[voodoo]

This is just bizarre to me, the second amendment "if everyone was carrying guns" argument.

First and probably the most important part: in what kind of f-cked up university would anyone bring a weapon, gun or otherwise? Even if it was allowed.

You'd have to make that concious decision in the morning after eating your Corn Flakes and before putting the Cell by Cooper in your sack that it would probably be an amazingly good idea to bring your 44 Magnum to school as well.

Why? Apparently school is dangerous. Why are you in that school. Why are you paying massive tuitions only to need to go to school with a *gun*??! I'd find another school, myself. In fact I never would have applied.

The other thing is that an UN-armed society is a POLITE society. I should know. I live in one.

sheesh

V

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Obviously if they had issues when guns were not banned and they had issues when guns were banned, students being able to carry guns doesn't have anything to do with anything.

Yes it does. Banning guns= only the nutballs still carry them around, leaving the majority of the law/rule abiding society without the ability to defend themselves.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

The deadliest handheld item in existence should NOT be given out to everyone. Period.

Ricin? That's why it's a controlled substance.

Obviously, gun control is the answer here. After all, these kinds of shootings never happen in places like NYC, DC, or Yurp. I can't remember the last time something like this happened at a German university, or in France. Just like I can't remember the last time student riots burned cars in and around Boston for days on end. I guess the US is just a different kind of place, huh?

OMG I'm siding with CA$H.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

Yes it does. Banning guns= only the nutballs still carry them around, leaving the majority of the law/rule abiding society without the ability to defend themselves.

Let me get this straight...

The problem is some nutballs have guns. So we're going to take the rule that says nutballs cannot carry guns, and we're going to allow them to carry guns.

I hate to break it to you, but most people who would carry guns if they were allowed to are the nutballs.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by goMac 

How do you tell people who do not live on campus? It's a HUGE campus. They can't go around to every room and lock them, especially if there is a gunman maybe loose on campus.

University of Washington had a shooting a few weeks ago and I don't think they shut down campus at all. Sadly, it's not all too rare to have murders on campus. And for the larger campuses, it's not usual to lockdown.

FYI they did cancel classes (which surprised me actually). The problem was people just didn't know classes were canceled.

About him killing his girlfriend, in the press conference they are saying (it sounds like) the two incidents were done by two different people. No word yet on if they are connected.

Classes were canceled AFTER the 9am class masacre which actually happened closer to 10am. It doesn't even matter if the two shootings were connected ( which of course they were, why even speculate ), classes should have been canceled after the 7am occurance. There are more than enough maintenance and emergency personel on a campus the size of VT's at 7:30am to lock down every building and secure the dorms, more than enough.

If the VT administration would have canceled classes at 7:30 am, and sent out university wide email alerts as well as alerted local radio and television, the word would have gotten out and most students would not have shown up. The ones who didn't get the notice could be stopped at any of the roads leading to into the university, and at the very least stopped at the buildings and turned back.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

Yes it does. Banning guns= only the nutballs still carry them around, leaving the majority of the law/rule abiding society without the ability to defend themselves.

Right...and how many of the students when they got up today out of class would have remember to bring their 9 mil to class just incase some nutball decided to shoot the place up.

I'm all for the 2nd amendment and allowing citizens to privately own guns, but I don't see how that could have helped in the least today.

I have a significant amount of friends currently enrolled at VT, and I'm just glad that none of them were victums of this horrible tragedy.






We can point the finger all we want and say "oh if there were more guns" but the truth is, what happened today was an isolated incedent. Somebody went off the deep end and as a result 32 innocent people (possibly more) have lost their lives, and countless more family members and friends have had their lives turned upside down.

[Kerrigan]

Over the last ten years there have been school shootings in Canada, Scotland, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden and other countries around the world.
Anyone wanting to terrorize and kill people will do so by any means necessary, regardless of location and/or local laws.

The toll is higher in America but this is certainly not an only-in-America phenomenon.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Ricin? That's why it's a controlled substance.

Obviously, gun control is the answer here. After all, these kinds of shootings never happen in places like NYC, DC, or Yurp.

Interestingly with a similar population (there are actually more people living in Yurp) things like this happen less frequently. Chalk it up to coincidence.

There seems to be an inability for many Americans to think outside the box. The box being America. Make no mistake, Yurp isn't a gun-free society. Far from it, however it is no right to carry guns. It is a major privilege.

Hence all people who earn this privilege are unders very stringent laws and people in general question and suspect you if you have guns in the city. Since, you know, you're not allowed to use them within the city under *any* circumstance.

Point being, society itself polices gun usage. The difference between gun posession being a right and being a privilege seems to do the trick.

Let's just say I'm not complaining and I wouldn't want to live in America. Visit, sure. Live.. no not really. Besides. Good beer is hard to get there. Expensive too.

