Guns kill, and so does the silence of Americans

[Laz]

Posted on Wed, Apr. 18, 2007

Guns kill, and so does the silence of Americans

By MIKE HENDRICKS
Columnist

When I was in sixth grade, every kid in class knew the name Charles Whitman.

That was 1966, the year the former Marine climbed to the 28th-story observation deck of the University of Texas clock tower. And then with a rifle, he rained death down upon the college campus below.

Seventeen people died that day in Austin, including Whitman. No one in modern times, it was said, had killed so many in a single act, and it shocked the nation.

Twenty-five years later, another killer outdid Whitman, shooting 23 to death at Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas. But by then, we Americans were becoming almost numb to shooting rampages, and few of us would remember the killer’s name after it passed from the front pages.

After all, there’d been so many other massacres. The 21 shot dead at the McDonald’s in San Ysidro, Calif. Workplace shootings had become commonplace, and school shootings soon would be.

This week a college kid took it to another level by slaughtering 32 at Virginia Tech. Yes, we were shocked, but not like before. And it will be no surprise if even that record isn’t surpassed someday.

After all, we never learn.

In this country, we refuse to take the kind of serious steps that might actually prevent another senseless tragedy like the one in Blacksburg, Va.

Why? Because we refuse to do anything about the guns.

Yes, we are outraged. We grieve for the families of the victims. Such a tragic waste, we tell ourselves.

But if history repeats itself, as it surely will, nothing of consequence will be done to prevent a recurrence. We won’t do anything more about the guns than we did about them after the previous records were set, because that might be inconvenient. Because, politically, it might be hard.

Instead, we try to make things safer by working around the edges. The Columbine killers wore trench coats to conceal their guns. So kids nowadays aren’t allowed to dress like foreign correspondents in many parts of the nation. All trench coats are forbidden.

Some schools, most courthouses and any number of other public buildings now have metal detectors, and security cameras and uniformed guards at the doors to thwart potential massacres.

Maybe it helps. After this recent slaughter, universities and other large institutions will re-examine their security procedures.

But the next worst shooting rampage in the modern history of the United States could be just around the corner or down the block.

Perhaps yours.

President Bush was both quick to express his sympathy to the families of the victims — and to assure the gun lobby that these 33 deaths (the shooter’s included) won’t interfere with their agenda.

Democrats, who’ve been trying to win the support of gun owners, were largely silent on the issue of gun control in the wake of this week’s shootings.

So my guess is that the debate will go nowhere, and we’ll move on as before.

For this, I used to blame the gun lobby, and particularly the National Rifle Association.

I also blamed the politicians who kowtow to the NRA and the firearms industry.

But all that rings hollow today, and ignores the real villains.

Consider: Why is it that a college student in Virginia can so easily obtain handguns to spray his classmates with deadly bullets?

Because we help make it possible. You and me.

No, we don’t pull the trigger. But we might as well be helping the killers reload by not demanding an end to the easy availability of firearms in this country. We let the NRA have the ears of our politicians, when our voices could be so much louder.

One of the handguns reportedly used by the suspected shooter at Virginia Tech was a Glock semiautomatic pistol purchased from a gun shop in Roanoke, Va.

Our gun laws vary from state to state. But in Virginia, if you’re over 21 and can pass an instant criminal background check, you can be out the door with a Glock or even an assault rifle in just a few minutes. There is no licensing, registration or training required.

Choke on that, will you, after you’re through choking back tears for the victims.

Then ask yourself why we allow this sort of thing to go on from one massacre to the next.

To reach Mike Hendricks, call (816) 234-7708 or send e-mail to mhendricks@kcstar.com.

http://www.kansascity.com/122/story/74576.html

[patteeu]

Wouldn't it be even more likely to prevent this kind of killing if we banned colleges instead?

[Brock]

The constitution is a bitch, isn't it?

[Garcia Bronco]

Wouldn't it be even more likely to prevent this kind of killing if we banned colleges instead?

if the guy had a criminal record anr really wanted a gun....he could still get one. It's all a bunch of BS at this point. Our second amendmant right is there for a reason, and if Katrina taught us anything..it's that at any given time you might have to defend yourself, your loved ones, and you property at any time. As a Virginia Tech Alum, I can't even describe the swirl of emotion and anger, but never once have I felt like the gun was at fault. One person is to blame for this...one....and one only.

[Chiefnj]

What's wrong with required training? To hunt in most, if not all, states you now have to complete a hunters ed course. Why not the same thing for handgun ownership?

[Radar Chief]

So everyone is to blame, ‘cept the killers. Got it. :thumb:

[Cochise]

If even one other person had a gun it could have been different. I know that isn't what people like this who want to leverage this opportunity to ban guns want to hear, though.

[Laz]

should get my thread an easy hundee :)

[recxjake]

Eveyone should own a gun... if everyone had a gun, everyone would be afraid to use it.

[Ultra Peanut]

money money

yeah yeah

[CrazyCoffey]

My boss (part time - she's a doctor) is almost as far left as MEME, tried this same argument today. She's knows I was a cop and in the military and believe in our rights to bear arms.

