[Nicko]

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

The idea that outlawing guns would massively reduce gun-related violence is not controversial. It's common sense.

My point exactly. Its common sense to everyone...unless your country has the distinction of being the top exporter of small arms to the world and is dominated by incredibly powerful and well funded lobby groups that produce pro-gun propaganda to the extent that it permeates into the consciousness of whole segments of society...

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

My point exactly. Its common sense to everyone...unless your country has the distinction of being the top exporter of small arms to the world and is dominated by incredibly powerful and well funded lobby groups that produce pro-gun propaganda to the extent that it permeates into the consciousness of whole segments of society...

Take a deep breath.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Take a deep breath.

oops I missed a few ,, and .

[Jawbone54]

[Dakarʒ]

You better have a prescription for that.

[Jawbone54]

You mean the 3 9mm Glocks strapped to the limbs of my body?

[Dakarʒ]

No, those are ok. Carry on, Patriot.

[Troll]

There are nutcases in every country. The difference in the US is the ease and speed with which you can buy a gun and the types of guns you can buy without any qualification. The signs seem to have all been there for this guy. His roommates had called the cops on him, the stalked girls had called the cops, his teacher had removed him from class and called the cops, the cops had had him committed (well, they "referred him to psychological counselling in an institution), he was suspected of arson, potentially of bomb threats too ... And yet, he was able to walk into a gun shop and walk out 5minutes later with a 9mm and ammo. No background check, no licence required, no one even asked him what he was planning to do with it. You don't have to ban guns completely to control gun violence. But unless you're okay with this sort of thing happening 1.9 times a year, you need better gun control than Virginia has in place.

Other countries have less of a problem because it's more difficult for a nutcase to get a gun not because they have fewer nutcases.

[Jawbone54]

I'd be in favor of a computer system that keeps track of this sort of thing, that people have to implement in order to sell guns.

If a person ever shows aggressive/violent behavior, key it into the system. When they ask for a gun 6 months down the road at a local gun shop, the worker pulls up their name (from a driver's license only), sees the record, refuses the sale.

Seems simple, but probably isn't, especially since they could probably find a firearm through illegal means (if they try hard enough).

[EDIT] Let it be noted that I believe that a law-abiding citizen without a blemish on his record such as myself should be able to carry a concealed weapon anywhere that he pleases, with a permit.

[design219]

Originally Posted by Troll 

There are nutcases in every country. The difference in the US is the ease and speed with which you can buy a gun and the types of guns you can buy without any qualification. The signs seem to have all been there for this guy. His roommates had called the cops on him, the stalked girls had called the cops, his teacher had removed him from class and called the cops, the cops had had him committed (well, they "referred him to psychological counselling in an institution), he was suspected of arson, potentially of bomb threats too ... And yet, he was able to walk into a gun shop and walk out 5minutes later with a 9mm and ammo. No background check, no licence required, no one even asked him what he was planning to do with it. You don't have to ban guns completely to control gun violence. But unless you're okay with this sort of thing happening 1.9 times a year, you need better gun control than Virginia has in place.

Other countries have less of a problem because it's more difficult for a nutcase to get a gun not because they have fewer nutcases.

BINGO!

[Dakarʒ]

I'm sure most people would see this as a massive infringement of their rights, but getting a mental profile before getting a lethal weapon might make sense. Root out the unstables.

I mean it is a lethal weapon.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

I'm sure most people would see this as a massive infringement of their rights, but getting a mental profile before getting a lethal weapon might make sense. Root out the unstables.

I mean it is a lethal weapon.

I've met a few "unstables" who probably have a mini-arsenal in their garage.

[Dakarʒ]

Do you think a mental profile would confirm that?

[design219]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

I'm sure most people would see this as a massive infringement of their rights, but getting a mental profile before getting a lethal weapon might make sense. Root out the unstables.

I mean it is a lethal weapon.

Most people would agree. coincidently, most people are not NRA members.

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by Powerbook 

Muhhahaha, get your facts straight.
The U.S.A. have worldwide the most peoples in prison or under other judicial measures. Yeah, talk about personal responsibilty. Right.

--
U.S. Prison Population Tops 2 Million

How many people are in China?? Talk about not having facts straight! LOL

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by Troll 

There are nutcases in every country. The difference in the US is the ease and speed with which you can buy a gun and the types of guns you can buy without any qualification. The signs seem to have all been there for this guy. His roommates had called the cops on him, the stalked girls had called the cops, his teacher had removed him from class and called the cops, the cops had had him committed (well, they "referred him to psychological counselling in an institution), he was suspected of arson, potentially of bomb threats too ... And yet, he was able to walk into a gun shop and walk out 5minutes later with a 9mm and ammo. No background check, no licence required, no one even asked him what he was planning to do with it. You don't have to ban guns completely to control gun violence. But unless you're okay with this sort of thing happening 1.9 times a year, you need better gun control than Virginia has in place.

