to own a firearm.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: spittledip
People lives should prevail over rights. People are more intent on keeping their "rights" protected than the lives of others. That is what it comes down to. Making gun laws tougher should not be such a battle if it means the possibility of saving lives.

If we really gave a rats ass about people lives maybe criminals wouldnt get a 50 year sentence and get out in 3.....Maybe.....

Aside from that, lives DONT trump rights. And they never should.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: spittledip
People lives should prevail over rights. People are more intent on keeping their "rights" protected than the lives of others. That is what it comes down to. Making gun laws tougher should not be such a battle if it means the possibility of saving lives.

If we really gave a rats ass about people lives maybe criminals wouldnt get a 50 year sentence and get out in 3.....Maybe.....

Aside from that, lives DONT trump rights. And they never should.

Lives should not be more important than rights? Well, if that is what you mean, then I guess I am am starting to understand the problem in our society.. The VT guy also though his rights were more important than the lives he took.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: spittledip
People lives should prevail over rights. People are more intent on keeping their "rights" protected than the lives of others. That is what it comes down to. Making gun laws tougher should not be such a battle if it means the possibility of saving lives.

edit: I don't think banning all guns is the answer b/c protection against criminals is an excellent reason to own a firearm.

How are lives saved by giving up rights? Less rhetoric please.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Unheard

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: highwire
If there was even the threat of a few armed and disciplined youngsters, or even oldster for that matter, to intervene, this event would NOT have happened.

Nonsense. The shooter clearly expected to die. The shooter was irrational (just listen to the videos) and the threat of others intervening would have had no effect.

I predict that if every single person in the U.S. 18 and older carried a firearm, the firearm-related death-rate in the U.S. would skyrocket. Just think of how many volatile incidents would be transformed from mere shouting matches (or fisticuffs) to the use of deadly force.

Anyone who thinks "more firearms" is the answer is deluded.

Just like it did in Switzerland right? Oh wait, it didn't, and every capable man over 18 owns a firearm. Don't blame the gun, blame the people who pull the trigger.

You both misread what I wrote and misunderstand the Swiss firearms law and the situation in Switzerland.

What I wrote was that if every single person in the U.S. 18 and older carried a firearm, the firearm-related death-rate would skyrocket. This was in response to highwire's claim that the threat of a few armed people would have deterred the VT shooter.

As to the situation in Switzerland, most adults are permitted to purchase firearms, but that's a far, far cry from meaning that every adult in Switzerland actually owns firearms. Also, there's a huge difference between people owing firearms - kept at home - and people carrying firearms:

From Wikipedia article on gun politics in Switzerland

Carrying guns
To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragschein (weapon carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security though some cantons issue the permits very liberally.

[edit] Conditions for getting a Carrying Permit

There are three conditions:

* fulfilling the conditions for a buying permit (see section below)
* stating plausibly the need to carry firearms to protect oneself, other people, or real property from a specified danger
* passing an examination proving both weapon handling skills and knowledge regarding lawful use of the weapon

The carrying permit remains valid for a term of five years (unless otherwise surrendered or revoked), and applies only to the type of firearm for which the permit was issued. Additional constraints may be invoked to modify any specific permit. Neither hunters nor game wardens require a carrying permit.

[edit] Buying guns

To purchase a firearm in a commercial shop, one needs to have a Waffenerwerbsschein (weapon buying permit). A permit allows the purchase of three firearms. Everyone over the age of 18 who is not psychiatrically disabled (such as having had a history of endangering his own life or the lives of others) or identified as posing security problems, and who has a clean criminal record can request such a permit. The sale of automatic firearms and selective fire weapons is forbidden (as is the sale of certain disabled automatic firearms which have been identified as easily restored to fully automatic capability), unless the buyer has a special collector's license.

By the way, note that the estimated number of firearms in private hands in Switzerland is 3 million (in a population of about 7.5 million). Compare that to the the United States, where there are an estimated 200 million guns (with a U.S. population of about 300 million people). The per-capita number of firearms in the U.S. is 67% higher than in Switzerland.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: spittledip
People lives should prevail over rights. People are more intent on keeping their "rights" protected than the lives of others. That is what it comes down to. Making gun laws tougher should not be such a battle if it means the possibility of saving lives.

edit: I don't think banning all guns is the answer b/c protection against criminals is an excellent reason to own a firearm.

