NationStates Jolt Archive

To keep the concern for those caught up in today's events (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=524230) separate from discussions on the merit of weaponry designed to kill at range with ease, here's a thread to do the latter in.

(I personally think that now is exactly the time to discuss this, as we have been dealt a horrific reminder of our simulataneous failures to deny the capability to perform actions like this and to grant our fellow man the ability to defend themselves within both the law and their own moral judgement. I can understand that others may see this as political showboating, but it is largely as an expression of my anger that things like the shooting today have happened and will continue to happen that I would fight to prevent them from happening again, and I invite others who would react in the same way to join me in discussing the best way to go about it.)

So, to the point, what's your view on gun control, and how would you try to prevent shootings like this from taking place (whether on a personal or structural level)?

To get things started, here's a supposition or two to see what you make of: Conventional firearms are best viewed as existing tools that are inherently flawed in their design, but that have become so widespread that the way to beat them now is to make them obsolete by the creation and distribution of superior methods of non-lethal defence. It would be the right thing for the arms manufacturers to do to stop the construction and sale of them immediately and to spend their time and money researching and developing better forms of self-defence.

- . -

Oh dear god, this can't end well

OMG guns are evil, they kill people. Let's melt all the guns down into knives, then distribute them to everyone and have a big Mexican knife fight.

As an American knife fighter I take offense to that!

OMG guns are evil, they kill people. Let's melt all the guns down into knives, then distribute them to everyone and have a big Mexican knife fight.

Can it be like the west side story fight? With dancing and songs and such?

OMG guns are evil, they kill people. Let's melt all the guns down into knives, then distribute them to everyone and have a big Mexican knife fight.

Concernign guns on campus, I don't think people will be uncomfortable with students possessing them. I don't care if they are 21+.

I personally think a better idea would be to allow students to possess taser guns. You can be a good 20 something feet away from your target and you have no worries of friendly fire. Plus as mentioned before you have less to worry about if a theif steals your taser than you do if they steal a gun that is registered in your name and oh so much more deadly.

No, tasers might not have prevented deaths from occuring in the first place but the same could be said of guns as well.

Can it be like the west side story fight? With dancing and songs and such?

This passes the goofball test. :)

Y'all have at it, and those of us who are sick of all the bullshit arguments on both sides can just ignore the whole thread.

Oh thank god I thought this was mandatory. *exits*

Can it be like the west side story fight? With dancing and songs and such?
If you don't dance and sing while doing it, you are breaking the knife fighting laws.

Can it be like the west side story fight? With dancing and songs and such?
That'd be awesome. An all-singing all-dancing Mexican knife fight with billions of participants. The rehearsals would be agonising though.

OMG guns are evil, they kill people. Let's melt all the guns down into knives, then distribute them to everyone and have a big Mexican knife fight.

I think its more to do with keeping guns out of the hands of people who are not capable of using them legally.

- . -

Oh dear god, this can't end well

In the middle of a gun-related tragedy, guns are very much on peoples minds. However, I won't countenance the use of the "NS players who attend VT - check in here" thread as the proper venue for that discussion.

Y'all have at it, and those of us who are sick of all the bullshit arguments on both sides can just ignore the whole thread.

Concernign guns on campus, I don't think people will be uncomfortable with students possessing them. I don't care if they are 21+.

I personally think a better idea would be to allow students to possess taser guns. You can be a good 20 something feet away from your target and you have no worries of friendly fire. Plus as mentioned before you have less to worry about if a theif steals your taser than you do if they steal a gun that is registered in your name and oh so much more deadly.

No, tasers might not have prevented deaths from occuring in the first place but the same could be said of guns as well.



IIRC, the spread of a taser's probes at 20 feet is somewhere around 2 feet, making it easy to miss with 1 or both of the probes.

I think its more to do with keeping guns out of the hands of people who are not capable of using them legally.

Worthwhile, but difficult. Which is why it's also important to refrain from preventing them from being in the hands of those that can use them legally.

In the middle of a gun-related tragedy, guns are very much on peoples minds. However, I won't countenance the use of the "NS players who attend VT - check in here" thread as the proper venue for that discussion.

Y'all have at it, and those of us who are sick of all the bullshit arguments on both sides can just ignore the whole thread.

Check out my chili thread. :)

I think its more to do with keeping guns out of the hands of people who are not capable of using them legally.
I suppose we should implement the thought police then a la Minority Report.

I don't know. I just find it kind of odd that the US is doing everything it can to protect its borders from possible terrorist incursion, and then let guns run so rampant once you get inside.

The business I work for sends trucks south of the border on a daily basis, and our drivers are subject to endless scrutiny, x-rays and background checks. Of course, there's nothing stopping someone from aquiring a gun and going on a killing spree anyway, so... why all the time and money spent on beefing up the border?

IIRC, the spread of a taser's probes at 20 feet is somewhere around 2 feet, making it easy to miss with 1 or both of the probes.

a valid concern, but hopefully if several students have them then perhaps there would be a better chance at subduing someone.

Or maybe kids should have bean bag shotguns.

paintball guns?

Ninja stars?

I think its more to do with keeping guns out of the hands of people who are not capable of using them legally.
The problem with that is that while a person can often be judged as being capable of using them illegally, and only then after previous criminal offence, there is no known test that can accurately determine whether a person will always use their weapon in a legal manner. I'm sure the guy this morning either owned the weapons prior to whatever motivated him to do what he did or, with the motivation in hand, was able to put on enough of a facade to satisfy anyone who would question what he wanted the things for.

How, then, can we make such a judgement call?

Worthwhile, but difficult. Which is why it's also important to refrain from preventing them from being in the hands of those that can use them legally.

Absolutely it is difficult. Given the amount of deaths caused by gun crime one would think that there needs to be a fundamental change in the idea that 'everyone' can bear arms. It is quite obvious that this is not the case.

Also I find the idea that no one can have a gun (especially in the US) to be ludicrous.

There has to be a balance struck.

Problem is how and when.

I suppose we should implement the thought police then a la Minority Report.

Yeah. I should have known you'd make some kind of smart arse remark.

You, son, are part of the problem.

Absolutely it is difficult. Given the amount of deaths caused by gun crime one would think that there needs to be a fundamental change in the idea that 'everyone' can bear arms. It is quite obvious that this is not the case.

Also I find the idea that no one can have a gun (especially in the US) to be ludicrous.

There has to be a balance struck.

Problem is how and when.

I suspect that if there is a problem to be addressed, it lies with the people, not the weapons.

I suspect that if there is a problem to be addressed, it lies with the people, not the weapons.

"If you can't play nice with your toys, then I'll take them away from you".

Parental advice should be listened to sometimes.

The problem with that is that while a person can often be judged as being capable of using them illegally, and only then after previous criminal offence, there is no known test that can accurately determine whether a person will always use their weapon in a legal manner. I'm sure the guy this morning either owned the weapons prior to whatever motivated him to do what he did or, with the motivation in hand, was able to put on enough of a facade to satisfy anyone who would question what he wanted the things for.

How, then, can we make such a judgement call?

Proper licensing controls backed up with training exams and site visits to ensure that guns are stored safely?

Of course that would not fly in the US at the moment. I think there needs to be a real undertaking to deal with gun crime.

That would require a politician with balls and that ain't gonna happen...the time is still not yet right...but the discussion must be had at the very least.

I suspect that if there is a problem to be addressed, it lies with the people, not the weapons.

Like I said. There are people out there who should not have access to guns.

I also think the same about the UK as well. We have guns on the streets (and knives).

Yeah. I should have known you'd make some kind of smart arse remark.

You, son, are part of the problem.
If you want to pose a question to fix an unfixable problem, expect absurd answers.

Only way to "keep guns out of the hands of people who are not capable of using them legally" is premonition.

I suspect that if there is a problem to be addressed, it lies with the people, not the weapons.
I suspect, however, that if we leave dealing with weapons until after we've finished dealing with the problem of people, we'll may never get around to it.

