Sad, no? (in Off-topic)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070416/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_shooting

links are to easy to make, and they make things easier for all :)

and as far as 31 dead, humans happen to be the most overpopulated species on this planet, we'll get through this.

Of course we will. We would also get through a nuclear war. Should we be apathetic about that too?

No, but nuclear war would have an effect on everyone. My heart goes to the families and friends of these people, but I just can't bring myself to be upset about something that will not have any effect on the way most live their lives... Death happens.

Are you sure it won't affect lives? I believe it will. If nothing else, securities around colleges will be being beefed up across the U.S.

Heightened security isn't much to get upset about... We do kinda have a war going on over in Iraq, should I shed a tear for each casualty? Don't get me wrong, I have nothing more than the utmost respect for those that Dubya managed to dupe into this "necessary war", but get a newspaper. Ignore the front, go directly to the obituaries, count the people there. Tomorrow, do this again. The next day, do this again. Death happens, and if you concern yourself with it every time it happens, you will soon be all dried up with nothing more than salty cheeks. If i were to die right now, I wouldn't want the tears of anyone I ever knew, I would want nothing more than a home in their memories.

Wow very well put...

It is indeed say. It reminds us that we are mortal, that schools are not sanctuary anymore, and more than likely, most of these kids did nothing to the killer which means that no matter how much you try to keep yourself out of bad situations, it just doesn't matter.

We actually had extra security guards at my work today guarding the back entrance where you'd have to scale a 6 foot wrought iron fence to get in and there is pretty much always someone outside (smoking). Nothing was said via memo's but of course we all speculate that someone made a threat that either no longer works there or is a former/current significant other that is ticked off. I'm glad that they at least provided the extra security, even though it would be nice to put out a memo that if we see someone that doesn't belong there, to report them asap. Anyways, it's not like I place a lot of faith in the 60 year old guards in regards to them actually stopping anyone.

"My heart goes to the families and friends of these people, but..."

Don't lie about caring just to deflect criticism. If you want to compare tragedies, or say "we'll get through this, it's only a few dozen kids", that's your right, but common decency dictates waiting a few hours for the bodies to cool.

Yes, I'm a college professor. And yes, I think you're pathetic.

... Caedmon's venom aside, I think this may have been one of the least-proud moments in that entire article of shame:
----
A White House spokesman said President Bush was horrified by the rampage and offered his prayers to the victims and the people of Virginia. "The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed," spokeswoman Dana Perino said
----
They take this and twist it into a defense for no gun-control??? That's just WRONG. Every action this administration takes sickens me further.

As Mikel says. There is really no safe place in the world anymore. Anything can happen to anyone at anytime. I've had relatives that were in perfect shape, exercised, ate healthy, never smoked or drunk. 40 years old, has a stroke and dies. Just yesterday, my fiance goes to Walgreens to pick up a prescription, almost gets smashed coming off the highway between an 18-wheeler and a pickup because someone didn't yield. There are a lot of crazy people and it is unfortunate that this has to happen to anyone. It's not just the people that died, but their families, that are going to suffer.

I still want to know how he killed 31 people with 2 semi-automatic handguns without anyone at least punching him in the face.

he locked the doors behind him with chains, so nobody could get behind him or close to him to be able to do anything to him, but i take pity on the last 29 people who were killed as it was 2 hours after the first 2 people were shot in the dorms, something should have been done 10 minutes after the dorm shooting...

Yes, this is a sad age, with dumb people roaming every street corner, ei9ther shooting something for fun or to get back at someone or to play a real life game...

I honestly felt scared to goto school today, not just to take a test, but because it seems people are making a ritual of Columbine by doing something of this sort so close to the date of Columbines massacre.... Columbine, April 20, 1999. Close? I think so...

I have but two words in mind right now.