V

[goMac]

Originally Posted by greenamp 

Classes were canceled AFTER the 9am class masacre which actually happened closer to 10am. It doesn't even matter if the two shootings were connected ( which of course they were, why even speculate ), classes should have been canceled after the 7am occurance. There are more than enough maintenance and emergency personel on a campus the size of VT's at 7:30am to lock down every building and secure the dorms, more than enough.

If the VT administration would have canceled classes at 7:30 am, and sent out university wide email alerts as well as alerted local radio and television, the word would have gotten out and most students would not have shown up. The ones who didn't get the notice could be stopped at any of the roads leading to into the university, and at the very least stopped at the buildings and turned back.

You simply can't lockdown an area that size. There are people constantly coming and going, on foot, by car, etc. The administration probably thought it was a isolated incident (which it still looks like it could be), and issued a warning, as is standard procedure on most other campuses.

It's a tragedy, but this could have happened anywhere. I find it disgusting that people are trying to pin this on the administration. Nothing about this is the fault of Virginia Tech. Could things have been handled better? Probably. But we have hindsight. It's easy for us to make those judgments. Again, isolated shootings, while not common, are not rare either on campuses. They were probably following the procedure they had on hand for dealing with on campus murders.

[UNTeMac]

I want to know what the hell the police were doing while the guy ran around Norris hall shooting people FOR THIRTY MINUTES! That is unconscionable. Response time on my campus was usually around a minute or two by call box or 911. I cannot believe that guy was allowed to walk around for that long during the second shooting.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Over the last ten years there have been school shootings in Canada, Scotland, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden and other countries around the world.
Anyone wanting to terrorize and kill people will do so by any means necessary, regardless of location and/or local laws.

The toll is higher in America but this is certainly not an only-in-America phenomenon.

Nobody said it was an only-in-America phenomenon. It's just worse in America. It is. Accept it and live happily ever after. Refuse to accept it, and it's still there.

V

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by greenamp 

Classes were canceled AFTER the 9am class masacre which actually happened closer to 10am. It doesn't even matter if the two shootings were connected ( which of course they were, why even speculate ), classes should have been canceled after the 7am occurance. There are more than enough maintenance and emergency personel on a campus the size of VT's at 7:30am to lock down every building and secure the dorms, more than enough.

If the VT administration would have canceled classes at 7:30 am, and sent out university wide email alerts as well as alerted local radio and television, the word would have gotten out and most students would not have shown up. The ones who didn't get the notice could be stopped at any of the roads leading to into the university, and at the very least stopped at the buildings and turned back.

Yeah, in the very least the professors should have been notified and the word should have been spread from there. At least kids should have been warned. On the news the kids that witnessed the 2nd shootings said they had no idea of the first at that time.

Then again, we don't have all the details yet. Maybe we should wait before accusing the administration of negligence....managing a 25k student population can't be easy.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

That total, utter bullshit. Just carrying a weapon does not, in any way, guarantee that you can actually use it properly in an emergency situation such as this. If anything, the average person is in no position at all to stop a situation like this without the likelihood of additional life being lost being extremely high. Real life is not TV - it is harder, much harder, than you seem to think to stop a madman with a gun.

Don't use a tragedy to make a political point. That's just sick.

Have you ever fired a gun before? Just wondering, because you seem pretty clueless. No, having and knowing how to use a gun does not GUARANTEE anything, and no, the average joe is not going to go flying through the air sideways shooting in slow motion killing all the bad guys, but it's really not that hard to hit a fairly stationary target if you have even MINIMAL experience. The assumption that a normal person who knows how to use a gun shooting other people by mistake just shows your bias, as anybody who knows how to use a gun wouldn't just go shooting in the general direction of the perpetrator. Your statements make you seem really really really really clueless.

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock 

god damn it, all you gun people shut the **** up and look at what the hell happened. people got shot and they ****ing died. that's more important now then your "oh give me a gun and i'll shoot a terrorist bullshit" look past yourselves just this once and think of the people who got shot. god damn

Oh, okay, maybe we can all just say "how sad" instead. That will accomplish a lot. I'm sure the family members of the dead are here right now, looking for support from the Macnn forums.

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

THIS not time nor the place for these type cold and insensitive statements. Besides its kind of reckless to go and blame the school for this when its clearly some sort of nut job who did this.

It's not cold or insensative. It's just an observation of what happened. If other people who knew how to use a gun had had them, the guy could have been stopped sooner.

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

So sad, we as a nation seem hell bent on making sure that our rights to own guns remain intact. Guns have one purpose - to kill and I'm not sure why people seem so fixated to own them.

Because everytime a government makes it illegal for people to have guns, the government gets nutty and starts killing people covertly, then more out in the open, until there's either genocide or revolution. You know the Jews weren't allowed to have weapons in Germany right before WW2, right? Guns have one purpose: TO FIRE BULLETS. They are not designed to 'kill people'. Guns can be a deterrent. Guns can save lives, by shooting someone who is taking them. They can even be fun, but I'm guessing that sounds 'horrriiibbbblllleeee' to you since you think that guns are only owned by inbred hillbillies and pyschopaths. I suggest you try shooting some at a local firing range. You are talking about a subject you have no experience with. At all.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If you could get rid of ALL guns, that would be great. Then we could go back to swords, and macgeek would be very happy. But you cannot do that, so don't dare think of coming for mine.

