Does the Virginia Tech massacre show the need for more gun control in the United States?

64 Responses to "Does the Virginia Tech massacre show the need for more gun control in the United States?"

  1. Dr Who  April 20, 2007 at 4:49 pm

    Would it have been better if Mr. Cho had waited outside the gym and plowed into the crowd exiting a basketball game with a truck going 60 mph? If he had killed 32 and injured many more with a vehicle what would be a reasonable response to the carnage? The issue is not the choice of weapon, it is the fact that he was insane.

    There are probably bollards between the street and the exits of the gym just to prevent someone slamming into crowds of people. What is the the equivalent for firearms? Declaring a school a “weapon free zone” did not seem to stop Mr. Cho from being armed. He happened to get his 2 pistols legally, but gang bangers do not. More gun control, as in NYC, does not keep weapons out of the hands of bad guys. Has laws against possession of Crack kept it off the streets?

    Mr. Cho entered the German class, shot and killed people, left, and then returned to shoot some more. The police were still “reacting”. If 5% of the people in the building where he was killing had been armed (the % of people in FL. with Concealed Carry Permits), perhaps he would have been stopped after the first 5 victims fell to his madness. Perhaps not, but think of the terror of the surviving students in the German class (their professor was already dead) when he returned. All they had to protect themselves was a door that he shot through, and the failed hope for police intervention.
    They deserved better, so do you, Netmonger, as do my family and me.

  2. Bluepig  April 19, 2007 at 7:05 pm

    Netmonger

    You are very much like the rest of the emotionally imbalanced that cry “how horrible the device not the violator.”

    People like you so easily draw inane comparisons, all the while providing zero logic to conjoin those comparisons. Your statements do not stand on their own. Your analogy was crap, as it did not have a stated comparative.

    People don’t need box cutters on planes – I beg to differ. On freight transports box cutters are regular fare. Until 2001 box cutters did rise to the level of criminal, and it took members from the Religion of Peace to elevate them to such prominence. The fact that the passengers did not overpower the TERRORISTS in all cases is unimaginable and inconceivable in all cases. But America has become the land of cowards and peaceniks, so we (in general) tend to sit around in times of crisis and wait for someone to come to our rescue.

    People don’t need to drink and drive – No they do not, nor should they, but their consumption of alcohol does not turn the vehicle into a weapon, and even people like you are able to figure that one out, or you too would be crying to ban all cars.

    People don’t need to have guns – Maybe you live in a cave and are never subject to the crimes that occur on a regular basis. That of course would change as soon as they erected high density housing beside your cave, or they built an underground garage, or your monkey council decided they needed a cultural center next to your cave. PEOPLE LIKE YOU expect the cops to show up and save them from the evildoer that they previously promoted as needing equal rights or welfare, but that is not the job of the police. The police are there to RESPOND to crimes after they are committed, or in the very few cases they are charged to act ahead of a crime if they know it is going to occur. Maybe you expect the military to prevent thugs, rapists and murderers from doing you harm? If not either of these two groups then who would protect you from the criminal out to kill you? Oh, that’s right you don’t subscribe to the mandates of SELF-PRESERVATION or PERSONAL RESONSIBILTY. If you expect me or your law-abiding gun-owning neighbor to save you from your liberal tree-hugging stupidity, then you should expect to bleed to death.

    People need to be able to go about their lives without being shot – Not in all cases. Obviously the most recent experiment in cultural diversity (Cho Seung-Hui) needed either a lifetime pass to a state mental institution or a preemptive bullet to the melon.

    To continue with your lunatic rant:

    My children’s lives should not have to be at risk so that some red-neck retard who is too stupid to do something useful with his life, can pretend he’s ‘cool’ shooting tin cans in his backyard with a ‘glock.

    – “I hope you have not successfully reproduced – It’s for the Children.”

    I never agreed to ‘pay any price’, and most people in this country agree with me.
    – I have no doubt that any price would be too high a cost for you to get off the couch, put down the remote, stop slugging Ho Ho’s into that blistering warble you call a mouth long enough to be a productive citizen. The general consensus over the history of America is that ANY cost is worth the investment to protect our freedoms.

    Guns are murder weapons plain and simple.

    – This sounds like projection from an unstable person who is absent the ability to show any control or restraint of personal emotion. I expect that you are one of those leftists who drive down the highway threatening to kill the next guy that cuts you off, and that is why you won’t own a gun. The fact is that the rest of us get upset when someone cuts us off too, but we are sane and stable, and are able to discount it without anything more than simple frustration of people’s inconsiderate state. By the way, those of us that are sane view personal weapons as tools for hunting, for target shooting, and God forbid defensive tools to be used only as a last resort in the defense of loved ones, friends, and ourselves.

    Semi-automatic guns should be illegal, background checks should be greatly improved, and people need to open up and realize that guns arent ‘cool’ and stop buying into this nonsense.

    – Gun’s are amazing feats of engineering to tolerances your simple pimple of a mind could never understand, and if you had the capacity to appreciate the achievements of men, you would realize that they are just as cool as bridges, skyscrapers, the Great Wall of China, the automobile, xrays, space travel, and more. What we need to do is ban anti-American hate mongers like you from being able to spew this type of bile upon the rest of us functional humans.

  3. docrock  April 20, 2007 at 12:52 pm

    “…The founding fathers simply did not envision assault weapons…”

    I don’t think the founding father’s envisioned television or the internet; does that mean the First Amendment shouldn’t apply to those medias?

  4. Skyelady  April 20, 2007 at 1:37 pm

    Everything this person did was illegal, killing is illegal, why do we need more laws? More laws would not have stopped him. A person bent on destruction will find a way to accomplish it. We live in a country where people can move around for the most part as they want. If even one person this killer pointed his gun towards was a Conceal Weapons carrier, the carnage of innocents would have ended much quicker. One post stated we don’t “need” guns, well we don’t need soda, chips, more than one pair of shoes, movies, etc. etc. etc. And I personally think that this incident proved that yes, indeed , law abiding people DO need guns to protect themselves and their community. I do not use guns as “murder” weapons, and don’t know personally of anyone who has.

  5. polik6887  April 20, 2007 at 1:39 pm

    netmonger, you many not need a weapon in your neighborhood, but not everyone lives in the suburbs. live in the projects for a month and tell me you dont want to be able to protect yourself. good luck not getting raped or curb kicked for fun.

    the police perform an important job but they dont stop crimes BEFORE they are committed, they only deal with them AFTER they have happened. the VT shootings shows this. they FAILED to shut down the school after the first shooting, and they FAILED at stopping the gunman before he killed again. one person with a legal concealed carry permit could have stopped this.

    people always say that if concealed carry is allowed every fight would escalate to murder. this is simply not true. states that dont allow concealed carry have a 11% higher crime rate according to the FBI. people with concealed carry permits are 5.7 times less likely to commit a violent offense, and 13.5 times less likely to commit any non-violent offense. a university of Chicago study showed that multiple victim shootings have dropped in states with concealed carry laws.

    I have personally NEEDED, a weapon to defend my life. I was taking a nap one day while my car was at the shop. I awoke to find two gangbangers had broken into my house with a crowbar. I used a SEMI-AUTOMATIC hunting shotgun to force them out of my house. funny how gun owners just want to shoot people, yet I had the right and did not fire. If I had been unarmed I would hate to think what two guys with a crowbar could have done to me. I cant even think about what would have happened to my girlfriend if she had been there alone and unarmed.

    criminals will commit crimes. period. with illegal guns, knives, bats, or crowbars. disarming honest citizens only provides unarmed victims. criminals don’t follow the 200 gun laws on the books now, why would they follow one more. the murder rates in Australia and the UK (not the flawed BCS index, that leaves out many crimes, check out the number of murders actually reported by the police) have steadily increased since the banning of guns. anti-civil rights groups try and pass this off, as simply caused by increasing populations. yeh right. the population went up 160% in sydney over one year (sarcasm).

    if you choose to be naive enough to not protect your and your families lives. fine. don’t try and stop me from protecting mine.

  6. April-May  May 14, 2007 at 9:25 am

    It’s not the “Bill of Needs” sweetheart. It’s the “Bill of Rights.”

    The most cursory reading of the history behind the Second Amendment (“Federalist” is a good start.) notes that the right to self defense is “God given.”

    Jumping right into the reductio ad absurdum here:

    re: box cutters and airplanes . . .

    FAA reversed itself. Pilots are allowed to carry firearms on planes now. Federal agents carry firearms on planes now for airline security. Why? Because there seems to be a need for recourse to defense.

    So . . . moving right along here . . .

    We disarm campuses, and where do the shootings occur? That’s right, on the disarmed campuses. We may as well hang a sign on the campus entrance:

    “We’ve systematically disarmed our community as a matter of administrative policy. We’re defenseless here. Come get us.”

    Persons with permits to carry firearm are responsible, LAWFUL, sober, serious citizens. Carrying a firearm is not a responsibility taken lightly.

    I do not entirely buy the speculation that “had there been someone carrying a concealed handgun on campus then Cho may have been stopped.” — Sure, maybe, but I don’t entirely subscribe to that outcome as probable.

