Terrible news

[forno]

Woke up to the news from Virginia this morning, I hope none of you have been touched by the tragedy

[cdifoto]

As far as I know, no one close to me wasn't affected, but then again I guess they weren't that close if I don't know they're at VT.

I still fail to understand how someone can do something like that...

[Rhys]

Woke up to the news from Virginia this morning, I hope none of you have been touched by the tragedy

As far as I can recall, a proposed law to allow guns on campus was defeated last November. The gunman knew he had no chance of being faced with an armed response.

[Nickcanada]

It's sad to see what the humans are capable of. I don't think we'll ever get it right.

[fionndruinne]

I just bumped into this story a few minutes ago. What a horror... I kick myself for never being around when terrible things like this happen. Seems like injury or even death would be a small price to pay for trying to keep something like this from happening.

... well, if I was in danger of liking the ways of the world too much, here's an eye-opener. God be with them all.

[fractalgfx]

As far as I can recall, a proposed law to allow guns on campus was defeated last November. The gunman knew he had no chance of being faced with an armed response.

I don't think mass murders factor gun control laws into their planning.

[r3g]

im curious on why he did it.

[Rhys]

I don't think mass murders factor gun control laws into their planning.

My point exactly. Criminals don't obey laws whereas the law-abiding do. This is where people end up dead because they cannot defend themselves having been disarmed by law.

[fionndruinne]

Very true, Rhys. It's a sad example of stupid quick-fix thinking. There can be no real governing people unless they are decent and responsible to begin with.

... one of these days I'm definitely going to apply for a concealed carry permit (not too hard in Oregon). I doubt I'll ever have occasion to need it, and I'm not one who goes around worrying about my personal safety, but you never know what will happen. I'd rather a responsible person like myself had a weapon in a situation like the above.

[Sungrazer]

I live in Virginia but I'm not aware of anyone I know being personally affected. It's hard to understand.

[DonSchap]

A gut reaction says "Fight fire with fire!" Unfortunately, that is a little hard to do when you are surrounded by students. Even if you had a "jammy" with you, the chances if you did get lucky enough to "pop" the S.O.B.. you'd be the "next target" the ignorant cops would most likely fire on.

Be honest with yourself, in that kind of melee, where no one knows what the heck is going on ... the confusion is at an overwhelming level ... and there you are, sporting a rod! You can almost feel the SWAT laser sight on your shirt or the back of your head?

The only real method of protection, at this point, the liberals and other anti-gun proponents will offer is to surrender your rights to freedom and enjoy the "locked-down" campus with metal detection and other types of scanners at the doors.

And let's face the facts ... if someone is really going to use one of these weapons in the school, for this specific purpose ... they are probably going to smash some obscure window, toss the weapon(S) inside, with all the ammo and pick it all up later on, AFTER they have successfully passed through the metal detection and scanner systems ... completely undetected. I mean, who would chance getting caught bullying their way in?

So, are you safe inside your "little fortress" with a guard and technology? Get a camera and let's find out.

Sane people don't shoot other people for fun. There is something else wrong here. Maybe it is societal, maybe it is something in the water. Who knows? But, you should have the right to protect yourself, your family and have a "safe place" to learn how to live. There are enemies among us ... and it's clear to see, they can have ernomous and deadly impact. Can we mitigate the impact?

Darn tootin'

Get a spine! Attack your attacker. If you're going down, take the S.O.B. with ya. He really can only shoot you once, maybe twice. Don't let him kill everyone in the room, hoping he'll run out of bullets when ... the business-end is pointed at you. Today's villian was reloading ... and that's YOUR time to "kill or be killed." This is no video game ... when it's game over, everyone loses.

Sorry ... it is upsetting and very "pointed" in ways we had hoped we would never see. Well, welcome to reality. The monsters are out there .. and they want in to cause murder and mayhem. :(

How many additional VT students are now traumatized to going to school? Is this going to improve their studies? The direct victims are one thing and very tangible ... but the indirect victims ... how do you measure and quantify that? They now feel powerless and betrayed because the security members and administration of their school let them down. I suggest that the entire staff, who knew about this, be fired with malice for malfeasance. It is wholly inexcusable, on their part, because this is exactly what they were hired to do ... protect the student body and the campus. These poor students and teaching staff were unalerted to "some dangerous nut" running around the campus with a weapon, having already killed some folks. This wasn't a bomb scare ... they were really dead. Tangible proof for an alert, I'd say. Worthy of "passing the word."

I guess the question really is ... "What have we learned, today?" Please, don't let these poor victims go without, at least, having that answered.

[fionndruinne]

Amen, and amen, Don. It's sad that the consequence of living in one of the safest countries in the world has to be a total disconnect when it comes to life-threatening danger for most of us. For all the violent entertainment that goes down our mental gullets, we're still paralyzed in a situation like this.

I wonder as to who it was who first thought to get up and keep the door shut when the shooter left the building and then tried to return inside. He or she knew at least a little of what to do.

As for carrying a weapon, I feel that it's a choice which puts one in another place in society. Those who don't carry want to distance themselves from deadly force (not that it works when the enemy lands them in their sights); those who carry are acknowledging the possibilities, and therefore a situation like this should be their responsibility. I think we ought to respect a non-carrier's desire to be safe by opening ourselves up, if we carry, to the danger even of police bullets. If we die wrongly, well, we were in another ball park than they were, and we accepted the possibilities.

Which is not to say that it works every time. There is no answer for things like this, except a moral culture which takes responsibility for what goes into its mind, and for those who might be ill (as this kind of killer has to be... don't they? Sadly, I think the answer to that is not necessarily).

Now I'm just rambling. I'll shut up.

I guess the question really is ... "What have we learned, today?" Please, don't let these poor victims go without, at least, having that answered.

Amen.

[forno]

I fail to see what possible reason anyone has to carry a gun, granted America has gone through civil war and that was probably the start of "carrying"

But really in a modern society where we dont live off the land or live in war ravaged places, really there is no reason. Farmers yes, I can see a reason

Definately automatic weapons should be outlawed

[Riley]

as you know forno, thats the condition we are in here. i always thought it a knee jerk reaction and political popularism after the Port Arthur massacre to ban auto weapons, but some years down the track i do think it was the right thing to do. on my last pass through Iraq i left my beloved 45 to a needy friend rather than send it too the scrap yard.

i have messed with weapons all my life and enjoyed my time with them, but its like another world now, and the thought of some heavily armed whacko is getting harder to take.

For the US, there is no going back, they will never be able to clear up the amount of available weapons, and i suspect some will never surrender them. They will always suffer these terrible events and other indignities. Where just getting stopped by police is a lesson on dealing with armed offenders.

[forno]

Sure, I grew up in South Africa and weapons of all sorts were allowed and then ofcourse people that shouldnt have them get there hands on them somehow and it ends badly every time

We are lucky in Australia that we dont have that

[fionndruinne]

But the fact is that we don't live in a "modern society". If we did, this kind of thing wouldn't happen, would it?

Society is just a name, for a 'construct' that's not based on rules, just norms. And norms aren't something you can count on every time.