Yeah maybe we could get rid of all murder, rape, etc too, eh? I mean, banning all guns would be SOOOO effective, considering how effective it is to ban murder and rape.... oh... wait... crap. People still do that. Just like bad guys will always get guns. It's up to the good guys to get guns also, so if the bad guys start shooting, you can defend yourself.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

If one person in the crowd had been carrying a gun and properly trained to use it, the shooter could have been taken down within moments of him opening fire. People probably still would have been injured and maybe died, but far fewer. And rather than a horrible massacre to mourn, we'd have a hero to celebrate.

But yeah, I can see how that would suck and be so bad. Isn't it just horrible the way people will take horrible events and try and use them as motivation to improve things?

Yeah, gee, how awful. I think all of us sitting around saying "OMG HOW SAD OMG OH NOS" would be so much more worthwhile.

Originally Posted by goMac 

It's bad enough that one crazy on campus got his hands on a gun. Let's not open it up so that all the crazies can get guns.

Yep. Because ONLY crazy people own guns. Psss. Your bias is showing. A lot. It's making you look like someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. Better try harder to hide it.

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Call me a skeptic, but these things don't surprise me in the least. I'm amazed that 300 million people can get along as well as they do.

And I guarantee, if more people had guns this would happen more frequently... not less.

Really? Then how come every gun control statistic says the opposite? How come whenever handguns are banned in a providence, area, country etc the crimerates, murders, and rapes go UP? How come states that have concealed carry generally don't have these crazy shootouts?

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Besides. Good beer is hard to get there. Expensive too.

I know, imagine how awful it is for university students now, living in fear of being shot AND having to drink Busch Light. Time to move to Holland...

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by goMac 

You simply can't lockdown an area that size. There are people constantly coming and going, on foot, by car, etc. The administration probably thought it was a isolated incident (which it still looks like it could be), and issued a warning, as is standard procedure on most other campuses.

NOT TRUE.

I go to University of Maryland. We have a 35k student population. The campus is locked down every night at 11 and every car without a UMD parking pass has the driver's license check and plates written down.

I've been to VT numerous times and the same is certainly possible there.....at least to an extent that could have warned a good number of the students.

What I'm saying is that they could have warned more students faster. However, its easy to say that in hindsight, and who knows how much it could have helped.

It's a tragedy, but this could have happened anywhere. I find it disgusting that people are trying to pin this on the administration. Nothing about this is the fault of Virginia Tech. Could things have been handled better? Probably. But we have hindsight. It's easy for us to make those judgments. Again, isolated shootings, while not common, are not rare either on campuses. They were probably following the procedure they had on hand for dealing with on campus murders.

agreed

[brassplayersrock²]

wow, so you do know about the multiple post reply button

[UNTeMac]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

Guns have one purpose: TO FIRE BULLETS. They are not designed to 'kill people'.

I have to point this out as one of the most idiotic oversimplifications I've ever read. That is all.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

NOT TRUE.

I go to University of Maryland. We have a 35k student population. The campus is locked down every night at 11 and every car without a UMD parking pass has the driver's license check and plates written down.

No one's allowed out of their rooms after 11?

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock 

wow, so you do know about the multiple post reply button

It's worthless, don't even try.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

That's exactly my point. I'm being pragmatic here. The odds of something like this happening are very small and add to that the odds of someone else having a gun and trained to use it in addition of being in the same place and time as the would-be shooter.

Just for clarification, are you saying by 'odds' meaning that a person nearby who's competent with a firearm could have improved the situation? Because some nutty people on here are claiming that guns are only for killing people, not stopping nutballs from going on rampages. If that IS what you are trying to say, what's your problem with allowing them? You just admitted it has the possibility to make things safer.

Yes yes, I've heard of licencing. That's how us Yurpeans get guns our in the first place, would you believe it! I'm not saying you're wrong - in theory - but practically the odds of this happenining as you lay it out are very low.

The odds of nutballs shooting random people are pretty low too. But if some of those random people had guns, the odds are that he'd have been stopped sooner.

More guns on campus mean more accidents with guns, which also kill people. The attrition could be similar or more than the occational postal shootout, although not as dramatic.

I'm saying that in a society one has to weigh - pragmatically - what is more of a tragedy. 30 people killed every five years in a school shooting or 50 people killed evenly over five years because of gun-related accidents.
V

Why is it that states that have concealed carry laws don't have these massive shootouts? Why is it that whenever handguns are banned, murder, rape, and crime goes UP? It's because criminals think twice, in an armed society.

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

Yeah, arm everyone and the world will be more peaceful. Makes so much sense I think my head's going to explode from the pure rationality of it all.