    What I do subscribe to as probable is that had legally licensed gun owners been afforded the right to carry on campus as permitted by Virginia law, then perhaps the campus would not have been viewed as an “easy target” by a crazed and angry homicidal maniac.

    Reductio ad absurdum some more . . .

    Police stations aren’t “gun free zones.” When’s the last time you read about a police station being shot up by an armed whacko?

  7. japman  April 20, 2007 at 4:59 pm

    Whenever there is a call for more gun control, there usually follows a cacaphony of statements to the effect, “Let the police handle crime”, “We don’t need guns to protect us, that’s what the police are for” and my favorite, “Only police should have guns”.

    Rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States state that law enforcement does not have a duty to protect individuals. If they don’t, who does? They are also NOT liable if they don’t respond to cries for help. It’s easy for law enforcement associations to call for gun control, they’re not accountable or liable if you’re a defenseless victim.

    Now ask yourself, why do the police carry guns? Is it because they need to protect themselves from the criminals they deal with? Are police the ONLY ones that deal with criminals? What about a rape victim or a robbery victim and a murder victim. They weren’t harmed or killed by a law abiding citizen.

    I don’t live on a crime-free island. Do you?

  8. elo  April 20, 2007 at 5:07 pm

    “People dont need to have box cutters on planes.”
    Destroy and Ban ALL box cutters across the nation. Don’t allow box cutters to be sold ANYWHERE. Afterall, it’s the BOX CUTTER’S FAULT!!

    “People dont need to drink and drive.”
    Destroy and Ban ALL alcohol across the nation. Don’t allow alcohol to be sold ANYWHERE. Afterall, it’s the ALCOHOL’S FAULT. (ooops.. I don’t mean to launch any attacks on that wine spritzer in your hand… now it get’s personal when it affects you, eh?)

    People dont *need* to have guns.
    You get the drift…

    Looks like someone’s parents and education failed them… it’s called being able to draw RATIONAL parrallels, and logic

  9. April-May  April 20, 2007 at 5:34 pm

    I’m going to stop reeling and haranguing here for a second and make a logical proposal:

    In Oregon, where I live, the concealed carry permit is “shall issue” for the most part. If the applicant meets the legal criteria for a concealed handgun license (CCW), the state is compelled to issue the license — EXCEPT . . .

    The Sheriff in the county of jurisdiction issuing the permit has the option to show cause why the permit should not be issued. If the Sheriff says “no” the permit is not issued.

    When Cho purchased his firearms, he filled out a BATF 4473 — Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms “background check.” Cho passed the check because he’d never been “adjudged mentally incompetent” He’d never been charged with “domestic violence” either. Both those questions are on the BATF 4473, and either will cause the transfer of the firearm to be denied.

    But Cho had been hospitalized for psycholgical issues, twice. He’d also been investigated by police for stalking, and police/campus security had received complaints that Cho was “threatening.”

    Those issues should be a matter of police record and should raise a flag when background check is run on the BATF 4473.

    Databases for the BATF 4473 are multiple, and include state and federal law enforcement records. Cho’s incidents should be a matter of record on these databases. If such incidents are not currently a “matter of record” they should be used as “record data” for the background check for a firearm.

    Accordingly, and here is the proposal . . .

    BATF 4473 provides the option for “pending” the sale. The sale “pends” while background records are further investigated.

    A Sheriff or any state law enforcement agency should have the authority to stop a firearm sale to someone like Cho. That’s the raison d’etre for the background check in the first place, to notify law enforcement of a pending sale and to check records.

    In Oregon, the Sheriff’s option to stop the issuance of a CCW permit is informally referred to as “The never quite actually been arrested clause.”

    The Sheriff makes the determination that, based on the information he/she has, the person in question (Cho), has “a record of incidents with law enforcement,” “presents a credible threat of harm to self or others,” “exhibits words and deeds characteristic of psychological instability or disturbance.”

    This Sheriff’s option should extend to firearm sales.

    — Now, checks / balances here. The Sheriff’s decision is subject to judicial review. If the applicant is cogent enough to convince a court, a judge — and the applicant appears before the judge and pleads his case — then the court has the option to set aside the Sheriff’s objection to the issuance of the permit . . .

    Or in the case of a BATF 4473 on a gun sale, to set aside the Sheriff’s objection to the sale.

    Cho would have been stopped. Had he nonetheless convinced a court to overturn the Sheriff’s objection (I wouldn’t happen.) then the Sheriff would be advised that Cho has a gun . . . two guns . . . and is living in a dorm on campus.

    Campus administration would be advised by the Sheriff that Cho presents a threat and is armed.

    But mostly, Cho would never have been permitted to buy firearms in the first place — though lawfully qualified — because rational minds in positions to make decisions would be advised of all the flags flying and all the warning signs which seem to have been entirely overlooked in this incident.

  10. Pulp  April 20, 2007 at 10:30 pm

    I keep reading stuff from the anit-gunners like “I don’t need guns”, “I don’t need a 10 round capacity magazine.” “I don’t need a semi-auto pistol.”

    Folks, don’t tell me what I need. I’ve carried (legally) a handgun for 7 years now. Have I ever “needed” it. No. And I hope and pray I never “need” it.

    A lady said she’s never needed a gun. Good for her. She’s lucky. I’d bet 95% of the students killed at VT, Columbine, Arkansas, and Austin; or the folks eating lunch in Killeen, TX, or San Ysidrio, CA, said the same thing. They’d never needed a gun. But then came the day someone needed it. And died because they didn’t have it.

    I’ve had car insurance for 40 years now. I’ve only needed it once. I hope I never need it again.

    Even more so, I hope I never need my guns. I have no desire to shoot another person. Neither does any other CCW permit holder. However, if it ever comes down to between you and my family and self, you lose. No offense, no brag. Just the facts.

    Pulp
    World’s Worst Cowboy Action Shooter

  11. Minimedic17  April 20, 2007 at 11:06 pm

    If I was in the presence of someone who was in the process of shooting lots of innocent people, and I had my .45 on me, you bet your @$$ I’d have shot him myself ASAP before he killed any more. Would have-at least- reduced the number of innocent lives lost. I may have gone to jail forever for shooting another human, but how many more people would live to see their families again? If someone in the crowd had a gun they could have stopped him a lot sooner than after 30+ were dead. Hmmm, 30 dead or one? You pick.

    In the words of my hero Andy Rooney: “You can beat a person to death with a baseball bat or run them over with a vehicle, but no one is trying to keep you from driving to a ball game…” Any of you who have any intelligence at all will understand and appreciate this statement without any explination…

    Look at the statistics from all of the cities that have carry laws, vs. the cities that don’t allow it and tell me what the crime rate difference is. Where is a thug more likely to strike? Where he knows that someone doesn’t have a gun or in a place where he doesn’t know if he’ll have a gun pulled on him? Even if it is just to scare an attacker away?

    The more RESPONSIBLE and LEGAL gun owners there are=less crime and death. Teach your children about guns, don’t shelter them from them. That’s when the curiosity strikes and that’s when people get hurt. As an adult, you need to be resposible with the guns, etc…

    I’m assuming that most (not all) of you are men on here. Just want to make it known that I am proud to be a very petite, young, strong, straight, female, pro-gunner. Not very common traits to see all in one these days! This is one chick that you don’t want to mess with when she has a weapon on her hip. Even though I live in an anti-gun state, I carry the maximum legal size knif on me at all times. I know how to use it. And the only other thing I can say is that if you are for the carry laws, push for them and don’t let these anti-gunners take our Constitutional Rights away from us. I was an “anti” once myself, but that’s another story. What matters is that I came to my senses after a horrible tradgedy.

    Damn, I could go on for hours, but my fingers are cramping up :)

  12. Skookum  April 20, 2007 at 11:32 pm

    We are in the lead now!!

    I’m not trying to bring to much into it but since I placed this on like 7 forums we took the lead in less than 5 minutes, what I’m getting at is forums like this one and others really do help us organize in the sharing of information and that gives us the ability to concentrate our power, respond quickly to knee jerk reactions with actual facts and defend our rights as a group like never before.

    Absolutely – 48% (2683 votes)
    No way – 51% (2871 votes)
    Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn. – 1% (61 votes)

    http://www.berettaforum.net/vb/showthread.php?t=22288

    Gun Forums routinely spin polls like this by means of their network of pro-gun sites.

  13. JudyB  April 21, 2007 at 12:33 pm

    There SHOULD be more gun control…. just as I SHOULD control my mouth, my weight, my temper and the speed at which I drive. Control would not mean my keeping silent, no more that it would mean that I would not eat, get angry or drive a car..and gun control would not mean you couldn’t own a gun. In every major city, on almost any corner you will see obesity, angry people, and speeding cars..what you won’t see is hidden weapons.

  14. middleGround  April 21, 2007 at 2:06 pm

    When ever something bad happens we start to play the blame game.

    Let’s blame guns, or his parents or whatever. This is a fear reaction. People are afraid that if they done single out the cause they can eliminate the problem.

    I just don’t things are that simple.

    If guns were all gone, then people would just make bombs. If bombs were all gone people would just use bio/chem agents.