I suspect, however, that if we leave dealing with weapons until after we've finished dealing with the problem of people, we'll may never get around to it.

As long as we're suspecting, I suspect that banning guns will only lead to an increase in the number of people getting stabbed, brained with cinderblocks and/or thrown out of windows.

Edit: Or even shot.

As long as we're suspecting, I suspect that banning guns will only lead to an increase in the number of people getting stabbed, brained with cinderblocks and/or thrown out of windows.

Edit: Or even shot.

*pictures someone going on a 'cinderblock spree' at a school.*

*pictures someone going on a 'cinderblock spree' at a school.*

If you outlaw cinderblocks, only outlaws will have them. *nod*

If you outlaw cinderblocks, only outlaws will have them. *nod*

True. But if you give properly trained students the right to conceal and carry cinderblocks, then we can all feel safer.

Proper licensing controls backed up with training exams and site visits to ensure that guns are stored safely?
Oh, absolutely, this needs to happen. Licensing controls will both keep tabs on where the things are (thereby at least assisting with combatting the black market) and prevent people from acquiring the things on a whim.

The problem in my mind is that people need not necessarily purchase or own a gun (or any weapon, for that matter) out of immediate illegal intention in order to eventually be able to use it for illegal purposes. Registration and regulation will make it easier to know in advance where firearms are kept (perhaps with the police having access to a database of this ownership), but they won't actually act as any indication as to whether or not a given individual can be trusted to use the things for entirely legal reasons.

I suppose we should implement the thought police then a la Minority Report.

They weren't thought police.

For the record I think it has to be horses for courses, different laws in different places depending on culture.

Having said that the USA really needs to tighten up it's gun control laws. It's just far too easy IMHO for people to get hold of them.

True. But if you give properly trained students the right to conceal and carry cinderblocks, then we can all feel safer.

Or the school could just allow those w/ CCW's to carry. One or Two people carrying could have saved a lot of people today.

Can it be like the west side story fight? With dancing and songs and such?
Is there an activity heterosexuals can do instead?

True. But if you give properly trained students the right to conceal and carry cinderblocks, then we can all feel safer.

Unless there are windows around. :(

As long as we're suspecting, I suspect that banning guns will only lead to an increase in the number of people getting stabbed, brained with cinderblocks and/or thrown out of windows.

Edit: Or even shot.
Suspecting being a rather nice little past-time, I suspect that banning the continued creation of guns for commercial purposes, regardless of the actual posession or purchase of them, would be a good way to start, at least. I also suspect that this would force the hands of the manufacturers and pressure them into non-lethal weaponry as the new competitive market, which would eventually surpass the conventional firearm given enough time and money.

Suspecting being a rather nice little past-time, I suspect that banning the creation of guns for commercial purposes, regardless of the actual posession of them, would be a good way to start, at least. I also suspect that this would force the hands of the manufacturers and pressure them into non-lethal weaponry as the new competitive market, which would eventually surpass the conventional firearm given enough time and money.

I suspect a sizeable market in black market homemade guns would provide criminals with nice lethal weaponry to use on their non-lethally armed foes.

I further suspect you don't know how dreadfully easy it is to make a gun.

I suspect a sizeable market in black market homemade guns would provide criminals with nice lethal weaponry to use on their non-lethally armed foes.

I further suspect you don't know how dreadfully easy it is to make a gun.

http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/index.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_gun

For emphasis.

The most primitive Zip guns can be made from scraps, with more advanced weapons requiring not much more than basic metalworking experience.

I suspect a sizeable market in black market homemade guns would provide criminals with nice lethal weaponry to use on their non-lethally armed foes.

I further suspect you don't know how dreadfully easy it is to make a gun.


Still harder than buying it.

Are you advocating that people should go around with guns close to hand, in schools etc just in case they get attacked. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

I suspect a sizeable market in black market homemade guns would provide criminals with nice lethal weaponry to use on their non-lethally armed foes.

I further suspect you don't know how dreadfully easy it is to make a gun.
You suspect correctly on the latter. I suspect that criminals are already capable of and regularly engage in such craftsmanship in addition to having a supply of stolen and/or legally purchased weaponry hoarded from commercially manufactured arms. I also suspect that, as a direct result of this, criminals will always have more guns per person than their law-abiding counterparts whether or not the production of them is legal, and that continued production of them will only increase the number in circulation rather than improving the ratio of legal to illegal usage.

At least, if what I suspected earlier can be realised, the arms manufacturers might be able to find a way to beat the gun with some other personal defense mechanism.

I think that in this era of stress and depression, it is going to become much more common for people to simply 'snap' or go nuts. In that moment, it is a very good thing that access to firearms is restricted, as they have to resort to using knives or other such close combat weapons, against which people at least have a chance of defending themselves. In all other areas of crime, however, I don't think it will make a significant difference.

To use my home country as an example, banning firearms just means that criminals have them, while the normal, law abiding people no longer can (to be fair, though, there was never much of a gun culture in the UK anyway). If we were to put this in the perspective of a war, it would be like one side going into battle unarmed against an army of AK-47 wielding troops, which is a pretty big disadvantage in any estimation.

I have never thought that complete disarmament is a good idea. If an armed criminal ever breaks into my house, I'd have to resort to either trying to sneak up and club him over the head with a chicken leg, or try to scare him with a fake firearm and hope he didn't call my bluff. I could call the police, but judging from the fact that I live less than five minutes walking distance away from the main police headquarters for my town, and it took them almost 40 minutes to respond to my sister's crazy ex-boyfriend smashing up our cars with a baseball bat and desperately trying to break in last year (which could have been resolved rather quickly by simply shooting a gun into the air, I'd wager), I don't have a lot of faith in them.

The USA is much different. As I mentioned above the UK never really had much of a gun culture to begin with, but the USA is absolutely riddled with them. Even if the United States government completely outlawed all types of firearms and actively sought out and destroyed as many of them as they could, I doubt very much if they'd even come close to getting half of them. And I also believe that many US citizens, particularly down south, would react rather negatively to the government coming along and trying to confiscate their precious death sticks. Which, when they're armed to the teeth with assault rifles and whatnot, probably isn't a good thing. And with so many guns around, criminals would have even less trouble getting armed than they do here, and they manage it pretty easily here. The phrase, closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, comes to mind.

So even if I was in favour of complete disarmament, I don't think the US should attempt it. The only real solution is to rectify the social problems which lead to gun crime. As for how to accomplish that, much smarter people than myself need to figure that one out.

I think that in this era of stress and depression, it is going to become much more common for people to simply 'snap' or go nuts. In that moment, it is a very good thing that access to firearms is restricted, as they have to resort to using knives or other such close combat weapons, against which people at least have a chance of defending themselves. In all other areas of crime, however, I don't think it will make a significant difference.

To use my home country as an example, banning firearms just means that criminals have them, while the normal, law abiding people no longer can (to be fair, though, there was never much of a gun culture in the UK anyway). If we were to put this in the perspective of a war, it would be like one side going into battle unarmed against an army of AK-47 wielding troops, which is a pretty big disadvantage in any estimation.

I have never thought that complete disarmament is a good idea. If an armed criminal ever breaks into my house, I'd have to resort to either trying to sneak up and club him over the head with a chicken leg, or try to scare him with a fake firearm and hope he didn't call my bluff. I could call the police, but judging from the fact that I live less than five minutes walking distance away from the main police headquarters for my town, and it took them almost 40 minutes to respond to my sister's crazy ex-boyfriend smashing up our cars with a baseball bat and desperately trying to break in last year (which could have been resolved rather quickly by simply shooting a gun into the air, I'd wager), I don't have a lot of faith in them.