She said something like (trying to equate it, I guess) "it's just like the nutjob DWI's that are killing people we want them off the road" and I said that her blanket statement about guns would be like saying that she will lose her right to drive a car, because of someone else's DWI.

this just happened a few moments ago, I'm probably going to be fired. Last week I said Imus shouldn't have lost his job, it validated his position in society and gave his comments more weight than they deserved.

I gotta be on my last string with her.

[patteeu]

if the guy had a criminal record anr really wanted a gun....he could still get one. It's all a bunch of BS at this point. Our second amendmant right is there for a reason, and if Katrina taught us anything..it's that at any given time you might have to defend yourself, your loved ones, and you property at any time. As a Virginia Tech Alum, I can't even describe the swirl of emotion and anger, but never once have I felt like the gun was at fault. One person is to blame for this...one....and one only.

Truth.

[BigChiefDave]

I think Laz is forgetting someone was pulling the trigger in each instance. Its not that these guns just started firing spontaneously. Using this same logic, you would have to blame alcohol and motor vehicles for people driving drunk. More people die in auto accidents. Should we blame auto makers?

[Garcia Bronco]

My boss (part time - she's a doctor) is almost as far left as MEME, tried this same argument today. She's knows I was a cop and in the military and believe in our rights to bear arms.

She said something like (trying to equate it, I guess) "it's just like the nutjob DWI's that are killing people we want them off the road" and I said that her blanket statement about guns would be like saying that she will lose her right to drive a car, because of someone else's DWI.

this just happened a few moments ago, I'm probably going to be fired. Last week I said Imus shouldn't have lost his job, it validated his position in society and gave his comments more weight than they deserved.

I gotta be on my last string with her.

If she engages in those conversations with you she is just as much at fault...but in the future I just wouldn't have those conversations with her

[Radar Chief]

If even one other person had a gun it could have been different. I know that isn't what people like this who want to leverage this opportunity to ban guns want to hear, though.

:hmmm:

Student Group Wants Campus Gun Ban Lifted (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200209%5CNAT20020917a.html)
By Christine Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
September 17, 2002

(CNSNews.com) - After two armed southwest Virginia law students stopped a campus shooting rampage in January, a Second Amendment group at a northern Virginia law school decided it was time to change their own school's ban on guns.

"We are trying to build a detailed and persuasive brief that would include statistics on increases in safety, decreases in violent crime when you do have concealed carry permit holders in a jurisdiction," said Orest J. Jowyk, president of the Second Amendment group at George Mason University School of Law.

"I think the middle ground is to allow concealed handgun permit holders to carry just like they can anywhere else in Virginia," he said. "You provide extra safety to the student body that way."

Jowyk began researching his law school's gun policy following the January incident in which a disgruntled student at Appalachian Law School, Peter Odighizuwa, allegedly shot and killed the school's dean, a professor and a student on campus before being subdued by two armed students, Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges.

Gross and Bridges reportedly ran to their cars to fetch their own guns and returned to confront Odighizuwa, who surrendered after allegedly initiating a fistfight.

Jowyk was heartened by the students' intervention. But looking into GMU's gun policy, Jowyk found to his dismay that the school's board of visitors had in 1995 passed a ban on all weapons, concealed or otherwise, except by law enforcement officials.

Anyone who violates the school's gun ban would face administrative repercussions but not criminal charges, according to Jowyk.

Then in April, Virginia's Democratic governor, Mark Warner, signed a law prohibiting local governments from using administrative rules to pass gun restrictions that go beyond existing state law.

Jowyk's Second Amendment group is now investigating how that law might apply to GMU, though the group has not yet approached school administrators about changing the policy.

"There is a question that's being bandied about in the Commonwealth whether or not this university qualifies under that law as a locality," said Mike Lynch, chief of police for GMU law school's police department. "Today, I don't think we have the answer."

If that legal question is eventually resolved in the school's favor, Lynch says he will likely recommend that the weapons ban continue.

"The more people that have guns...on them, it is my opinion that that would increase the propensity for somebody getting hurt," either through accident or mischief, said Lynch. "And I don't want to see that."

But the controversy surrounding gun bans on state colleges and universities isn't limited to Virginia.

In January, the Utah legislature launched an inquiry into the University of Utah's 25-year-old gun ban after state Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said state laws on concealed weapons prohibited agencies and schools from banning them from state property.

"We need to have the right to exclude weapons on campus," University of Utah President Bernie Machen testified to legislators, describing the decision as a matter of academic freedom. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," he said. Machen has also argued that the ban fosters a safe learning environment.

On March 6, the Utah Senate passed a GOP-sponsored bill allowing the legislature to cut in half the school's administration budget if the gun ban continues. The university responded two weeks later by initiating a court challenge, asking a U.S. District Court judge to uphold the school's gun ban.

Also in March, Ohio University's 2000 "workforce violence policy" prohibiting any carrying or displaying of weapons became the subject of controversy when a journalism professor was directed to remove a Civil War-era gun he had displayed on his wall for more than a decade. University administrators reportedly are re-evaluating the policy.

"I feel like I've really been fingered as a dangerous person," Patrick Washburn told the University Wire.

[SBK]

Anybody else walk thru the gun section at Wal-Mart and have the guns shooting at you? Everytime I'm in a hunting store I swear those guns are out to get me.