Damn. Coward.

over exposure may have something to do with it. this is a horrible tragedy no doubt about it. but after the first incident at Columbine it was on the news every night for weeks. hard for some sick twisted individuals to not get the idea put into their heads when it is continuously broadcast. i am by no means saying that it should be swept under the carpet either. but a little decency and respect for these poor people and their unfortunate families and loved ones is called for, not airing the footage for ratings on the TV.

And I keep asking myself : Could he have made as much damage with only a blunt weapon or blade?

Fricken' guns should be off-limits to civils.

More importantly though, what the heck spawns these freaks?

Events like that put some things in perspective.

ARGH!

It is a tragedy of huge proportions.

But I don't think that you can use an event such as this to justify taking away the right to bear arms. The original argument for that right was "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government." This is an important point - although in my opinion should be extended to things like encryption.

The fact that some people will abuse the rights that they have can in no way justify the taking away of those rights, in my opinion.

But certainly, this dude was a sick coward.

To respond to some of the previous posts, yes death is a common occurrence, but I find it very sad that we are so desensitised to it that we can read the obituaries without shedding a tear.

Cheers,
muon.

Muon just to reply to your posting of the Second Amendment.

Second Amendment Info

Ok. now after reading that informative page tell me where it says about people bearing arms that aren't needed for personal or militia needs. Also when the framers were thinking of this rule they weren't thinking of handguns that fire 15 or more shots in less than a minute, or Assault Rifles that do even more damage. This hanging on to "The Right To Bear Arms" comment is getting a bit ridiculous.

Ok to prove my point. In Australia in the early 90's there was a mass killing at schools or other places on average one every 18 months or so. Then in 1996 the Australian government said enough was enough and clamped down on their gun laws and since then have had no significant mass shooting episode in the last 11 years. Is that coincidence or did people just start being more kind to one another and stop shooting people.

I myself see peoples reactions to things of this nature and just pass it off as an event that happens frequently and is unavoidable. This type of response to these events means something is wrong and needs to change. I think I will now get off my soapbox and step away from the forums.

Thanks for taking the time to read my post and if you dis-agree with my thoughts please post them in an informative manner and not just flame a person. Again, Thanks for taking the time.

Gun control is far from the issue here... far from it...

John Howard doesn't think so.

Everything turns into an argument, does it not? 33 people are dead and died at the hands of someone who had issues. As usual, people want causes and something to blame. Forget gun control. How would it help someone like this?

As you said Ash, since Australia passed that law, there has been no -significant- shooting. But what about the kid who, instead of shooting 30 people, stabbed some girl in the throat. Is her death any less tragic?

I don't point this incident out because the death toll. Merely because it's sad and I saw it. People will always die. Constantly, by the thousands, every second people will die and people will be born. And, for me, every birth will be wonderful and every death tragic.

If society stops caring about these things, the death of the individual, we are in for some rough times. Times that will make the current ones seem like a joy. When every death is used for political maneuvering, every death is a way for a politician somewhere to say "Look how right I was", how can anyone get something done?

Even on this thread, we quickly lost just... feeling sad. Taking one moment to remember those who died. Instead, we were defensive. Gun control, not caring, it just (in essence) being another bad thing, but nothing out of the usual.

*shrug*

We all need to talk about things I guess. But... time and place for things like gun control... give it a month...

"he locked the doors behind him with chains, so nobody could get behind him or close to him to be able to do anything to him, but i take pity on the last 29 people who were killed as it was 2 hours after the first 2 people were shot in the dorms, something should have been done 10 minutes after the dorm shooting..."

Done what smallpau1? There was no reason to suspect the shooter (have they even confirmed it was the same person yet?) was still on campus. The shootings in the dorm was initially thought to be a "domestic dispute" of some kind.

It is impossible to predict what people are going to do, or when they are going to do it, or why they do it.

Giving it time to rest? Of course this is necessary for the people who are mourning today and will be for some time from here on, yes, it is most probably required. Time will be needed for them to get past their sadness. If we could truely just forget about the matter until they get all the time they need to recover, and not blame anything or try to find solutions (and fight over them in sickingly political ways) in the meanwhile, that would be perfect. One time for sadness, another one for active debate. But killers aren't waiting, are they?