The USA is much different. As I mentioned above the UK never really had much of a gun culture to begin with, but the USA is absolutely riddled with them. Even if the United States government completely outlawed all types of firearms and actively sought out and destroyed as many of them as they could, I doubt very much if they'd even come close to getting half of them. And I also believe that many US citizens, particularly down south, would react rather negatively to the government coming along and trying to confiscate their precious death sticks. Which, when they're armed to the teeth with assault rifles and whatnot, probably isn't a good thing. And with so many guns around, criminals would have even less trouble getting armed than they do here, and they manage it pretty easily here. The phrase, closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, comes to mind.

So even if I was in favour of complete disarmament, I don't think the US should attempt it. The only real solution is to rectify the social problems which lead to gun crime. As for how to accomplish that, much smarter people than myself need to figure that one out.

*Applauds a fairly well reasoned post*

It's not perfect, but that's pretty good.

Still harder than buying it.

Are you advocating that people should go around with guns close to hand, in schools etc just in case they get attacked. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

Rather not, but the mere threat that someone might be packin' heat might serve something of a deterrent role, whether they actually are or not. Which is why CCW is better than OC.

I suspect that if there is a problem to be addressed, it lies with the people, not the weapons.
Yeah, except of course that people in other countries with a different outlook on "the right to bear arms" are just as problematic yet they usually do not get their hands on guns and hence usually do not go around killing dozens of people in shooting sprees.

It's a hell of a fucking lot harder to go on a killing spree with a knife. Some tweaked out kid tried it, right here in Berlin, in a mass of people attending the opening ceremony fireworks for the new central station last year. He managed to injure 32 people. With a knife. He actually managed to injure 32 people in a mass of people before anybody could stop him.
Can you even imagine the numbers of injured and dead had he had a gun?

If anybody says about Virginia today "Oh, this just proves we need more guns! Those kids totally could have defended themselves!" then they're missing the point by so many miles it's not even funny.
If your culture demands that guns be an integral part of it, so be it. But don't go around saying the problem is in not having enough guns in "the right hands" (as in what? The hands of everybody on that campus except the one guy who'll eventually snap?) when it's in having guns in the hands of civilians in the first place. The Revolutionary War is over.

I am in total agreement with Ollieland's post in the other thread: The price of the constitutional right to bear arms indirectly involves 32 innocent lives.

I hope it was worth it.

How hard would it be to build a gun that shoots a net? Damn I want one of those.

Rather not, but the mere threat that someone might be packin' heat might serve something of a deterrent role, whether they actually are or not. Which is why CCW is better than OC.

Given that a lot of these rampagers kill themselves at some point I doubt the effectiveness of the deterrent in these cases.

CCW=Concealed Carry W?
OC=?

How hard would it be to build a gun that shoots a net? Damn I want one of those.

I want one that's really intimidating, and fires a little flag that says, "-4 Health".

How did I know that this thread was coming....:rolleyes:

I want one that's really intimidating, and fires a little flag that says, "-4 Health".

lol

it's kind of fun to think of non-lethal weapons

goo guns that immobilize your opponent? :gundge:

guns that blind people

soundwave guns that make it feel like your eardrums a splode

viagra guns that shoot a pill down someones throat. maybe liquid viagra would be better. :p

hell even an acid gun. w00t!

lol

it's kind of fun to think of non-lethal weapons

goo guns that immobilize your opponent? :gundge:

guns that blind people

soundwave guns that make it feel like your eardrums a splode

viagra guns that shoot a pill down someones throat. maybe liquid viagra would be better. :p

hell even an acid gun. w00t!

Brown noise generators that loosen bowels. :)

Brown noise generators that loosen bowels. :)

win

Brown noise generators that loosen bowels. :)
How, might I ask, would such a weapon not also affect its wielder?

Or perhaps that's part of your plan? 0_o

Gnaah... I'm not from the united states, so maybe I just don't get the 'american way' well enough, but I have no damn clue what the good thing about having so many handguns around might be... I mean, are americans(or let's say USians just to avoid pissing some people off) just more psycotic than most other people or do the high number of violent crimes involving firearms actually*ghasp* have something to do with 45's being readily avalible over counter in many states? I heard or read somewhere(don't ask for a source, its just a rumor, if someone wish to look it up and correct me if I'm wrong, please do) that more children are killed every year from finding and playing with their parents pistols than burglars or murderers shot annualy. If that is so, or if the numbers are even remotely accurate, it should be clear to any sane person that firearms made for anything but hunting and sports is a crazy thing to have around.

How hard would it be to build a gun that shoots a net? Damn I want one of those.

I'm pretty sure the mythbusters built one during one of their episodes.

How, might I ask, would such a weapon not also affect its wielder?

Or perhaps that's part of your plan? 0_o

soundproof humvees. Or Depends undergarments. :)

I'm pretty sure the mythbusters built one during one of their episodes.

oh oh oh I wanna see!

I googled but couldn't find it :(

How hard would it be to build a gun that shoots a net? Damn I want one of those.

Yeah, I read the Predator Vs Batman comics too. :p

Yeah, except of course that people in other countries with a different outlook on "the right to bear arms" are just as problematic yet they usually do not get their hands on guns and hence usually do not go around killing dozens of people in shooting sprees.

It's a hell of a fucking lot harder to go on a killing spree with a knife. Some tweaked out kid tried it, right here in Berlin, in a mass of people attending the opening ceremony fireworks for the new central station last year. He managed to injure 32 people. With a knife. He actually managed to injure 32 people in a mass of people before anybody could stop him.
Can you even imagine the numbers of injured and dead had he had a gun?

If anybody says about Virginia today "Oh, this just proves we need more guns! Those kids totally could have defended themselves!" then they're missing the point by so many miles it's not even funny.
If your culture demands that guns be an integral part of it, so be it. But don't go around saying the problem is in not having enough guns in "the right hands" (as in what? The hands of everybody on that campus except the one guy who'll eventually snap?) when it's in having guns in the hands of civilians in the first place. The Revolutionary War is over.

I am in total agreement with Ollieland's post in the other thread:
I applaud your reasoned response, but we must remember that the gun nuts always will always (forever and a day), have a bullshit excuse that will try to rationalize the benefits of having guns. And the beat goes on.......

And the masses die!! :(

a valid concern, but hopefully if several students have them then perhaps there would be a better chance at subduing someone.

Or maybe kids should have bean bag shotguns.

paintball guns?

Ninja stars?

While I agree that tasers would be better than nothing, I'd probably opt for a firearm if given a choice.

Just for clarification, there's no such thing as a beanbag shotgun, only a beanbag shell for shotguns (which can still be loaded with regular shot shells). While I did see some yesterday at the Durham (CT) Knife and Gun Show, I'm unsure of the legality of civilian purchase.

Paintball markers wouldn't really be effective, because the pain is minor and temporary, unless you were to use the pepperballs (which is a bad idea in a enclosed space, as it would affect everybody).

Ninja stars? That's just silly.

My uncle and grandfather both already own very illegal firearms. Go ahead and make more of them illegal it won't do shit to stop people who want them from obtaining them.

50 calibur machine guns are illegal right?

How did I know that this thread was coming....:rolleyes:

You have vast psychotic powers? :D

Gnaah... I'm not from the united states, so maybe I just don't get the 'american way' well enough, but I have no damn clue what the good thing about having so many handguns around might be... I mean, are americans(or let's say USians just to avoid pissing some people off) just more psycotic than most other people or do the high number of violent crimes involving firearms actually*ghasp* have something to do with 45's being readily avalible over counter in many states? I heard or read somewhere(don't ask for a source, its just a rumor, if someone wish to look it up and correct me if I'm wrong, please do) that more children are killed every year from finding and playing with their parents pistols than burglars or murderers shot annualy. If that is so, or if the numbers are even remotely accurate, it should be clear to any sane person that firearms made for anything but hunting and sports is a crazy thing to have around.

Handguns/pistols have purpose in the hunting and sporting categories.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_hunting.htm

http://www.biggamehunt.net/sections/Firearm/Beginners_Guide_to_Big_Game_Handgun_Hunting_10120412.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4845884443948116329&q=bowling+pin+shoot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-zWFu3h54g

ETA this one is cool as it shows how fast a pistol can be shot and reloaded, if someone practices enough: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeenqhQMldU&NR=1

It's already been established that men who hunt for sport have no intention other than to prove they do not have small dicks. I dance everytime a hunter is killed by a bear or another hunter.