How are lives saved by giving up rights? Less rhetoric please.

Simple. By making tougher gun control laws. More stringent requirements to gettting a gun. Apparently in some states any old joker can get a gun. this needs to be fixed.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: spittledip
People lives should prevail over rights. People are more intent on keeping their "rights" protected than the lives of others. That is what it comes down to. Making gun laws tougher should not be such a battle if it means the possibility of saving lives.

edit: I don't think banning all guns is the answer b/c protection against criminals is an excellent reason to own a firearm.

How are lives saved by giving up rights? Less rhetoric please.

Simple. By making tougher gun control laws. More stringent requirements to gettting a gun. Apparently in some states any old joker can get a gun. this needs to be fixed.

Proof to these claims?
I only ask because its WRONG. Theres federal requirements to buying a firearm, but I love hearing the uneducated go on and on

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: spittledip
People lives should prevail over rights. People are more intent on keeping their "rights" protected than the lives of others. That is what it comes down to. Making gun laws tougher should not be such a battle if it means the possibility of saving lives.

edit: I don't think banning all guns is the answer b/c protection against criminals is an excellent reason to own a firearm.

How are lives saved by giving up rights? Less rhetoric please.

Simple. By making tougher gun control laws. More stringent requirements to gettting a gun. Apparently in some states any old joker can get a gun. this needs to be fixed.

I said less rhetoric. Your "solutions" were already in place in Virgina and they didn't work. Cho acquired the gun illegally (he lied on his NICS form about his past incarceration for mental illness), and was in possession of it illegally in a "carry free" zone. Then he massacred 32 innocent people. Abiding by the law was obviously the least of his concerns.

We already gave up "rights," and no lives were saved. Obviously it's not so "simple" after all, is it?

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: spittledip
People lives should prevail over rights. People are more intent on keeping their "rights" protected than the lives of others. That is what it comes down to. Making gun laws tougher should not be such a battle if it means the possibility of saving lives.

edit: I don't think banning all guns is the answer b/c protection against criminals is an excellent reason to own a firearm.

How are lives saved by giving up rights? Less rhetoric please.

Simple. By making tougher gun control laws. More stringent requirements to gettting a gun. Apparently in some states any old joker can get a gun. this needs to be fixed.

Proof to these claims?
I only ask because its WRONG. Theres federal requirements to buying a firearm, but I love hearing the uneducated go on and on

You are making insults on such a silly subject? I am surprised you need proof when we just had someone with mental health issues and was a danger to self and others easily purchase a firearm and shoot up a university. This is why the subject of gun control was brought up.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: spittledip
People lives should prevail over rights. People are more intent on keeping their "rights" protected than the lives of others. That is what it comes down to. Making gun laws tougher should not be such a battle if it means the possibility of saving lives.

edit: I don't think banning all guns is the answer b/c protection against criminals is an excellent reason to own a firearm.

How are lives saved by giving up rights? Less rhetoric please.

Simple. By making tougher gun control laws. More stringent requirements to gettting a gun. Apparently in some states any old joker can get a gun. this needs to be fixed.

I said less rhetoric. Your "solutions" were already in place in Virgina and they didn't work. Cho acquired the gun illegally (he lied on his NICS form about his past incarceration for mental illness), and was in possession of it illegally in a "carry free" zone. Then he massacred 32 innocent people. Abiding by the law was obviously the least of his concerns.

We already gave up "rights," and no lives were saved. Obviously it's not so "simple" after all, is it?

No, the "solutions" were not in place. There was no red flag on an individual with mental illness (i.e. database). Obviously if he is going to kill himself he is not worried about lying to the gun dealer. Self report is such a foolish idea b/c people lie.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: spittledip
People lives should prevail over rights. People are more intent on keeping their "rights" protected than the lives of others. That is what it comes down to. Making gun laws tougher should not be such a battle if it means the possibility of saving lives.

edit: I don't think banning all guns is the answer b/c protection against criminals is an excellent reason to own a firearm.

