Bowling for Virginia Tech

[Gerben42]

My condoleances to the family and friends of all the victims of this horrible shooting, and at the same time an appeal to every thinking US-citizen.

 

Zillions of dollars are spent on fighting terrorists, yet nothing is done to prevent horrible acts like this. I find it beyond belief that students can buy a machine gun (although if you look Arabic you might be arrested the next day if you did), you'd think that it would be the first step towards keeping the US population safe is to get rid of this law.

 

People like the guy who was on German television a couple of minutes ago who suggested that if the teachers would have had a gun that they could have protected the student, have in my opinion completely lost their connection to reality.

[Al_U_Card]

Unfortunately, the demonstration of the greater aspects of the U.S. spirit and mentality is inextricably entwined with "necessary" freedoms. A heavy price to pay but one that the Americans seem ready to withstand.

[pclayton]

I find it curious that many that want to restrict guns and are ready to toss aside this right are also those that moan the loudest when other freedoms like free speech and assembly are threatened.

 

My prayers and condolences go out to those in Blacksburg. I have a cousin who lives and operates several H and R Block franchises in that city.

[Gerben42]

I find it curious that many that want to restrict guns and are ready to toss aside this right are also those that moan the loudest when other freedoms like free speech and assembly are threatened.

 

Sorry but these are completely different things. Considering this, why is there no freedom to drink alcohol or use drugs in the USA?

 

I think you should not take away someone's hunting rifle that people use to hunt deer, just like you shouldn't take away people's fishing rod. But why not restrict it to hunting rifles then? Most guns are NOT made to shoot deer, yet they are designed to be aimed against other people.

 

If you are in possession of dangerous tools you should have a proper education and licence to prove it. In many jobs you might encounter dangerous materials and they cannot be used without a proper training. Car drivers have passed a test and have a licence to drive. If you want to own a gun a similar procedure should be followed.

 

Does anyone in the forum have a gun at home? If you do, consider this: If an unarmed burglar is in your house, how sure are you that if you are at home you will not suddenly be facing the wrong end of your own gun? What might have started as a relatively harmless (for your health) burglary may suddenly lead to your death!

[cherdano]

I find it curious that many that want to restrict guns and are ready to toss aside this right are also those that moan the loudest when other freedoms like free speech and assembly are threatened.

Well. I can promise you that out of 1,000 European intellectuals, no matter how good they get to know the USA, how long they live there etc., 999 will never understand the 2nd-amendment-supporters and how they can even mention the right to have weapons in the same sentence as the right to free speech. It will never enter my mind. Feel free to try if you want, but if I tell you ahead that it will be a waste of time then that's just being honest. (I have read enough posts on this in other forums.)

 

I am aware gun control in the realities of the US is a complicated issue, and the liberal-gun-laws-to-high-gun-homicide correlation in the US compared to other industrialized nation is actually a quite complex topic.

[pclayton]

I won't try to convince a gun control advocate about the 2nd Amendment, however, I think the framers of the constitution had it right all along. I don't think the constitution is like a Chinese menu, that you can pick and choose and mix and match it to fit your own taste. This isn't one of those gray areas.

 

Believe me, I share the same indignation about the Patriot Act. I just find a lot of hypocrisy on both sides of these issues.

[pbleighton]

"I won't try to convince a gun control advocate about the 2nd Amendment, however, I think the framers of the constitution had it right all along. I don't think the constitution is like a Chinese menu, that you can pick and choose and mix and match it to fit your own taste. This isn't one of those gray areas."

 

Phil, do you accept the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment?

 

Peter

[cherdano]

"I won't try to convince a gun control advocate about the 2nd Amendment, however, I think the framers of the constitution had it right all along. I don't think the constitution is like a Chinese menu, that you can pick and choose and mix and match it to fit your own taste. This isn't one of those gray areas."

 

Phil, do you accept the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment?

 

Peter

Oh, I forgot to explain you the 'quote' button: Just press on "quote" at the top right corner of the post you want to quote, and it will work automatically. You can delete text if you want to quote part of a post only.

[mike777]

My prayers go out to the families.

 

I may be wrong, but were not some gun control laws broken by the shooter? I assume it is illegal to have a gun on campus? Is the debate to have even more gun control laws?

 

If so which "more" laws do you wish for?

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/17/...in2693365.shtml

[pclayton]

"I won't try to convince a gun control advocate about the 2nd Amendment, however, I think the framers of the constitution had it right all along. I don't think the constitution is like a Chinese menu, that you can pick and choose and mix and match it to fit your own taste. This isn't one of those gray areas."

 

Phil, do you accept the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment?