My uncle and grandfather both already own very illegal firearms. Go ahead and make more of them illegal it won't do shit to stop people who want them from obtaining them.

50 calibur machine guns are illegal right?


It would depend on the laws in your area, as well as the situation in which your uncle and grandfather obtained them. And .50 cal machine guns aren't necessarily illegal. It would have to be manufactured before 1986, and an NFA tax stamp would have to be obtained prior to owning the machine gun.

Here's a vid of some machine guns in action. There's at least one M2 in there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6yyQ_328mA

It's already been established that men who hunt for sport have no intention other than to prove they do not have small dicks. I dance everytime a hunter is killed by a bear or another hunter.


I don't agree with hunting for sport/trophy either. If you're going to kill an animal, you better eat it (unless it's a special circumstance, like shooting a predator to protect livestock/pets/kids).

While I agree that tasers would be better than nothing, I'd probably opt for a firearm if given a choice.

Just for clarification, there's no such thing as a beanbag shotgun, only a beanbag shell for shotguns (which can still be loaded with regular shot shells). While I did see some yesterday at the Durham (CT) Knife and Gun Show, I'm unsure of the legality of civilian purchase.

Paintball markers wouldn't really be effective, because the pain is minor and temporary, unless you were to use the pepperballs (which is a bad idea in a enclosed space, as it would affect everybody).

Ninja stars? That's just silly.

How about crotch-seeking projectiles?

*heads for the drawing board*

Its obvious to all remotely intellegent people that a gun ban would automatically prevent all future murders, and bring back everyone murdered by evil guns in the past.

Its obvious to all remotely intellegent people that a gun ban would automatically prevent all future murders, and bring back everyone murdered by evil guns in the past.


You know, the sarcasm in your post was so subtle, I almost missed it.



:D

Its obvious to all remotely intellegent people that a gun ban would automatically prevent all future murders, and bring back everyone murdered by evil guns in the past.

Thanks to your testimony we now have enough strength in court to ban guns forebers! YAY \(○O○)/

Given that a lot of these rampagers kill themselves at some point I doubt the effectiveness of the deterrent in these cases.

CCW=Concealed Carry W?
OC=?

w= weapon

oc = pepper spray

Handguns/pistols have purpose in the hunting and sporting categories.


Cool. Then keep the cutie-glocks locked up at the range or the cabin and make damn sure guns and ammo ain't sold unless the buyer passes strict psykological tests and then re-evaluate the licence every three years or so. Also make owning a firearm exclusive to those who are members of a shooting club or licenced hunters. That would get alot of guns out of the hands of people who can't use them or are just not fit for it.

While I was sitting in class tonight, I looked at the one door in and out of the 2nd story room with impenetrable windows.

If some shit scumbag had burst in that door with a gun, the only possible way that me and my colleagues in class could have escaped death would have been to shoot him with a gun.

Tazer wouldnt have worked, pepper spray - not a chance.

Allowing responsible, law abiding 21+ students to conceal a gun on their person while on campus may not make bitchy coward imbeciles "feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel" safe - but it would make them BE safe.

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/19021-2/vtech9523.jpg

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/feelsafe.jpg.html

RIP all innocent victims of this mad son of a whore, and of the school's CCW policy.

While I was sitting in class tonight, I looked at the one door in and out of the 2nd story room with impenetrable windows.

If some shit scumbag had burst in that door with a gun, the only possible way that me and my colleagues in class could have escaped death would have been to shoot him with a gun.

Tazer wouldnt have worked, pepper spray - not a chance.

Allowing responsible, law abiding 21+ students to conceal a gun on their person while on campus may not make bitchy coward imbeciles "feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel" safe - but it would make them BE safe.

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/19021-2/vtech9523.jpg

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/feelsafe.jpg.html

RIP all innocent victims of this mad son of a whore, and of the school's CCW policy.

And again comes the issue of whom you allow to carry the gun. Until its made damn sure that the firearm won't come into the wrong hands, its better to try to keep it out of everyones. You might say that the criminals will get their glocks anyway and you are probably right, however, school shootings and mindless massacres are seldom done by crack-thugs and more often by your "I-cant-belive-this-he-was-such-a-nice-father" neighbour. Now ain't THAT an illusion of safety?

At least, if what I suspected earlier can be realised, the arms manufacturers might be able to find a way to beat the gun with some other personal defense mechanism.

There is no way I would use a nonlethal defense if there is a chance the attacker will use a lethal offense. Besides, tasers are supposed to be nonlethal, but they have killed people...

It's already been established that men who hunt for sport have no intention other than to prove they do not have small dicks. I dance everytime a hunter is killed by a bear or another hunter.

Now that seems unfair. If a person hunts and eats the animal, I'm fine with it. If they make a trophy, fur coat, or whatver out of what is not eaten, that's fine too.

There is no way I would use a nonlethal defense if there is a chance the attacker will use a lethal offense. Besides, tasers are supposed to be nonlethal, but they have killed people...

So have paintball and professional football. I think the main difference is in the design, what the weapon is meant to do. And statisicly, I doubt tasers are in the same ballpark, or even in the same country when compared to traditional handguns and death tolls. Where tasers are meant to be non-lethal and have flaws in their design, guns are meant to be real fucking lethal and have been perfected over a few hundred years. Too bad the legislation and human evolution hasn't kept up.

And again comes the issue of whom you allow to carry the gun. Until its made damn sure that the firearm won't come into the wrong hands, its better to try to keep it out of everyones. You might say that the criminals will get their glocks anyway and you are probably right, however, school shootings and mindless massacres are seldom done by crack-thugs and more often by your "I-cant-belive-this-he-was-such-a-nice-father" neighbour. Now ain't THAT an illusion of safety?

As it stands, the guns were only in ONE person's hands, the mad killer.

Since "no guns period" is illegal in the US and also impossible in the US, the solution is to allow the responsible and law abiding - those who go through the concealed permit program - to also have guns.

The only real options are:

A) Status quo, only criminals / the irresponsible have guns on campus.

B) The criminals, the irresponsible AND the responsible law abiding have guns.

The only net change is + responsible / law abiding. Not one more criminal will have a gun as a result of the policy of letting law abiding responsible people who already have concealment permits carry.

If one of those people goes insane, his CCW isnt going to be what decides where he goes and shoots people. Banning guns on campus didnt prevent yesterday's atrocity because it is 1) bad, irresponsible policy and 2) incapable of preventing criminals from bringing guns.

As it stands, the guns were only in ONE person's hands, the mad killer.

Since "no guns period" is illegal in the US and also impossible in the US, the solution is to allow the responsible and law abiding - those who go through the concealed permit program - to also have guns.

The only real options are:

A) Status quo, only criminals / the irresponsible have guns on campus.

B) The criminals, the irresponsible AND the responsible law abiding have guns.

The only net change is + responsible / law abiding. Not one more criminal will have a gun as a result of the policy of letting law abiding responsible people who already have concealment permits carry.

If one of those people goes insane, his CCW isnt going to be what decides where he goes and shoots people. Banning guns on campus didnt prevent yesterday's atrocity because it is 1) bad, irresponsible policy and 2) incapable of preventing criminals from bringing guns.

I'm sadly aware that preventing the general public from owning handguns is pretty much impossible in the US.
However, strict control wouldn't hurt those who are responsible and it would prevent many, although not all, irresponsible dimwits from obtaining one over counter. Gang and drugrelated gunkillings might not plummet, but accidental shootings and good-neighbour-maniac-sprays may well drop with more evaluation of the ones who are to carry guns. Membership in a sport shooting club which in turn requires both psykological tests aswell as training and education could certainly sort out most of the nutcases.
*Sigh* But what do I care, you love your guns over in the US of A and you'll just have to live with your happy armsrace until you're tired of crazy shootings and kids blowing their heads of while playing with their parents '45...