As for carrying, I fail to understand how the American civil war started it... the U.S. has always been an armed country; that's how we were able to separate from Britain in the first place. And we're still a nation of hunters, farmers, et cetera - the population's huge, most of the junk goes on in the large cities, where people are more steeped in "culture"(ha!) and less in the reality of things, but there's a big world outside of those ghettos. And sadly they like to overflow into that world.

- Andrew
(who is a farmer, by the way)

[forno]

Andrew,

My history of America may well be wrong:o

But what I am getting at is unless you need a gun for things like hunting (not recreational hunting) and farming (killing livestock) then there is no need for anyone to carry a gun.

[fionndruinne]

I wish that were the case. But it isn't. People rob, and rape, and kill.

A weapon is first and foremost a deterrent; usually all that's needed is for the criminal to get a glimpse of a six-iron, and he'll do a 180. That's its use under most domestic threats. But then there are sick, demented people like this one, hell-bent on hurting others. In that rare but inexorable situation, the gun is for killing someone.

If I walk around with a firearm for whatever period of my life I have the desire to do so, and never take it out other than for target practice, that would be awesome. A gun is not a being, not something dark and evil at heart. It's an object, and tucked under the belt of a responsible and moral person it might as well be just a piece of the belt, unless there's an occasion for its use.

[nqjudo]

Wow. What a thread. It is so interesting to hear so many different views. I live in Montreal, Canada. Many people perceive Canada as a far less violent nation than the US and in many ways it is as a general rule I suppose. Like everything, there are times and places of exception to rules. Since 1989 there have been three school massacres in my city that have touched me personally. I won’t get into details but you can Google them if you like. Marc Lepine – 1989 (female family members were in the school at the time), Valerie Fabrikant- 1992 (I was a student at the University at the time) and Kimveer Gill – 2006 (My former college and the school where I take photography lessons to this day. My teacher and close friend was in the school and I was on the way there at the time of the shootings).

I know something first hand of the devastation that this type of event can cause to a community and I feel much pain for those affected by what happened in Virginia. Reading some of the posts in this thread, it’s clear to see that many are upset. I’ve read reactions that would seem to encourage the carrying of arms and urging completely unqualified people to get involved in a situation of crisis. I don’t want to comment on that directly but I’ll say the following.

My handle ‘nqjudo’ has much to do with the fact that for 27 years of my life I was completely dedicated to the sport of judo. I had the honor of making many National teams, competed in about 20 countries around the world and coached a great deal as well. The differences in athetes from one region to another were astounding at times but they usually boiled down to two types. Internationally successful judoka usually start the sport at around six but there were those who started much older and with pure talent, were able to make it onto the International scene. Their judo, though technically proficient lacked control most of the time, to say nothing of their self control. These were the guys most likely to leave their opponents with a broken joint or worse. Then there were the guys who started judo very young and developed their skills slowly. Along with great skill, they learned great control and a better understanding of what judo really is. Injuries were extremely rare with these guys. There is also an interesting case made for this in the difference between ‘eastern’ and ‘western’ judo but this post is already too long to get into that.

So all this is to say what, really? Well, it’s to make the point that simply giving someone a weapon or recognizing that they have an inherent skill for using it does not mean that they have obtained the wisdom required to wield it. That doesn't always come after instruction, boot camp, or even half a lifetime. What we need in society is not more knee jerk reactions that will create more violence. We have to properly educate our children (and maybe ourselves in the process) to develop a more peaceful and tolerant society than we live in at the moment. This is going to take time and lots of resources. The whole system has to be torn down and rebuilt. So where are the resources going to come from? I think if we stopped fighting the wars abroad and turned our attention to the one within we’d be making a damned good start.

[forno]

We have to properly educate our children (and maybe ourselves in the process) to develop a more peaceful and tolerant society than we live in at the moment. This is going to take time and lots of resources. The whole system has to be torn down and rebuilt. So where are the resources going to come from? I think if we stopped fighting the wars abroad and turned our attention to the one within we’d be making a damned good start.

Couldnt agree more:D

[fionndruinne]

Education's not the answer, not in terms of school anyway. It's not as if the killer here was educated to hurt and destroy others. But we need everyone to be respectful and moral, we need parents to value and teach their children. Don't fall into the trap of "oh, we need more money, more resources, more teachers and social structures". They're just quick fixes which do nothing in the long run but expend our energies. We need something which functions at a much deeper level.

[Honest Gaza]

I don't think "nqjudo" & "forno" were suggesting that the education had to come from schools....just education in general (parents, family, friends)

Unfortunately, while we would hope that parents are teaching their children tolerance, it would appear that some parents (and/or groups) are teaching their children old hatreds.

[Rooz]

I don't think "nqjudo" & "forno" were suggesting that the education had to come from schools....just education in general (parents, family, friends)

i think education via swift kick in the ass works bloody wonders. oh wait a minute...thats child abuse. :rolleyes:

[Honest Gaza]

Rooz....I'll vote for ya :D

[Rhys]

As criminals always get to carry weapons without any problem, the honest citizen needs to be able to defend themself against the criminals. I'll give some common scenarios:

1. A man and a woman are getting into their car. A bad guy saunters up and whips out a pistol, shoves it in the man's gut and demands the car keys. There's an even chance the criminal will kill the man and rape his wife before killing her too. There's a pistol in the glove compartment which the woman grabs and shoots the bad guy dead. This happens quite frequently in this neck of the woods.

2. A man is asleep in bed when 5 bad guys break in intent on burglary and raping his wife. The man leaps out of bed, grabs his revolver and kills 3. Two get away but are apprehended later by police when they go to hospital for gunshot wound treatment. This happened too.

In Britain, semi-automatic weapons have been illegal for many years. Fully-automatic weapons have never been legal. The bad guys have no problems in obtaining and using either. The Irish terrorists have no problem getting rockets, grenades, bombs etc and everybody - secret service, police, public etc is on the lookout to stop them.

The only people that weapon bans affect adversely are the law-abiding public. Laws do not affect criminals because criminals do not obey laws. Hence in an armed society the criminals know they are likely to receive an armed response. As is always said: it's not the fear of jail that deters crime but the certainty of detection (or death).

[Honest Gaza]

Then I guess the question is....has the ability for Joe Citizen to carry a weapon deterred the bad guys ?

From your examples above...I suspect not (afterall, the bad guys are still committing the crimes)

[Riley]

The most recent trend of mass shootings is characteristically different from street crime
there have been no less than 19 school shootings over recent years
they are mostly young people without serious records that one could announce them to be criminals
they are unlikely to have access to otherwise criminal means to purchase illegal weapons.

Key to this proposition, is the access to firearms for children, for criminals, for psychotic and psychologically deranged. In Virginia in particular, there are no background checks, access is pretty much unlimited. Its my understanding this is any kind of weapon, handgun, auto, full auto, AK's, probably even 50 cal.

Im sure various Government agencies have attempted to wrestle with these matters using gun control as a tool. Pretty much all of these efforts have been thwarted. Amazingly, it actually seems that gun control laws have been weakened since Columbine.