-IMO SIGN-

This is how I, and probably a majority of people, feel.
When I hear about something like that, I feel it is also necessary to quickly be able to discern the root of the problem, to ensure that it does not happen again. Now I know we people (and not only here on CB but society in general) suck at finding solutions. We debate, debate, debate...turning the whole mess into a battle of political parties sometimes. While this is very sad, given the gravity of the matter, it is also unavoidable. The problem is not that we quickly try to put a name on eveything, that we try, as soon as the bodies touch the ground, to find a culprit. It is the way we, or most importantly, the media and politicians, do it that is unacceptable.

The problem is not people going ''It because of the lack of gun control.'' Much like I said when I first reacted to the matter.

It's people going ''AH, AH! I TOLD you gun control had to be tighter! You and your party are MONSTERS, and I am gonna make sure you never get elected again! THERE! You got it, huh?
Not elected! That's it, your going DOWN! HA!''

Or the media describing the scene in every detail, when the sole important fact is that lost of people died from a the acts of a single madman.

Nothing is wrong with quickly trying to move ahead and find a solution. No one says you can't mourn and do that at the same time. Dirty mud-slinging is. Over-coverage of the matter in the media is. Putting names is not being unsensible. Putting names on people who put names on other things is. Maybe I should not have given my first opinion in my post above, and waited a bit. Maybe. But I sure as heck did not ''give up being sad'', and I don't give a damn about politics, given they are differently handled here in my country anyway.

Gotta debate for the sake of people, nothing else, is the bottom line of my incomprehensible line of thoughts at the moment.

Whatever, not trying to contradict any point here. Not even trying to make sense to tell you the truth...Random babblings, as mangled as my thoughts.

Just shot it as it came, take it as you will, and thanks for reading, as always.

Kultur - Yes it is impossible to predict what and when people will do random things. Yes, it was suspected to be a domestic violence problem, but is that really the issue? Just because it was supposedly a domestic dispute, that doesn't mean that the person is going to calm down, and it especially doesn't mean they'll leave the campus.

Now, in regards to the head of security at Virginia Tech, he should be fired. Now. After two people are shot dead on your campus with no known motive and no further information as the the killer, the people in immediate danger (the students and faculty) deserve to know what's going on so they can protect themselves. Sending an email to all of the kids at 7:15 is bull crap. First of all, who the hell checks their email often enough to do that. Secondly, what college kid is awake at 7:15 that isn't in a class, and therefore can't check their email?

Sure, this is a sick and scarring accident, even worse because these people were in the prime of their lives, but there were ways to prevent it (the second group). Two hours after people are shot, why can't you beef up security around campus? Serious flaw on VT's security to not have an emergency plan ready, or set into action. Yes, humans aren't perfect, and we do make mistakes, but that is one mistake that you can't make. I'm sure students wouldn't have complained having their bags searched if they knew there was a killer on the loose, even if it turned out they had fled to a different town, but instead they deal with the loss of 30 more classmates.

th00p, ever see the movie 44 Minutes?

Nope! What's it about?

After a little research, yes, I have seen footage from the real life event. What does that have to do with this? Yes, there was a 44 minute standoff, but I don't see what that has to do with the 2 hour waiting period where the campus security did effectively nothing.

I want to publicly give Ringmaster credit for writing me and explaining himself a bit. I was a bit harsh with him, but was very impressed with his cm to me. Hats off.

not an issue :) I know where you were coming from, and now you know where I was. And I apologize to anyone who took my thread in the "haha, sucks to be them" kind of way that it can easily be construed as, as that wasn't at all my meaning.

In the two hour period between shootings, he mailed a package to NBC comtaining photos and such.

Furthermore, how did CB know about this 3 and a half hours before it was written? (Check the link and check the posting time.)