    Humans are resourceful, and when you have an evil and resourceful human, then I really don’t think preventing him or her from using a gun with offer the world any long term benefit.

  15. History  April 21, 2007 at 2:40 pm

    History shows time and again that when people comply with their governments demands to disarm themselves (such as Russia), those people are treated with brutal oppression shortly thereafter. Why do you think the US is exempt from History?

    Bottom line is that our forefathers believed in individual rights. The first amendment, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and so on are individual rights conferred to “The People.” This also applies to the 2nd Amendment, where the rights to keep and bear arms is an individual right conferred to “The People.” It is meant to be entirely separate from any governmental controls because the framers knew that governments were easily corruptable and “the people” would need to have effective MODERN means to combat tyrannical rulers. The first amendment doesn’t apply to ancient quill pens, it applies to the idea of freedom, much like the 2nd amendment applies to the idea of freedom to keep and bear modern arms, not just muskets.

    If you want people to be safer from tyrants, arm them! If you want children to be safe in schools, allow responsible adults to carry concealed weapons. Creating more gun free zones clearly isn’t working, nor will it ever work. Violent criminals are still rational. Why do you think they pick on defenseless schools rather than gunshops. These people fantacize about unarmed victims, and that’s exactly what anti-gun policies do. They create unarmed victims. So, in a sense, anti-gun groups are partly responsible for mass shootings through their short sighted policies.

  16. Carl Nemo  April 21, 2007 at 3:11 pm

    People best open their eyes and pay attention! Visualize a totally disarmed AmeriKa except for the military and law enforcement. Think again of how well our elected disappointments have been taking care of business in the past 30 years or so. We are currently in a war based on “cooked” intelligence courtesy of the Wolfowitz-Feith-Cheney rogue intelligence pipeline. The House, The Senate, and the Executive branch are already dissing the greater American electorate’s wishes. To quote Bush on his first bid for office when he told a questioning citizen/reporter “who cares what you think”. When the guy identified himself and that he worked for some news org, then “Mr. Snarky shouted”, well then “just get it right”…?! The point being is evidently what “we the people” think doesn’t count to this collective cabal of “republicrats” who are all marching to the beat of their NWO/MIC/AIPAC controllers.

    We’ve all witnessed how law enforcement treats protestors at recent political conventions; i.e., the Republican convention and peaceful protests in “anywhere AmeriKa”. It was revealed that NYC law enforcement personnel fanned out across the country infiltrating groups for “intelligence” gathering purposes…huh?! Mind you city based law enforcement is engaged in the HUMINT (Human Intelligence) business by fanning out nationally…?! No doubt, the Bushistas would give Blackwater Security a contract to clean up domestic insurgents; i.e, Americans who might care to resist the implementation of an overt police state imposed upon it’s citizenry. Just visualize the terror of hearing the black choppers relentlessly pounding the the skies with with the throb of their turbo-prop engines as they land in parking lots even private property rounding up designated targets against the NWO/MIC/AIPAC crowd. If you think I’m being melodramatic, then I advise you to think again. Again, you’ll have lit candles and flowers to protect yourselves from tyranny…! :O
    There’s a current case Colorado where some folks were thrown out of a gathering that was hosting Bush as the featured speaker. They didn’t act up at the gathering but some “volpo” spotted some “End the War” type stickers on their cars, so they decided to pre-emptively expel them from King George’s presence…?! I could go on and on how these elected mattoids trample our rights everyday and push it to the envelope.

    Now think for a just a minute what might keep them from declaring martial law at the drop of a hat and overtly enslaving Americans. They’l allow America’s tabloid-brained citizens to shop until they drop, but they darest not question the State. We see how Russia treated protestors recently. All they have have is bottles and rocks to resist an incredibly well-armed bunch of statist criminals that control Russia. Yes, the citizens are very “safe” indeed without having arms to protect themselves from massive government intrusion if the need should come. I guess they’l all carry flowers and lit candles while they march around in front of Putin and his cronies who fear no serious resistance from “law abiding” civilians… :)) Russia has for all practical purposes reverted back to it’s old Sovietski self. It’s now a hybrid of Communism and “pirate capitalism”; i.e., the absolute worst traits of both “isms”.

    I’m not preaching revolution, but as long as elected mattoids have it in their ever-grasping heads that mayhem would occur if they try to pull something off they’l tread lightly; i.e., a fairly well-armed citizenry. I’ve always like the old colonial battle flag showing a coiled, ready-to-strike rattlesnake, with motto “Don’t Tread on Me”…!

    I’m not an NRA member, nor am I a “gun nut”, but I do believe in “concealed carry” being allowed for law-abiding citizens who have been trained to use and maintain their weapon of choice. So once certified and they’ve gone through an appropriate program they can apply for a “concealed carry” permit. It’s a proven fact that crime both property and personal attacks have dropped dramatically in those jurisdictions that allow such disposition of a weapon. These classes should also discuss the use of deadly force and the legal ramificatons if they should use such force. To me a gun is a tool, no different than a good shovel, axe, or a chainsaw and used intelligently for what is designed; i.e., hunt for game which might be “needed” for tablefare, or to terminate a deadly threat, then it has a place in the land of the “free” and the home of the brave. It’s mandatory that every Swiss household be armed. Switzerland is the longest standing democracy on the planet, at 700 years. If the arabs entrust the Swiss to hold most if not all of their gold, then that’s testament alone to what it means to be a nation that’s ready to protect itself from all aggressors both foreign and domestic. Every Swiss citizen is also “required” to participate in their government processes. No whiners, slackers and butt-sliders there.

    For the bleeding heart, feelgood types that think disarming Americans is the answer then you best do a pre-signup for your UPC tattoo and your micro-chip implant immediately if not sooner! Any politician especially the disgusting likes ot Ted Kennedy and others that might pander to this tragedy in Virginia for voter appeal, needs to be summarily kicked out of office for once and all. They need to focus on getting our butts out of this criminal engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan asap.

    Gun control is nothing but hype. Australia had one of these similar mass shooting tragedies about 15 years ago and guns were outlawed. Armed crime soared because criminals don’t follow the law they “break the law”…get it! Only peaceful law-abiding citizens end up being enslaved. Are there any questions…?! Carl Nemo**==

  17. Minimedic17  April 21, 2007 at 4:12 pm

    Gun control is having a steady hand and hitting your target!

  18. JBeam  April 22, 2007 at 12:02 am

    your most likely part of the problem, liberal minded people, who holler gun control, to me their the blame for such tragedies & number of deaths in America.
    Who passed no guns for those who have permits to carry?
    These license holders has meet back ground checks, also have to passed a test with their chosen firearm.
    Doesnt take much training to shoot a attacker five or ten feet away.
    Dont be so stupid and full of hate & blame the gun, if you wish to blame anyone or anything, just look in the mirror.
    Cowardly antics is so un American, dummy up, before it of late.

    Not good with words,but for what it is worth, you make me sick to my stomach, yellow isnt my favorite color.

    Teach your son’s to be a man, not convert them into a spineless coward liberal.

    Sorry,dont mean to sound like a hateful person, I just dont like liberals who try to use such tragedies that they most likely help create and blame guns, so darn retarded.

    Not to mention a cheap shot.

    By the way, wonder how many school shootings we would have, if the would be victoms was armed? probably none, cause these shooters are cowards.

    JB

  19. antimedic  April 22, 2007 at 9:01 am

    According to the Brady Campaign, and using the statistics from their websties FAQ page, there were, in 2004, approximately 192 million firearms in America, about 60 million of which were handguns. Also in 2004, there were nearly 12,000 gun-related deaths in this country.

    This means that approximately 0.0015% of guns were involved in a gun related death.

    The Brady Campaign would be EXTATIC to announce that 59,999,956 handguns killed NO ONE today!

    The Brady Bunch, VPC, and like minded organizations are using weak-minded sheep-like people to push their agenda, to make the American people more dependent on the handouts of an already overly bureaucratic and increasingly cumbersome government that should not be playing nanny to its citizens. If you desire the (non)security of a gun-free environment, might I suggest you move to great Britain or Australia? Both counties offer draconian restrictions on private ownership of firearms, therefore allowing criminals with illegal guns to have a safe work environment.

    “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin

  20. JBeam  April 22, 2007 at 2:12 pm

    Seem to always be liberal slanted, you can usely tell by the number who vote for gun control. ( I doubt pole legit )
    I seriously doubt, that many Americans would vote for more gun control?
    Based on replies. it appears more are pro gun, true red blooded Americans.

    Would say more, but it probably be twisted to their advantage.

    JB

  21. calisteve  April 23, 2007 at 12:49 pm

    You cannot stop a nut if they are determined to create a problem. Only way is to stiffen laws allowing more involuntary commitments.

    As far as gun control – why do these mass shootings happen at schools? Answer – it’s safe for the killer. There has NEVER been a recorded incidence of a mass killing at a shooting range – why? the killer knows there are not enough safe victims.

    Steve

  22. Juna  April 24, 2007 at 3:41 pm

    1) Advocating for our constitutional rights is in no way advocating for violence.

    2) All firearms have many purposes, including target practice, self-defense, hunting, military/police use, deterring tyranny, etc.