[Rooz]

Then I guess the question is....has the ability for Joe Citizen to carry a weapon deterred the bad guys ?

From your examples above...I suspect not (afterall, the bad guys are still committing the crimes)

And I sir, would vote for you. the need to "bear arms" in case the king of england invades and a militia needs to be formed is kinda redundant. it is certainly a mentality i will never understand.

[Nickcanada]

What about the cases where wifey goes to take a piss in the middle of the night and the husband thinks she's an intruder and shoots her?

I think the real problem is the person behind the gun. Why is America so prone to violent gun crime? There are guns everywhere in the world why is it such an issue in the U.S. I'm not saying violent crime is exclusive to the United States but it does seem to occur more frequently there.

I am of the mind set that having a gun on every hip is the wrong way of controlling violence.

The very idea of having a gun in every home is crazy to me and most people I talk to around here feel the same. Does that make me less safe? I think not. My situation is different to then to others around the world, but I'm thankful I feel safe without a gun by my side. I consider that true freedom.

My hart goes out to those who need to have guns to feel safe.

[Ray Schnoor]

1. A man and a woman are getting into their car. A bad guy saunters up and whips out a pistol, shoves it in the man's gut and demands the car keys. There's an even chance the criminal will kill the man and rape his wife before killing her too. There's a pistol in the glove compartment which the woman grabs and shoots the bad guy dead. This happens quite frequently in this neck of the woods.
Then I guess the question is....has the ability for Joe Citizen to carry a weapon deterred the bad guys ?

From your examples above...I suspect not (afterall, the bad guys are still committing the crimes)
Quite frequently, no less.

Ray.

[sunnythepsychocat]

First, my prayers and thoughts are with the faimilies and friends of affected ones, and to those that are still in critical conditons.
People are not going to find the remedy by looking around the "world" that we live in since it contains the by-products of our "evil" nature. It is only when each one of us looks "inward", we will find the answers that we are looking for.

[DonSchap]

What comprises a weapon?

A weapon, by definition:
device designed to injure or kill: a device designed to inflict injury or death on an opponent
something used to gain advantage: something used as a way of getting an advantage in a situation. Ex: A teacher's best weapon can be humor.


So it can be just about anything ... a stick, a rock, a knife, a gun, hey ... how about car or a truck? How about a pair of airplanes? Or even ... a joke. Oh, the list is endless.

Your personal defense is YOUR responsibility. The defense of an open school's perimeter is the job of the security teams hired to do so. There is always the chance, like this time, that you'll have someone "snap" and inadvertantly trigger an event of horrific possibility. This was a quiet campus. Rhetorically: Were their expectations of another quiet day unrealistic? When they did know something was up ... did they react accordingly? Well, not this time, I suspect.

Here in Chicago, more exactly, Palatine, IL, we had the Brown's Fried Chicken murders ... guy walks in; after the places closes; kills the seven employees working the night shift; stuffs them into the facility's refrigerator; takes the money and splits. Did those folks see that coming? I rather doubt it. What was their protection? They were "armed" with the belief that most people are decent and don't do that kind of thing. There is always the chance of exception.

You have to tell yourself, these things do happen, occasionally. Is it common? Well, in a world of 6 billion humans ... I personally think border crossings are a bigger issue. The invasion from those people is far more dangerous to our culture and financial well-being than some idiot running around with a 9mm Glock and .22 cal. pistol. This guy had a finite amount of ammo and no access to anymore, only what he had on him, so his real time of lethality was seriously curtailed. The border-jumpers, I spoke of, have no time limit. They will just keep coming and coming ... until it breaks the back of our society. That, my friends, is a pretty potent WEAPON.

The point is: We need to focus our resolve and efforts on the serious problems in our nation and meaningfully solve them, not on some crazed-idiot, who's already dead. That problem is gone and for all intents and purposes ... solved. Was it solved by the Campus Security Forces? The Police? The National Guard? NO. The guy went and had to do it himself. An apparent moment of conscience amid the choas of fifty wounded or dead people, by his hand.

Again, problem solved.

Will it happen again? Sure, it could. It also may not. It depends on the moron weilding the weapon, I suspect. If someone wants to hurt you, chances are ... they will. Again, it is your personal responsibility to stop them. Oh sure, it may hurt ... but they're going to know one thing for sure ...

YOU ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT, ANYMORE! :cool:

Long live the memory of Flight 93 - where ordinary people made a difference.

[fionndruinne]

Talk of automatic weapons and all that... but from what I've heard, the shooter caused all this mayhem with nothing but a 9mm handgun and a backup .22 pistol. And the police had how much of an arsenal? Shotguns, M16s (including automatic AR-15s), handguns galore. Amazing.

[DonSchap]

Talk of automatic weapons and all that... but from what I've heard, the shooter caused all this mayhem with nothing but a 9mm handgun and a backup .22 pistol. And the police had how much of an arsenal? Shotguns, M16s (including automatic AR-15s), handguns galore. Amazing.

They never fired a shot. The guy wound up having to dust himself.
:rolleyes:

[fionndruinne]

And as if a chain could really keep the police out of a building. I think the way this was handled was terrible... but blaming people who can't know the full picture is not the way to go. Each victim was also responsible for their own safety, and , sadly, it's a responsibility many aren't willing to accept. The idea of police protecting us is a nice one, but flawed at its core.

[fractalgfx]

My point exactly. Criminals don't obey laws whereas the law-abiding do. This is where people end up dead because they cannot defend themselves having been disarmed by law.

People end up dead because they were shot, not because they were unarmed.

[fractalgfx]

I'm not a Michael Moore fan, but I highly suggest watching the movie Bowling for Columbine.

[fractalgfx]

My point exactly. Criminals don't obey laws whereas the law-abiding do. This is where people end up dead because they cannot defend themselves having been disarmed by law.

In Isreal there is a machine gun on every corner, but it doesn't deter suicide bombers. When people want to hurt other people, they find away.

Most people don't remember, but the Columbine massacre would have been much worse, if not for a malfunction in a bomb timer. The columbine shooters put a home made bomb in the cafeteria, if it had gone of during lunch, they could have killed dozens of people without guns.

It is a bit ironic that half of people think the solution is more guns, and the other half think the solution is less guns.

[XaiLo]

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I'll try and keep this short.

In 2003, motor vehicle traffic crashes were the leading cause
of death for the age group 4 through 34. Because of the young
lives consumed, motor vehicle traffic crashes ranked third
overall in terms of the years of life lost, i.e., the number of
remaining years that the person is expected to have lived had
they not died, behind only cancer and diseases of the heart.

In the Dark Ages an estimated 50-70 million people were killed two
nations were totally annihalted. Millions of people are
starving to death today and or they do not have proper medical care.