If he didn't have a gun, and stabbed some girl in the throat with a knife, then got swarmed by 9 other people at once, dont you think one or two is much less lost life and much less tragic? As to the media, "Okay so this incident hapened 3 hours ago and I want you to paint us a picture of the killings again. I know you want to be with your family, but you need to push past me, and my camera man, plus the 10 other caring tv stations." It makes me sick. The public can wait for the official police report.

This was a huge tragedy, and there will definitely be lessons to learn, but let's not jump to find blame. We do not need to make a dozen scapegoats. I have already heard people blame guns, videogames, rap music, the news media, and several more.

Maybe this is just the conservative side of me, but I say that that is all politics. People taking advantage of tragedy in order to push their agenda. We do not know what made this man snap. He was just crazy, suicidal, and dangerous. We will always have people that are a risk to our society. Instead of pointing fingers at general ideas and blaming societal ills, we need to see this crime was committed by a person. A crazy person, someone that needed help. We can't restrict the liberties of everyone else because of the misguided actions of one person with mental issues. That would be misguided politics at its worst.

He had been found dangerous to himself and others by a court, and seen a mental health facility. Surely this is the sort of info a background check should have flagged. That would qualify as a failure in the system for sure if you ask me.

its not guns who kill people, its the people messed up in the head pulling the trigger(s)

But they are still using the gun in a bad way. I think people need protection and have the right to bear arms, but something needs to be done to supress all of this violence.

Guns don't kill people, rappers do, I saw it on a documentary on BBC 2

Have any of you heard of Goldie Looking Chain?

There is something fundamentally different between nations that don't allow Joe public to carry firearms (UK) and nations that do (USA).

Living in the UK I've not heard one single person that I know who isn't astonished to hear the argument put forward that people should be allowed to carry firearms as a basic human right.
Yet it seems to be a perfectly balanced and accepted argument when I listen to folks in the USA (thru media and even CB forums) explain why everyone has the right to bear arms.

I'm amazed we're at such different ends of the same argument on this. Every single person with no exception that I talk to just can't get their heads around why it would ever be ok for everyone to own a firearm. If I were to debate this issue I would feel like I was arguing with someone who was trying to convince me that the world is flat or that if I drop an apple it will fall up. It's really that basic...

I have no idea why we should be so far apart on this...

If it weren't for the fact that a lot of the people who argue for the right to bear firearms are actually smarter than I am I'd think you'd all been brainwashed or dropped on your heads at birth. I don't get it...

th00p -- watch the movie. There's a line in the beginning that I can't find online, and I don't want to quote to mess it up. It's said by a cop while he's being interviewed outside of a courtroom.

Oh, the UK doesn't allow the carrying of firearms for the general public then? I must imagine nobody dies in the UK from violent acts! Right? Or wait, is that right? Does anyone ever get shot? But that's illegal, they're not supposed to have guns! Oh yeah, and I doubt murder is legal too! How crazy is that, criminals don't follow the law?


Do we really have to use a tragedy and the deaths of 32 innocent people as an excuse to push politics? So long as there are homicidal people with mental issues out there, we will have killings. This guy would have found another way to hurt others. Why not examine the facts, and find out if there was a failing with the court system or a failing with the school system or whatever else might have happened. Let's not just jump to saying, "Outlaw guns!" or "Outlaw videogames!" or whatever else the Jack Thompsons of the world want to call out as the problem.

Of course not, we have some intelligence when it comes to the matter.
I'm pretty sure that our government would legalize 'soft' drugs before allowing public armament as the dangers are significantly different.
I mean, it really seems like a bad idea to have drugs as illegal but firearm as legal because it just promotes violence within the black market.
You talk about the fact that the occassional crazy person would kill in any way possible but it can easily be seen that a perfectly sane person suddenly under an unprecedented level of stress caused by an indvidual cold easily whip out a gun and shoot, it's a lot harder for someone to make the effort to find something else and kill the person.
We do have a reasonably low crime rate also, many of the recorded 'violent crimes' within the UK are simply small brawls between drunk people at the end of nights out and the most damage caused is perhaps a broken nose.
Everywhere is going to have violence at every level but the number of (attempted)murders is remote enough that every one of them more than likely wouldn't fill a whole page of a newspaper in a month all of them with full reports.
We are a smaller country, yes but that is why authorities give out percentages in comparison to ttal crime etc. and those are still extremely small.