    3) The Bill of Rights is not the Bill of Needs. None of our rights is contingent upon need, “sporting purposes”, or crime rates. Many bad things are done in the name of free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, to name a few. Degrading the Bill of Rights is not the answer.

    4) Putting a gun into someone’s hand does not transform that person into a homicidal maniac. There are 80-90 million law abiding gun owners in this country.

    5) People with concealed pistol licenses are among the cleanest and most responsible in society, having undergone extensive background checks, fingerprinting, delving into mental health records, pistol safety training including range time, education pertaining to legal issues related to firearms, etc. They also are required to re-certify and renew their licences periodically. These are not the people you should be fearing.

    6) Shooting sprees occur in “gun-free zones” because killers need not worry about potentially encountering an armed victim. It has been documented in criminology research–research conducted by an anti-gun individual, I might add–that the NUMBER ONE deterrent of violent crime AS REPORTED BY THE MOST VIOLENT CRIMINALS IN PRISON is the potential of encountering an armed victim. This was ranked as a greater deterrent than encountering police or going to prison (which includes risks of shower rape, beatings, death, etc.).

    7) Laws only affect law abiding citizens. Cho broke the law banning handguns on VT campus. He also broke the law banning murder and assault. Another firearm regulation in addition to the THOUSANDS of gun control laws in existence would have made no difference. He got around a “one handgun a month” rule by waiting two months to acquire two handguns. If his magazines (NOT “clips”–clips are something different) had been limited to 10 rounds, he’d have carried more of them. He had on a tactical vest capable of holding much more.

  23. hoosierbaby  April 24, 2007 at 5:09 pm

    We don’t need more guns and we don’t need more gun laws. More gun laws will just piss everyone off. More guns could put the guns in the hands of the wrong people even easier. What we need is help in the educational system. We need people that are willing to not be afraid of hurting someones feelings or steping on their civil rights when they say they need therapy. This person in Virginia was told he needed therapy but they couldn’t force him to go because of his civil rights. Something needs to be done there. If he would have been seeing a counselor at the school or outside of the school maybe this wouldn’t have happened. This has nothing to do with guns. That was just his weapon of choice. He could have used Samuri swords and then where would we have been?

  24. 7tsskid  April 18, 2007 at 8:12 am

    There should be a lot more guns all states should be a law to protect the constitutation and all kids going to school should learn to safely use guns like I did when i was nine,my dad showed the proper way thats the way it use to be.The more guns People have the safer it is take the colleges that have guns no trouble google it search the facts so I say with the corrupt Government we have we should be heavly armed .

  25. GrndLkNatv  April 18, 2007 at 10:04 am

    People who are willing to give up freedom for safety deserve neither…. The problem isn’t the guns, it’s the people behind them. We have mentally ill people running all over this country ever since President Kennedy got rid of the mental institutions and turned them lose of the streets.

    The idiot at Tech had a long history of mental problems and was ignored, the real problem is with the officials who ignored his crys for help, not the gun nor the guy who sold it to him…

    It’s always easy to blame the the other guy instead of taking responsibility for what really happened. Today’s communist movement is all about political correctness and gun control…

    Remember it was Trotsky who invented PC and all the people who follow in it’s path are what Lenin described as Useful Idiots…

    Generation X Virginian

  26. Ragin Cajun  April 20, 2007 at 12:36 pm

    The bottom line is that no matter what the anti-gunners say, the numbers uphold the fact that violent crime drastically decreases when the amount of concealed carry permits increases. People that say “Only police officers should carry guns because they’re trained better” really should ask a police officer how often he practices.

    In reality, the average gun-owning citizen practices MUCH more than the average police officer.

    As far as VT goes, that university is guilty of infringing upon a constitutional right at the very least, criminally negligent at the most. Virginia state law allows concealed carry deadly weapons (CCDW) permit holders to carry on campuses..but VT forbids carrying of firearms on campus upon penalty of expulsion. They deemed the campus a “gun-free zone” which does nothing more than paint a big red bullseye on every single student.

    Criminals are criminals because they don’t follow the law! The only people that abide by gun control are the lawful citizens!

    Better to be judged by twelve than be carried by six.

  27. stevenmars  April 21, 2007 at 6:40 pm

    Oh yes, by all means, let’s return to the days of the old west, when everyone was strapped with a side arm. There were gunfights in bars and on the streets. It’ll be so nice to get back again.

    Because of a persistent misinterpretation of the Constitution, which clearly meant for the right to bear arms to apply to militias, the United States has, far and away, the highest annual body count due to gun use. Google it yourself and compare gun deaths in the U.S. to those in the United Kingdom, Japan, Sweden, France or just about any other nation on earth.

    Think if all the students at Virginia Tech had been packing heat. Yes, the shooter would have been taken out sooner. But how many others would have died in the crossfire?

    We need to start outlawing handguns which are of no use to hunters and are good for one thing and one thing only…the killing of human beings. Where do you think criminals get most of their guns? Not from legitimate sources. Most of them are stolen in home burglaries and sold on the black market. If those guns aren’t there to be stolen and aren’t in stores to be bought, where will they get them?

    It’s time to join the other civilized nations of the world and do away with private handgun ownership.

    Owning a handgun doesn’t protect the Constitution. It just kills people.

  28. ja  March 18, 2009 at 7:17 pm

    I feel sorry for the kid who did the shooting just as much as for the people that died. He was made fun of growing up and he couldn’t take it anymore. Shootings like these don’t happen very often and they wouldn’t happen at all if society in general was more appreciative of others.

  29. Elmo  April 18, 2007 at 10:26 am

    Everyone should realize that the 2nd Amendment grants a right to everyone and that there will always be people who will abuse that right. This is the price we all have agreed to pay for the right to keep and bear arms.

    After the Oklahoma City bombing, it was possible to put stricter controls on high nitrate fertilizers because the 2nd amendment does not grant a right to keep and bear fertilizer. You can get it, but not as anonymously nor as easily as before. After incidents like this, there are those who talk about trying to make guns more difficult to obtain but they will never be successful.

    So since we can’t control guns, we need to put stricter controls on people. If I hear any crazy talk from anyone, I want to be able to have treated like an enemy combatant. Guilty until proven innocent. You write some crazy stuff that upsets your English teacher you get disappeared. That will put a stop to all this killing.

  30. Roadapple00  April 18, 2007 at 10:46 am

    Through all of the posts, the one thing that no one mentions is the parents. Are we as parents so involved with our own lives that we ignore our children? Unfortunately, most are. My wife stayed home with the children until the graduated HS, and they never got into serious trouble, but others from the school, whose parents both worked, did get into trouble. No, not all of them, but more. When are we going to put that blame where it should be, or at least where it should begin? PARENTS GET INVOLED WITH YOUR CHILDREN…..

  31. Dave-O-63  April 21, 2007 at 3:38 am

    Netmonger the unfortunate truth is that there are many times when people DO NEED firearms . It isn’t about being cool or shooting tin cans it is about the most basic of right which is self preservation .

    20 years ago I found myself and family in a situation with 4 men armed with baseball bats and metal pipes who figured they could just do what they pleased and their pleasure seemed to be derived from killing my wife and perhaps 1 year old son who was in her arms .

    I did indeed NEED my 357 magnum and fortunately I had it and as soon as they saw it pointed at them they decided they NEEDED to be somewhere else and I didn’t NEED to fire a shot .

    The world does and always has and will have it’s share of sick people who actually enjoy killing people for absolutely no comprehensible reason to normal folk . when these things happen waiting for the police to arrive would get you killed .

    There is a piece on MSNBC about two high school boys from NE America , they decided they were bored and hated their lives in the small town they lived in . They made a plan to leave town and go to California and they would get the money they needed by robbing and killing people .

    They randomly picked homes and knocked on doors until they were allowed into the home of a couple on the pretense of an environmental survey .

    They stabbed and cut those two very nice people to pieces and while they attempted to escape didn’t have a chance against two physically superior attackers . Had they had a gun in their home they might still be alive .

    No this isn’t simply wishful thinking as at the home prior to theirs the home owner saw them entering his property and observed one of them hanging back from the door and hiding by a bush near a window and he got a pistol before going to the door . The one by the bush saw the gun in his hand through the same window he had observed them and they took off . Had he been unarmed they would have killed him and his son who was in the home .

    The fact that two seemingly normal kids from good families of upper middle class means could calmly decide to kill total stranger just to get money to leave town scares the daylights out of me .

    So yes I KNOW decent people need guns because when evil comes calling it doesn’t call ahead to warn you so you can summon the police to protect you , it is up to you to do it because it all just explodes in your face without warning !

    If you can’t accept the fact that the world is dangerous and need to take precautions to care for yourself I suggest it is you who needs to grow up as you obviously have a problem with a lack of maturity .

  32. Netmonger  April 18, 2007 at 11:12 am

    The 3 posts I read are nothing but disturbing.

    You people think the freedom to own a gun pre-empts the freedom to live without being murdered?!? Are you kidding me?

    Here’s a good analogy: why arent box cutters allowed on an airplane? I mean its not the box cutters that kill people, its the *person* right?