[BigChiefDave]

Anybody else walk thru the gun section at Wal-Mart and have the guns shooting at you? Everytime I'm in a hunting store I swear those guns are out to get me.
ROFL

[CrazyCoffey]

If she engages in those conversations with you she is just as much at fault...but in the future I just wouldn't have those conversations with her


I try to not start, because like many lefty bitches we know - they can't see the other side of the coin and "HAVE" to be right.

I was already upset from the topic because of MeBiatchI.

[Brock]

What's wrong with required training? To hunt in most, if not all, states you now have to complete a hunters ed course. Why not the same thing for handgun ownership?

What's the point of "mandatory training"? So the serial killer doesn't accidentally shoot his big toe off?

[JonesCrusher]

Why is everyone forgetting why this guy was allowed to continue in school given the obvious issues he had.
The liberal mentality is that crazy(sick) people have the right to live normal productive lives and have all rights and privileges even if they stalk 2 girls, start fires and write stories about killing teachers.

[Laz]

Why is everyone forgetting why this guy was allowed to continue in school given the obvious issues he had.
The liberal mentality is that crazy(sick) people have the right to live normal productive lives and have all rights and privileges even if they stalk 2 girls, start fires and write stories about killing teachers.
kill 'em at birth


genetically test them and if they don't meet certain standards then they get thrown in the dumpster out back.

[Cochise]

kill 'em at birth


genetically test them and if they don't meet certain standards then they get thrown in the dumpster out back.

Actually, I don't think that's all that uncommon.

[JonesCrusher]

kill 'em at birth


genetically test them and if they don't meet certain standards then they get thrown in the dumpster out back.

That is not what I am suggesting, we just need to take off the kid gloves with adult psychopaths. We cant even get lengthy convictions on child molesters because it's an illness not a crime.

[Baby Lee]

I lost a cousin to a bad case of silent American.

[SBK]

kill 'em at birth


genetically test them and if they don't meet certain standards then they get thrown in the dumpster out back.

That's the liberal standard, not the one conservatives live by. :)

[JonesCrusher]

That's the liberal standard, not the one conservatives live by. :)

Now, now, that is not if they are crazy, just an inconvenience.

[Taco John]

I don't see why the Government shouldn't take our guns in the name of safety. I mean, what's so special about guns that they should be protected any more than any other Constitutional right?

[dirk digler]

I am in favor of limited gun control and by that I mean I don't believe normal every day citizens should have access to assault rifles or fully automatic weapons. Other than that we should have the right to carry what we want.

[Taco John]

http://www.gameops.com/spot/assets/image/wheel/sox_wheel.gif

SPIN THE WHEEL!
Decide which contitutional protections are important to protect and which ones, eh, not so much, in the name of safety!

[Garcia Bronco]

I don't see why the Government shouldn't take our guns in the name of safety. I mean, what's so special about guns that they should be protected any more than any other Constitutional right?

Because the simple truth is this is dependant on criminals following the law.

[Garcia Bronco]

Why is everyone forgetting why this guy was allowed to continue in school given the obvious issues he had.
The liberal mentality is that crazy(sick) people have the right to live normal productive lives and have all rights and privileges even if they stalk 2 girls, start fires and write stories about killing teachers.

Exactly.,...but...what if they kicked him out....that might have caused this same thing to happen, but just earlier.

[Garcia Bronco]

That is not what I am suggesting, we just need to take off the kid gloves with adult psychopaths. We cant even get lengthy convictions on child molesters because it's an illness not a crime.


Agreed...if it's an illness...it sould be one society shouldn't tolerate...hell even hardcore criminals don't tolerate that shit.

[BucEyedPea]

I had an uncle shot in the head while watching tv in his living room growing up. And I still support gun rights. But I'm also Sicilian. :)

[Brock]

Because the simple truth is this is dependant on criminals following the law.

Oh, he's just baaa-ing about all the rights he's lost under the Bush administration. Meanwhile, not a peep was heard from any of these suddenly-concerned-with-the-constitution types when Clinton signed the Brady bill.

[CrazyCoffey]

I don't see why the Government shouldn't take our guns in the name of safety. I mean, what's so special about guns that they should be protected any more than any other Constitutional right?

Are you the same user name on the Mange? Cause your opinion is different here than it is there....... :hmmm:


I just made my first post there, won't be a regular or anything, but I thought it was well written, so I thought I'd share it here too......




My 2 cents.....

Gun laws will have little if any effect on violent crimes. This was a very tragic event and I feel for the friends and family members involved. But having more laws will not stop a criminal (they historically don't care about laws) so I don't understand why we talk about it on forums, why the media mentioned the gun laws under two hours of reporting on the events on Monday and why now everyone knows all the answers. And I don't just mean us, here (including myself).

I do know that the state of Virgina recently knocked down a bill to allow, trained, educated people with gun experience, the ability to carry in public, and if one had been there Monday, who could know if lives would have been saved. Deductive reasons in my opinion says yes. A few past similar experience also say yes.