Only way to "keep guns out of the hands of people who are not capable of using them legally" is premonition.Don't pro-guns people use to say 'When owning a gun becomes a crime, only criminals will own guns'? How can any amount of control - labelling any would be gun owners/buyers as criminal - change their view? According to their logic, limiting a bit *should* be (at least) as useless as a complete ban.

I'm in favour of banning personally owned firearms (especially small guns like pistols, etc..) while shooting & hunting clubs might have access to & right to own firearms, kept in premises under tight security while not in use, and should be able to lease them for a limited amount of time for hunting & recreational purposes with careful screening (ID, dna sample, fingerprints, license, considerable bond to be returned on return of the gun, etc..) depending on the use: Naturally, if staying within target range less stringent process would be necessary.

Though, gunnuts seemingly only believe to the deterrence of their personal firearm, not to any government regulation or goodwill of the people.

Don't pro-guns people use to say 'When owning a gun becomes a crime, only criminals will own guns'? How can any amount of control - labelling any would be gun owners/buyers as criminal - change their view? According to their logic, limiting a bit *should* be (at least) as useless as a complete ban.

I'm in favour of banning personally owned firearms while shooting & hunting clubs might have access to & right to own firearms, kept in premises under tight security while not in use, and should be able to lease for a limited amount of time for hunting & recreational purposes with careful screening (ID, dna sample, fingerprints, license, considerable bond to be returned on return of the gun, etc..) depending on the use (naturally, if within target range less stringent process would be necessary..)

Though, gunnuts seemingly only believe to the deterrence of their personal firearm, not to any government regulation or goodwill of the people.


Well put. I couldn't have said it better myself.

There is no way I would use a nonlethal defense if there is a chance the attacker will use a lethal offense. Besides, tasers are supposed to be nonlethal, but they have killed people...
Perhaps you would think differently if non-lethal methods were developed to surpass (or at least equal) lethal ones in their stopping power.

Perhaps you would think differently if non-lethal methods were developed to surpass (or at least equal) lethal ones in their stopping power.

I don't think so. If someone tried to attack me or my family I would kill them, pure and simple. If a robber/mugger or whatever wants to rob/attack/murder me or my family they better kill me first, otherwise they are going to be a dead robber/mugger or what have you.

I don't think so. If someone tried to attack me or my family I would kill them, pure and simple. If a robber/mugger or whatever wants to rob/attack/murder me or my family they better kill me first, otherwise they are going to be a dead robber/mugger or what have you.
Even if you could stop them cold without killing them? I don't see the merit in unnecessary death, here.

Even if you could stop them cold without killing them? I don't see the merit in unnecessary death, here.

If they try to attack me or my family their life is forfiet. Its a matter of honor, pride, probably a little bit of anger and rage thrown in to mix it up. If somebody has the gall to infringe upon my family's saftey they better run, or kill me, because I'll be damn sure to kill them or give them a good old fashioned beating.

If they try to attack me or my family their life is forfiet. Its a matter of honor, pride, probably a little bit of anger and rage thrown in to mix it up. If somebody has the gall to infringe upon my family's saftey they better run, or kill me, because I'll be damn sure to kill them or give them a good old fashioned beating.This mentality is exactly the kind of thing that causes these events: Putting personal honor, pride and vendetta above the value of other's life.

This mentality is exactly the kind of thing that causes these events: Putting personal honor, pride and vendetta above the value of other's life.

If they try to take my life, or any member of my family's life, they don't deserve their life.

If they try to take my life, or any member of my family's life, they don't deserve their life.Yes they do, as much as you and your family do.

Besides what would you do if you caught an apparent thief in your house with no imminent threat of bodily harm? Try to threaten him away or shoot him in cold blood because your pride & property is hurt? What if he turns out to be your girl's secret boyfriend? What if someone 'stole' your wife and kids (ie. she left for a better man according to her)?

I'm not implying that you'd go to a killing spree, I sincerely don't believe it, but there's a strikingly smaller step from 'offenders have no right to live' - I have god given right to protect my pride & property - to ragekillings than from 'I respect human life'.

Yes they do, as much as you and your family do.

Besides what would you do if you caught an apparent thief in your house with no imminent threat of bodily harm? Try to threaten him away or shoot him in cold blood because your pride & property is hurt? What if he turns out to be your girl's secret boyfriend? What if someone 'stole' your wife and kids (ie. she left for a better man according to her)?

I'm not implying that you'd go to a killing spree, I sincerely don't believe it, but there's a strikingly smaller step from 'offenders have no right to live' - I have god given right to protect my pride & property - to ragekillings than from 'I respect human life'.

You hit a good point. I would never use lethal force unless my life, or the life of a family member (or good friend) were threatened. If a robber was in my house, and was just taking things, not threatening, I'd probably yell at him and try to scare him off with a baseball bat or something, but not hitting him unless he attacked first.

To your second paragraph:I do respect human life, but I value, somewhat selfishly, my family and friends over strangers. And if it came down to life or death, I'd choose their life over an attackers; I'd choose my life over an attackers too. I guess I'm selfish, but hey, I would think most people would kill to protect themselves and thier loved ones from harm!

I guess I'm selfish, but hey, I would think most people would kill to protect themselves and thier loved ones from harm!You're right, of course, to a degree: If I saw someone hurting my gal, friends or relatives I'd probably go beat them to a pulp with little regard for their - or even mine, to certain extent - health. If they would turn and flee the scene I wouldn't try to follow them, though, as there are more important things to do at that moment than try to exact revenge.

Also, I'd never take a firearm I plan to use that has killing power to such a situation as then things would get too random. I also believe that it's much better for the thugs to survive - if only to hurt & suffer more - than die by my hands: Death would be way too easy way out for someone that hurt someone I care very much.

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/80510

From a Virginia Tech Student who was there. I think it sums up my views. No sense in trusting your security to people who can't put an individual guard on every individual 24 hours a day to make sure bad things don't happen.

Bradford B. Wiles

Wiles, of New Castle, is a graduate student at Virginia Tech.

On Aug. 21 at about 9:20 a.m., my graduate-level class was evacuated from the Squires Student Center. We were interrupted in class and not informed of anything other than the following words: "You need to get out of the building."

Upon exiting the classroom, we were met at the doors leading outside by two armor-clad policemen with fully automatic weapons, plus their side arms. Once outside, there were several more officers with either fully automatic rifles and pump shotguns, and policemen running down the street, pistols drawn.

It was at this time that I realized that I had no viable means of protecting myself.

Please realize that I am licensed to carry a concealed handgun in the commonwealth of Virginia, and do so on a regular basis. However, because I am a Virginia Tech student, I am prohibited from carrying at school because of Virginia Tech's student policy, which makes possession of a handgun an expellable offense, but not a prosecutable crime.

I had entrusted my safety, and the safety of others to the police. In light of this, there are a few things I wish to point out.

First, I never want to have my safety fully in the hands of anyone else, including the police.

Second, I considered bringing my gun with me to campus, but did not due to the obvious risk of losing my graduate career, which is ridiculous because had I been shot and killed, there would have been no graduate career for me anyway.

Third, and most important, I am trained and able to carry a concealed handgun almost anywhere in Virginia and other states that have reciprocity with Virginia, but cannot carry where I spend more time than anywhere else because, somehow, I become a threat to others when I cross from the town of Blacksburg onto Virginia Tech's campus.

Of all of the emotions and thoughts that were running through my head that morning, the most overwhelming one was of helplessness.

That feeling of helplessness has been difficult to reconcile because I knew I would have been safer with a proper means to defend myself.

I would also like to point out that when I mentioned to a professor that I would feel safer with my gun, this is what she said to me, "I would feel safer if you had your gun."

The policy that forbids students who are legally licensed to carry in Virginia needs to be changed.

I am qualified and capable of carrying a concealed handgun and urge you to work with me to allow my most basic right of self-defense, and eliminate my entrusting my safety and the safety of my classmates to the government.