How are lives saved by giving up rights? Less rhetoric please.

Simple. By making tougher gun control laws. More stringent requirements to gettting a gun. Apparently in some states any old joker can get a gun. this needs to be fixed.

Proof to these claims?
I only ask because its WRONG. Theres federal requirements to buying a firearm, but I love hearing the uneducated go on and on

You are making insults on such a silly subject? I am surprised you need proof when we just had someone with mental health issues and was a danger to self and others easily purchase a firearm and shoot up a university. This is why the subject of gun control was brought up.

More thinking, less knee-jerking please.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: spittledip
People lives should prevail over rights. People are more intent on keeping their "rights" protected than the lives of others. That is what it comes down to. Making gun laws tougher should not be such a battle if it means the possibility of saving lives.

edit: I don't think banning all guns is the answer b/c protection against criminals is an excellent reason to own a firearm.

How are lives saved by giving up rights? Less rhetoric please.

Simple. By making tougher gun control laws. More stringent requirements to gettting a gun. Apparently in some states any old joker can get a gun. this needs to be fixed.

Proof to these claims?
I only ask because its WRONG. Theres federal requirements to buying a firearm, but I love hearing the uneducated go on and on

You are making insults on such a silly subject? I am surprised you need proof when we just had someone with mental health issues and was a danger to self and others easily purchase a firearm and shoot up a university. This is why the subject of gun control was brought up.

More thinking, less knee-jerking please.

excellent rebuttal.

 

[JD50]

Ok this gun grabber hysteria is getting old. How about you guys start showing some proof that CCW holders are running around committing tons of crime or just STFU mmmkay?

I'm sorry that you people are so damned terrified of guns, go learn how to use one and protect yourself if you are that damn scared of everyone around you. You gun grabbers are rediculous.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Unheard

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: highwire
If there was even the threat of a few armed and disciplined youngsters, or even oldster for that matter, to intervene, this event would NOT have happened.

Nonsense. The shooter clearly expected to die. The shooter was irrational (just listen to the videos) and the threat of others intervening would have had no effect.

I predict that if every single person in the U.S. 18 and older carried a firearm, the firearm-related death-rate in the U.S. would skyrocket. Just think of how many volatile incidents would be transformed from mere shouting matches (or fisticuffs) to the use of deadly force.

Anyone who thinks "more firearms" is the answer is deluded.

Just like it did in Switzerland right? Oh wait, it didn't, and every capable man over 18 owns a firearm. Don't blame the gun, blame the people who pull the trigger.

I completely agree with Unheard. Study after study has shown an armed nation is a safe nation. We can bicker all we want, but please consider this: obviously, the threat of life in prison or even death does NOT deter murderers. That is painfully obvious based on statisics. In other words, if it WAS effective, our murder rate would go down. Now try, if you can, to think in the mind of the criminal. He/she knows there is a decent possibility his case will NEVER get solved. If he IS caught, law today can provide a pretty good reasonable doubt case. Now consider this. If we were armed, a criminal wouldnt even have to think about that (not that they do anyway), but hmmm this guy/girl is armed. I could get SHOT and killed TONITE if I do this. THAT is deterant.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: spittledip
People lives should prevail over rights. People are more intent on keeping their "rights" protected than the lives of others. That is what it comes down to. Making gun laws tougher should not be such a battle if it means the possibility of saving lives.

edit: I don't think banning all guns is the answer b/c protection against criminals is an excellent reason to own a firearm.

How are lives saved by giving up rights? Less rhetoric please.

Simple. By making tougher gun control laws. More stringent requirements to gettting a gun. Apparently in some states any old joker can get a gun. this needs to be fixed.

Proof to these claims?
I only ask because its WRONG. Theres federal requirements to buying a firearm, but I love hearing the uneducated go on and on

You are making insults on such a silly subject? I am surprised you need proof when we just had someone with mental health issues and was a danger to self and others easily purchase a firearm and shoot up a university. This is why the subject of gun control was brought up.

More thinking, less knee-jerking please.

excellent rebuttal.