I'm going to generalize now (continue reading at your own risk) this guy had a background that one could speculate wasn't healthy. The same liberal attitudes that think a simple Gun Ban would prevent violent gun crimes also thought this guy deserved the benefit of the doubt after he stalked people and wrote disturbing information in a "book". Society could do better than we have been, lately.

No, don't take my gun. I have a military background and police experience. A clean record and good training. Give me an evaluation and register me as a licensed gun holder. Let hundreds of people similar to me do the same. Be scared of the idiot that wants to harm you and your family, not the ones who want to make society a safer environment. Trust me, that I was made to understand a gun and the tactics surrounding an unfortunate event to make good decisions.

In turn I'll trust you to do my taxes, make my computer work and car run, perform a surgery on me or my family when needed. The world will be better for it.

[Radar Chief]

Your rifle is only a tool. It is the hard heart that kills.

[patteeu]

I had an uncle shot in the head while watching tv in his living room growing up. And I still support gun rights. But I'm also Sicilian. :)

Wouldn't he let your aunt turn it to Grey's Anatomy? ;)

[patteeu]

Are you the same user name on the Mange? Cause your opinion is different here than it is there....... :hmmm:

I suspect that he's being sarcastic by suggesting that other rights aren't protected very well so why do a better job protecting gun rights. In other words, he doesn't think other rights are protected like they should be.

[CrazyCoffey]

I suspect that he's being sarcastic by suggesting that other rights aren't protected very well so why do a better job protecting gun rights. In other words, he doesn't think other rights are protected like they should be.


It's just as well, I think I'm exceding my quota of DC talk this week anyway......

[Lzen]

You can take my guns when you can pry them from my cold, dead hands. ;)

Personally, I don't have a problem with doing criminal background checks before the sale of a gun. On that note, this VT shooter was a foreigner in our country. I don't believe that foreigners should be allowed to buy guns. Still, it is my right to own guns and that should not change. And requiring training is stupid.

[ClevelandBronco]

My 2 cents.....

Gun laws will have little if any effect on violent crimes. This was a very tragic event and I feel for the friends and family members involved. But having more laws will not stop a criminal (they historically don't care about laws) so I don't understand why we talk about it on forums, why the media mentioned the gun laws under two hours of reporting on the events on Monday and why now everyone knows all the answers. And I don't just mean us, here (including myself).

I do know that the state of Virgina recently knocked down a bill to allow, trained, educated people with gun experience, the ability to carry in public, and if one had been there Monday, who could know if lives would have been saved. Deductive reasons in my opinion says yes. A few past similar experience also say yes.

I'm going to generalize now (continue reading at your own risk) this guy had a background that one could speculate wasn't healthy. The same liberal attitudes that think a simple Gun Ban would prevent violent gun crimes also thought this guy deserved the benefit of the doubt after he stalked people and wrote disturbing information in a "book". Society could do better than we have been, lately.

No, don't take my gun. I have a military background and police experience. A clean record and good training. Give me an evaluation and register me as a licensed gun holder. Let hundreds of people similar to me do the same. Be scared of the idiot that wants to harm you and your family, not the ones who want to make society a safer environment. Trust me, that I was made to understand a gun and the tactics surrounding an unfortunate event to make good decisions.

In turn I'll trust you to do my taxes, make my computer work and car run, perform a surgery on me or my family when needed. The world will be better for it.

Spot on.

[Garcia Bronco]

You can take my guns when you can pry them from my cold, dead hands. ;)

Personally, I don't have a problem with doing criminal background checks before the sale of a gun. On that note, this VT shooter was a foreigner in our country. I don't believe that foreigners should be allowed to buy guns. Still, it is my right to own guns and that should not change. And requiring training is stupid.

He;d been her though since being a child

[Iowanian]

The glock didn't kill anyone...The nutjob asshole who loaded it, pointed it and pulled the trigger did.

[memyselfI]

You can take my guns when you can pry them from my cold, dead hands. ;)

Personally, I don't have a problem with doing criminal background checks before the sale of a gun. On that note, this VT shooter was a foreigner in our country. I don't believe that foreigners should be allowed to buy guns. Still, it is my right to own guns and that should not change. And requiring training is stupid.

You know he bought them legally even though he had mental problems and passed a background check. I think you are better off knowing which foreigners have them than don't.

As the PG lobby likes to argue, if someone wants a gun bad enough they'll get it off the street. Making them able to own one legally with transparency should allow for more monitoring of their ability to use them.

Of course, in this case many 'shoulds' have been shot to hell...

so to speak.

[CrazyCoffey]

Spot on.

not taco john's words, mine - but thank you.....

[ClevelandBronco]

not taco john's words, mine - but thank you.....

I fixed it. Well said.

[Taco John]

Oh, he's just baaa-ing about all the rights he's lost under the Bush administration. Meanwhile, not a peep was heard from any of these suddenly-concerned-with-the-constitution types when Clinton signed the Brady bill.



You clearly have no idea what I think about the Brady bill...

[Taco John]

Are you the same user name on the Mange? Cause your opinion is different here than it is there....... :hmmm:





I was being sarcastic. I think gun rights are as important as all of our other rights. I don' tthink anyone is protected when we allow them to be infringed, regardless of the "good cause."