This incident makes it clear that it is time that Virginia Tech and the commonwealth of Virginia let me take responsibility for my safety.

Oh, and here's a school shooting that was stopped - by students using their own firearms.

So here's an example of how it could work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

Cool. Then keep the cutie-glocks locked up at the range or the cabin and make damn sure guns and ammo ain't sold unless the buyer passes strict psykological tests and then re-evaluate the licence every three years or so. Also make owning a firearm exclusive to those who are members of a shooting club or licenced hunters. That would get alot of guns out of the hands of people who can't use them or are just not fit for it.


Glocks are useful in a sporting capacity (target shooting). As far as the psychological testing, nobody that has been committed or has a history of mental illness can own a firearm (at least, in Connecticut), and there are no licenses for owning long arms (again, at least in Connecticut), just pistols. Pistol permits are issued in CT after taking a course (like the NRA Basic Pistol course), filling out the appropriate forms, and submitting to local, state, and federal background checks (which would pick up if an applicant was ever a felon or had a history of mental illness). The pistol permits are good for 5 years, after which they must be renewed.

Limiting firearms to those people who can afford to join a club (which can cost hundreds of dollars a year), or those who wish to have a hunting license (which in CT, is only good for a year and requires a hunter's safety course) isn't fair to those of us that can't afford the club, and don't currently have a wish or ability to hunt.

It was at this time that I realized that I had no viable means of protecting myself.
I wasn't aware joining in on a Wild West shoot out counted as protection. You arn't in the woods being hunted by wolves, you are surrounded by a bunch of armed men, does a gun now project a magical anti-bullet field? If a gun serves no purpose as to be a possibly deadly baby blankee, why do you need one? Find some other way to make yourself feel dangerous.

I wasn't aware joining in on a Wild West shoot out counted as protection. You arn't in the woods being hunted by wolves, you are surrounded by a bunch of armed men, does a gun now project a magical anti-bullet field? If a gun serves no purpose as to be a possibly deadly baby blankee, why do you need one? Find some other way to make yourself feel dangerous.

I guess you missed the link to the Appalachian school shooting that was stopped by students with guns.

Oh, and here's a school shooting that was stopped - by students using their own firearms.

So here's an example of how it could work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting
Still two people died and three people wounded. He obviously was competent and had a student reason for shooting people, otherwise he would've ended up shot by the two students after trying to start a firefight.

I guess you missed the link to the Appalachian school shooting that was stopped by students with guns.
I guess you didn't realize pages are defaultly organized in chronological order.

What's the point of having a gun in a free society as America today? Are Americans still expecting the British to invade? Nothing positive ever comes out of possessing a gun.

and there are no licenses for owning long arms (again, at least in Connecticut), just pistols.
Oh yeah, that makes it real hard for people to go on killing sprees, making long arms easily ownable and all.

Limiting firearms to those people who can afford to join a club (which can cost hundreds of dollars a year), or those who wish to have a hunting license (which in CT, is only good for a year and requires a hunter's safety course) isn't fair to those of us that can't afford the club, and don't currently have a wish or ability to hunt.
Too fucking bad. Maybe we should just hand out guns to all people 21 and older and hope they know how to use it safely and won't do anything stupid with it.

I guess you missed the link to the Appalachian school shooting that was stopped by students with guns.


All apparently without the other students discharging their firearms. Doesn't seem like the Wild West to me. :)

What's the point of having a gun in a free society as America today? Are Americans still expecting the British to invade? Nothing positive ever comes out of possessing a gun.

99.99% of the time nothing negative comes out of it either. Also, a free society doesn't look at things and decide if the people have a good reason to have them, it decides if there is sufficient cause to deny it to them. Obviously different societies have different conclusions to this. There are a number of other countries with about as many guns per capita as the US that don't have our level of gun violence.

There are far too many things we don't know about the Virginia Tech shooting. Why he did it, how he got the guns, the legality of his having said guns. If he got his guns legally, it needs to be investigated how to stop that from happening again. If he got them illegally perhaps the laws that would have prevented this should be better enforced.

I always find it rather mind boggling that so many otherwise intelligent people attribute gun violence (in general) to the existence of guns rather than placing it where it belongs, the social issues (the frightful 'American conditions' in WYTYG's German newspapers) in our society that drive people to do desperate and crazy things.

All apparently without the other students discharging their firearms. Doesn't seem like the Wild West to me. :)
So you are saying a couple of people waving around pistols could have stopped some one who shot himself in the face. You arn't going to stop a murder-suicide by pointing guns, ever heard of suicide by police?

Glocks are useful in a sporting capacity (target shooting). As far as the psychological testing, nobody that has been committed or has a history of mental illness can own a firearm (at least, in Connecticut), and there are no licenses for owning long arms (again, at least in Connecticut), just pistols. Pistol permits are issued in CT after taking a course (like the NRA Basic Pistol course), filling out the appropriate forms, and submitting to local, state, and federal background checks (which would pick up if an applicant was ever a felon or had a history of mental illness). The pistol permits are good for 5 years, after which they must be renewed.

Limiting firearms to those people who can afford to join a club (which can cost hundreds of dollars a year), or those who wish to have a hunting license (which in CT, is only good for a year and requires a hunter's safety course) isn't fair to those of us that can't afford the club, and don't currently have a wish or ability to hunt.

Like I previously stated, I got no problem with shooting for sport at all, nor do I think hunting is something bad if done for food and regulating wildlife. I do, however, think its more unfair to get shot by a wacko who on a hunch decides to go on a shooting spree in the office, school, mall or kindergarten than not being able to buy firearms with mere background checks. I think its crazy to be able to own guns without any experience whatsoever and only on the merits of not being a felon and/or not having been remitted to a mental institution. As a guy who obviously know your way around firearms(which I think is a good thing, mind you :) ) you must also know that without training, experience and above all sound judgement, a pistol is pretty darn dangerous. Most people can pretty much empty an entire glock 17 clip on a slow-moving target 30 meters away and not score a single hit, risking people several hundred meters behind the target with injury or death, both from direct fire and riccochets(atleast unless using expanding rounds or hollow-points). I wouldn't want to deny anyone recreational shooting as a hobby, but I'm sure that if regulation required a sturdier license and membership of a shooting club, costs would drop quickly and instead of jackasses with no idea how to handle firearms safely would get both supervision and training, which I'm sure you would agree, is beneficial for all involved partys, no?

What's the point of having a gun in a free society as America today? Are Americans still expecting the British to invade? Nothing positive ever comes out of possessing a gun.

Why do people that want to ban firearms think those of us that own firearms should have to justify why we own them? And no, I don't have one because I think the British are going to invade.

"Nothing positive ever comes out of possessing a gun"? If you really believe that, you're wrong. A farmer shooting wolves that are trying to kill cattle is positive. A hunter that helps to cull the deer population in an area (either because the deer are sick, starving, or to prevent motorists from hitting them, causing damage and possibly injury) is positive. That same hunter taking a healthy deer, butchering it, and using the meat in his family's meals is positive. A woman using a pistol to defend herself from a would-be rapist is positive. A person using a firearm to defend their family from a gang of roving maniacs (in a post apocalyptic society*) is positive.



*That last example was an attempt at humor, as feeble an attempt as it was

Why do people that want to ban firearms think those of us that own firearms should have to justify why we own them?
A better question is why you think people should be able to own them without license or training.

A better question is why you think people should be able to own them without license or training.

Shall I assume you mean formal training here?

Oddly, my little brother (14 years younger than me) was taught how to fire a .22 rifle at school. Would something like that work for you?

So you are saying a couple of people waving around pistols could have stopped some one who shot himself in the face. You arn't going to stop a murder-suicide by pointing guns, ever heard of suicide by police?


If a person has a CCW permit, they have been trained in how to handle a firearm, and wouldn't be waving it around. They would be pointing their firearms at the specific target.