More passing thoughts:

What I find wierd is the strange obsession that pro-gun americans have to be protected by firearms. Please don't read as an insult, but I think it's rather stupid. I mean, what's the purpose of said arms? To protect one-self against agressors, of course. To make use of their right to protect themselves. From who? Who are these frightening figures that threaten the average law-abiding citizen? Muggers? Home invaders? Rapists? I guess so, since I see no other direct threat to the honest civilian. (And PLEASE correct me if I am wrong in my assumption, and add more to my ''threatening'' list) Will these guys, given they DO invade your home, or try to assault you, be carrying damn bazookas? Or ten layers of bulletproof material? Except if you are very unlucky they would be carrying pistols, or revolvers or whatever. Do you need a freaking M16 to defend yourself?

Is it really JUST a matter of making use of the Second Amendment? Or are Americans really just frightened for a reason I do not understand?

Why am I not affraid of these guys myself? (the ''threatening people'') Why don't I feel the need to have a .357 Magnum under my pillow?

Strange mentality, I say. But of course this is just my point of view.

Okay, I'm a hardcore advocate for the government staying away from the constitution.

But, I agree that the right to bear arms is a rather silly one. It was created for the noble and highly real purpose of keeping a people safe from it's government. How can a government oppress a people if everyone of the people in it's border's carried a musket? They couldn't.

But now... ha! Who do people think they are kidding? The government can't do that anymore. Military isn't big enough, too many people, and the people rarely care -what- the government does anymore.

And, worst case scenario. The army stays intact (remembering that the army is composed of the same people the government is hurting) and the people rise against the government. Government uses army to put them down. Do -any- of you believe your rifle or handgun will stop the special ops guys outside your door from killing you? Then killing your family?

It's stupid. Violence, quite literally, begets more violence. In this age, the law isn't very useful anymore.

HOWEVER. If you allow the government to take it out, it sets a precedent. They will keep going back, rewording things. We must maintain the -entire- constitution, or risk losing it all. Am I paranoid? Hell yes. I'm American.

But just because I think they are all out to get me, doesn't mean they aren't.

It does set a precedent. That is a very valid point, Titan, and it makes me think. Lots.

Gun control isn't necessarily the answer here. We had two such shooting incidents in quite close succession in the UK, in Hungerford and in Dunblane. Some of the strictest gun control laws in the world were introduced following those. And yet gun crime is actually rising in the UK. About a mile from where I live in London is an area known locally as the Murder Mile, where two years ago there were more killings by gun than in New York and Washington put together in the same space of time.

And besides, how do you legislate for lunatics?

Make flamethrowers legal?

Lol.

I had a conversation about this the other night and I pointed out that if I wanted to hurt somebody I had a houseful of things that are perfectly legal and, that in the wrong hands can do serious damage: kitchen knives, screwdrivers, hammers, pots and pans, garden shears, garden forks, shovels, even my guitar.

And, as countless acts of terrorism prove, even the highest security is not enough to stop somebody who is determined to cause injury and death.

The saddest thing I saw this week though connected to the Virginia shooting was this morning. On the front page of the paper somebody next to me on the train was reading was a report about the bombings in Baghdad yesterday and today. Around 170 people died there in those. And yet the person sat next to me didn't even blink at that story but just went straight to page five of the paper to read about the Virginia shooter's videotape.

It's sad that people died in Virginia, but death is not an isolated incident. And, misuse of guns is nowhere near as dangerous as misuse of religion or politics.