    But pretty much everyone can see the point in this: regardless of it being the fault of the person, its simply too dangerous to allow box cutters to be on a plane, because there is the potential for many people to die as we saw on 911.

    So if we are going to play it safe with box cutters, dont you think we ought to play it at least as safe with 9mm semi-automatic murder machines? Its the *exact* *same* thing people. Another great example is DWI – same thing.

    People dont need to have box cutters on planes.

    People dont need to drink and drive.

    People dont *need* to have guns.

    People do *need* to be able to go about their lives without being shot.

    The problem is deep in American culture and things need to change on so many levels. Guns arent cool and its time for people (and Hollywood) to grow up and realize this.

    As far as Elmo’s comment ‘This is the price we all have agreed to pay for the right to keep and bear arms.’ I’ll make this very clear to you:

    My children’s lives should not have to be at risk so that some red-neck retard who is too stupid to do something useful with his life, can pretend he’s ‘cool’ shooting tin cans in his backyard with a ‘glock.

    I never agreed to ‘pay any price’, and most people in this country agree with me.

    Guns are murder weapons plain and simple.

    Semi-automatic guns should be illegal, background checks should be greatly improved, and people need to open up and realize that guns arent ‘cool’ and stop buying into this nonsense.

    Grow up.

  33. jarrodlombardo  April 18, 2007 at 11:52 am

    The intent of the second amendment is to allow organized citizens’ groups to violently overthrow the government and/or defend itself from the U.S. military when necessary. Nearly all of the various gun and weapon control laws violate this intent and some violate the literal wording. Due to these weapon limiting laws, it is no longer possible for a neighborhood to get together and prepare for the possibility of an invasion of the military. In recent history, when groups have wished to excercise this right to be prepared, the FBI and other government forces have invaded to kill, arrest, and disband the members of the group.

    It is in the government’s best interest for the people to feel empowered to defend themselves but to actually be effectively powerless. That’s terrible. We should all be ashamed that our country turned down this path.

    –Jarrod

  34. lalawhatever  April 18, 2007 at 12:14 pm

    I think it’s you who needs to grow up. Yes, the posts before were very poorly written.

    Why is everyone in this country so acquiesce to weakness and cowardice? Don’t people realize that the only person responsible for your own safety is YOU! The police cannot be there 24 hours a day to protect you. Try being a responsible man for once in your life and not a sheep waiting to be victimized. I will never be a victim by anyone who will attempt take my rights or my life.

    This country was founded on certain principles, the rights to free speech, choice of religion, freedom of assembly, and the right to keep and bear arms. If you don’t agree with those principles then you need to move to Canada or France. Stop trying to change my country! I am a free American citizen. No man has the right to deny me my basic human rights, including the right to self protection. This is supposed to be a free society. The government should not have the power to punish everyone for the actions of a few.

    We need to look at how our society functions. Mainstream media promotes violence, gangsterism, sexism, and a complete lack of morality. Turn on your television and what do you see? Rappers glorifying drug use, murder, and disrespect of women. Anna Nicole Smith. Girls Gone Wild. Must I go on?

    When you deny people the right to carry a concealed weapon on a college campus you create a “criminal empowerment zone”. The only people affected by gun control are those who obey the law. Criminals don’t follow laws, that’s why they’re criminals. One student or faculty member with a concealed pistol could have saved perhaps every life taken at VA Tech.

    Netmonger, not allowing box cutters or anything else on an airplane that could be used as a weapon creates a weapons free environment on that airplane. It levels the playing field. That has no relevance on a country as a whole. Criminals have guns. Gun control only takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Do you want to ban alcohol because people *may* drink and drive? Maybe we should ban cars. Or cigarettes? I bet those kill alot more people than guns.

    Let me let you in on a little secret. Most gun owners aren’t “redneck retards”, but people who aren’t afraid of being responsible American citizens. Maybe one day YOU will grow up.

  35. lalawhatever  April 18, 2007 at 12:27 pm

    I would like everyone to think very carefully about what rights you are willing to give up to “feel safe”. Do you think that a policeman, soldier, or politican has the right to exert control over you? Do you understand what the definition of “citizen” is? All men and women are equal in our society. The president has the same rights and lives under the same laws as a person who labors. The government should fear the people, not the other way around. If you disarm a populace, you create a tyrannical government that has no checks. They have enough power over us as it is, don’t give them semi-automatic weapons too. If we lose those we really are powerless.

  36. drdredel  April 19, 2007 at 5:53 am

    Note that while nothing you say makes any actual sense, it all sounds fairly rational if one were to glance over it and just nod like someone on quaalude.

    ok then…

    You obviously don’t
    a) do a lot of flying
    b) know anything about statistics.

    I fly 2x a week. I spend a great deal of time waiting in security checkpoints. These security checkpoints are a farce, they serve absolutely no purpose. If the nation wasn’t filled with hysterical fools like yourself, there would be no security. Why? When was the last time airport security caught someone trying to get on a plane with something harmful.

    I’ll wait while you think about it.

    done?

    that’s right… never.

    NEVER!

    All the people that wanted to get on a plane and blow it up, hijack it, masturbate in the sinks, slap the flight attendant’s ass, light their shoes on fire etc. etc. etc. etc…. they ALL succeeded!

    no no… not just before 9/11… since then too!

    So… who should be allowed to carry box cutters onto planes? whoever wants to. Why? because millions of planes take off and land every year and no one gets hurt.
    There simply aren’t enough people who WANT to bring down planes to make this a problem. The proof is in the pudding.

    DWI? terrific example. Except it isn’t since most accidents in this country are caused by sober drivers! So, what are you suggesting? should be have more auto control? That’s the logical deduction here… make sure that only police and army have cars.. everyone else should go on roller blades… cause cars aren’t “COOL” either… GROW UP, you don’t NEED a car, take the bus!

    See? your reasoning is 100% fallacious. Driving while drunk is a problem, driving while sober is ALSO a problem. People die in car crashes all the time. It’s just part of life… “SHIT HAPPENS”.

    So, my advice to you is examine the number of people that have been killed in the way that the kids at Virgina Tech were killed and ask yourself if there is really anything to even talk about here?!
    Do YOU know anyone that was killed by a legally purchased and registered gun? How often do you hear stories about such occurrences (not counting domestic violence… but if you DO count it, then you also have to count all the people that get beaten to death with bats, cause, as I’m sure you DON’T know, bats are a significantly HIGHER tool, in the act of murder, in this country, than guns. Perhaps, we need to grow up and stop thinking those are cool too?).

    Gun violence, in this nation, is only an actual problem in inner cities, where the guns aren’t being purchased legally and are being used mostly by kids who are protecting the corners on which they deal drugs. Passing additional laws isn’t going to change THEIR situation in ANY way.

    It’s simply NOT a problem that rises to the level of one being worthy of discussion.
    The guns that people own, for the most part, don’t affect you in any way. And on the off chance that this administration gets what it really wants, and this nation becomes a dictatorship, you’ll be really really wishing you had a gun as Bush (or his grand kid) votes himself back into office for the 7th term.

  37. GrndLkNatv  April 19, 2007 at 12:57 pm

    This country was made by men and guns, if you don’t like it move!

    Generation X Virginian

  38. jbrackney  April 20, 2007 at 4:16 pm

    Way more people are killed per year by Driver speeding down the road. People say the we don’t really need handguns, assualt rifles or guns period. I ask you then why do we need Cars that go over the speed limit, why do we need cars with 400 horse power. I would be wiling to bet that people are not going to give up there SUV’s, and Corvettes just because a there are alot of stupid people doing stupid things in there sports car.

    It has been proven time and time again the Gun Bans do not work. Now I will agree that I think there should be a backround check and a waiting period before anyone can by a pistol or a rifle. But there should all ways be a way for law biding citizens to get firearms.

    I also have 3 childeren and I think it is nessesary that childeren get some exposure to firearms. Just like in school childeren are getting prepared to deal with the world and firearms are a big part of the World not just in America. I have over 30 firearms which includes both Assault rifles and pistols because just like a Corvette I like Assualt rifles because they are more fun, but if used responsibly can be very deadly just like a car that goes over the speed limit. I have show my childern how to be responsible with a firearm just like someday I will show them how to be responsible with a car that goes over the speed limit.

    My Wife works as a 911 dispature and her Officers tell her all the time that citizens need firearms because the Police can’t be everyware. And when someone is breaking in your house or attacking you, you can’t hit pause and tell them to stop until the Police get here, you have to be able to protect yourself. Mybe it has never happened to you but it happens all over America every day and more then 32 people are getting killed or raped or robbed everyday.

  39. elo  April 20, 2007 at 5:04 pm

    “People dont need to have box cutters on planes.”
    Destroy and Ban ALL box cutters across the nation. Don’t allow box cutters to be sold ANYWHERE. Afterall, it’s the BOX CUTTER’S FAULT!!

    “People dont need to drink and drive.”
    Destroy and Ban ALL alcohol across the nation. Don’t allow alcohol to be sold ANYWHERE. Afterall, it’s the ALCOHOL’S FAULT. (ooops.. I don’t mean to launch any attacks on that wine spritzer in your hand… now it get’s personal when it affects you, eh?)

