Comments

  1. Dr Who

    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

    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

    “…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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    “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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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. JBeam

    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

  18. antimedic

    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

  19. JBeam

    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

  20. calisteve

    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

  21. Juna

    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.

  22. hoosierbaby

    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?