Virginia Tech Shootings (Merged) (1 Viewer)

[iamsickofyear12]

The changing of the guns laws is a non issue. There is absolutely no way it is going to happen. The vote wouldn't even be close. I'm certainly not voting for it.

I don't think weapon availability is the problem. If I wanted a gun I could go and buy one right now... it wouldn't be that hard. The criminals and psychopaths are going to get their hands on weapons one way or another no matter what laws are in place.

I'd much rather everyone else at least have the ability to protect themselves.

If you are willing to kill 30 people you are obviously beyond the point where having to buy a gun illegally on the black market is going to stop you. If other people had guns they could of protected themselves. Unfortunately they didn't. I don't think him not having a gun and not going on this rampage was ever an option here.

 

[dagwoman]

Every time a gun crime on this scale happens the same old arguments are trotted out.

Pro gun: if the other kids had had guns, they would have shot that one gunman.

Anti gun: if no-one had guns, no-one would have been shot.

The whole argument, summed up in two sentences.

Close thread.

It's a lot more complicted than that. Some arguments include:
- Criminals would get guns whether or not they're legal (of course it could be argued that this would be more difficult, and thus deter some)
- Accidental deaths from guns
- Do college students have the skill to use a gun correctly?
etc.

 

[bloodyfriday89]

I wonder what the world would have done if the guy who killed those 32 innocent people was lebanese, and not asian.

I dunno, just a thought.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

No, there has been communist countries, just no socialist countries ? or am i wrong here.

that depends on how those countries viewed communism Has there ever been a true classless society with total public ownership of the means of production? I'd argue no.

 

[dagwoman]

I wonder what the world would have done if the guy who killed those 32 innocent people was lebanese, and not asian.

I dunno, just a thought.

QFT.

 

[jb_nc]

It's a lot more complicted than that. Some arguments include:
- Criminals would get guns whether or not they're legal (of course it could be argued that this would be more difficult, and thus deter some)

Why is the crime rate (and homicide rate) so high in Brazil when they BAN sales of new handguns to citizens and has mandatory licensing, registration and ownership quotas for previous owners?

I will post more (w/ graphs) if you would like to see why the availability of guns does not effect crime.

- Accidental deaths from guns

Accidental deaths from firearms account for less than 0.8% of accidental deaths in the US. You are 17 times more likely to be poisoned, 19 times more likely to fall to your death, four times more likely to either burn to death or to drown, and 53 times more likely to die in a car accident.

Can cite.

- Do college students have the skill to use a gun correctly?
etc.

stop posting this

 

[ur_inner_child]

I wonder what the world would have done if the guy who killed those 32 innocent people was lebanese, and not asian.

I dunno, just a thought.

Well yes, they'd do less "depressed quiet teen" or "tell-tale signs of a killer" like they have been... and more of that fun middle eastern hype.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Do college students have the skill to use a gun correctly?

To get a carry permit (at least in some states that I know of) you need to do a firearms course so you would know how to use a gun correctly.

 

[bloodyfriday89]

yeah they'd practically call the guy a terrorist, which he was imo.

 

[dagwoman]

To get a carry permit (at least in some states that I know of) you need to do a firearms course so you would know how to use a gun correctly.

Even if this is the case, shooting at an inanimate, non-living object while standing still and with full view of said target, choosing to shoot when ready, is very different to shooting at a live, moving object with others around, especially if that target is armed.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Still Bush defends the right to bear arms

Michael Gawenda in Washington and Mark Coultan in New York
April 18, 2007

EVEN as President George Bush told the nation he was praying for the victims, and that the killings in a place of learning would affect "every American classroom and community", a White House official said Mr Bush continued to believe in the "right to bear arms".

In the wake of the worst mass shooting in US history, Mr Bush said in a televised address that the circumstances of the Virginia Tech tragedy needed to be investigated. But he did not say that such an investigation would include an examination of federal gun laws.

The Republican presidential candidate John McCain said the shooting rampage did not change his view that the constitution guaranteed everyone's right to carry a weapon. "We have to look at what happened here, but it doesn't change my views on the second amendment except to make sure that these kinds of weapons don't fall into the hands

of bad people," Senator McCain said. The second amendment to the constitution states: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

According to a Gallup poll, Americans are more likely to blame the way the perpetrators are raised, or popular culture, for cases of multiple killings than the ready access to guns.

Most presidential candidates issued statements expressing horror at the latest killings, but none mentioned the fact that Virginia has some of the most lax gun laws in the country.

A few months ago a move by gun control advocates to limit the number of weapons people could buy every month was defeated in the state legislature. There was a minute's silence in Congress, but few politicians were prepared to take up the challenge of Paul Helmke, the president of The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence, the premier US gun control lobby group, who called for a debate.

"Until we are prepared to really look at the consequences of lax gun laws and the consequences of living in a country saturated with guns, we will continue to have these terrible tragedies," he said.

The massacre at Virginia Tech may restart a debate about the availability of guns. But killings, including the Amish school shooting last year, failed to spark any serious debate over the proliferation of high-powered weapons.

The worst shooting murders in US history, before the Virginia killings, had the opposite effect. One of the people in Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, when George Hennard killed 23 people in 1991, later campaigned to change laws against concealed handguns, saying she could have reduced the death toll if she had been allowed to have her gun with her.

If anything, gun laws have become more lax since the Columbine shootings in 1999. A law passed during the presidency of Bill Clinton restricting assault weapon ammunition clips to 10 shots lapsed in September 2004.