    People dont *need* to have guns.
    You get the drift…

    Looks like someone’s parents and education failed them… it’s called being able to draw RATIONAL parrallels, and logic

  40. PeaceOfficer  April 20, 2007 at 7:50 pm

    And here we have the problem with America…few people understand whats broke, so they blame the tool.

    Murder is illegal….Criminals dont care about that, so why do you think they will care about a gun law.

    I know, lets make all guns go away….really??? you really think by writing a law, guns will simply go away?

    Its like that in other places..no guns in Canada, thats why no one is shooting up schools….right?? Wrong. Canada’s system of Government, social programs and medical system is far superior to the US. With less poverty and more public support for the under class brings less crime. Taking guns away from the majority of Americans would be like opening a half-way home for child sex offenders INSIDE a school.

    More to the point, Do you really believe if we were to arm 50% of canada that they would have this type of problem? Do you really believe that as soon as I put a gun in your hand, you will want to kill people?

    The States with the highest gun crime rates are the ones with the most anti-gun laws. People like to say, ” thats because all the guns are coming from the states with little or no laws”….Really???? Then why isnt Canada having a problem? The guns maybe coming from those states BUT the criminals are not.

    Take away a persons tool used to defend themselve inside a culture of crime and you just made another victim. America would be better off working on ways to mend the culture rather then disarm its honest, hardworking citizens.

    If you continue to focus your anger at a tool, an object, you will never fix the problem. When you find a way to ban criminals by writing a law…I’m all for gun control…till then, we need to be armed in this country.

  41. Tango7  April 21, 2007 at 1:56 pm

    You state:
    Guns are murder weapons plain and simple.

    I’ll go so far as to agree with you.

    That said, the shooting at Virginia Tech took place after a combined failure of the school administration, the Judicial system, and our society at large. It also took place despite Virginia’s adoption of several “gun control” measures, including limiting the number of firearms an individual can purchase, a mandatory background check, and the declaration of the Virginia Tech campus as a “Gun Free Zone”.

    You talk about box cutters being prohibited on planes. Funny, I know that guns haven’t been allowed on planes since the great “Cuban hijacking” events of the sixties. If we want to carry your apple to orange analogy to the ridiculous level (although you’re close already), shall we say that, since you can’t have ferrous object in an MRI laboratory that we should ban all iron and steel containing materials and products?

    You go on to state:
    My children’s lives should not have to be at risk so that some red-neck retard who is too stupid to do something useful with his life, can pretend he’s ‘cool’ shooting tin cans in his backyard with a ‘glock.

    WTF? I didn’t know that we were discussing this; I thought the topic was about the Virginia Tech shooting. If you have a problem with your neighbor shooting cans in his backyard, might I suggest you talk to him, involve local law enforcement and file a noise complaint, or move to somewhere where it is illegal to do so.

    I never agreed to ‘pay any price’, and most people in this country agree with me.

    No… my great (x4) grandfather did, when he stood against the British Army detachment in Concord Massachussets in 1775. I would sooner raise my children in an environment where they have the freedom to rather than the total freedom from, even if it does entail a certain minimal risk.

    How minimal? While not belittling the tragedy of the Virginia Tech shootings in any way, only 2 firearms were used in the incident. The remaining balance of the 4 to 6 million firearms in American did nothing except gather dust.

    Obviously your math skills are as developed as your forensic ones, if 2 > 4,000,000.

    If you don’t want to tolerate the environment, and would willingly sacrifice your freedom for security, I hear the People’s Republic of China is looking for new residents. And with only the military and police having guns, it’s very safe.

    I’ll help you pack.

    For you, this is all some liberal ideology session, where you can belittle us gun owners as “red-neck retards who are too stupid to do something useful with their lives”. Once again, when a liberal fails on a logical front, they revert to emotions or name-calling.

    As a person who has had the unfortunate need to use a firearm to defend his family in the past, I will use whatever means at my disposal to protect my family, and prevent any individual or government from removing my ability to do so.

    As a would be victim, I am too well aware of the fact that there are criminal predators out there, and I am also acutely aware of the freedom to live without being murdered, and I will not surrender my ability (or responsibility) to defend my family to the government when Police cannot protect every citizen against criminals, and in fact court cases from South v. Maryland in 1856 to Castle Rock v. Gonzales in 2005 reaffirm that the police have no affirmative duty to provide protection of individuals from other private individuals.

    I don’t own a gun “because it’s cool”… I own a gun because it is, as you describe, “a murder weapon”, or more precisely, my lawfully owned firearm is my means to stop those criminals that would harm my family from their continued attempts to do so. Your repeated allegation of “cool” as a primary reason for gun ownership is more telling of your naivete on the subject than your knowledge.

    Too bad the “Association for the Advancement of Red Neck Retards” can’t censure you for “hate speech”. Oh, I forgot – only conservatives are capable of generating “hate speech”; when a liberal says spiteful or demeaning things, it’s simply “freedom of expression”.

    As a college graduate, the father of three, a public safety professional who places my life on the line every day to protect the citizens of my community, and as the descendant of a Minuteman, I’ll tell you this: Your elitist and totalitarian attitude really show you as another would-be liberal dictator, who obviously knows more than us “common folk”… or was it “red neck retards”?

    You suggest gun owners “grow up”… I suggest you “man up”, and take responsibility for yourself and your family, rather than raise them in an atmosphere of superstition, fear and ignorance, and relying on the state for your false sense of protection.

  42. Abdul of the Kyber Pass  April 18, 2007 at 12:09 pm

    The Founders, much wiser than you or I, knew that the right to defend ones self from tyrany and evil was a universal right given to all at birth. When our government fails to serve us, we are clearly entitled to dispose of it and start a new one. Likewise, when we or those in our care are threatened with serious injury or death, we are likewise entitled to use deadly force to protect.

    The shootings at VT are the result of gun control. Because of gun control, adults were not permitted to defend themselves or the minors in their care.

    On the other hand, what’s the death of 32 people anyway? We abort more than a million in this country every year. Each one of them holds the potential for greatness.

    Because he used a gun, the shooter is considered evil. If he had used medical equipment and killed for profit, many of you would probably consider him a hero.

  43. Tom Boone  April 19, 2007 at 7:48 am

    If you cannot figure out why the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the right of the individual to pack a nuclear suitcase, you need professional help. Likewise, the “arms” protected by our right to bear arms today are a far cry more mean and lethal than the “arms” existing in 1776.

    The founding fathers simply did not envision assault weapons (let alone nuclear bombs in suitcases). The simple fact of the matter is that there is no constructive purpose or justification for arming ordinary citizens with these weapons. The idea that our right ensures our ability to rise up and revolt against a corrupt government is also completely absurd when the government is armed with a nuclear arsenal easily capable of wiping the entire globe out several times over. (The only “revolution” that will succeed in today’s world is a Gandhian one based on non-violence and passive resistance. Any “assault” will provoke annilhiation — witness the MOVE people in Philadelphia for starters.)

    Anyone who honestly believes that the solution here would be for every teenager in a college classroom to be packing has judgment is far off the mark. If you believe that, do you also think that we will all be a lot safer if every country in the world out to have a nuclear arsenal on par with the U.S., Soviets, and China?

    The ideas that gave rise to the 2nd Amendment were based on an entirely diffent world, and any strict constructionist interpretation of that Amendment inherently reflects what is wrong here. What the 2nd Amendment means needs to be re-examined and re-defined in light of the realities of 2007.

    In any event, there seems to be no genuine dispute at this time that, 2nd Amendment notwithstanding, the government at least has the minimal right to “regulate” the sale of fire arms. Everyone may be entitled by Constitutional right to own a weapon, but that does not mean the government has to make it simpler than a piece of cake for anyone to buy one.

    I find it an utter paradox that the state has now decided without any difficulty whatsoever to make it diffult for me and you to buy Actifed for our sinusitus, but is seemingly completely and utterly incapable of doing anything whatsoever to make it difficult for any and every Tom, Dick, and Harry to buy semi-automatic assault weapons simply by presenting a driver’s license. It leaves me with the gnawing feeling that somewhere, somehow, we as a society have lost touch with our most important priorities.

    The scale of this tragedy — and the stupidity and helplessness our leaders exhibit in the face of this issue — make me really wonder just what it will take to make people really wake up?

    Tom Boone, Germantown, Maryland

  44. aileron  April 20, 2007 at 9:13 pm

    I gather we dont need computers to type with, I mean the founders never could of imagined the Internet, or TV, or satellite. So we must ban all modern forms of media.

    And your wrong about them envisioning assault weapons. You need to know a little bit about gun history to realize, they knew semi-auto and automatic weapons would eventually be COST EFFECTIVE to create. They were too expensive to manufacture and were still working out the kinks during the time of the revolution. AMMO was the big stumbling block to making repeating rifles.

    Here is a nice link for you on the Puckle gun.

    http://ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/news/PuckleGun.htm

    The Puckle gun was a British flintlock machine gun invented by James Puckle in 1718. It took a nine-round revolving block, was mounted on a tripod and was designed to be portable and especially to prevent an enemy boarding a ship. An unusual feature was that it fired square bullets.