[StcChief]

Expose the BG checks. and have agents of ATF test the places that sell guns with posers....

Much like the liquor store/bars get slammed by underage posers.

[RaiderH8r]

Can somebody remind me how many shots Tim McVeigh fired?

A gun is no more responsible for a death than a shovel is for a hole. Both are tools. The massacre sucks ass through a straw and I feel for the families of the victims. Beyond the massacre the other travesty here is anti-gun pricks using this massacre as a spring board to advance their agenda. But they have no shame and I can't say I'm surprised.

[Lzen]

Agreed, RaiderH8r. If you ban guns, you might as well start banning video games, television shows (The Shield, Sopranos, anyone?), sports like boxing/football, etc. Where does it end?

[Cochise]

Agreed, RaiderH8r. If you ban guns, you might as well start banning video games, television shows (The Shield, Sopranos, anyone?), sports like boxing/football, etc. Where does it end?

Don't forget beer. People get drunk and kill each other with their cars, and it wouldn't have happened without alcohol. Ban alcohol!

[BucEyedPea]

There are groups out there that want to ban football as it is to violent, harms, maims players. They even have web sites.

[StcChief]

Agreed, RaiderH8r. If you ban guns, you might as well start banning video games, television shows (The Shield, Sopranos, anyone?), sports like boxing/football, etc. Where does it end?

It ends when you Ban the Banners....

[Chiefnj]

Maybe those background checks need to be a little more thorough.

Va. Tech Killer Ruled Mentally Ill by Court; Let Go After Hospital Visit
Cho Had Harassed Two Female Students; Officials Concerned He Was Suicidal
By NED POTTER and DAVID SCHOETZ
April 18, 2007 — - A Virginia court found that Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho was "mentally ill" and potentially dangerous. Then the state let him go.

In 2005, after a district court in Montgomery County, Va., ruled that Cho was either a danger to himself or to others -- the necessary criteria for a detention order -- he was evaluated by a state doctor and ordered to undergo outpatient care.

According to the "Temporary Detention Order" obtained by ABC News, psychologist Roy Crouse found Cho's "affect is flat and mood is depressed.

"He denies suicidal ideation. He does not acknowledge symptoms of a thought disorder," Dr. Crouse wrote. "His insight and judgment are normal."

That information came to light two days after Cho, a Virginia Tech senior, killed 32 people and then himself in a shooting rampage on the university's campus.


'Imminent Danger to Himself'

The evaluation came from a psychiatric hospital near Virginia Tech, where Cho was taken by police in December 2005, after two female schoolmates said they received threatening messages from him, and police and school officials became concerned that he might be suicidal.

After Dr. Crouse's psychological evaluation of Cho, Special Justice Paul M. Barnett certified the finding, ordering followup treatment on an outpatient basis.

On the form, a box is checked, showing that the person "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness."

Immediately below it was another box that is not checked: "Presents an imminent danger to others as a result of mental illness."

Authorities said they had no contact with Cho between then and Monday's mass killings.

[Taco John]

I think after a person is ruled mentally ill by a court, it's reasonable to believe that person should not be sold any fire arms.

[CRONUS]

I think after a person is ruled mentally ill by a court, it's reasonable to believe that person should not be sold any fire arms.

No kidding.

[Laz]

Can somebody remind me how many shots Tim McVeigh fired?

A gun is no more responsible for a death than a shovel is for a hole. Both are tools. The massacre sucks ass through a straw and I feel for the families of the victims. Beyond the massacre the other travesty here is anti-gun pricks using this massacre as a spring board to advance their agenda. But they have no shame and I can't say I'm surprised.

i wonder if Cho could of used a shovel to kill all those people ..... or a car.

do you think a car could of fit inside the college?


:hmmm:

[mlyonsd]

I think after a person is ruled mentally ill by a court, it's reasonable to believe that person should not be sold any fire arms.

I agree, but that won't stop them from getting a weapon.

Some say capital punishment doesn't deter a killer. To some degree that is true, but in the long run not totally correct.

In this case somebody as nutty as this guy would figure out how to kill a butt load of people. Guns or no guns.

[Laz]

I agree, but that won't stop them from getting a weapon.

Some say capital punishment doesn't deter a killer. To some degree that is true, but in the long run not totally correct.

In this case somebody as nutty as this guy would figure out how to kill a butt load of people. Guns or no guns.

we've never actually try to keep people from getting guns ... so we don't know that.



the country is far too worried about peoples ability to shoot rabbits and other small woodland creatures to find out.


1. you ban all importation of all firearms immediately ..... this gives more control.

2. you stop all production of firearms.


these 2 things halt the supply ..... you continue to allow the sale of firearms and legal ownership of firearms because it doesn't cause such a dramatic legal to illegal gun imbalance issue.

3. you emphasis ... i mean really emphasis the destruction of all firearms confiscated in crimes.

this begins to decrease the guns available to illegals while leaving them in the hands of legal ownership.

you never make ownership of guns illegal ... you never change the constitution. You just squeeze the supply to nothing and reduce the quantity of guns.

legal people can continue to use there guns ... just can't replace them.

it's slow .... but it starts the process of reducing the massive gun population.