The nine-millimetre handgun the killer used at Virginia Tech was potentially capable of holding up to 19 shots in one magazine. A law-enforcement source told CNN a .22-calibre handgun was also recovered at the scene. The killer is reported to have reloaded after emptying his magazine in a classroom.

The National Rifle Association has been effective in stopping tougher gun laws during the years the Republicans controlled Congress, both through lobbying and legal challenges.

Rudolph Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, is a rarity among Republican politicians - an advocate for gun control. But to win his party's presidential nomination he has been trying to soften this stance. Now he says gun laws are up to the states.

The Brady campaign says Virginia does not require gun owners to be licensed or arms to be registered. You can walk into a shop and buy a gun. There is no cooling-off period, but the purchase of handguns is limited to one a month.

Virginia does require a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

• Related Articles: A society armed and dangerous
  

• Australian students horrified as the shooting unfolded

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Even if this is the case, shooting at an inanimate, non-living object while standing still and with full view of said target, choosing to shoot when ready, is very different to shooting at a live, moving object with others around, especially if that target is armed.

This changes the situation how exactly? Surely people are smart enough to decide if it is safe to shoot and if 5 people empty their clip into the guy some of those bullets are bound to hit him.

 

[dagwoman]

Why is the crime rate (and homicide rate) so high in Brazil when they BAN sales of new handguns to citizens and has mandatory licensing, registration and ownership quotas for previous owners?

I will post more (w/ graphs) if you would like to see why the availability of guns does not effect crime.



Accidental deaths from firearms account for less than 0.8% of accidental deaths in the US. You are 17 times more likely to be poisoned, 19 times more likely to fall to your death, four times more likely to either burn to death or to drown, and 53 times more likely to die in a car accident.

Can cite.

I'm not talking about Brazil, I'm talking about America, a country with a very different culture and attitudes towards violence and guns.


I don't know whether or not guns affect the rate of crime, but I do know people are killed unecessarily by guns, at a greater rate than guns are used to help people. I cited 3 references about this previously.

I would like to see your references for your last comment. Just because it's a low percentage in terms of causes of accidental deaths doesn't make it okay.

 

[YankeeChica]

yeah they'd practically call the guy a terrorist, which he was imo.

You can hardly complain, considering 99.99999999999% of terrorists acts since 1990 are done by arabs.

You built the reputation and you have to live with it.

 

[dagwoman]

It seems they're already trying to bring in the idea of Muslim terrorism, pathetically:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/04/18/1176696880256.html (mostly page 2)

yankeechica, post some references that back up your bullshit.

 

[dagwoman]

This changes the situation how exactly? Surely people are smart enough to decide if it is safe to shoot and if 5 people empty their clip into the guy some of those bullets are bound to hit him.

I don't know about you, but if I was fearing for my life my adrenaline would be going too hard to be able to operate a gun properly. There are many instances where people have shot others accidentally in these situations.

 

[wheredanton]

To get a carry permit (at least in some states that I know of) you need to do a firearms course so you would know how to use a gun correctly.

Not in virginia

 

[jb_nc]

I'm not talking about Brazil, I'm talking about America, a country with a very different culture and attitudes towards violence and guns.

Ok????? Shouldn't it not matter, as anyone with half a brain knows, being able to buy a gun legally in the shop for your protection turns anyone into a VIOLENT CRIMINAL.

I don't know whether or not guns affect the rate of crime, but I do know people are killed unecessarily by guns, at a greater rate than guns are used to help people. I cited 3 references about this previously.

Bullshit



AND

Fact: Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds. Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using a firearm defensively stated that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so. Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives.

Fact: In 83.5% (2,087,500) of these successful gun defences, the attacker either threatened or used force first, proving that guns are very well suited for self-defence.

Fact: Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers.

Fact: Less than 8% of the time does a citizen wound his or her attacker, and in less than one in a thousand instances is the attacker killed.

Fact: For every accidental death, suicide or homicide with a firearm, 10 lives are saved through defensive use.

Fact: When using guns in self-defense: 83% of robbery victims were not injured 88% of assault victims were not hurt. 76% of all self-defense use of guns never involve firing a single shot

Fact: After the implementation of Canada's 1977 gun controls prohibiting handgun possession for protection, the “breaking and entering” crime rate rose 25%, surpassing the American rate.

Fact: You are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun. In episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates were:

Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing at all 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45% (but you probably don't think people have the RIGHT to defend themselves with lethal force if necessary)

Can cite.

I would like to see your references for your last comment. Just because it's a low percentage in terms of causes of accidental deaths doesn't make it okay.

By your logic we should remove cars from the road. The rate of gun accidents is so low the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission doesn't even mention them in their annual safety reports.

2001, Center for Disease Control, WISQARS

fuck u just got owned

 

[iamsickofyear12]

I don't know about you, but if I was fearing for my life my adrenaline would be going too hard to be able to operate a gun properly. There are many instances where people have shot others accidentally in these situations.

That is why I don't think everyone should carry guns. There are definitely people who can handle it though.

Not in virginia

Who is going to carry a gun when they don't know how to use it?
Answer: No one
Lets not talk about this issue anymore.

 

[wheredanton]

Who is going to carry a gun when they don't know how to use it?
Answer: No one
Lets not talk about this issue anymore.

There is nothing stopping a person carrying a gun without knowing how to use it. You don't even have to undergo basic training.

A person who has never fired a gun in their life and has no idea about responsible gun ownership and basic safety can carry a gun.

Your assumption that everyone who carries a gun knows how to [responsibly] use it is absurd. It's like saying everyone who buys a car knows, without being trained, how to use it safely.