    And about Nukes… you cannot bear a nuke, so its not covered. Its a silly argument to put out. The right to keep and BEAR arms, means to wear upon a person. NUKES are not worn and their not the kinds of arms one would use as a soldier in time of war. Or for protecting ones self, property, family, and for hunting and sport. Get real.

  45. lalawhatever  April 19, 2007 at 10:24 am

    First of all, In the event of an armed uprising against our govennment, I highly doubt they would push the button and nuke our own country. That’s absolutely absurd. A citizen owning a semi-automatic military pattern rifle is a reasonable defense against a modern military force. (A select-fire weapon would be better though…)

    So Tom, you’re saying that if we can’t own nuclear briefcases, then what’s the point in owning any defensive tool? A military rifle is a very useful tool. What if you were involved in Hurricane Katrina, and the streets were ran by armed gangs, looking to loot, rape, and kill? The police were no better then the gangs, disarming people, and forcing them into dangerous gang infested concentration camps. (See video of elderly woman body slammed, disarmed, and forced from her home).

    What if there was another disaster where you lived? Do you have the means to defend yourself and your family? If not, then how can you call yourself a father, a son, or a husband? You betray your family by not having the means to protect them in case of emergency.

    Tom, no one is saying we want to arm every student in the the United States. Not everyone wants to carry a weapon. Not everyone is responsible enough. That’s fine. But if someone has the correct mindset, and has passed the proper training course, and background checks, why should they not be able to? And actually Tom, you need more then just a Driver’s License to purchase a firearm. You cannot be addicted to alcohol or drugs, cannot have a domestic violence charge, drug offense, mental illness, or felony conviction, and be over the age of 21 for a handgun, 18 for a rifle or shotgun.

    What is a cop? It’s a person with a gun. Are they more of a human being because they wear a badge? I would risk to say that most police officers know less about guns then your average gun owner. (See video of Hip-Hop DEA agent shooting himself in the leg in a classroom full of kids). It’s just a tool of the job to them.

  46. cookiehustler  April 19, 2007 at 12:12 pm

    I shall vote and donate money to help remove any elected official that tries to legislate my firearms away and thats a fact.

    If you’re afraid of living here Delta is ready when you are.

  47. Abdul of the Kyber Pass  April 19, 2007 at 1:30 pm

    The Founders clearly knew what they were thinking when they agreed that it is an individual right for citizens to keep and bare any common small arm. There is no right to nuke weapons. However, there is a right to not only semi-auto weapons but even full-auto weapons. Unfortunately, we are deprived by our rights.

    As for gun control, it has its roots firmly set in racism. Those who support gun control mostly do so for very racist reasons.

    The Founders never envisioned an electronic press or the internet. For some reason we have extended freedom of the press protection to those inventions.

    BTW, Ghandi said that of all the wrongs done to the Paki-Indian people by the Britts, the disarming of those people was the worst. He had to fight via civil disobedience because that is all they had.

  48. Mr. Smith  April 22, 2007 at 5:50 pm

    If you check your history you’ll realize that our Constitution was written for the benefit of the PEOPLE, NOT the government. Our forefathers were escaping an oppressive government.

    The right to bear arms, like the right of free speech, is an INDIVIDUAL right as affirmed by the Federal Court.

    http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

    Smith

  49. miscusi  April 23, 2007 at 1:07 am

    IF you out law guns…

    then only outlaws will have guns.

    ————————————-

    your gun free america idea is beautiful. but based on fantasy.

    Guns are here to stay in america. Even if guns are outlawed today, there will be guns here forever. Guns dont expire like milk.

    if there are no guns in the homes, and in the stores, the guns will come in from out of the country like the DRUGS that is currently not in stores and not in homes.

    If they outlaw guns, only the lawful citizens will hand in their guns to the police. thus only the lawful citizens will be unarmed.

    Believe it or not, currently GUNS ARE ILLEGAL for the people who are criminals. Guess what ? They arent handing in the guns.

    In japan, guns are illegal, but the YAKUZA got guns go figure.

    In england, the mafia has guns.

    Guns are here to stay, and laws do nothing but affect the lawful citizens, the very people who could have helped.

    I really wish that by magic, all the guns in the world will float into outerspace. there will be no more shootings. but that is NOT reality.

    CCW carry is reality. the whole united states needs to be “shall issue” for a free society.

  50. miscusi  April 23, 2007 at 1:15 am

    We need to start outlawing handguns which are of no use to hunters and are good for one thing and one thing only…the killing of human beings. Where do you think criminals get most of their guns? Not from legitimate sources. Most of them are stolen in home burglaries and sold on the black market. If those guns aren’t there to be stolen and aren’t in stores to be bought, where will they get them?

    YOU ADMIT THAT CRIMINALS TODAY HAVE GUNS.
    you admit it yourself.

    To defend against these criminals, I will use MY GUN.

    there is no way in heck that the criminals of the united states be giving up their guns.

    Therefore there is no way in heck I will be giving up mine.

    YES you moron, no matter how many laws you can draw up in crayons, the criminals are not going to give up the guns, so neither will I. if you dont like AMERCIA, then GET OUT ! or move to new york city.

  51. JoyfulC  July 23, 2007 at 7:51 pm

    Let’s be truthful about this:

    Guns = phallic symbolism

    Nothing more, nothing less.

    The only reason some people want their guns is that, to them, it’s like taking away their dicks.

    Too bad! Anyone with a dick worth having doesn’t need a gun.

    Tell me that guy at Virginia Tech wasn’t just using his gun as a phallic substitute — a substitute for all the manhood he wasn’t able to access without it.

    Let’s stop being a society that equates a gun with a dick. Dicks give life. Guns give death. Let’s get our heads on straight about this. Owning/using a gun doesn’t make someone a man — quite the OPPOSITE!

  52. mojibyrd  April 27, 2007 at 1:44 pm

    Every household should have a gun and know how to use it. I can never understand all those anti-gun buffoones that do not realize that criminals are just that, and will get a gun or other weapon by any means because they are criminals and do not give a shit about any law…did not having guns help those in louisianna hell no..so everyone should have a gun, especially with a criminal family like the bush’s running the country into the ground.

    Impeach Bush Now!!

  53. EclipseThis  April 28, 2007 at 7:18 pm

    Everyone seems to be jumping all over the 9mm glocks this guy had. outlaw semi-automatics! how many people actually know the differences? single-shot? lever action? pump shotgun? bolt-action? if someone really wanted to raise hell, outlawing the semi-automatics aint gonna make any difference. he could have killed all those people with a shotgun loaded with a pheasant load if he wanted.

    pot, crack, meth…..theyre all illegal. but they’re still here. outlawing the guns will just make an even larger and more profitable black market for the illegal firearms that are sold illegally.

  54. rafferty  May 10, 2007 at 7:29 pm

    It is easier in many ways for one to obtain a drivers’ license than it is for one to obtain a gun. While I recognize “the right to bear arms” is a Constitutional right to be upheld, I definitely am in favor of stronger gun control laws. As a former victim of domestic violence, my life was threatened by someone who never should have owned a gun in the first place, yet very easily obtained one. What upsets me is when one’s right to bear arms holds more weight than my right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. I also find it rather absurd that some military assault rifles are considered “hunting rifles”. Since when does a hunter need a military assault rifle to shoot a duck or a deer?

  55. April-May  May 14, 2007 at 9:36 am

    It ain’t about “ducks” and “hunting.” It’s never been about “ducks” and “hunting.”

    The Second Amendment is about the God given right to defend oneself against violence and government tyranny.

    Had you had a gun to defend youself you might have shot your abuser. Had you had a gun to defend yourself, your abuser would not have viewed you as a defenseless victim.

    ———————————————
    NRA Distinguished Life Member

  56. voodoo  May 14, 2007 at 9:55 am

    serduchka forever

  57. JoyfulC  July 23, 2007 at 7:30 pm

    Okay. So how do we protect ourselves from the mentally ill person with a gun? Are we just supposed to be sitting ducks?

    It seems to me that it would be a lot easier to defend against a person like this in hand-to-hand combat. I’m not sure I want my fate to depend on being able to hold my own in a shootout. Hell, I might as well be living in a cave and subsisting on nuts and berries as living like that.

  58. Carl Nemo  July 25, 2007 at 3:08 am

    If I were running the show, I’d see to it that every household in America had a military assault weapon and were totally qualified to use it. They’d also be steeped in civil defense and how to defend their homeland against all enemies both foreign and “domestic”; i.e, rogue pols.

    Everyone both men and women that are physically capable would be required to serve in the national guard to some capacity, be it combat, medical, supply, or community service support until age 55.

    All citizens would be “required” to vote and to participate in their governmental process at all levels.

    Think I’m crazy, think again! This is the way it is Switzerland and they’ve been a democracy for over 700 years and no one has been successful at attacking their country, much less even thinking to do so because of the knowledge that they would utterly fail in their attempt!

    Long live Switzerland and their concept of an operational, functional democracy in it’s purest form. America is soon to be AmeriKa;i.e, nothing but a minor footnote in history, as the sands of time blow over our failed experiment in freedom. Why, simply because a lazy-thoughted people thought “freedom is free”…!