*enter the crying gun freaks

[mlyonsd]

we've never actually try to keep people from getting guns ... so we don't know that.



the country is far too worried about peoples ability to shoot rabbits and other small woodland creatures to find out.


1. you ban all importation of all firearms immediately ..... this gives more control.

2. you stop all production of firearms.


these 2 things halt the supply ..... you continue to allow the sale of firearms and legal ownership of firearms because it doesn't cause such a dramatic legal to illegal gun imbalance issue.

3. you emphasis ... i mean really emphasis the destruction of all firearms confiscated in crimes.

this begins to decrease the guns available to illegals while leaving them in the hands of legal ownership.

you never make ownership of guns illegal ... you never change the constitution. You just squeeze the supply to nothing and reduce the quantity of guns.

legal people can continue to use there guns ... just can't replace them.

it's slow .... but it starts the process of reducing the massive gun population.



*enter the crying gun freaks

It isn't that simple by any means.

This guy killed 31 people with just handguns. Do you know how many handguns there are in the country? The contienent? The world?

Compare it to what has happened with cigarettes. Their consumption has only been reduced because the public has come to believe they are harmful to themselves.

Weapons aren't like that. The owner perceives them as a form of defense. Totally different perception.

I'd bet you wouldn't get more than 1% of the public to give up their arms.

[Laz]

It isn't that simple by any means.

This guy killed 31 people with just handguns. Do you know how many handguns there are in the country? The contienent? The world?

Compare it to what has happened with cigarettes. Their consumption has only been reduced because the public has come to believe they are harmful to themselves.

Weapons aren't like that. The owner perceives them as a form of defense. Totally different perception.

I'd bet you wouldn't get more than 1% of the public to give up their arms.
i never said it was simple ....... i never said people should give up their firearms.

i said you cut the supply lines


it would take years .... but at least it would start it in the right direction.

the REAL problem is the NRA people ..... people who don't care how many people dies as long as they got a gun to defend themselves.

doesn't even matter that they probably won't have a chance to use that gun to defend themselves in 99% of crimes.



the answer to violence isn't more violence

the answer to guns isn't more guns

the answer to war isn't more war


some people refuse to grasp that concept :shrug:

[CrazyCoffey]

i never said it was simple ....... i never said people should give up their firearms.

i said you cut the supply lines


it would take years .... but at least it would start it in the right direction.

the REAL problem is the NRA people ..... people who don't care how many people dies as long as they got a gun to defend themselves.

doesn't even matter that they probably won't have a chance to use that gun to defend themselves in 99% of crimes.



the answer to violence isn't more violence

the answer to guns isn't more guns

the answer to war isn't more war


some people refuse to grasp that concept :shrug:



and the answer for more freedom isn't less freedom.

[Laz]

and the answer for more freedom isn't less freedom.
so you don't mind all the other freedoms that we restrict in this country but guns ....... well dam ..... that's just going to far.


i just don't understand it ..... what is soooooooooooo ****ing special about guns?



they have one purpose and it's destruction .... Guns should be the first "freedom" people should be willing to hedge on.

[CrazyCoffey]

so you don't mind all the other freedoms that we restrict in this country but guns ....... well dam ..... that's just going to far.


i just don't understand it ..... what is soooooooooooo ****ing special about guns?



they have one purpose and it's destruction .... Guns should be the first "freedom" people should be willing to hedge on.


Laz, come on now. you started it. The problem in society isn't our laws, it's our society. Teach you kids not to drink and drive, not to go on shooting rampages, not to beat their spouses, not to do drugs. You want to make a difference? Start at home.

[alnorth]

Drunk drivers kill far more innocent people than guns ever will, but I dont see people calling for a return to prohibition. Really, whats the big freakin deal with alchohol rights anyway, why are people so opposed to a ban that would save many thousands of lives every day.

Yes, without alchohol, some people may be forced to do without some of their freedoms and some evenings may be quite a bit less fun and interesting, but with all of these irresponsible people on the roads, allowing easy access to liquor is insanity. At the very least, we should have an alchohol ban near the busiest roads, and require an expensive permit for alchohol consumption to be issued only after successful completion of examinations and OK'd by the local police.

The answer: the cost of losing these freedoms is not worth saving the lives of those who are killed by people irresponsibly abusing those freedoms. There is a price to be paid for legalised alchohol and firearms, and a clear majority of Americans are fine with accepting and paying that price. You can make the world a hell of a lot safer with severe restrictions and Fort Knox security, but we have collectively decided that we would prefer to live free in a slightly more dangerous world where death and tragedy may happen from time to time.

[CrazyCoffey]

they have one purpose and it's destruction .... Guns should be the first "freedom" people should be willing to hedge on.


and there it is, the exact part I needed to highlight the error of your thought, IMO Guns don't have a destructive purpose. Guns are mechanical things, not human beings. The purpose of a Gun is to shoot a bullet. The more important piece of the puzzle is "who is holding that gun" - there is the destroyer. Destroy an innocent or destroy a bad guy. Gun laws only apply to law abiders.