I don't know how many believe in the Bible. According to it things
are going to get woarse not better. The best we can hope for is to
be the best person we can be and teach those around us to do the same.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

[nqjudo]

Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. That’s an interesting one. It’s an old argument and essentially true but like all things semantic; it offers only a partial truth. The fact remains that he didn’t walk in there trying to give people the plague. He walked in pulling the trigger. Atomic weapons don’t kill people either. People kill people. Maybe we should start arming citizens with atomic suitcase bombs? That way if they see a terrorist with an atomic weapon, they can set it off before the terrorist does in hopes that their bomb will cause less destruction than the terrorist’s. Makes sense, right? It makes about as much sense as having students arm themselves in case a wacko walks in with the intention of killing someone. What’s the difference if an evil doer walks into a school and kills 1 or 20 people before getting killed himself? Isn’t the real tragedy in the fact that he went in there to kill in the first place? We have to see beyond the simple attack and defence mentality to move beyond this.

Having people arm themselves against a possible violent attack is a lofty idea but an extremely flawed one. In all these attacks, law enforcement agencies are constantly criticized for dropping the ball. Tactics are examined and changed but it never usually turns out any better. Surely, everyone knows that even our own elected governments have used deadly force with disastrous results – sometimes within our own borders. These are agencies that have access to the most advanced weapons in the world and the resources to develop the best tactics and they can’t always get it right. Now put that into the context of having your average, untrained citizen involved in one of these messes undertaking the cause of the righteous. You have nothing better than one gang member shooting at the other with a high result of even more innocents getting hurt. And forget about guns being a deterrent. That may be so in the case of the petty thieve but this guy knew he was never walking out of that school.

As for God and the bible, I don’t know if I believe but I do know the teachings. Putting these killings and subsequent reactions into that context makes me realize something. When people are all high and mighty and preaching of virtual armies of perfect, armed citizens that will rid our society of evil, they’re playing God. When a member of our society slips and perpetrates a terrible evil, they’re playing human.

DonS – As for border jumpers being a real threat to society, I think this is a strange forum to bring it up in but and I hope no one minds me adding my two cents. First, I love Americans. I have lived in the US; have many American friends and vacation in the US often. As individuals, I don’t think that Americans deserve the bad rap that they enjoy around the world at present. As for border jumpers being a threat to the American way of life Don, you’re way off. Ever since the dawn of civilization, empires have gone to war to protect the lifeblood of their economies. Today, the lifeblood of the American economy is still oil. Foreign policy is such to protect that lifeblood. I don’t blame the US for that and I don’t think it unjust. It’s the way of the world but I think that the policy makers have made an error. The problem is that while George W. is off playing soldier in the desert, there is a far bigger and far more real threat knocking at the door and it’s coming from further East. It’s economic, it’s intellectual, it’s real as hell and one wonders if Georgie boy even understands it. If George W. doesn’t get his head out of the sand and redirect those resources to protecting and developing America’s intellectual and technological advantage, folks much like you and I may be hopping borders looking for work in a few generations.

[Sungrazer]

I know, I shouldn't get involved. This will be the only thing I say on the subject..

The right to bear arms is an antiquated amendment. Citizens used to live in fear that the King's Army could break into their homes at any time. Its relevance today is greatly diminished.

That the solution is more guns, not less is preposterous. I guess we should let Iran and North Korea develop nukes, huh? Hell, let's go ahead and arm every nation with nukes. That will clearly prevent a nuclear war. :rolleyes:

Edit: I was composing while ngjudo was posting. I see we say a few of the same things. Re: the Bible, if fewer people believed things will inevitably get worse, then maybe things would get better. Oh, but I guess this mass killing is part of god's divine master plan.

[nqjudo]

You're a crazy man, Sungrazer. I'm liking it. I really needed that chuckle today. Thanks.

[Rhys]

That the solution is more guns, not less is preposterous. I guess we should let Iran and North Korea develop nukes, huh? Hell, let's go ahead and arm every nation with nukes. That will clearly prevent a nuclear war. :rolleyes:


What makes you think they don't have nukes?

Besides... A nuclear weapon is essentially simple if it's the gun-type that fires a ball of substance X into a bigger ball of substance Y while detonating explosives around Y to compress it to achieve critical mass.

Terrorists could make a radiological bomb from chemotherapy or radiotherapy gear at a hospital.

Now the biggest benefit of more nukes is that an attacker knows that they will be annihilated if they attack. Thus the peace was kept between the Warsaw Pact and NATO because both had clear capability of annihilating each other.

Let's list the role call of Nuclear armed countries:
UK
USA
France
India
Israel
Russia
N. Korea
Pakistan
Australia
China

Brazil has the technology but has put their programme on hold.

Iran probably has Nukes. Syria probably has them too. Egypt probably has a programme developing them.

[Sungrazer]

And one crazed individual can trigger a nuclear war. I can't remember the last time the gunman or gunmen didn't kill themselves after their spree. You can't envision a scenario in which one deranged world leader didn't care if he were annihilated too?

(That's it, I mean it this time. :D)

[XaiLo]

It's interesting how words are interpreted my intent was only to illustrate why some feel they have the right to bear arms in America (whether you happen to personally agree or disagree with the law that's another issue).

The founding fathers never struck me as being uninsightful, America's government was establish with built in checks and balances hence the executive, judicial, & legislative branches, the second ammendment is a friendly reminder to government to keep it that way "any government".

Further I was trying to show that guns were not the only social ills in present day society.

Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. That’s an interesting one. It’s an old argument and essentially true but like all things semantic; it offers only a partial truth. The fact remains that he didn’t walk in there trying to give people the plague. He walked in pulling the trigger. Atomic weapons don’t kill people either. People kill people. Maybe we should start arming citizens with atomic suitcase bombs? That way if they see a terrorist with an atomic weapon, they can set it off before the terrorist does in hopes that their bomb will cause less destruction than the terrorist’s. Makes sense, right? It makes about as much sense as having students arm themselves in case a wacko walks in with the intention of killing someone. What’s the difference if an evil doer walks into a school and kills 1 or 20 people before getting killed himself? Isn’t the real tragedy in the fact that he went in there to kill in the first place? We have to see beyond the simple attack and defence mentality to move beyond this.

Having people arm themselves against a possible violent attack is a lofty idea but an extremely flawed one.

nqjudo, say while walking down the street and you are physically attacked, am I to understand that rather than employ your skills in judo you would move straight into diplomatic negotiations. Here's a bit of sarcasm in all your years of traing the thought of having to defend yourself never crossed your mind:confused: I'm going to apologize in advance for that



Edit: I was composing while ngjudo was posting. I see we say a few of the same things. Re: the Bible, if fewer people believed things will inevitably get worse, then maybe things would get better. Oh, but I guess this mass killing is part of god's divine master plan.



As for God and the bible, I don’t know if I believe but I do know the teachings. Putting these killings and subsequent reactions into that context makes me realize something. When people are all high and mighty and preaching of virtual armies of perfect, armed citizens that will rid our society of evil, they’re playing God. When a member of our society slips and perpetrates a terrible evil, they’re playing human.


I guess this is the "point" and "part" that was missed.


The best we can hope for is to be the best person we can be and teach those around us to do the same.

[fionndruinne]

In Isreal there is a machine gun on every corner, but it doesn't deter suicide bombers. When people want to hurt other people, they find away.