Speaking of rational, do you think it's rational for people who've never fired a gun before to be talking about them like they know what they're talking about? People with an obvious bias that don't want to look at the statistics that PROVE that concealed carry REDUCES crime, and that banning handguns increases it? I don't.

Jesus people, you live in a fantasy land. This isn't a ******* movie. This is real life. Licensing? What a joke. Yeah, there are no idiots who have driver's licenses at all! No way! And there's no way to cheat on getting a license either! Its fool proof!

The difference is the idiots with guns usually DONT HAVE LICENSES. Criminals don't care about them. And yes, this isn't a movie, which is apparently ALL THE EXPERIENCE YOU HAVE, when it comes to guns. I'm guessing you have never fired a weapon before. Please let me know if I'm right or wrong about my hunch.

The majority of people in this country are mentally unable to drive a car with any degree of responsibility. Why in god's name would anyone think that giving all these people guns is a smart thing to do.

Who said anything about giving EVERYONE guns? Did anybody say that? I'm pretty sure nobody did, so you're making strawman arguments that don't hold water. We were talking about people who get LICENSED to carry firearms. Not 'everybody with a drivers license automatically gets to carry a gun'. Heck, licensing is SOOOOOO stupid, maybe we should just ignore the credentials that doctors have too. After all, I occasionally read about a doctor sawing off the wrong leg on a person, so that must mean that ALL doctors/physicians are incompetent and that we shouldn't have licenses at all, right? God, you really do make no sense whatsoever.

And this "it only takes one hero" argument is also bullshit. So you are suggesting we test for heroism before we hand someone a gun? How are we going to do that? Or do we just arm everyone, and hope that the "one hero" happens to be in the right place at the right time to take down the "crazy". What would really happen is one crazy would start shooting, and 50 other crazies would also start shooting back. Good plan.

So now you're using an argument of extremes. ONLY heroes can have guns, or EVERYBODY can have guns. You're ignoring the middle ground completely. That's okay though, people who hate guns usually know nothing about them, and rarely make any logical sense.

Think before you stand behind something as big as this. The deadliest handheld item in existence should NOT be given out to everyone. Period.

Who is saying that guns should be given out to everyone? Oh, NOBODY. You are making retarded arguments that don't apply to real life, and instead are setting up make believe EXTREMIST examples to further your agenda (which also lacks any real information, statistics, experience, etc). NOBODY here is suggesting that guns be given to 'everyone'. What people are suggesting is that more states should allow people to carry firearms, because it has been PROVEN to reduce murder, rape, and crime.

I have a feeling these people who are so sure that a hero would emerge in a situation like this have no idea what its like to fire a gun at another human being. I don't, but I do know that its nothing like I imagine it would be. Again, this isn't a movie. This is real life.

Nobody is saying that they are SURE a hero would have emerged. We're just saying it's a better situation, with better odds, with likely better results. And you haven't fired a gun? REEEAAALLLY? NO WAY! I couldn't tell at all! You're only just ignoring concrete evidence, making stupid arguments, and making it painfully clear you have no idea what you're talking about.... other than that, I had no idea!

Originally Posted by Nicko 

It's completely ridiculous to say that if someone was carrying a gun that they would become the 'hero' and take down the crazy person. Incidences like this show pretty conclusively that life is not like a movie. Unless you're some kind of deranged person, or a trained police officer, the first instinct upon hearing a gunshot would be to go in the opposite direction and save your own ass.

I'm pretty sure all these people that keep mentioning 'movies'.... have never fired a gun before, or owned one, or known one of the millions of rational, responsible people that do. And sorry, you'd be wrong about that instinct thing. If someone in my school starting shooting my friends, and I had a firearm, you can be assured I would try to stop the psychopath, as would most people who care about their friends.

Originally Posted by voodoo 

All right, and how many lethal accidents would happen annually because 1% of the students (which I think is very high at a university) goes to class with a gun?

How many people would avoid being raped, murdered, or robbed if we allowed concealed carry? Your question is just as valid as mine.

It is tragic. But it is the weapon that enables a person to go on a rampage. There are less deaths by guns in societies that don't embrace people's right to bear arms. I like that.

And if that weapon isn't available legally, they will obtain it illegally. As for your 'societies that don't allow guns'.... which are you speaking of? Every time I've EVER looked up statistics on guns and safety, it points the other direction. When a society bans guns, crime/murder/rape goes up. Why? Because criminals know that most people won't have guns. Please back up what you speak of.

At my university there are no guns and no deaths by guns. This is a good thing. There are in fact no intensional deaths that I am aware of. No murders, no accidental killings.

So you think the ban on guns is what's stopping all the crazies from breaking the law and murdering as many people as possible? Seriously? You're saying that if guns WERE allowed, these psychos would then go out and get a gun and start shooting people, but BECAUSE guns are not allowed, that rule is what's stopping them? Are you joking? I mean.... wow.... that's... that's something. Talk about fantasy land.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I think I need to point out that guns (as always) don't kill people.

-t

People kill people. Guns are inanimate objects. They can be used for many things. Just like cars, pens, knives, baseball bats, chains, trucks, etc, etc etc.