I have a military background, I was a cop, I have training and desires to do good things with a gun in my hand. Sometimes I even feel like I was made for it. To help make the world a safer place, no matter how small the contibution is I make, there are hundreds if not thousands of others like me. Trust us, give us some training, give us an evaluation and then give us a license to carry a gun. I will in turn trust you and others like you to do my taxes, or fix my computer/car, or perform surgery on me and my family. I trust you to do those things, I need you to trust me to do my thing.

[CrazyCoffey]

Here you go Laz, I said it better the first time.....



My 2 cents.....

Gun laws will have little if any effect on violent crimes. This was a very tragic event and I feel for the friends and family members involved. But having more laws will not stop a criminal (they historically don't care about laws) so I don't understand why we talk about it on forums, why the media mentioned the gun laws under two hours of reporting on the events on Monday and why now everyone knows all the answers. And I don't just mean us, here (including myself).

I do know that the state of Virgina recently knocked down a bill to allow, trained, educated people with gun experience, the ability to carry in public, and if one had been there Monday, who could know if lives would have been saved. Deductive reasons in my opinion says yes. A few past similar experience also say yes.

I'm going to generalize now (continue reading at your own risk) this guy had a background that one could speculate wasn't healthy. The same liberal attitudes that think a simple Gun Ban would prevent violent gun crimes also thought this guy deserved the benefit of the doubt after he stalked people and wrote disturbing information in a "book". Society could do better than we have been, lately.

No, don't take my gun. I have a military background and police experience. A clean record and good training. Give me an evaluation and register me as a licensed gun holder. Let hundreds of people similar to me do the same. Be scared of the idiot that wants to harm you and your family, not the ones who want to make society a safer environment. Trust me, that I was made to understand a gun and the tactics surrounding an unfortunate event to make good decisions.

In turn I'll trust you to do my taxes, make my computer work and car run, perform a surgery on me or my family when needed. The world will be better for it.

[Mr. Kotter]

300,000,000 million people living in a free and open society has its perils. Being at the mercy of an evil, or deranged person who's decided to make his mark on the world by killing others is one of the risks.

I favor reasonable attempts at gun control, to reduce the likelihood of incidents like those recalled by the article and the one this week at Virginia Tech.

However, I don't subscribe to the delusion that gun control will in any signficant way prevent these sorts of incidents in the future. No matter what the gun laws are, where there is a will...there will be a way. The idea that we can become Britain, Japan, or Canada (in terms of fewer gun deaths) by simply enacting tougher gun laws is an absolute myth. The whole thing is much more deeply rooted in our culture than that.

The problem is a whole lot more complex than guns. It's always fascinated me how people who plead and beg with the government, to get at the "root" causes of poverty, drugs, and gangs...are not particularly interested in addressing the "root" causes of violence in our culture. Their commitment to "civil liberties" including, for example, the first amendment, says the trade-off is too high a price to pay to make society more civil and less violent.

However, those same people who insist on protecting some civil liberties, wish to radically reshape the nation's view of the second amendment--even though it quite likely would not do much to stop such madness as we have seen this week.

[ClevelandBronco]

so you don't mind all the other freedoms that we restrict in this country...

Please tell me about the freedoms that you've lost.

Really. Please tell me.

If you have lost freedom, I'd like to get on your side.

[BigChiefDave]

we've never actually try to keep people from getting guns ... so we don't know that.



the country is far too worried about peoples ability to shoot rabbits and other small woodland creatures to find out.


1. you ban all importation of all firearms immediately ..... this gives more control.

2. you stop all production of firearms.


these 2 things halt the supply ..... you continue to allow the sale of firearms and legal ownership of firearms because it doesn't cause such a dramatic legal to illegal gun imbalance issue.

3. you emphasis ... i mean really emphasis the destruction of all firearms confiscated in crimes.

this begins to decrease the guns available to illegals while leaving them in the hands of legal ownership.

you never make ownership of guns illegal ... you never change the constitution. You just squeeze the supply to nothing and reduce the quantity of guns.

legal people can continue to use there guns ... just can't replace them.

it's slow .... but it starts the process of reducing the massive gun population.



*enter the crying gun freaksI guess this worked for drugs also? Are drugs smuggled into this country?
:hmmm:

[BigChiefDave]

the REAL problem is the NRA people ..... people who don't care how many people dies as long as they got a gun to defend themselves.

OMG! Are you serious? NRA is shooting people? Well, shame on them...
:rolleyes:

[CrazyCoffey]

I guess this worked for drugs also? Are drugs smuggled into this country?
:hmmm:




:clap:

[Silock]

If it weren't guns, it would be something else. Mentally deranged people will always find ways to kill someone else if they're REALLY up for it.

[Radar Chief]

we've never actually try to keep people from getting guns ... so we don't know that.

Yes we do know that. There’re several examples throughout the rest of the world. The most recent example is Japan. They have some of the strictest gun laws on the planet and yet one of their gubment officials was shot and killed just a few days ago.


the country is far too worried about peoples ability to shoot rabbits and other small woodland creatures to find out.

See, here you try to ascribe your thoughts to others intentions. That never works and only serves to make you look like a tool.
There’re several justifications for gun ownership, but the most important one to me is ‘cause I want to.
I mean, I don’t screw with you when you’re hump’n the neighbors live stock. And I’d think a herd of sheep with Laz’s face walk’n ‘round say’n “Daaaaaaaady” would be more dangerous to the rest of the population than any of my guns. :p

1. you ban all importation of all firearms immediately ..... this gives more control.