Other countries have less of a problem because it's more difficult for a nutcase to get a gun not because they have fewer nutcases.

Actually we need better quality nutcase filtering. Start with anyone with a LOT of photos of themselves with lots of guns on their web space.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by design219 

Most people would agree. coincidently, most people are not NRA members.

Most people who are in favor of gun control, maybe. Those who feel adamant about their right to bear arms probably would find such a requirement hugely obtrusive.

Of course, I'm speculating wildly.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Y3a 

How many people are in China?? Talk about not having facts straight! LOL

um, do you know what per capita means?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by grayware 

Once again, one very sick nut and a gun (in this case, two). It's always a case of one's mental state folks, not the armory. When a despicable and tragic event like this occurs the same people come out of the woodwork saying the US is gun happy. I tend to disagree; someone mentioned stats... okay, how many people own a gun? Millions. And how many of those do something sick with it like the VT $#@!?

A friend sent me this article by Neal Boortz today (never heard of the guy before) which has many concepts to ponder.

I have yet to read this blog post, but as someone who's been familiar with Boortz for many years, I consider him to be a very smart guy. We'll see what he has to say. And we'll probably get some of the typical "[I don't agree with him so} he's a nutjob" posts.

The "statistics" on gun violence don't really speak for themselves, unfortunately. When you don't measure defensive gun incidents, you're leaving out the other side of things. Consider this: millions of people own guns legally, and keep them in their homes at great risk and expense (according to CDC). Of those millions of people, how many are doing it for because of the "Rambo" aspect? How many just enjoy target shooting (at, again, great risk)? How many are doing it because they feel it's useful to have to protect themselves or others? Why would they keep guns if there's not a reason? Finally, ask law-abiding folks in New Orleans or central Florida how useful guns are, and you'll get an answer that Rudi G. can't really argue with.

[design219]

Neal Boortz is a nut job of the highest order.

[Kerrigan]

I understand why some people ought to have guns. People who own rifles or shotguns for hunting purposes are pretty harmless. I mean, when was the last time someone took a rifle and robbed a store?

But handguns and automatic weapons are different. The only people I've known who own handguns are somewhat mentally unstable. They feel the need to take weapons everywhere for whatever reason. This sort of thing should not be considered a "right".

So that's my take; ban handguns, automatic weapons, and anything else which is obviously designed to kill people. Keep rifles and shotguns legal, since these are intended more for hunting and are more difficult to conceal and commit crimes with.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I understand why some people ought to have guns. People who own rifles or shotguns for hunting purposes are pretty harmless. I mean, when was the last time someone took a rifle and robbed a store?

But handguns and automatic weapons are different. The only people I've known who own handguns are somewhat mentally unstable. They feel the need to take weapons everywhere for whatever reason. This sort of thing should not be considered a "right".

So that's my take; ban handguns, automatic weapons, and anything else which is obviously designed to kill people. Keep rifles and shotguns legal, since these are intended more for hunting and are more difficult to conceal and commit crimes with.

If a person breaks into my house and is armed, I want to have a handgun in my nightstand that I can kill him with before he does harm to my family. You're correct that the aim (ooo...pun) is to kill the person. That is what the handgun is for.

That doesn't make me mentally unstable. That makes me about 100 times more sane than any person wanting to strip average citizens of their firearms.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

the top exporter of small arms to the world ...

Russia? China? Better check your facts on that one.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

If a person breaks into my house and is armed, I want to have a handgun in my nightstand that I can kill him with before he does harm to my family. You're correct that the aim (ooo...pun) is to kill the person. That is what the handgun is for.

That handgun is also there to reduce the likelihood that someone breaks into your house in the first place. And lo and behold, it does!

By the way, let's get something straight: I cannot own an assault rifle or a machine gun, or even "automatic weapons" in this country, because I'm not a law enforcement professional. Not even with a special permit. I can, however, legally own a rifle that "looks like" an assault rifle but only fires one bullet at a time, and I do. No private citizens can own assault rifles or other automatic weapons. Just because the media can't get it right doesn't mean that everyone else gets a pass too.

[design219]

Originally Posted by finboy 

No private citizens can own assault rifles or other automatic weapons.

Well thank God for small miracles. The problem that still exists is hand guns. One purpose...kill people.

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

um, do you know what per capita means?