No, because suicide bombers want to kill themselves anyway, plus a suicide bomb does not draw the attention to itself prior to detonation which a gun in the hands of a killer would. And also, if you talk to many folks living in Israel, I think you will find that the majority of them do feel safer having many armed personnel looking out for their safety.

I don't doubt that the somewhat heavy armament of Israel is one reason that the sick, despicable people who want to kill innocents revert to something as stupid as a human bomb.

I don't want to perpetuate a political argument - I hope none of us want that here, but I have to address a couple more inaccurate and just plain wrong statements.

The right to bear arms is an antiquated amendment. Citizens used to live in fear that the King's Army could break into their homes at any time. Its relevance today is greatly diminished.

If it were antiquated, that would be because situations like this one in Virginia did not occur. You can try to make a case, but as long as innocent people are preyed upon, access to a weapon of defense can only be denied by someone who is both unjust and unwise.

That the solution is more guns, not less is preposterous. I guess we should let Iran and North Korea develop nukes, huh? Hell, let's go ahead and arm every nation with nukes. That will clearly prevent a nuclear war.

This is a silly argument, if for no other reason than that nukes kill many people; they target whole cities. A personal firearm targets only the perpetrator. If, that is, the user is trained, and I'm all for making sure than anyone who might carry in public be tested.

Not only that, but you are by your comparison essentially drawing no distinction between a violent, immoral killer and a law-abiding, responsible citizen. A gun in the hands of the latter is not a danger, while a nuclear arsenal in the hands of a nation may be used for political means, and therefore could be a danger. It's just a stupid, bombastic comparison to draw.

And your comments on religion are rather unfair as well. I don't think I need to defend my religion, though as I am sure that most readers know that any decent Christian wants the best for everyone around them, and would not in any way, directly or indirectly, contribute towards "holding back" societal trends from becoming safer and better.

- Andrew

[DonSchap]

The Bill of Rights (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm) <- click here

If you don't already know it ... read it again.

This is what makes the United States the place to be. Held as a beacon of hope and justice for the "little guy."

Well, Cho Seung-Hui, was a little guy ... with access to rather average guns. Nothing too special ... no bazooka, missile launcher, AK-47, M-16, or grenade launcher ... and he apparently used his student rights to enter and abuse his fellow students and instructional personnel. It this any diffferent than a school bus driver taking a bus load of kids to their doom? Or some kid joy-riding a tractor-trailer down the expressway and plowing into lines of cars along the way?

No one is prepared for that kind of event. Our society just isn't designed to operate that way. We assume proper conduct of all people on the roads, in our schools, in our workplace, and even in our homes. How could you go about your life thinking otherwise. Nothing would get done.

We need to accept the idea that this kid had just lost it. He is an abberation, not the rule. Still, you should have the right to meet your attacker with whatever level of response is necessary, along with the full support of the government and not have to worry about litigation when and if you send him to the great beyond. This isn't a governmental issue ... it just got real personal (so nuclear weapons aren't applicable.).

Most people will not get involved, even if their own life is threatened, for this very reason. "If I hurt him, he'll sue me!"

In a way, a law school may have been a better location to entertain an argument of this nature. There you could have the "lawyers" cite the cases that would provide the why, wherefores and ifs involved in defending your right to exist. Go ahead and keep a lawyer on retainer ... maybe he/she will be able to talk your attacker to death ... as this attacker goes about dispatching you and/or your friends with a .22 cal and a 9mm.

In this case, an eight-cent piece of lead to the head provided all the counter-argument necessary to solve this issue with Mr. Seung-Hui. He will NEVER shoot another person, again. CASE CLOSED

[fractalgfx]

Anyone who thinks gun control is unconstitutional hasn't read, or can't read the constitution. The first clause of the 2nd amendment:A well regulated militia. If the founding fathers explicit allowed the regulation of arms.

I don't know of any well regulated militia's, Timothy McVeigh was a member of a militia, and he killed 168 people.

Furthermore, the 2nd amendment grants the right to bear "arms" not guns. Arms includes guns, bio-weapons, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons. Anyone who claims a constitutional right to own guns, but doesn't want Walmart to sell anthrax and uranium, is a hypocrite.

The 2nd amendment was intended to protect individuals for an oppressive government. When it was written, the military was armed with the same weapons as civilians. When the President has the ability to nuke millions of people at the push of a button, the 2nd amendment is completely irrelevant. A million hand guns can't stop a nuclear submarine.

[DonSchap]

Don't you think your enbarking down the path of overkill? This was one murderous punk, with two handguns. Not much different than Billy-the-Kid of a bender. He methodically walked around shooting any and all he could. He could have been overwhelmed and stopped, eventually.

Comparing him to the threat of an SSBM is disingenuous and undermines the real concerns of this episode. If you want nuclear disarmament, there is a completely different forum that addresses that. Make your argument with them ... it truly is a great opportunity for diplomacy, World Affairs and governmental control.

When you are talking about a man's/woman's right to personally defend themselves against those who mean them harm ... I mean to tell you ... you'll have to pry it from my cold, dead hand. This isn't the WWF ... these nuts are playing for keeps. :(

[fractalgfx]

Not only that, but you are by your comparison essentially drawing no distinction between a violent, immoral killer and a law-abiding, responsible citizen. A gun in the hands of the latter is not a danger, while a nuclear arsenal in the hands of a nation may be used for political means, and therefore could be a danger. It's just a stupid, bombastic comparison to draw.

Its good to know that world consists entirely of immoral killers and law abiding citizens. Once we get rid of all of the immoral killers, there will be no need for guns.

[forno]

you'll have to pry it from my cold, dead hand.(


THE CHANCES OF THIS HAPPENING INCREASE DRAMATICALLY IF YOU PRODUCE A GUN TO RESPOND TO THE ONE BEING POINTED AT YOU


Oops caps lock

[fractalgfx]

Comparing him to the threat of an SSBM is disingenuous and undermines the real concerns of this episode.

I made no such comparison. My point was that the constitution does not distinguish between a slighter and a cruise missile. It is dangerous to selectively apply the constitution. If the government can outlaw weapons which it deems too dangerous, what is going to stop it from outlawing subversive religions.

[DonSchap]

There is an issue known as the "common welfare" or "common good." The idea being that we all thrive in a condition that lends itself to allow us our Constituional Rights. All laws are tested against these common threads to ensure that domestic tranquility exists and there is equal opportunity under those laws.

During the 1960s and periods therefter, the US went through a series of riots and violent demostrations. These left the nation bruised and battered, from within, and many innocent people were hurt or even killed, but we mended fences, proposed some new laws and got changes made to improve the way people conduct business with each other.

The police were taught more "humane" ways to deal with demonstrators and we don't wind up with an innocent Eagle Scout student and three others, at Kent State, getting killed by the National Guard. People still demonstrate and march on Washington, in an effort to promote their agenda and for the most part, it now goes down rather undramatically.

This country is still evolving and even though there are those in the Congress and other places of governmental authority who do nothing more than try to fill their pockets with our cold, hard cash and positions of power, we still tend to believe we are involved in "The Great Experiment" where even the immigrant from a foreign land can come and find his opportunity and fortune.