 

Peter

From what I've read, the Supreme Court has punted a lot of the right to legislate to the States. While I suppose this dilutes the framer's intent by allowing regulation in certain instances, I think the overall intent is intact, so no I don't have a problem with it.

 

There have been many instances of legislative changes to the 2nd Amendment as well.

[pbleighton]

If so which "more" laws do you wish for?

 

1. Banning of all civilian ownership and use of handguns, semiautomatic weapons, and automatic weapons.

2. Registration of rifles and shotguns.

 

It's my understanding that the Supreme Court's rulings on gun control would permit this. There is currently a lower court ruling, which will very likely be heard by the Court, which is far more restrictive of legislation.

 

I would accept a more restrictive interpretation by the Court (though I wouldn't like it), and would oppose any effort to change the Second Amendment in any way.

 

I would oppose any effort to ban rifles and/or shotguns, except those which are either automatic, semiautomatic, and easily convertible. Hunting, target practice, and defense of the home are legitimate activities.

 

Peter

[cherdano]

I may be wrong, but were not some gun control laws broken by the shooter? I assume it is illegal to have a gun on campus? Is the debate to have even more gun control laws?

A typical Mike post with provocative questions with some half-truths implied that hardly make sense, but I'll bite. The point of gun control would be to make it harder for him to acquire the weapons in the first place.

[mike777]

If so which "more" laws do you wish for?

 

1. Banning of all civilian ownership and use of handguns, semiautomatic weapons, and automatic weapons.

2. Registration of rifles and shotguns.

 

It's my understanding that the Supreme Court's rulings on gun control would permit this. There is currently a lower court ruling, which will very likely be heard by the Court, which is far more restrictive of legislation.

 

I would accept a more restrictive interpretation by the Court (though I wouldn't like it), and would oppose any effort to change the Second Amendment in any way.

 

I would oppose any effort to ban rifles and/or shotguns, except those which are either automatic, semiautomatic, and easily convertible. Hunting, target practice, and defense of the home are legitimate activities.

 

Peter

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7030902416.html

[mike777]

I may be wrong, but were not some gun control laws broken by the shooter? I assume it is illegal to have a gun on campus?  Is the debate to have even more gun control laws?

A typical Mike post with provocative questions with some half-truths implied that hardly make sense, but I'll bite. The point of gun control would be to make it harder for him to acquire the weapons in the first place.

Ok which truth did I state that was only half?

Which logic did I state that hardly makes sense to you?

Ok, what laws do you want to pass to make it more difficult? Perhaps you just advocate what Peter suggested?

[pbleighton]

Mike, I'm aware of the lower court ruling and referenced it in my post.

 

This isn't the Supreme Court position until the Supreme Court says it is. If it does, I'm OK with it, but until and unless that happens, let's not, ahem, *jump the gun*.

 

Peter

[mike777]

Mike, I'm aware of the lower court ruling and referenced it in my post.

 

This isn't the Supreme Court position until the Supreme Court says it is. If it does, I'm OK with it, but until and unless that happens, let's not, ahem, *jump the gun*.

 

Peter

Yes you did which is why I posted more information. Again I am not disagreeing with you. :P

[Rain]

No to guns.

 

There are other ways of murdering people, but why make it easy.

 

The victims had a right to live their lives too. What right was more important?

[DrTodd13]

The right to resist tyrants when they confiscate over half of your income.

[cherdano]

The right to resist tyrants when they confiscate over half of your income.

You are making the case for gun control much better than I ever could.

[pclayton]

I Have a question for the gun control advocates.

 

Are you more afraid of legalized concealed weapons or Iran building a nuclear bomb?

[Winstonm]

How does it help to disarm honest, law-abiding citizens in order to prevent dishonest, law-breaking individuals and madmen from creating mayhem?

 

I own a shotgun. I do not hunt. But I will not go quietly into that good night if a few armed idiots pick my house for a home invasion.

 

The entire object of arms is an equaling of antagonists - the strong cannot dominate the weak if both are armed, and a group armed with knives is neutralized by a single man with a loaded pump shotgun. The very basics of inalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, specified by the constitution, are then reinforced by the ability to defend those inalienable rights by an equality of strengths - the constitution gives me the right to own a weapon with which to defend my inalienable rights against overwhelming opposing strength. It is not archane thinking, outdated, or no longer valid - it is a logical extension of my rights as a human.

 

It is tragedy when great sorrows occur - but liberty always has risk. There are over 300,000,000 citizens - there was only 1 killer. There is no valid reason to deprive the right of those 300.000.000 to protect their liberty in order to attempt to stop 1 person's madness.

 

The only question to answer honestly is this: if this man had charged into your home instead of a building at V.T., would you have liked to have owned a gun to protect yourself or would you rather have been barred from ownership and been at the whims of a killer?