    Carl Nemo **==

  59. RichardKanePA  November 16, 2008 at 2:16 am

    I hate guns and I hate crack. However, if I call myself progressive, I am supposed to believe outlawing crack just empowers organized crime, but outlawing guns stops crime.

    Prohibition won’t work where much of the population won’t go along.

    Anyway I would like to see such things as yearly requirements to attend anti-gun lectures etc.statistically, you are safer without a gun, ect.

    By the way anyone besides me notice that Charles Manson didn’t create copycats, like Columbine. If the kids at Columbine were captured alive, the Virginia Tech and Finland killings wouldn’t have occurred. I wish I could organize a concerted effort with stun guns shock guns ect, to keep some of these suicidal maniacs alive to prevent them from for some being folk heros.

    But this is at present a red herring issue because only Republican presidents can succeed at outlawing guns.

    RichardKanePA

  60. Bluesman2007  April 24, 2009 at 9:27 pm

    Virginia Tech, Columbine and all the rest have nothing to do with gun control. Period. It has more to do with how society failed to notice how screwed up these shooters were BEFORE they became shooters. These people did NOT become crazy assassins overnight. But no one noticed. When you read the profiles of these people, they’re eerily similar – loners, social outcasts who were bullied in school, left out of “the group”. So, as a consequence, their hatred and resentment of society grows and festers to the point where they see no point in living so they grab a gun and get their fifteen minutes of fame. The kneejerk reaction is gun control, which, while a natural reaction, is the wrong one. I’m a progressive who believes the second amendment is there for a damned good reason and I support it.

    But, and I’ve railed about this in the past, we have a seriously bad habit in this country for leaping to quick fixes…bandaid approaches that rarely if ever deal with the root causes of problems and, instead, scurry into topical treatments of the symptoms. We’re still doing it. That’s why we’re not solving the problem. We’re only creating more quick fixes that don’t work.

    The bottom line is that we do a great job of punishing wrongdoing but a lousy job in preventing it to begin with. There ARE solutions but not if we’re looking for them in the wrong places.

    It reminds me of the joke about the lost car keys.

    Two guys drive to a restaurant for dinner. After eating, they leave the restaurant when the driver realizes he’s lost his keys. So he runs down to the underground parking lot and feverishly start searching the ground. The passenger says “why are you looking here for your keys when we parked on the street”. The driver says “because the light is better here”.

    That, parenthetically, seems to have been our rationale for invading Iraq. How ironic is that.

  61. Carl Nemo  April 24, 2009 at 7:32 pm

    Thanks Bluesman for solid, well-stated thoughts on a complex problem.

    I concur completely!

    Carl Nemo **==

  62. dilligras  May 5, 2009 at 2:26 am

    I wrote this research paper for an English class last summer:

    Why You Should Take Your Gun to School

    The question of how best to secure students and faculty from the predations of those inclined toward violence as a means to their own end is a sore puzzle, indeed; and one that places our nation’s very foundations at risk. It puts the very basic principle of our forefathers–that individual freedoms should take precedence over the common good–at odds with the seemingly intuitive truth that less availability of guns will mean less bloodshed. When one hears of the kind of tragedies perpetrated by gun-toting mass murderers at Columbine, Virginia Tech, or at a school full of Quaker children, their first thought is quite naturally, “How could this have been prevented?” Certainly, one could make the case that if the killers had been unarmed their plans would have been much more difficult to realize, and so one tends to focus intuitively on the gun as both the problem (facilitator) and the means to the solution (banishment).

    Were our forefathers wrong? Were they shortsighted when they constitutionally guaranteed the ability of the citizen to arm himself and thereby provide for his own defense? Were they merely the appeasing pawns of their less civilized society, pandering to the fears of those who might live on the wilderness fringe? Should Americans instead have been treated like they had been all along under King George III (as mere subjects who must be cared for) rather than as citizens with the rights and responsibilities of those who embrace self-determination?

    I think not.

    No adult class of Americans, such as most of the students or teachers at our school, should ever be stripped of those rights and responsibilities simply because they happen to occupy the same buildings as our most precious resource: our children. In fact, as each new atrocity seems to prove, to do so may actually increase the danger to the children by creating an environment where the madman may wield his weapon with impunity, without fear of immediate opposition to his dastardly plans.

    It is logical to assume that if they were intending to cause the most damage possible, that such miscreants would target a place where they were least likely to encounter armed resistance, a place where being armed was not allowed to their victim, the law-abiding citizen. They have found such a place in our schools, thanks to our own misguided intuitions. I say misguided because it is the very intention of protection that has engendered our risk. When Seung-Hui Cho undertook his grisly task of indiscriminate murder, he was able to walk calmly among his screaming victims, executing each in turn without fear of intervention, their spurting blood marking his slow, methodical passage. I sometimes wonder if any of the more than thirty victims that day in Blacksburg were one of the thousands of Virginians licensed to carry a concealed gun. Certainly, those people might have been able to intervene, had they not been in just such a gun free zone.

    I recently discovered one famous case of such intervention from my youth, in which legally armed citizens returned fire from a crazed gunman with a brain tumor. They succeeded in pinning him down with rifle fire until the police could arrive and subdue him with several well placed shots, thereby limiting his massacre to fourteen dead and thirty-one wounded at the University of Texas. These same citizens were later credited by one of the two officers who shot the gunman, for having prevented Charles Whitman from taking careful aim at his intended victims. Of course, while there is no way to count how many were saved from his bullets by the armed citizenry (since only victims may be counted), there can also be no denying that some were in fact saved, since the killer’s actions were obviously thwarted.

    According to several studies, the most notable of which might be that of pioneering researchers Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, guns are used by Americans to defend themselves against criminal attack more than two million times each year. Their study was so thorough in its approach that Marvin E. Wolfgang, noted gun-control advocate of the Northwestern University School of Law, wrote his endorsement of their work, entitled “A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed.” In the article, Wolfgang summarizes his opinion:

    “…the Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.”

    Those who insist that the security of ourselves and our children is best left to the authorities should remember that the police rarely perform actual last second rescues. Said another way, seldom is the cavalry on the way, and Officer Do-Right is stuck in traffic. Perhaps if there were security officers stationed at every door of every classroom such confidence in authority might be justified. But since economy prevents such a condition, it seems naught but foolhardy to be comforted by the illusion of inviolability provided by the faux fiat that is the law. One is forced by the reality of such events as Virginia Tech to acknowledge that such law is secured only by the consensual agreement to comply and that for some, such agreement is apparently viewed as non-binding.

    When one begins to appreciate the true genius of the US Constitution and its Amendments, it becomes quite clear that our founding fathers wished fervently to ensure that their descendents would never again be the powerless subjects of their governors, but would instead remain citizens in a free republic into perpetuity. I fully understand the attraction of self as subject, of wanting all things (especially security) to be provided by the state. But the subject is only slightly freer than the plantation slave, who must also be provided his security, and so must also settle for what seems reasonable to his betters. He cannot be allowed to arrange for it himself like the citizen because his elitist masters view him as part of an unruly mob, in dire need of being controlled.

    As for myself and a good many other Americans, we prefer to carry firearms in order to have within our own grasp the means to secure our persons and property and are quite willing to vociferously oppose those who would deny that constitutionally guaranteed preference through foul legislation or judicial decree. As President Ford once noted, “…a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”

    Perhaps it is instinctual for people to try to ban those items which appear to facilitate crime, since prohibition has historically been the knee-jerk reflex of those with the authority to make law. Prohibition has only proven effective as a means of controlling such items in a police state, where the people have few rights and may be subjected to search and seizure at the whim of any government agent. In countries such as ours it has failed miserably, as the bans against guns, alcohol and drugs have markedly proven. These failures seem to suggest that prohibition and freedom are incongruous, if not entirely immiscible.

    Even Thomas Jefferson recognized that citizens should never be disarmed, having copied by hand into his “Commonplace Book”, this quote from the 18th century criminologist, Cesare Beccaria:

    “False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction.
    The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

    Was Jefferson bitterly clinging to his guns and religion?

    I think not.

    Works Cited
    Kleck, Gary , and Marc Gertz. Second Amendment Foundation. 1995. Google. 10 June 2008 < http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm>.

    Wolfgang, Marvin E. “A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed.”Second Amendment Foundation.1995. Google.10 June 2008. < http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Wolfgang1.html>.

    President GERALD R. FORD, remarks to a joint session of Congress, August 12, 1974.―The Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Gerald R. Ford, 1974, p.6.Google. 10June2008< http://www.quotesandsayings.com/finquoteframes.htm>

    Thomas Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in Chapter 40 of “On Crimes and Punishment”, 1764

    ————-
    I can’t remember the last time I admitted I was wrong………it was evidently so deplorable a circumstance that my mind was traumatized to the degree required for a reflexive loss of memory.

  63. helyly710  November 2, 2009 at 4:53 am

    Thank you, for answering. But this method works for me only with .. In all other cases I get only strange results, like those below
    In Your House at An Excellent Lifestyle With Ceiling Fan Controls

Comments are closed.