This is the greatest nation on Earth and I stand among those who would give their dearest blood to keep it that way. Our attitude: We're not movin' ... you move. :cool:

[Rooz]

God forbid we remove the right from psychos to purchase a gun from their local walmart right along side their skittles, socks, jocks and CD's. with no background checks or any investigation into their circumstances i may add.

i mean what an OUTRAGEOUS violation of democratic rights to remove the option of purchasing weapon of lethal force without good reason. just a shame it got in the way of these college students right to breathe. :rolleyes:

[Rooz]

This is the greatest nation on Earth and I stand among those who would give their dearest blood to keep it that way. Our attitude: We're not movin' ... you move. :cool:

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: oh brother.

[forno]

God forbid we remove the right from psychos to purchase a gun from their local walmart right along side their skittles, socks, jocks and CD's. with no background checks or any investigation into their circumstances i may add.

i mean what an OUTRAGEOUS violation of democratic rights to remove the option of purchasing weapon of lethal force without good reason. just a shame it got in the way of these college students right to breathe. :rolleyes:

:cool: :cool:

[Rhys]

An armed citizenry is very important. Compare two cities - one with full gun control and one with no gun control. In the one with gun control the criminal fears nothing and knows that waving a gun in somebody's face will get him everything he wants. In the one with no gu control the criminal knows that he stands a good chance of being shot if he tries something. In fact this has happened many times with the citizen leaving behind an incapacitated or dead criminal. This in turn saves the taxpayer a shed load of money (that's you and me) as they don't need to send police to track down the criminal. If he's incapacitated, he's there to collect. If he's dead, the cost of a trial is nill.

The thing people haven't asked is how many shots the gunman fired that hit nobody nor how many shots he fired to kill each person. I'd estimate that his pistol held 9 shots and it amazes me that nobody jumped him or that people didn't throw things at him while somebody crept up and sorted him out.

[Rhys]

God forbid we remove the right from psychos to purchase a gun from their local walmart right along side their skittles, socks, jocks and CD's. with no background checks or any investigation into their circumstances i may add.

i mean what an OUTRAGEOUS violation of democratic rights to remove the option of purchasing weapon of lethal force without good reason. just a shame it got in the way of these college students right to breathe. :rolleyes:


My local walmart only sells ammunition and shotguns. My local Sportsman's Warehouse is where I bought my pistol. It wasn't a simple process - first I had to produce 3 forms of ID and 3 months of bills with my name and address on them. Then I had to wait while I had FBI clearance which took 3 days. I have every intention of defending home and family and that's all. I might go for a CWP but it's not a priority unless I have to go out with camera gear a lot.

[fionndruinne]

Anyone who claims a constitutional right to own guns, but doesn't want Walmart to sell anthrax and uranium, is a hypocrite.

You just need to stop embarrassing yourself here.

[Rooz]

An armed citizenry is very important. Compare two cities - one with full gun control and one with no gun control. In the one with gun control the criminal fears nothing and knows that waving a gun in somebody's face will get him everything he wants. In the one with no gun control the criminal knows that he stands a good chance of being shot if he tries something.

with all due respect. that is a very asinine and simplistic view which is completely unsubstantiated and more to the point...incorrect.

there is no evidence whatsoever that lack of gun control acts as any deterrant to criminals. in fact, if anything, it encourages higher numbers of fatalities and greater problems. if the criminal thinks you have a gun, he is more likely to shoot first and steal your wallet later...JUST IN CASE.

furthermore, criminals seek to get bigger, faster moire powerful weapons cos the wanna outgun joe citizen who may be packing. it's like a microcosm of an arms race which i find incredibley juvenille.

[nqjudo]

OK, I’m out of this thread. I’ll give you the response that you asked for though XaiLo and no need to apologize. I know it’s sometimes difficult to interpret the tone of the written word but I’m sure that it’s no one’s intention to be malicious here.

Like everyone, I have pondered the thought of defending myself. The only thing that I could hope for is that my training would allow me to control the situation adequately, allowing me to defend myself and, as equally important, leave my attacker as undamaged as possible. Now show me a gun trained to do that ;) It’s easy to seriously hurt someone. Controlling them without hurting them is always a far more difficult but more desirable task.

[fractalgfx]

I think its time for an admin to lock this thread.

[DonSchap]

I think its time for an admin to lock this thread.

Fractal ... you are in the minority.

The thread stands as a testament to people's outrage and fear of having their rights violated and stomped on ... because of one, lone lunatic getting a hold of a weapon.

The guy is quite dead and his chances of recitivism have taken a real plunge. The time is soon coming where you will have to ask yourself ... "FREE or FLEE?"

FREE to actively respond and end-the-situation ... or
FLEE to fight another day, as the guy/gal continues his/herr reign of terror, until the bullets run out.

I say, "Do what your gut tells you to, in that situation ... and let the lawyers sort it out." Because ... you know they will. Just watch what happens to the President of Virginia Tech. I thought I saw someone sharpening up the nails. :eek:

[Riley]

Fractal ... you are in the minority.

The thread stands as a testament to people's outrage and fear of having their rights violated and stomped on ... because of one, lone lunatic getting a hold of a weapon.



that would be 19 lone lunatics Don
oh wait, at columbine there were two of em
so 17 lone lunatics and a pair

and Rhys, Australia doesnt have nukes [cough]

[Rooz]

fear.

an apt description. i will leave it to you to figure out why.

[fionndruinne]

Fractal's mindset shows how liberals have an unrealistic view of guns, one which has been perpetuated by the media over and over again. They see gun imagery so bound up with violence that they end up lumping a firearm in the same category as a biological weapon or a high explosive.

Those of us who have developed a working knowledge of firearms know them for what they are: power tools, no more dangerous in the hands of someone who is trained in their use than, say, a chainsaw or nail gun. Yes, you might argue that their purpose is usually to end life in some fashion, but that doesn't make them more dangerous (i.e. prone to accidental misuse, hazardous for the user, et cetera), only more deadly. Inside of their proper use that is not a problem.

When people use the phrase "guns don't kill people, people do", what they're doing is trying to combat the subconscious views on guns which most gun opponents hold. A gun is a lump of metal. Comparing it to a highly hazardous killing agent like anthrax or uranium (!) is just absurd.

[Honest Gaza]

I see no reason to lock the thread just because we have different opinions. It has not got personal and I'm sure we all respect each other's view.

However, what started as a simple act of reaching out a hand by "forno", has gone insanely off track....now maybe that's a reason for it to die a natural death.

[Rooz]

When people use the phrase "guns don't kill people, people do", what they're doing is trying to combat the subconscious views on guns which most gun opponents hold. A gun is a lump of metal. Comparing it to a highly hazardous killing agent like anthrax or uranium (!) is just absurd.

by that logic...cocaine and heroin are just chemicals, why are they illegal ? and the analogy with anthrax, while radical, is not as absurd as it would first seem.

[fionndruinne]

But what legitimate use do cocaine and heroine serve?