[PetteriLem]

U.S.A gun fetisism is a peculiar phenomenon. I live in the belief that the most western countries have gun control that prohibits a man to own a gun without a valid reason.

I cant say how the people sleep at night, when they have a constant fear that a knife man can break in their house and not to have a gun under the pillow. A telling example where I come from. If someone steals my dvd-player, I can try to stop the thief freshly, but basicly without force. That means I cant hit or shoot the poor thief. I agree, why would I even think of killing him for a dvd-player. Let's say that a knife man comes to my house with unknown but suspicious intends. Shoot the bastard. No! My first duty is to run away, if it is possible. My leg is hurting. Shoot the bastard! No! I must be in real physical danger. The knife raises over my head. I say between the eyes! No! I must aim to a less fatal point. The knife comes down. Shoot him! Dead. I will spend a day in court explaning my actions.

[Gerben42]

Are you more afraid of legalized concealed weapons or Iran building a nuclear bomb?

 

About 100 times more afraid of legalized concealed weapons! I don't want just everyone to be able to own a gun. And please change Iran to North-Korea, unlike what everyone wants you to believe, Iran wants nuclear power plants.

 

I live in the belief that the most western countries have gun control that prohibits a man to own a gun without a valid reason.

 

This is a fact. The USA is the odd one out, so to say. It is based on 200-year old laws that does no longer makes sense.

 

I cant say how the people sleep at night, when they have a constant fear that a knife man can break in their house and not to have a gun under the pillow.

 

Sorry but if this is your worry when you sleep at night then either you are paranoid or you are living in a BAD neighbourhood.

 

The entire object of arms is an equaling of antagonists - the strong cannot dominate the weak if both are armed, and a group armed with knives is neutralized by a single man with a loaded pump shotgun. The very basics of inalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, specified by the constitution, are then reinforced by the ability to defend those inalienable rights by an equality of strengths - the constitution gives me the right to own a weapon with which to defend my inalienable rights against overwhelming opposing strength. It is not archane thinking, outdated, or no longer valid - it is a logical extension of my rights as a human.

 

19th Century logic. BTW it's only an amendment of your constitution that gives you this right. This amendment is outdated and should be removed for everyone's safety. This will help US security more than 10 Iraq wars.

 

The only question to answer honestly is this: if this man had charged into your home instead of a building at V.T., would you have liked to have owned a gun to protect yourself or would you rather have been barred from ownership and been at the whims of a killer?

 

Here you see where the logic of the previous paragraph breaks down. Criminals will always want to have good odds, so they will arm themselves better than you. If they know you have a gun, they will bring a better gun and make sure you are outgunned. I'd prefer BOTH sides to have fewer deadly weapons. I think I'm more likely to survive the remote but possible breakin in my home thank you very much.

[helene_t]

I don't see how gun ownership could allow peaceful citizens to defend themselves against criminals. I suppose that even those peaceful citizens who own a gun, either are not carrying when they suddenly need it, have little training in using it, or are reluctant to using it and may therefore hesitate a few milliseconds too long to save their own life.

 

I don't know if there's any evidence on this issue, but my intuition suggests that the few cases in which victims save themselves by shooting (or threatening to shoot) a criminal, must be far outnumbered by the cases in which

- legally-owned guns cause death or injury by accident

- the legal owner uses his own gun for a criminal purpose

- legally-owned guns end up in the possession of criminals by theft or trade

- the criminal kills the victim as a preemptive action, just in case the victim has a gun. Even victims without a gun can get shot for that reason, if they live in a country where criminals know that some potential victims have guns

 

There's some logic to the argument that with more guns than people in the U.S., a ban on guns would have to last for decades before gun ownership rates among (potential) criminals would drop significantly. This fact deludes the argument for gun control in the short run.

 

The entire object of arms is an equaling of antagonists - the strong cannot dominate the weak if both are armed, and a group armed with knives is neutralized by a single man with a loaded pump shotgun.

The strong always dominate the weak. I don't see why it's better to have those strong in guns dominate, rather than those strong in number or in muscle strength. After all, the robber prepares himself for a robbery by making sure his gun is loaded and readily available. While the shopkeeper may be taken by surprise. And even if both will have equal power in either case, I suppose the robbery is more likely to end up with someone getting killed if both have a gun than if neither has a gun.

[Al_U_Card]

It is tragedy when great sorrows occur - but liberty always has risk.  There are over 300,000,000 citizens - there was only 1 killer.  There is no valid reason to deprive the right of those 300.000.000 to protect their liberty in order to attempt to stop 1 person's madness.

Don't let Homeland Security see this one.....

 

btw Why don't we just kill all of the violent people?

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

ohh, THAT'S what guns are for.......(and capitol punishment too, I suppose)