There is nothing to rebut, you aren't even making any valid points. The only point that I have seen you make is that because some nutjob killed a bunch of people we should place tighter restrictions on everyone buying a gun, considering the fact that if just one person other than the nut had a gun there it probably would have been stopped before 32 people were killed.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: spittledip
People lives should prevail over rights. People are more intent on keeping their "rights" protected than the lives of others. That is what it comes down to. Making gun laws tougher should not be such a battle if it means the possibility of saving lives.

edit: I don't think banning all guns is the answer b/c protection against criminals is an excellent reason to own a firearm.

How are lives saved by giving up rights? Less rhetoric please.

Simple. By making tougher gun control laws. More stringent requirements to gettting a gun. Apparently in some states any old joker can get a gun. this needs to be fixed.

Proof to these claims?
I only ask because its WRONG. Theres federal requirements to buying a firearm, but I love hearing the uneducated go on and on

You are making insults on such a silly subject? I am surprised you need proof when we just had someone with mental health issues and was a danger to self and others easily purchase a firearm and shoot up a university. This is why the subject of gun control was brought up.

More thinking, less knee-jerking please.

excellent rebuttal.

I thought so too. You can always tell a knee-jerker by the way he points at a complex problem and says the solution is "simple." MY GOD WHY DIDN'T ANY OF THE REST OF US SEE THIS BEFORE!! Obviously we did. There are a lot of older and wiser people in this world than you and I, and many of them have spent their entire lives trying to prevent tragedies such as this. So your knee-jerking is not only counter-productive to finding actual solutions, it's extremely insulting as well.

"People who want to take this event 24 hours afterwards and make this their political hobbyhorse, I've got nothing but loathing for them." -- Tim Kaine, Governor (D) of Virigina, 4/17/07

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: spittledip
People lives should prevail over rights. People are more intent on keeping their "rights" protected than the lives of others. That is what it comes down to. Making gun laws tougher should not be such a battle if it means the possibility of saving lives.

edit: I don't think banning all guns is the answer b/c protection against criminals is an excellent reason to own a firearm.

How are lives saved by giving up rights? Less rhetoric please.

Simple. By making tougher gun control laws. More stringent requirements to gettting a gun. Apparently in some states any old joker can get a gun. this needs to be fixed.

Proof to these claims?
I only ask because its WRONG. Theres federal requirements to buying a firearm, but I love hearing the uneducated go on and on

You are making insults on such a silly subject? I am surprised you need proof when we just had someone with mental health issues and was a danger to self and others easily purchase a firearm and shoot up a university. This is why the subject of gun control was brought up.

Proof that "any old joker" can buy a gun in some states.
Proof, please.

 

[highwire]

I take it that there are many who really believe that gun control is crime control, that it has a positive effect on reducing crime.

I respect that view, if honestly held, but I think the gun controllers owe it to the rest of us to point out where and when it has worked. Or is it like the promise of communism which will certainly work fine after we finish tinkering with it in, maybe,another 70 years or so?

In the meantime, here is an excerpt and a link that says quite the opposite:

Text
The gun -control movement is in trouble internationally. From Britain to Australia to Canada, promises of lower crime rates from gun control have turned into historic increases in crime. ...

And finally, on the same theme and related to the VT savagery:

The Damn Begins to Break: "TN moves to allow guns in public buildings"

NASHVILLE ? In a surprise move, a House panel voted today to repeal a state law that forbids the carrying of handguns on property and buildings owned by state, county and city governments ? including parks and playgrounds.

"I think the recent Virginia disaster ? or catastrophe or nightmare or whatever you want to call it ? has woken up a lot of people to the need for having guns available to law-abiding citizens," said Rep. Frank Niceley, R-Strawberry Plains. "I hope that is what this vote reflects."

 

[GeezerMan]

If I remember correctly the stats that show "children" killed by firearms includes gang members. I don't think of gang members as being children myself.

 

[amddude]

He wasn't COMMITTED into a mental institution, and I don't believe he was diagnosed with anything unusual.

For you bleeding hearts, the only way a NICS (read: instant bg check) would know he had mental anything or was taking medication would be to create one of those giant databases in the sky that knows everything about you. Can't have it both ways kids.

 

[JD50]

Heh, the gun grabbers were asked for proof of how horrible concealed weapons are and they all dissapear, lol.