[Rooz]

thats not the point. the point is you are saying that a gun is a hunk of metal which has nothing to do with, nor does it contribute to gun deaths. well coke is an innanimate object aswell, so theoretically the substance is not the cause of any drug issues.

if you're going to change your justification now by saying that guns are useful so they should be allowed, then ok, what is the use of having an assualt weapon readily available for joe citizen ?

let me answer for you if i may..."to protect myself."

ok, so lets examine that protect yourself from what ? crime ? it doesn't protect you at all, crime is increasing not decreasing. offences, shootings and deaths as a result of guns has ben steadily increasing regardless of the fact that gun ownership is also steadily increasing. so again, to me, it's a redundant argument.

and where does it end ? if crims get themselves flak jackets and m60's what do you do then ? whats your 9mm gonna do to protect you from that ? so you gotta buy a rocket launcher ? no prob...it's just a hunk of metal after all. rocket launchers don't kill people...people kill people.

there is no sense in mass gun ownership. no justification bar the fact that it's just the way it is, the way it's always been and it is socially acceptable in your community and culture. thats an argument i can swallow.

[fionndruinne]

No one wants mass gun ownership. You might need to read, or re-read, through what I said pages ago about the responsibilities inherent to carrying a firearm. Only those who have sufficient proficiency should be allowed to carry in public (I have similar thoughts on carrying a DSLR in public, but that's another story!), and with that ability comes the responsibility. Having a weapon means that you are willing to face up to the possibility of violent crime. Others around you probably will not be willing - being one reason why they don't have a weapon themselves. Thus it should be seen as one's duty to put oneself up in a dangerous situation, taking the place of those who would have liked to believe that they were safe from such a thing. That is my philosophy at least, and by and large a responsible gun philosophy is not hard to instill in those who legally carry a weapon. Do the problems arise from these people? No - they arise from those who illegally carry guns, like gang members. People who will always be able to get their hands on a gun, and would rather not buy them legally anyway for fear of being tracked by their purchase.

I think that comparing a weapon - which can be used for good in good hands - to a chemical substance which has no good purpose is doing a great disservice to the people for which this thread was started. "Just an inanimate object" is true; but we're talking about regulating the availability and possession of said inanimate objects, not their inherent nature (which they do not possess). The reason I brought up that phrase is that in some minds guns aren't considered just objects - they're not to be regulated for their use or misuse, but for their sinister influence and criminal nature!

[forno]

I think that comparing a weapon - which can be used for good in good hands - to a chemical substance which has no good purpose is doing a great disservice to the people for which this thread was started.

I havent ever seen a weapon do good, sure a gun may prevent an "evil" act, but it hasnt done good. Guns are for killing that was there primary reason for being designed and still is the primary result of their use

And this thread was never meant to become what it has. It was intended as "a hand" as Honest Gazza said

[forno]

Taken from news.com

Buying guns, ammo easy in Virginia
Tuesday Apr 17 08:39 AEST

Buying a handgun or rifle is relatively easy in Virginia, where a gunman slaughtered at least 30 people at a university his morning, but the state's gun control laws are not the most lenient in the United States.

Virginia laws allow any state resident over 18 to buy a firearm, including assault weapons, if they pass a check of any possible criminal background against state and federal databases.

According to the Brady Campaign lobby for gun control, the state merits a C-minus on a scale of A to F for the strength of its gun control laws, with 32 of the 50 states ranked D or F.

Buying and owning a gun in Virginia does not require a permit, but without a gun permit only one handgun purchase per month is allowed, and there is no waiting period to acquire the gun.

Those with licenses can buy more than one gun during one month. A non-state resident has to wait 10 days to acquire a weapon, or until he or she gets a positive report from the state police.

The law is broad enough to allow people to buy assault guns and magazines without limit such as AK-47s and Uzis, the Brady report points out on its website.

"Assault weapons are as easy to buy as hunting rifles," it says.

The state maintains "no restriction on the sale or possession of rapid-fire ammunition magazines that can fire up to 100 bullets without reloading."

The state does restrict people convicted of felony crimes from possessing firearms, and forbids giving or selling handguns to minors under 18, except from one family member to another.

But selling rifles and shotguns to children over 12 is permitted.

In one controversial loophole, people can buy weapons at second hand gun shows without waiting periods or background checks. Critics of the laws say it allows people to pay cash and take the gun away with no way to track them.


Where is the sense in that??

What business does a 12year old have with a gun???

[DonSchap]

Where is the sense in that??

What business does a 12year old have with a gun???

For the past eleven years, I have been heavily involved in the local scouting movement. These youths are taught, at summer camp, the proper way to handle rifles, shotguns and even black-powder weapons. They also learn archery and how to survive in the wilderness. They sharpen axes and knives and perform various camp tasks quite capably. You don't just get this massive infusion of knowledge when you turn eighteen! It's all learned over time and through experiences. Many basic outdoor skills are learned in the Boy Scouts and I'm happy to know that by teaching them safety and all the intricacies of handling guns and tools, such as knives and axes, they are less likely to have accidents.

You may choose to never handle a weapon ... but, like I stated earlier, a weapon is defined in a couple of ways. The fact is, knowledge is power ... so what do you recommend? That we take everyone's mind away, because they just might learn how to contrive a weapon and hurt people?

Responsibility (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861701073) is at the heart of this entire argument. That 23-year-old is directly responsible for pulling the trigger on those unfortunate souls. Are their others who are indirectly responsible for the masssacre? I would hope so ... how about those people who were alerted to this young man's violent writings and other peculiar behavior ... and did nothing. Are they not just as culpable for allowing him to go effectively "unnoticed" through the Virginia Tech campus?

Admittedly, it gets kind of dicey dealing with "strange" behavior, because it needs some definition. 33 dead, 24 wounded ... says it just might have needed a little more notice than it apparently got.

One thing is sure, this young man was bent on distruction ... and gun laws or not ... he would eventually find a method to carry out his plot. So, I dismiss the issue of guns being at the root of THIS problem. It goes much deeper than that. Turning a blind-eye when alerted to this particular young's man's problem is more symptomatic of the real issue. We call that APATHY.

Outlaw institutional APATHY ... and then you might get somewhere. Perhaps the lad could have received some type of therapy or at the very least, a bit more attention. He didn't seem to rate any of that. I contend that EMPATHY needed to be exercised and this entire affair may have never happened.

Ask yourself this: How many other individuals are just sitting on their destructive trigger or powder keg, waiting to indulge in this kind of mayhem and have gone effectively unnoticed ... because no one is at the switch or takes the time to ... NOTICE?

[Rhys]

I agree with Don.

The big questions are:

Why did this individual do what he did
What made him think of doing it
Why was he not apprehended at any point
why were there no armed students or patrolling armed guards
why was the individual only referred to counselling and why was nobody else alerted to his mental health issues
when he entered a room and started shooting, why wasn't there a massed charge - sure some would have been killed but he'd have been stopped and there would have been more survivors than there were.

As Don said: the weapon is a non-issue. He could have made grenades quite easily or bombs or poison gas or other chemical agents and all using standard things that you;d find in the average kitchen.