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

And safe doesn't equal peaceful to you? So you think as long as anyone can shoot and kill someone else at any given moment, thats safe?

Real life proves it:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/N...Post61504.html

"Crime did not fall in England after handguns were banned in 1997. Quite the contrary, crime rose sharply. In May, the British government reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the last four years. Serious violent crime rates from 1997 to 2002 averaged 29% higher than 1996; robbery was 24% higher; murders 27% higher. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned, the armed robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels. The violent crime rate in England is now double that in the United States."

and

"Australia saw its violent crime rates soar after its 1996 gun control measures banned most firearms. Violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed than they did the year before the law went into effect. Murder and manslaughter rates remained unchanged, but armed robbery rates increased 74%, aggravated assaults by 32%. Australia's violent crime rate is also now double America's."

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Try thinking. You are throwing out "most likely"'s and "probably"'s. Yet these sorts of arguments require absolutes. You can't sit there and argue for the right to bear arms using probabilities and conjectures. You should start thinking more factually. Maybe then your argument might hold some water.

Take your own advice, because you're ignoring reality. While what you said might make sense in your own personal little fantasy world, it does not apply to the real world. IN EVERY PLACE THAT HAS BANNED HANDGUNS/FIREARMS, CRIMERATES HAVE GONE UP.

And thats different from taking all guns away from people how? Taking all guns away won't stop all crime, but it will stop some crime. Same argument. How is yours better?

Uh, it's better because banning guns = more crime. Here:

http://www.kc3.com/editorial/gun_control_works.htm


"Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans firearms. After Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, (law-abiding) gun owners were forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, which were later slated for destruction, according to statistics from the Australian Sporting Shooters Association.

The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell. Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:

Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent; Assaults are up 8.6 percent; Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;

In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent; In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily, now there has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly."

So... yeah. That's how. And the evidence to support your point of view is... uh.... based on the movies you've seen, and your conclusion that normal people can't fire guns effectively, and that all gun owners are lunatics, and that even IF someone wasn't a lunatic that they'd probably just shoot an innocent person on accident.... and you support all of these views with.... NOTHINGG!!!!!!!! And you don't even have any personal experience with guns either! YAy for you!

Yep, but you completely missed the point. Again.

I think you did. Here it is again:

"States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%; and, If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly."

http://www.kc3.com/editorial/gun_control_works.htm

[Marky]

no guns here. No shootings on campus either

[wolfen]

I was reading the article in the student lounge. I made the mistake of trying to connect with the pain of all the relatives and friends that 32 people could have. It was more than I could deal with at the moment.

I pray all the families can get the support they need.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by ca$h

So you think the ban on guns is what's stopping all the crazies from breaking the law and murdering as many people as possible? Seriously? You're saying that if guns WERE allowed, these psychos would then go out and get a gun and start shooting people, but BECAUSE guns are not allowed, that rule is what's stopping them? Are you joking? I mean.... wow.... that's... that's something. Talk about fantasy land.

Either you are right and Americans are more prone to insanity than us Yurpeans or I'm right and that 'no guns allowed in school' thing prevents people being shot. Also that 'no knives allowed in school' thing seems to help, since nobody is getting stabbed.

Well, or Americans are insane. That is not out of the question, but I'd be inclined to believe that sociopaths exist in all societies. Some are better at containing them and not arming them than others.

Whatever the reason is, you have more school shootings and people going postal than Yurp. The only direct correlation is that Americans have easier access to guns.

An indirect and also possible correlation is that Americans are more sociopathic.

V

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Either you are right and Americans are more prone to insanity than us Yurpeans or I'm right and that 'no guns allowed in school' thing prevents people being shot. Also that 'no knives allowed in school' thing seems to help, since nobody is getting stabbed.

Well, or Americans are insane. That is not out of the question, but I'd be inclined to believe that sociopaths exist in all societies. Some are better at containing them and not arming them than others.

Whatever the reason is, you have more school shootings and people going postal than Yurp. The only direct correlation is that Americans have easier access to guns.

An indirect and also possible correlation is that Americans are more sociopathic.

V

Americans are less tolerant, more likely to overreact, get much less vacation time (which supports individuals and families), and have created a culture that glorifies violence. Note the stats provided for Aussie's --> it was a freakin' penal colony. It would be hard to argue that ca$h is wrong on this one.

But in most of our mass-murderer situations almost none of this is relevant except as it relates to body count. The core problem is not the violence, but the neglect of suffering. We are a very callous country that lacks compassion for "weak," disturbed or socially awkward people. Unfortunately, they wind up getting guns and reminding us of the fact.

[ghporter]

It's interesting to see that Scotland is looking into (if they haven't already) banning swords because they banned guns a while back and that didn't stop people from maiming and killing other people. Gotta wonder...