I don't think students would be able to stop the gunman in the VA Tech case, without discharging their firearms, but in the Appalachian school shooting, it wasn't necessary to shoot the assailant.

Shall I assume you mean formal training here?

Oddly, my little brother (14 years younger than me) was taught how to fire a .22 rifle at school. Would something like that work for you?
No, it wouldn't. You can't be assured every person is taught to use a gun without required formal training.

If a person has a CCW permit, they have been trained in how to handle a firearm, and wouldn't be waving it around. They would be pointing their firearms at the specific target.
Nitpicking doesn't void my point.

I don't think students would be able to stop the gunman in the VA Tech case, without discharging their firearms.
Bingo. If you admit it, then the discussion of "this case would have been different with an armed student body" is over. Pro-gun side lost.

I guess you missed the link to the Appalachian school shooting that was stopped by students with guns.

That's not entirely a balanced claim.

The evidence strongly suggests that the 'shooter' at the ASoL might have been out of ammo.

None of the students had to fire shots in order to disarm the 'shooter', and the article says it is unclear if there was any ammo in the gun - but that the two clips were empty. (Am I reading that right? How can it be 'unclear?)

On the other hand, that 'shooter' did shoot a number of people. So - students with guns didn't actually have any value for prevention.

Oh yeah, that makes it real hard for people to go on killing sprees, making long arms easily ownable and all.


Too fucking bad. Maybe we should just hand out guns to all people 21 and older and hope they know how to use it safely and won't do anything stupid with it.

Long arms still need the federal background check performed, before they can be sold to a person.

Shooting clubs do not provide training, they provide a place for people to shoot. And nowhere did I advocate giving everyone over 21 a firearm. I do encourage everyone that wants a firearm, to take a training course (I took the NRA Basic Pistol course, which has both classroom training and range time).

If a person has a CCW permit, they have been trained in how to handle a firearm, and wouldn't be waving it around. They would be pointing their firearms at the specific target.

I don't think students would be able to stop the gunman in the VA Tech case, without discharging their firearms, but in the Appalachian school shooting, it wasn't necessary to shoot the assailant.

Didn't the VA Tech case actually take place on two separate locations, separated by something like two hours? Couldn't the argument be made that traditional law enforcement should have been able to deal with this situation?

Wouldn't other armed students have just exacerbated the problem for legitimate law enforcers?

A better question is why you think people should be able to own them without license or training.


I do think people should be encouraged to get training, and I have said that many times before on other firearms threads, and at least once in this thread.

Limiting firearms to those people who can afford to join a club (which can cost hundreds of dollars a year), or those who wish to have a hunting license (which in CT, is only good for a year and requires a hunter's safety course) isn't fair to those of us that can't afford the club, and don't currently have a wish or ability to hunt.

I don't buy it.

If you can afford to purchase a gun, and you can afford to do the things necessary to own a gun (like training courses, etc)... why can't you afford to be in a club, or own a certain license?

Wouldn't it be 'worth' finding some way to fund gunclub membership, just so that you could create the perception of control, to the outsider?

Personally - I don't see it as particularly unfair to say "it's going to cost you $200 per year, to keep hold of that instrument of death".

That's not entirely a balanced claim.

The evidence strongly suggests that the 'shooter' at the ASoL might have been out of ammo.

None of the students had to fire shots in order to disarm the 'shooter', and the article says it is unclear if there was any ammo in the gun - but that the two clips were empty. (Am I reading that right? How can it be 'unclear?)

On the other hand, that 'shooter' did shoot a number of people. So - students with guns didn't actually have any value for prevention.

We could also make mention of the Case shooting a couple of years back, where an off-duty sheriffs deputy/student had his personal pistol with him, and proved to be vital in defusing that incident.

I don't buy it.

If you can afford to purchase a gun, and you can afford to do the things necessary to own a gun (like training courses, etc)... why can't you afford to be in a club, or own a certain license?

Wouldn't it be 'worth' finding some way to fund gunclub membership, just so that you could create the perception of control, to the outsider?

Personally - I don't see it as particularly unfair to say "it's going to cost you $200 per year, to keep hold of that instrument of death".

Well, I, the US Courts and the People of the United States would rather disagree.

I don't buy it.

If you can afford to purchase a gun, and you can afford to do the things necessary to own a gun (like training courses, etc)... why can't you afford to be in a club, or own a certain license?

Wouldn't it be 'worth' finding some way to fund gunclub membership, just so that you could create the perception of control, to the outsider?

Personally - I don't see it as particularly unfair to say "it's going to cost you $200 per year, to keep hold of that instrument of death".


I took a training course before I purchased my firearm (I have said that before in other firearms threads). The shooting club closest to me costs $500/year, and requires 20 hours or more/year of work on behalf of the club (at my current pay rate of $17.51/hr, that works out to an additional $350.20 worth of benefit to the club). All that for a club that's only open on weekends, which I work (therefore, the club would be useless to me). Also, why do I need to create the perception of control of my firearm? The only people that know I have one are my family (so it's not like they're going to steal it), and the people on a few internet forums (none of which know who I am, where I live, etc).

Personally, I don't see why I would have to pay a yearly fee to own an inanimate object that can't do anything on it's own, especially since when I'm not using it at the (state owned, free) public range, it's locked with a trigger lock, in a case with a combination lock, the case is stored in a gun safe, and the safe is (somewhat) hidden in the pig sty that is my room.

We could also make mention of the Case shooting a couple of years back, where an off-duty sheriffs deputy/student had his personal pistol with him, and proved to be vital in defusing that incident.

The problem with occassional, incidental cases that support - is that incidents like the VA Tech thing are also occassional, incidental cases... that tend to cast gun ownership in quite the opposite light.

Overall, then - the best you are going to do is break even - but you can't even get that. So, the perception is 'more harm than good'.

I took a training course before I purchased my firearm (I have said that before in other firearms threads). The shooting club closest to me costs $500/year, and requires 20 hours or more/year of work on behalf of the club (at my current pay rate of $17.51/hr, that works out to an additional $350.20 worth of benefit to the club). All that for a club that's only open on weekends, which I work (therefore, the club would be useless to me). Also, why do I need to create the perception of control of my firearm? The only people that know I have one are my family (so it's not like they're going to steal it), and the people on a few internet forums (none of which know who I am, where I live, etc).

Personally, I don't see why I would have to pay a yearly fee to own an inanimate object that can't do anything on it's own, especially since when I'm not using it at the (state owned, free) public range, it's locked with a trigger lock, in a case with a combination lock, the case is stored in a gun safe, and the safe is (somewhat) hidden in the pig sty that is my room.

Like I pointed out earlier in the thread, if mandatory membership in a shooting club was required to obtain and keep firearms, more clubs would spring up or the ones existing would expand their activity and prices for membership would drop as costs are divided between more members. More clubs also means higher quality and increased competition resulting in even lower costs and less work in the club as more members could split the time. It is a fair and reasonable compromise to allow people with interest in gunsports to have their hobby and increase the safety of every member of society.

Well, I, the US Courts and the People of the United States would rather disagree.

You don't think it is worth supporting gunclubs to try to alleviate perceptions of risk?

You don't value the privilege to own a weapon, enough to be willing to pay for that?

You don't think it is worth supporting gunclubs to try to alleviate perceptions of risk?

You don't value the privilege to own a weapon, enough to be willing to pay for that?

No more than I would pay for the "privilege" of free speech or freedom from compelled self-incrimination or due process.

We don't have a privilege in this country to keep and bear arms, we have a right.

I took a training course before I purchased my firearm (I have said that before in other firearms threads). The shooting club closest to me costs $500/year, and requires 20 hours or more/year of work on behalf of the club (at my current pay rate of $17.51/hr, that works out to an additional $350.20 worth of benefit to the club). All that for a club that's only open on weekends, which I work (therefore, the club would be useless to me). Also, why do I need to create the perception of control of my firearm? The only people that know I have one are my family (so it's not like they're going to steal it), and the people on a few internet forums (none of which know who I am, where I live, etc).