Yes. Do you understand how many chinese are prisioners in their own country without a means of protecting themselves from the governmental tyrants? HOW MANY chinese ARE THERE???

[Y3a]

OK gun ban idiots....

When is the last time a gun hopped up and started shooting?

OK Better question, How many PEOPLE picked up guns and shot somebody else? SEE THE DIFFERENCE??

OK, so start checking out PEOPLE better before allowing any nutcase to get a gun.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

If a person breaks into my house and is armed, I want to have a handgun in my nightstand that I can kill him with before he does harm to my family. You're correct that the aim (ooo...pun) is to kill the person. That is what the handgun is for.

That doesn't make me mentally unstable. That makes me about 100 times more sane than any person wanting to strip average citizens of their firearms.

Why not just wire up your house with motion sensors and alarm linked to a quick response security service? That way you don't even need to worry.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Y3a 

Yes. Do you understand how many chinese are prisioners in their own country without a means of protecting themselves from the governmental tyrants? HOW MANY chinese ARE THERE???

Well your reply sounds a little wacko

But I google anyway:

From 2005:
INCARCERATION RATES
US: 726 people per 100,000
UK: 142
China: 118
France: 91
Japan: 58
Nigeria: 31
Source: Justice Policy Institute

Wow look at that, the US puts more people in jail per capita than all those countries combined.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

See Kevin?

My comment was "stop such things from happening"
While making stricter gun laws WOULD probably cut down on GUN crime and assault, others would just go up.

The problem isn't the gun.

[design219]

Originally Posted by Y3a 

OK gun ban idiots....

When is the last time a gun hopped up and started shooting?

I guess nukes are ok too. The don't fire themselves either.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

My comment was "stop such things from happening"
While making stricter gun laws WOULD probably cut down on GUN crime and assault, others would just go up.

The problem isn't the gun.

So when was the last time you saw the headline, "School killing rampage: 32 students stabbed to death by 23 year old Asian nerd with a kitchen knife" ?

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

My comment was "stop such things from happening"
While making stricter gun laws WOULD probably cut down on GUN crime and assault, others would just go up.

The problem isn't the gun.

Well, if these other crimes are non-lethal, I think we might prefer it.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

So when was the last time you saw the headline, "School killing rampage: 32 students stabbed to death by 23 year old Asian nerd with a kitchen knife" ?

I saw someone stab 20 or so people not too long ago in the news. I believe it was over the pond as well too.

Not that stiff laws will effect law breakers. Stiffer laws will only make it harder for legit safe gun owners to own guns.

Not criminals.

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Well your reply sounds a little wacko

But I google anyway:

From 2005:
INCARCERATION RATES
US: 726 people per 100,000
UK: 142
China: 118
France: 91
Japan: 58
Nigeria: 31
Source: Justice Policy Institute

Wow look at that, the US puts more people in jail per capita than all those countries combined.

Except CHINA is the prison, like the USSR was.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Why not just wire up your house with motion sensors and alarm linked to a quick response security service? That way you don't even need to worry.

We've already been through this. The man of the house is much more qualified to be protecting his family than someone who's just doing a job.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by design219 

The problem that still exists is hand guns. One purpose...kill people.

Unless the user is aiming at the perp's knees. I mean, you're aware that the user can actually aim the handgun at specific non-lethal parts of the body, right?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The man of the house is much more qualified to be protecting his family than someone who's just doing a job.

Did someone just thaw you out after you were frozen for a century? This is such an archaic vision of society and so sexist and patriarchal, the freezing theory is the best explanation I can come up with.

[design219]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Unless the user is aiming at the perp's knees. I mean, you're aware that the user can actually aim the handgun at specific non-lethal parts of the body, right?

I stand corrected. They have one purpose: to extremely hurt people, and possibly kill them.

I thought you were never supposed to point a loaded gun at someone unless you mean to kill. But if everyone were a trained marksman and can hit a knee, I guess that wouldn't apply.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Did someone just thaw you out after you were frozen for a century? This is such an archaic vision of society and so sexist and patriarchal, the freezing theory is the best explanation I can come up with.

He did not say the man of the house was much more qualified than the woman of the house did he? The foremost purpose was to say a member of the household is much more emotionally involved with the house and will do more to protect it than a non-member.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Did someone just thaw you out after you were frozen for a century? This is such an archaic vision of society and so sexist and patriarchal, the freezing theory is the best explanation I can come up with.

Yes. And you know how all the chicks were all hot for Link in Encino Man? There ya go, there's my secret.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yes. And you know how all the chicks were all hot for Link in Encino Man? There ya go, there's my secret.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I saw someone stab 20 or so people not too long ago in the news. I believe it was over the pond as well too.