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

"Australia saw its violent crime rates soar after its 1996 gun control measures banned most firearms. Violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed than they did the year before the law went into effect. Murder and manslaughter rates remained unchanged, but armed robbery rates increased 74%, aggravated assaults by 32%. Australia's violent crime rate is also now double America's."

"Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans firearms. After Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, (law-abiding) gun owners were forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, which were later slated for destruction, according to statistics from the Australian Sporting Shooters Association.

The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell. Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:

Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent; Assaults are up 8.6 percent; Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;

In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent; In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily, now there has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly."

statistics from the Australian Sporting Shooters Association

You know, we have a real Bureau of Statistics you could ask.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics the homicide rate has been falling steadily since 1996, which, oh look... coincides with the 1996 gun control measures.

I'll concede some other crime rates have increased, but that could just as easily be put down to our conservative government's draconian social welfare reforms.

[Doofy]

Now there's an interesting thing:

BBC NEWS | Have Your Say | Virginia shootings: Eyewitness accounts

We have been under a lot of stress lately, as there have already been several bomb threats over the past few weeks, even as early as Friday.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

I'll concede some other crime rates have increased, but that could just as easily be put down to our conservative government's draconian social welfare reforms.

Okay...that's not a stretch.

Simple logic: if you ban guns, only three segments of society will have them...
1. Military
2. Police force
3. Criminals (if you think they'll stop getting guns just because they're illegal, then you obviously don't remember reading about a failed effort in the 20th century called Prohibition)

That will leave civilians with very little to defend themselves with. The police can't defend people in a matter of seconds. A gun stored in a nightstand can. Here in Louisiana, my car is considered by law to be an extension of my home. I've had many officers encourage me to carry a gun in my car. I'm seriously considering doing it.

For those who are saying that the types of people to carry guns on campus would only be loonies, you've proven your ignorance concerning gun owners. Every gun owner that I know owns them for either hunting or self defense, and the ones that carry them with them are among the most responsible people I know.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

Americans are less tolerant, more likely to overreact, get much less vacation time (which supports individuals and families), and have created a culture that glorifies violence. Note the stats provided for Aussie's --> it was a freakin' penal colony. It would be hard to argue that ca$h is wrong on this one.

So did you completely ignore all the info about Britian?

In case you missed it, here it is again:

""Crime did not fall in England after handguns were banned in 1997. Quite the contrary, crime rose sharply. In May, the British government reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the last four years. Serious violent crime rates from 1997 to 2002 averaged 29% higher than 1996; robbery was 24% higher; murders 27% higher. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned, the armed robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels. The violent crime rate in England is now double that in the United States."

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

I'll concede some other crime rates have increased, but that could just as easily be put down to our conservative government's draconian social welfare reforms.

Let's take the other country Rob quoted. The UK.
Socialist government handing out freebies left, right and centre.

Only common factors: Gun control. Speaking English. Watching Neighbours.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

So did you completely ignore all the info about Britian?

In case you missed it, here it is again:

""Crime did not fall in England after handguns were banned in 1997. Quite the contrary, crime rose sharply. In May, the British government reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the last four years. Serious violent crime rates from 1997 to 2002 averaged 29% higher than 1996; robbery was 24% higher; murders 27% higher. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned, the armed robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels. The violent crime rate in England is now double that in the United States."

Indeed.

A friend of mine from Liverpool recently visited, and he talked forever about how bad the crime has been there. He said it seems to be getting worse, and he himself was hospitalized due to a random act of violence. And the mob that got him didn't even take his wallet or anything.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

NOT TRUE.

I go to University of Maryland. We have a 35k student population. The campus is locked down every night at 11 and every car without a UMD parking pass has the driver's license check and plates written down.

Ok, but that's not the same thing as a lock down like what some are saying VT should have done. You are still free to come and go from the dorms, as long as you are a member of that dorm.

A shooter could still go into his own dorm.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I've been to VT numerous times and the same is certainly possible there.....at least to an extent that could have warned a good number of the students.

You can't lock down a campus because of one shooting. You simply can't. Yes, if VT had known that there would be a shooting later in the day, they should have closed down campus.

Think about it. Do small cities close down when two people are killed? No. VT is larger than a lot of small cities, yet you're saying they should close down when somebody is killed? Other campuses of similar sizes don't close down. It shouldn't have been expected that VT would close down either.

Yes, maybe these are policies that should be reviewed. And again, hindsight is a wonderful thing. But nobody could have predicted that this would have happened, even after two people were shot. You can't hold the school administration at fault for doing the exact same thing any other university in the country would do, and has done (again, citing the UW shooting a few weeks ago as an example...)

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

What I'm saying is that they could have warned more students faster. However, its easy to say that in hindsight, and who knows how much it could have helped.

And it might help shape emergency plans in the future. That said, the VT staff followed the procedures that had been laid out and had no warnings that anything else would happen. As far as I'm concerned, this same course of events could have happened at any university in the country, with the administration reacting the same way.