I'm not saying that gun control will stop things as anyone desperate enough will get supplies from the black market and I'm not trying to advocate laws.
I just think that making guns easily accessible to the average Joe isn't a good way to keep safety, sure they can be used as protection but I think they promote aggression much more.
Legality of firearms can lead to so many injuries through pure accident just from someone getting a little jumpy in some situations which actually aren't even a danger to them and blam, they've shot a friend, family member or some innocent bystander.
I'd prefer that fewer deaths happen because those few couldn't defend themselves against a complete nutjob than to have a high death count just because regular people are a little trigger happy without meaning harm.
Then again, I'm highly against our current overpopulation issues but I think I'd prefer other measures than to hear about a shooting on the news every day or 2.

I don't disagree with you there Zog; I'm with G Beee on this one; I don't understand why anybody thinks they should own guns. I_don't_get_it. I guess it must be a British thing.

I cannot think of one sane reason that the civilian population should be armed. Not a single one. Can anybody enlighten me on this one?

only reason MOST people have them are for safety for when people illegally enter their home.

Playing Counter Strike most of my life now, i wouldnt mind getting a few guns to just go to an open field to shoot some cans or something, never for harm though.

It's a catch 22.

Simply, people feel they need guns because other people have guns. You want to feel safe, and having something worse than what they have doesn't do that.


You want -simple- reality as to why gun control is necessary?


Hypothetical Situation:

I'm angry. I hate -everyone-. I no longer have a purpose in my life. So, what do I do? Grab a brick. Go to nearest pawnshop. Throw brick through the window, walk in, and get the two strongest weapons I can carry, and ammo for them. Semi-auto, auto, pistols, .22s. Whatever. Doesn't matter what kind.

I then walk away with these weapons.

From this point, -nothing- anyone could do would stop that.

Scenario 1) A cop stops me on way out. I start shooting as fast as the (legal) semi-auto will let me know. Probably 1-2 rounds per second. Either I or the cop die. At this point, I just start killing everyone around me, until someone stops me. Death toll: 1-20. That's my guess.

Scenario 2) No one sees me do this. I walk to school the next day instead of getting on bus, weapons hidden in a long coat or baggy pants. The moment I see first students, start shooting. Go into cafeteria and just start shooting. The death toll could be huge here.



Now, I would never do this. But... you know what scares me? Nothing on this earth could stop it from happening one of those ways except me deciding not to do it or the guns not being available. It's simple.

By the way, if you're wondering how I coughed this up, it's because I had to debate against the stupidity of post-Columbine security enhancements. One armed security guard and metal detectors don't stop this at all.

I think you are sterotyping the American people by accident (I'd hope). The way I see it is if people can't get guns by buying a license and going to the nearest gunshop, there wouldn't be a NEED for you to carry a gun. There would be otherways to defend yourself from an agressor than going trigger happy and putting a lot of innocents in danger.

I haven't stereotyped anyone whether it be by accident or deliberately.
I'd have the same concerns if the UK decided it would be a good idea to legalize firearms, luckily a large enough portion of our population are sane enough to be against it to the point that he government wouldn't be able to do such a thing.

People don't understand that though. All they know is they lose their weapons. Not that everyone does.

I think if the right to bear arms was taken away a lot more people wouldn't have a lot of the guns they do now.

Someone mentioned 'black market' earlier, but I mean come on, be realistic. How many people are going to deal with the black market to purchase weapons? How many people are going to know WHERE and HOW to deal with the black market to get weapons?

That just is the adults. How many pre-teens / teenagers are going to have the resources and knowledge? How many are actually going to have the courage to walk up to real murderers,(not their friends uncle), with a pocket full of money, to buy a handgun?

Silly Brits, I have alligators in my backyard. I need a gun.

~_^

No you don't silly. Just get one of these...

OB, you call us 'silly brits' lol? From somebody who could move but chooses to live where he has alligators in his backyard??!??!?

Right. That makes perfect sense!


Joking btw OB.... ;)

RedEcksThree
I think if the right to bear arms was taken away a lot more people wouldn't have a lot of the guns they do now.