Not that stiff laws will effect law breakers. Stiffer laws will only make it harder for legit safe gun owners to own guns.

Not criminals.

So you're saying it's just as easy to commit mass murder with a knife?

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Why not just wire up your house with motion sensors and alarm linked to a quick response security service? That way you don't even need to worry.

1. Because police response time isn't quicker than 5 minutes.
2. Because I can't afford it at the moment.
3. Because a shrill sound doesn't immobilize and incapacitate them.

Yeah, so the alarm goes off and the criminal immediately runs away? He would have several choices. Do I try to grab something really quick before I sprint off to my vehicle? Do I shoot someone if they get up and see what set the alarm off? How much longer do I have? 5...6 minutes? Yeah, lemme grab that TV. Uh oh...what was that noise? The owner!. *BLAM* Well, he shouldn't have gotten out of bed. Good thing he didn't have a gun. Who's that screaming? The wife? *BLAM* Wow, she was hot before I blew her brains out.

No thanks. The odds are in my favor if I'm a gun owner.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Well your reply sounds a little wacko

But I google anyway:

From 2005:
INCARCERATION RATES
US: 726 people per 100,000
UK: 142
China: 118
France: 91
Japan: 58
Nigeria: 31
Source: Justice Policy Institute

Wow look at that, the US puts more people in jail per capita than all those countries combined.

How many of them are illegal immigrants?



Oh yes, I think I have that number right here...

270,000 serve time behind bars per year!!!

And yes, I'm aware that it's a NewsMax article, but it's from a study done by the Justice Dept.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

So you're saying it's just as easy to commit mass murder with a knife?

Or you could do it the Jim Jones way.

Of course, that takes patience. There are all sorts of ways to cause people's deaths.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I understand why some people ought to have guns. People who own rifles or shotguns for hunting purposes are pretty harmless. I mean, when was the last time someone took a rifle and robbed a store?

But handguns and automatic weapons are different. The only people I've known who own handguns are somewhat mentally unstable. They feel the need to take weapons everywhere for whatever reason. This sort of thing should not be considered a "right".

So that's my take; ban handguns, automatic weapons, and anything else which is obviously designed to kill people. Keep rifles and shotguns legal, since these are intended more for hunting and are more difficult to conceal and commit crimes with.

Ted Kenedy's car has killed more people than any firearm I've ever touched. It is simply NOT the device that is the problem, but the HUMAN BEING who uses it. People have committed murder with axes, hammers, nailguns, icepicks, trucks, bricks, you name it. It's NOT ABOUT GUNS. It's about PEOPLE. In the case of the VT shooter, it's about someone who OBVIOUSLY had mental problems but was never treated or even properly evaluated.

The people YOU know who own handguns are far from representative of the population that owns handguns.

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

So you're saying it's just as easy to commit mass murder with a knife?

Two words: Jeffrey Dahmer. yes, it IS possible to commit mass murder with a knife.

[OldManMac]

It's not about the guns.

The Blog | Bob Cesca: It's Not About The Firearms | The Huffington Post

[design219]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

It is simply NOT the device that is the problem, but the HUMAN BEING who uses it.

This argument is so lame. If it is not the device, would it be OK for everyone to have nuclear weapons as well?

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Russia? China? Better check your facts on that one.

Small Arms Exports for the US in 2005 was around $533 million. at $250mil, Italy is 2nd, Russia and China are 4th and 5th respectively behind Germany.
Source: Small Arms Export Sales
IMO, Russia and China have their reputations because of the Cold War and western dramas associated with the cold war.

The Gun-advocate side of the Virginia Tech argument seems to require a lot of "if's".
If Virginia Tech had allowed guns on Campus, then there would have been a hero to shoot and stop the gunman.
Of course, that requires the following:
if any students on campus are interested in carrying guns
if those students are trained to use those guns
if those students were carrying their guns that day.
if those students were in class that day.
if those students were in Norris hall.


That's a significant whittling down of potential heros. As I said before, I don't think eliminating guns is going to solve anything. But I don't think that encouraging people to start getting guns and start carrying them around is going to significantly increase the chance of this happening again.

In one of my classes yesterday, a man commented that there was a city not to far from here which actually required it's citizens of legal age to be registered to carry a gun. (I don't know veracity of that, so who knows, but stick with me here for a moment). He said that in that town the crime rate is significantly low, because you never know who's packing heat.

Assuming that's true, it would scare me significantly. Someone who may be quite stable one day may have a crushing blow the next, and become depressed, angry, or unstable, and that person might be carrying a gun.
</story>