I'm sure the administration already feels guilty enough as it is. It's sick that certain parts of the media are jumping on them asking if there was more they could have done about a situation which most people wouldn't have considered happening. It's about as dumb as blaming the government for not evacuating the Pentagon when the WTC was hit during 9/11.

[Ado]

I love when ppl in America (obviously not all are dumb), try to justify guns saying that it decreases crime, then you see the guns they are using - Modern Military weapons as used in iraq etc.

Here is a thread about the shooting, check out the guns in use - It was then that I carried you...
The shooter used to practise with these:



My reasons to why this happens alot in America, not because of quake 3 or doom,
not because of obsessions with being gun nuts but - American schools breed bullies.

[centerchannel68]

Here;s more:

Ms. Peters’ career in gun control got its start in Australia, where she was an important contributor to that country’s current gun ban.[2] By 2005, the rate of sexual assault in Australia increased 36% from its pre-ban 1995 rate, while the U.S. rate decreased 14.6%. Women are now raped over three times as often in Australia as they are in the United States.[3],[4]

The rate of sexual crimes against women in the UK increased 63.0% since pre-ban 1995.[5] Women are raped and sexually assaulted nearly twice as often in the UK as the U.S.

Gun Control: Civil Society? | NewsBusters.org

Fun stuff. I think it's hilarious that some people want to rely on the government to protect them, when the gov can barely put together a concrete election, maintain the roads, or do anything else very well.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by Ado 

The shooter used to practise with these:

OMG ITS BLACK AND SCARY THAT MUST MEAN ITS MORE DANGEROUS!!!!! Yet.... the 'assault weapons ban' did.... nothing.

That's not really a 'scary' gun, dude. Even my 105lb wife can hold one decently:



It's not an automatic, nor does it have any other significant advantages over other firearms...other than looking badass.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Ado 

you see the guns they are using - Modern Military weapons as used in iraq etc.

Here is a thread about the shooting, check out the guns in use - It was then that I carried you...
The shooter used to practise with these:
http://photos-302.ak.facebook.com/ip...75302_4108.jpg

WTF are you blabbing about?
That is an assault rifle. I don't see what it has to do with anything. There was only a 9mm and a 22 pistol recovered in VA.
Did you confuse the shooter with this guy in the blog because Asian people all look alike to you?

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

So did you completely ignore all the info about Britian?

The better question is "Can you tell when someone is actually taking your side?"

I mean, seriously. After years of opposing you 90% of the time I finally agree with you. Bask in the warm glow for once.

Australia, England, and America --> all related by blood. We are all uptight over-reacting intolerant cultures. It's not a surprise. Australia was a penal colony -- that's no more ignominious than America's start. The US was a bunch of outlaws, self-righteous super-zealots, drunks, Power Hungry Capitalists, and the both desperate and poor (who are disproportionately cursed by mental illness). We're type A heavy in a world that could use a more even hand.

It's counterintuitive, but in our case a country full of armed, paranoid caucasians is definitely a deterrent to crime. And once again -- the problem with the US is not the availability of guns but the callous, uncompassionate culture that creates and drives desperate people toward desperate acts.

[Ado]

Guns and victims of bullying dont mix.



quote:
HK sells its pistols in the United States to both the civilian and law enforcement market. In 2004 H&K was awarded a major handgun contract by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) , worth a potential $26.2 million for up to 65,000 pistols. This contract ranks as the single largest handgun procurement contract in US law enforcement history. Many HK civilian rifles that were briefly sold in the United States now command a high value on the secondary market.

HK firearms are often seen as a status symbol among American gun owners due to their quality, scarcity, and high price tag.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

It's counterintuitive, but in our case a country full of armed, paranoid caucasians is definitely a deterrent to crime. And once again -- the problem with the US is not the availability of guns but the callous, uncompassionate culture that creates and drives desperate people toward desperate acts.

Psssst. The paranoid ones are the crazy ones that we don't want to have guns.

[Ado]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

Here;s more:

Ms. Peters’ career in gun control got its start in Australia, where she was an important contributor to that country’s current gun ban.[2] By 2005, the rate of sexual assault in Australia increased 36% from its pre-ban 1995 rate, while the U.S. rate decreased 14.6%. Women are now raped over three times as often in Australia as they are in the United States.[3],[4]

The rate of sexual crimes against women in the UK increased 63.0% since pre-ban 1995.[5] Women are raped and sexually assaulted nearly twice as often in the UK as the U.S.

Gun Control: Civil Society? | NewsBusters.org

Fun stuff. I think it's hilarious that some people want to rely on the government to protect them, when the gov can barely put together a concrete election, maintain the roads, or do anything else very well.

LOL are you actually trying to convince the world that America is safer or as safe as Australia?
Girls here ride surf boards...

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Count me in with the "everyone shouldn't have handguns" people. They're mostly illegal here in Canada, although we do get a lot from the States and anyone who knows the right people can get them.

I don't see the point. Stupid, it seems to me. Giving everyone the power to take someone's life at the touch of a trigger?! Jebus. Scary.

greg

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Ado 

Something about Ca$h's taste in gun-carrying women

I'm a homo and even I think the wife is lookin' pretty good in that picture, esp with that sexy gun thingy.