-And what sort of people would be relieved of firearms? Law-abiding citizens, not criminals. Why would criminals turn in illegal firearms, when they already have shown complete disregard for the law?

Someone mentioned 'black market' earlier, but I mean come on, be realistic. How many people are going to deal with the black market to purchase weapons? How many people are going to know WHERE and HOW to deal with the black market to get weapons?

That just is the adults. How many pre-teens / teenagers are going to have the resources and knowledge? How many are actually going to have the courage to walk up to real murderers,(not their friends uncle), with a pocket full of money, to buy a handgun?

-The same people who currently commit violent crimes will continue to seek out weapons for use in violent crimes. The people who are involved in the drug trade will continue to provide a market for small arms regardless of the laws on the books. How many people (adult or otherwise) utilize the black market for illegal substances, gambling, etc. as it is? Don't think that taking away the legal market for civilians will in any way stymie the criminal element.

Johnnywas
I don't disagree with you there Zog; I'm with G Beee on this one; I don't understand why anybody thinks they should own guns. I_don't_get_it. I guess it must be a British thing.

-I think the cultural divergence on the right to firearms is largely a based upon the history of American colonization and the subsequent period of expansion and consolidation leading to the present day. We, for better or worse, are a nation founded largely by separatist groups, cast-offs and individualists, and mistrust of others and mistrust of government have stuck with us over the centuries.

I cannot think of one sane reason that the civilian population should be armed. Not a single one. Can anybody enlighten me on this one?

-The right of self-defense, not only from common criminals, but also a tyrannical local, state or federal government. That is enough for me.

Titan
But now... ha! Who do people think they are kidding? The government can't do that anymore. Military isn't big enough, too many people, and the people rarely care -what- the government does anymore.

-The government can compel compliance using methods other than the military, you know. All it really takes is a majority of decent federal and state workers to simply follow orders. Don't think any government is immune to creeping totalitarianism.

Ashilizator
Except if you are very unlucky they would be carrying pistols, or revolvers or whatever. Do you need a freaking M16 to defend yourself?

-Ask the Korean community in Los Angeles that question. Rifles have their place in the realm of self-defense, as do shotguns and handguns. Try to remember that one weapon will not fit all situations.

If the issue is merely to defend against the government, then no weapon-- conventional, assault weapon, chemical, nuclear, whatever -- should be banned from civilian possession. But I propose that Americans (of which I'm one) read the _whole_ second amendment, not just the part after the comma.

As a historian of sorts, I have to question the idea that the Constitution would only protect the right of citizens to keep and bear arms at the behest of the government, especially given the federalization of forces under the National Guard system. Given the fears of the populace and the framers toward overbearing state and federal governments, not to mention the experiences with rather solid examples of said governments prior to ratification of the Constitution, I find the assertion that the 2nd Amendment was intended only to protect the right of citizens to keep and bear arms at the discretion of the state rather odd.

And, let's not forget the numerous state constitutions that clearly recognize a personal right to arms.

You ask why anyone feels they need to own a gun? I own 10 so I can give you my reason at least. I own them for a variety of reasons. I am an avid hunter, myself and a few close friends enjoy doing this together. And 170 pounds of meat for 38 cents isn't a bad deal either. I also enjoy going to the Rifle range for a few hours at a time. Strap on the ear muffs and let the lead fly. Those are the reasons I own guns. I guess if it ever came down to it self defense would be listed in there as well. Now of the 10 I own 3 are shot guns. All the rest are rifles of varying calibers. None of them are assault rifles, there is no practical need for my self to own one of those. Although I do have a .50 BMG. You ask for tighter gun control and in a way I can agree and in many ways I can not. I grew up around the, my grand father was a WWII vet and he taught me how to shoot and he also taught me to have the utmost respect for a firearm, it is not a toy. He also used to say that "If guns are made illegal, then only criminals will have guns."

Ugh, I hate this subject. Everybody on either side always bring lots of valid points :)

Anything you say here will be countered, and IT WILL MAKE SENSE.
I guess that is why no conclusion has ever been drawn on the matter.