[Rooz]

but he didn't did he ? nope, cos getting firearms is easier and readily available. how many schools have been hit with bombs compared to getting shot up by lunatics who can easily get their hands on a weapon ? none.

[Rhys]

but he didn't did he ? nope, cos getting firearms is easier and readily available. how many schools have been hit with bombs compared to getting shot up by lunatics who can easily get their hands on a weapon ? none.

Excuse me? Columbine had bombs planted.

Let's look at the UK. The tube and bus bombs were pretty effective.

Thursday, March 31, 2005 BUFFALO, N.Y. — A 15-year-old boy who had shown strong interest in the Columbine (search) school shootings has been arrested for allegedly plotting to blow up his high school, authorities said Thursday.

A January, 1999, explosion in a high school locker in Kansas City sent 11 students to the hospital.

An irate parent took the deputy superintendent and an associate superintendent of a California education office hostage in late November of 1998. The standoff resulted in police killing the parent, who had a gun and seven bomb devices as a part of his siege.

Ten bombs, fireworks strapped to aerosol cans, forced the closure of a California elementary school.

One Maryland school district experienced more than 150 bomb threats and 55 associated arrests in one school year.

Up to a pound of ammonium nitrate was brought to school by a Nevada middle-school student.

Eight boys confessed to making three homemade bombs, two of which were placed at a Minnesota elementary school.

[fractalgfx]

Fractal's mindset shows how liberals have an unrealistic view of guns, one which has been perpetuated by the media over and over again. They see gun imagery so bound up with violence that they end up lumping a firearm in the same category as a biological weapon or a high explosive.

Those of us who have developed a working knowledge of firearms know them for what they are: power tools, no more dangerous in the hands of someone who is trained in their use than, say, a chainsaw or nail gun. Yes, you might argue that their purpose is usually to end life in some fashion, but that doesn't make them more dangerous (i.e. prone to accidental misuse, hazardous for the user, et cetera), only more deadly. Inside of their proper use that is not a problem.

I have never made a claim that guns are the cause of violence and, I have never claimed that more gun control will make people safer. The prohibition against alcohol was intended to benefit the people, but it caused a giant surge in organized crime. I know that is impossible to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

People have a tenancy to do stupid, impulsive things. If someone has the capacity to hit someone on the head with a bear bottle, they have the capacity to pull out a gun and shoot them. Once you bring guns into the equation, a little bar fight can go from a brawl to a massacre.

It is impossible to eradicate gun violence through gun control, but it is irresponsible to give everyone immediate access to a firearm. Driving laws don't stop people from dieing in car accidents, the best the laws can do is to encourage responsible behavior.

[fractalgfx]

Fractal's mindset shows how liberals have an unrealistic view of guns, one which has been perpetuated by the media over and over again. They see gun imagery so bound up with violence that they end up lumping a firearm in the same category as a biological weapon or a high explosive.

Those of us who have developed a working knowledge of firearms know them for what they are: power tools, no more dangerous in the hands of someone who is trained in their use than, say, a chainsaw or nail gun. Yes, you might argue that their purpose is usually to end life in some fashion, but that doesn't make them more dangerous (i.e. prone to accidental misuse, hazardous for the user, et cetera), only more deadly. Inside of their proper use that is not a problem.

I have never made a claim that guns are the cause of violence and, I have never claimed that more gun control will make people safer. The prohibition against alcohol was intended to benefit the people, but it caused a giant surge in organized crime. I know that is impossible to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

People have a tenancy to do stupid, impulsive things. If someone has the capacity to hit someone on the head with a bear bottle, they have the capacity to pull out a gun and shoot them. Once you bring guns into the equation, a little bar fight can go from a brawl to a massacre.

It is impossible to eradicate gun violence through gun control, but it is irresponsible to give everyone immediate access to a firearm. Driving laws don't stop people from dieing in car accidents, the laws exist to encourage responsible behavior.

[fionndruinne]

So what do you want, fractal? You claim that more gun control will not make people safer, then go on to imply that stricter gun laws will make people safer.

I don't think any of us here disagree that background checks should be enforced, and that any twelve-year-old who wants to own a gun should do so through his parents.

But as to a twelve-year-old owning a firearm at all, how many of us have hunted rabbits with a .22 rifle in our childhood? I'd expect quite a few. That's a traditional sport for a rural kid, and hasn't led to any terrible occurrences that I'm aware of.

[Rhys]

I have never made a claim that guns are the cause of violence and, I have never claimed that more gun control will make people safer. The prohibition against alcohol was intended to benefit the people, but it caused a giant surge in organized crime. I know that is impossible to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

People have a tenancy to do stupid, impulsive things. If someone has the capacity to hit someone on the head with a bear bottle, they have the capacity to pull out a gun and shoot them. Once you bring guns into the equation, a little bar fight can go from a brawl to a massacre.

It is impossible to eradicate gun violence through gun control, but it is irresponsible to give everyone immediate access to a firearm. Driving laws don't stop people from dieing in car accidents, the laws exist to encourage responsible behavior.

I get pissed off at people and could wish for them to drop dead but I certainly wouldn't go and shoot them!

On the other hand, many people get drunk, leap into their cars and mow down the people they have argued with, together with the friends they're with. What's the difference between shooting them and mowing them down with a car. It's all premeditated murder.

Now let's get to the premeditated murder bit. People who're of a mind to murder will do so with whatever tool they have at hand whether it's a gun, bread knife, baseball bat or a piece of string. I don't see anybody advocating banning bread knives,baseball bats, pieces of string, cars or any of the other common murder implements. It's just people that are scared of bangs that don't like guns.

[forno]

Ill say it one last time before I leave this thread. There is absolutely no need for a civilliain to have a gun and the ease of getting one does nothing that "good" citizens having guns will do to deter those that are desperate enough to use guns in crime.

The ease of getting a gun only serves to make them more freely available to those that will abuse them.

Someone breaks into your house while you are out and finds you have a gun, they steal that gun and then go on to use it in a crime, chances are the crime will escalate to a point where the feel the need to use their new found power.

Having guns so freely available to people only benefits those that will abuse the situation.

And if you guys think that any more than a small minority of "good" citzens will use their firearms to defend them selves or prevent a crime, I think you need to re assess that thought

Peace out, I hope you guys never have to use you firearms:cool:

[fionndruinne]

There is absolutely no need for a civilliain to have a gun

Nope, no need at all! It's not like maybe anyone could save themselves from getting shot to death by shooting a criminal first! No, never; especially not somewhere like Virginia Tech.

To dogmatically assert that this is the case for everyone in the nation just because it is the way you yourself live is arrogance itself.

I'm feeling a little guilty, though, at how much this thread has turned into a place for advancement of people's personal ideas of society, when it was created for the purpose of recognizing those who lost their lives in that terrible event. So I'm going to withdraw. Slan leat.

[Rhys]

We have reached an impasse with anti-gun fanatics believing their way is the way all people should live while pro-gun supporters argue for their right to self-defence.

[Jeff Keller]

I'm on vacation so I didn't notice this thread until now, but this discussion really does not belong on a digital camera site, let alone in the Canon DSLR forum.