[centerchannel68]

And apparently those aussie surfer chicks get raped more often than US girls.

EDIT: Actually, I have personal info about this. My high school girlfriend went to austrailia for a semester, and she was raped there. I totally forgot about that. Crazy.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

And apparently those aussie surfer chicks get raped more often than US girls.

According to your NSA propaganda, sure.

[centerchannel68]

Yep, sure is propaganda:

"[3] Australian Bureau of Statistics, Recorded Crime – Victims, 2005, May 26, 2006. http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/A05E3DBEC1109735CA257178001B69FC/$File/45100_2005.pdf Rape data collated from state-level statistics. Cross-referenced with 2005 population figure from:

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 3101.0 Australian Demographic Statistics, TABLE 1. Population Change, Summary – Australia (‘000), March, 2006. http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/0/03BBDB85D2B14F34CA2571EF007D6FFE/$File/310101.xls#A2133251W

[4] FBI, Table 1: Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986-2005. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/d...ts/05tbl01.xls

[Railroader]

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Psssst. The paranoid ones are the crazy ones that we don't want to have guns.

Unfortunately, relative to other bloodlines, it is my opinion that we White Anglo Saxon/English folk are paranoid/predatory as a majority. Picking and choosing who might be gunworthy is a bit of a crapshoot with all that blood mixed around the US, now. We're twitchy. Even the racists who insist it's a black problem -- ever notice that most blacks are NOT as black as africans? Because dey gots da white blood in'em.(I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate, but you get the point. There's not much refuge from the theory)

Whether you're talking about the Irish, Scotch, Aboriginals, African slaves, or American Indian -- we have a pretty well established record for being violently intolerant. It's a predisposition to a neurological state of hyper-arousal. (My opinion, I admit, backed by history). Even Hitler recognized the blood connection to the Brits and offered to make them part of the new empire.

Sure you can find dictators and leaders in other countries who historically ordered violence upon their populace. But it's hard to match the WIDESPREAD participation of violence perpetrated by this bloodline in the world. Hell, we traveled around the world to destroy new and exciting civilizations. Indian-hunting tours out west, slave owning christians of the american south...must we bring up the Congo or the poor aboriginals? You'd have a hard time arguing against the paranoia trait without pointing to...say...New Zealand, maybe? *shrug* I've known a lot of world travelers through the Navy, business, and so on. They almost all say that people are warmer, friendlier, and less suspicious than Americans. We revel in judgment here. We think people are dangerous psychos if their clothes don't match.

Even today the average american thinks the hyper-vigilant policing of the world is necessary because the rest of the world is lax in their willingness to apply violence to problems. Hey, we'll do it gladly! What's wrong with you wimps?

So, if you were surrounded by a bunch of violently intolerant people -- who had guns -- would you be disposed to commit crime upon them? It's a standoff, of sorts.

It's easy to imagine that removing the guns will solve the problem, but it will only make your brains more accessible to a greater number of hammer-wielding paranoid or predatory psychos.

[centerchannel68]

Nice post wolfen.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

Yep, sure is propaganda:

"[3] Australian Bureau of Statistics, Recorded Crime – Victims, 2005, May 26, 2006. http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/A05E3DBEC1109735CA257178001B69FC/$File/45100_2005.pdf Rape data collated from state-level statistics. Cross-referenced with 2005 population figure from:

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 3101.0 Australian Demographic Statistics, TABLE 1. Population Change, Summary – Australia (‘000), March, 2006. http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/0/03BBDB85D2B14F34CA2571EF007D6FFE/$File/310101.xls#A2133251W

From the survey, the following victimisation rates (proportion of persons or households
experiencing a crime) were obtained:

! Assault increased from 4.3% of persons in 1998 to 4.8% in 2005. Movements
between 2002 and 2005 were not statistically significant for this offence type.

! Sexual assault was 0.3% of persons in 2005.

! Break-in to a home, garage or shed decreased from 5.0% of households in 1998 to
3.3% in 2005, while attempted break-in decreased from 3.2% to 2.6%. Motor vehicle
theft decreased from 1.7% of households in 1998 to 1.0% in 2005.

! Robbery decreased from 0.6% of persons in 2002 to 0.4% in 2005. Movements
between 1998 and 2002 were not statistically significant for this offence.

OMG we're outta control!

We obviously need more guns.

[Demonhood]

unless Virginia has been annexed by Australia, could we bring this back around to the topic at hand?
if someone wants to create a dedicated gun control thread in the political forum, feel free to do so.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

So, if you were surrounded by a bunch of violently intolerant people -- who had guns -- would you be disposed to commit crime upon them? It's a standoff, of sorts.

I agree that if I were in the US, I'd want a gun too.

The idea of banning guns in Australia is to avoid the "standoff" point of no return. As it is, we may just be delaying the inevitable, but it's worth delaying, yes?