But what I mean to say is congrats for your posts people. Intelligent discussion beats flame wars anyday.

Thanks for an interesting read :)

I second what Ash said. Was a discussion I actually enjoyed reading through.

Are guns intrinsically bad? If so, explain to me how.

If they are not intrinsically bad, then what creates the taboo that surrounds guns? People who use them illegally and irresponsibly, usually for violent crimes and/or irrational actions like the Virginia Tech killer.

Gun were designed for defense and/or offense in combat or life threatening situations and also for sport/hunting. Any use outside of these is why guns get the bad rap they do. But the law abiding citizens who obey the laws are the ones creating the taboo, it is the criminals, and who would like guns outlawed more than the ones who own the most of them and use them in the most abhorrent ways?

Anyone that uses this horrendous situation as a political platform should be ashamed of themselves.

There was an old man who with his car ran over and killed a bunch of people in an open market in California a while back, should we outlaw cars because you can kill a lot of people just as easily as a gun with them? A small number of children each year get into cleaning supplies and die from poisoning, should we outlaw those as well? There are so many ways in which a person can die from negligent behavior, or misuse of legal and completely appropriate everyday items. Why don't we get rid of all of them and live in a padded room or a bubble?

Let's look at things objectively and not be "knee jerk" reactionary individuals that so many despise and do not respect.

I too tear myself up with this argument, but I think the attitudes of the people with the guns are what scares me more than the guns themselves. However, I am in favor of disarming the police force, or at least all the but the SWAT divisions. We've got an arms race going here in the US being driven by contraband sales, legalizing the contraband and disarming the cops would go a long way to slowing the standoff.

I can't get around that an armed populace is a much less attractive target for the predators of the world, in the days when you could protect you and yours with a bit of bird shot people knew what would happen if someone hurt your sister.

It really is a lose/lose situation for me, I'm really anti-violence, but also wary of expecting the system to do anything to help...

This is what scares me:

During the last set of hurricanes we lost power for 9 days. During that time I was quite scared about looters and for the safety of my family.

So I decided to get a gun. I went to the local Bass Pro Shops and with no prior knowledge of how to use a gun, was able to buy one with a 10 sec "background" check and a 5 day waiting period. Now some states have no wait period or "background" check (just what I heard, do not know if it is entirely true).

The gun I bought, a Glock 19. Almost the same as the shooter in this tragedy. His I believe was a Glock 17. Same caliber with a shorter barrel, for easier concealment.

Next I went to a 3 hour course with 30 others to get a concealed weapon permit to freaking carry a gun on my person, loaded, provided I have it "concealed". What is concealed? It includes wearing a shirt outside your pants covering it. Thats all!

To get my permit, I have to get fingerprinted and send in 117 bucks.

I still do not know how to fully use it, but I know the world is safer that I can carry a loaded 9mm pistol with 2 spare magazines on my person.

Something is not right. Why did I get it? For protection to use in my home if power ever goes out again.

In answer to the question posed in the subject of this thread: Yes, unbelievably sad and tragic.

I believe in the right to bear arms, but we have to train people, do background checks, possibly psych checks. We do not let people drive cars without a license, is not a gun far more dangerous?

Sorry,

I bought the model 17, the Glock 19 has the shorter barrel.

Of course if everybody bearing a weapon was sane, and not prone to stupid acts of violence, I would not care if every human being in the world carried a nuclear warhead. Or two, heck.

More work would have to be done to be more precise in determining who will shoot other people and who will not. But that does not make sense. Even the most brilliant psychologist can't do that in some cases. Background checks, however long they take and how thorough they are, will never be able to determine who's ''Gun OK'' and who's not. And furthermore, while training people to be able to use guns properly is nice to avoid accidents and help them defend themselves, you'd be training school-shooters at the same time, which is not as nice...

Gun-Town, USA

Murder by gun free for 25 years! Even though every residence owner is required to own and maintain a handgun.