2. you stop all production of firearms.


these 2 things halt the supply ..... you continue to allow the sale of firearms and legal ownership of firearms because it doesn't cause such a dramatic legal to illegal gun imbalance issue.

3. you emphasis ... i mean really emphasis the destruction of all firearms confiscated in crimes.

this begins to decrease the guns available to illegals while leaving them in the hands of legal ownership.

you never make ownership of guns illegal ... you never change the constitution. You just squeeze the supply to nothing and reduce the quantity of guns.

legal people can continue to use there guns ... just can't replace them.

it's slow .... but it starts the process of reducing the massive gun population.

So in other words, you’d take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens just in a different, less noticeable, way.
You can call a cow pie a rose but its still gonna smell like shit.

*enter the crying gun freaks

A preemptive jab at everyone that disagrees with you? LMAO
But at least you’re not, like, unreasonably emotional ‘bout this or anything. ;)

[stevieray]

if we didn't have the right to bear arms, how else would we protect ourselves?

[Mr. Kotter]

if we didn't have the right to bear arms, how else would we protect ourselves?
With butter knives, and man-eating attack rabbits....:cuss:

[FishingRod]

I understand why the NRA fights tooth and nail any and all new gun legislation. Their opponents try to whittle way at freedoms one small step at a time. That being said I am not horribly opposed to some back ground checks and more importantly a requirement of some sort of mandatory safety classes. Much in the same why that most states require a hunters safety course be taken. Neither of these would (in my opinion) have an affect on the criminal element but "might" help assure that the legal owners have at least a modicum knowledge about firearms. Taking away the the rights of law abiding citizens is unconstitutional and frankly dangerous. Both Hitler and Fidel Castro in their very earliest moves outlawed private ownership of firearms. Ever wonder why?

[RaiderH8r]

we've never actually try to keep people from getting guns ... so we don't know that.



the country is far too worried about peoples ability to shoot rabbits and other small woodland creatures to find out.


1. you ban all importation of all firearms immediately ..... this gives more control.

2. you stop all production of firearms.


these 2 things halt the supply ..... you continue to allow the sale of firearms and legal ownership of firearms because it doesn't cause such a dramatic legal to illegal gun imbalance issue.

3. you emphasis ... i mean really emphasis the destruction of all firearms confiscated in crimes.

this begins to decrease the guns available to illegals while leaving them in the hands of legal ownership.

you never make ownership of guns illegal ... you never change the constitution. You just squeeze the supply to nothing and reduce the quantity of guns.

legal people can continue to use there guns ... just can't replace them.

it's slow .... but it starts the process of reducing the massive gun population.



*enter the crying gun freaks
Substitute "drugs" for "firearms" and you have US drug control policy. Tell me, how's that working out?

Allow those with lawful conceal carry permits to do so. Do you think it's a coincidence that these things happen at schools? Could it be that you have a known congretation of unarmed people in an environment which can be exploited to any gunman's advantage? Even crazed gunmen don't like the idea that somebody will return fire.

And no, a car wouldn't fit in a classroom, but it would handily wipe out any quad kumbaya session of hippies with hackey sacks.

[BIG_DADDY]

There isn't anyone who can debate the benefits of gun legislation on a rational level. There are over 2 million successfull defensive gun uses in this country every year. Out of the 34k deaths the liberals blame on guns they conveniently forget to mention the fact theat in those stats they include gang on gang violence, suicide and even cops shooting criminals leaving no more than 2k deaths a year you can truly try and blame on guns. I have posted these stats and their sources for years on this BB but retarded feel good threads continue to find their way on to this board.

It's kind of hard to respect someone when they feel the need to post something that appeals to everyone's emotions even though you know it's bad information. I am really disappointed to see Laz post this thread as it's impossible for him to have not seen all the stats I have posted on this subject over the years. :shake:

[alanm]

There isn't anyone who can debate the benefits of gun legislation on a rational level. There are over 2 million successfull defensive gun uses in this country every year. Out of the 34k deaths the liberals blame on guns they conveniently forget to mention the fact theat in those stats they include gang on gang violence, suicide and even cops shooting criminals leaving no more than 2k deaths a year you can truly try and blame on guns. I have posted these stats and their sources for years on this BB but retarded feel good threads continue to find their way on to this board.

It's kind of hard to respect someone when they feel the need to post something that appeals to everyone's emotions even though you know it's bad information. I am really disappointed to see Laz post this thread as it's impossible for him to have not seen all the stats I have posted on this subject over the years. :shake:
I heard the kid was a flaming liberal. :hmmm:

[ct]

if the guy had a criminal record anr really wanted a gun....he could still get one. It's all a bunch of BS at this point. Our second amendmant right is there for a reason, and if Katrina taught us anything..it's that at any given time you might have to defend yourself, your loved ones, and you property at any time. As a Virginia Tech Alum, I can't even describe the swirl of emotion and anger, but never once have I felt like the gun was at fault. One person is to blame for this...one....and one only.

couldn't have said it better