Personally, I don't see why I would have to pay a yearly fee to own an inanimate object that can't do anything on it's own, especially since when I'm not using it at the (state owned, free) public range, it's locked with a trigger lock, in a case with a combination lock, the case is stored in a gun safe, and the safe is (somewhat) hidden in the pig sty that is my room.

The 'right' to bear arms, is on it's way out. Just like the death penalty. Both are artifacts that have survived because the US so frantically resists change. But - eventually, both of those institutions will fall in this nation - if it lasts long enough.

The only hope that there is to prolong, and maybe avert, the eventual tide - will be to be seen as part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.

At the moment, gun lobbyists are their own worst enemies.

You don't think it is worth supporting gunclubs to try to alleviate perceptions of risk?

You don't value the privilege to own a weapon, enough to be willing to pay for that?

Some people obviously think that slaughtered innocents are a small price to pay to avoid paying a few hundred bucks to learn how to fire a gun before purchase...

The 'right' to bear arms, is on it's way out. Just like the death penalty. Both are artifacts that have survived because the US so frantically resists change. But - eventually, both of those institutions will fall in this nation - if it lasts long enough.

The only hope that there is to prolong, and maybe avert, the eventual tide - will be to be seen as part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.

At the moment, gun lobbyists are their own worst enemies.

Actually, the opposite appears to be true, so you'll need to be really specific in defending the outlandish stuff you just posted.

The AWB, which failed to do anything except lose elections for the democrats, is probably not going to be reinstated.

A federal court in DC has for the first time ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is not 'collective,' and that "the people" in the second amendment refers to the same individuals as "the people" does in the rest of the bill of rights.

Castle Doctrine and CCW laws are on the ascendant, and a lot of people seem to be realizing that a guy with a CCW at virginia tech could have stopped this massacre.

The media hasnt rushed to demonize the eeeeewiilll scaaaaaawwwwwwyyyy guns that were used.

Like I pointed out earlier in the thread, if mandatory membership in a shooting club was required to obtain and keep firearms, more clubs would spring up or the ones existing would expand their activity and prices for membership would drop as costs are divided between more members. More clubs also means higher quality and increased competition resulting in even lower costs and less work in the club as more members could split the time. It is a fair and reasonable compromise to allow people with interest in gunsports to have their hobby and increase the safety of every member of society.


I don't believe that more shooting clubs would open up, as it seems that more rural areas are being gobbled up for housing. Also, I live in a (relatively) affluent area, where the club fees aren't a nuisance to many of the members (I live in the same town as the largest casino in the world), and the housing lots are large.

Encouraged is not required. You can say people should be "encouraged" all you want because it has no meaning. People should be required to know how to handle a gun properly and to do that there has to be required formal firearms training.


So, do we add that to the Physical Education curriculum, or add another elective class?

I do think people should be encouraged to get training, and I have said that many times before on other firearms threads, and at least once in this thread.
Encouraged is not required. You can say people should be "encouraged" all you want because it has no meaning. People should be required to know how to handle a gun properly and to do that there has to be required formal firearms training.

I don't see why I would have to pay a yearly fee to own an inanimate object that can't do anything on it's own,
Try and pull that shit with cars.
You have to have a license stating you know how to use a car legally and safely and a proof that your car is insured against accident, as wlel as the license you have to pay for every year. Suggest that for guns and the pro-gun crowd goes ape.

If it were up to me, I'd remove all guns owned by civilian from society.

That would not work in reality in the US today though. There are too many guns, and the gun culture is far to ingrained in society.

I do believe that the easy access to guns are part of the problem, but it's not the only one. The culture of violence and wrongful gun-use needs to change. In addition, one needs to focus on communication and trust, especially where young people are concerned. One also have to somehow make society generally feel safer.

So yes, guns don't kill people; but they make it a hell of a lot easier when Random Joe feels like killing.

Encouraged is not required. You can say people should be "encouraged" all you want because it has no meaning. People should be required to know how to handle a gun properly and to do that there has to be required formal firearms training.


Try and pull that shit with cars.
You have to have a license stating you know how to use a car legally and safely and a proof that your car is insured against accident, as wlel as the license you have to pay for every year. Suggest that for guns and the pro-gun crowd goes ape.


WRONG!

I can own a car, have no insurance and no license (in fact, I have). I can even drive it on my own property (done that too). I only needed to get my license and insurance when I started driving my car on public roads.

WRONG!

I can own a car, have no insurance and no license (in fact, I have). I can even drive it on my own property (done that too). I only needed to get my license and insurance when I started driving my car on public roads.
You already admitted you used your gun in a publicly owned shooting range. You are using your weapon in public, around other people. Nice try.

So, do we add that to the Physical Education curriculum, or add another elective class?
Gaining your license to drive is not part of school education. Driver's Ed is just a frivolous class for people who want lower premiums and don't have anyone to teach them.

You already admitted you used your gun in a publicly owned shooting range. You are using your weapon in public, around other people. Nice try.


Gaining your license to drive is not part of school education. Driver's Ed is just a frivolous class for people who want lower premiums and don't have anyone to teach them.


Just as a correction, it's a state DEP owned range (it's in a state forest). And there's nothing stopping me from going to my sister's house to shoot (my sister and brother in law have enough land, that's where he shoots, and I've been invited to shoot there). So, if licenses were suddenly required to shoot at a public/state owned range, I could just skip the process and go there.

Also, when I took driver's education, it was at the school, subject to all the school rules, required by the state for anyone under 18, and subsidized by the school system. Therefore, it was part of the school education.

WRONG!

I can own a car, have no insurance and no license (in fact, I have). I can even drive it on my own property (done that too). I only needed to get my license and insurance when I started driving my car on public roads.

Maybe in your state - but I wonder if you have just never checked.... in Georgia, even if you only ever drive it on your own property, if it COULD be driven on the road, it has to be insured.

Actually, the opposite appears to be true, so you'll need to be really specific in defending the outlandish stuff you just posted.

The AWB, which failed to do anything except lose elections for the democrats, is probably not going to be reinstated.

A federal court in DC has for the first time ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is not 'collective,' and that "the people" in the second amendment refers to the same individuals as "the people" does in the rest of the bill of rights.

Castle Doctrine and CCW laws are on the ascendant, and a lot of people seem to be realizing that a guy with a CCW at virginia tech could have stopped this massacre.

The media hasnt rushed to demonize the eeeeewiilll scaaaaaawwwwwwyyyy guns that were used.

You want me to present some really specific stuff, to defend a trend?

You've presented one or two statistical blips, nothing more.

Maybe in your state - but I wonder if you have just never checked.... in Georgia, even if you only ever drive it on your own property, if it COULD be driven on the road, it has to be insured.

I did not know that. What determines if it COULD be driven on the road?

Actually, the opposite appears to be true, so you'll need to be really specific in defending the outlandish stuff you just posted.

The AWB, which failed to do anything except lose elections for the democrats, is probably not going to be reinstated.

A federal court in DC has for the first time ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is not 'collective,' and that "the people" in the second amendment refers to the same individuals as "the people" does in the rest of the bill of rights.

Castle Doctrine and CCW laws are on the ascendant, and a lot of people seem to be realizing that a guy with a CCW at virginia tech could have stopped this massacre.

The media hasnt rushed to demonize the eeeeewiilll scaaaaaawwwwwwyyyy guns that were used.

If I remember rightly the police were on campus with weapons and failed to stop it.

Whatever is discussed about Universities I think what should be a stopping point is schools, which I think absolutely have to stay a gun free zone.

You want me to present some really specific stuff, to defend a trend?

You've presented one or two statistical blips, nothing more.

No, you need to present some very specific evidence that such a trend exists to begin with.

That was your outlandish claim, that gun rights are on the decline in the US, and that they are doomed to dissapear.

Specific evidence, not just "buh buh buh buh buh i said so"

Just as a correction, it's a state DEP owned range (it's in a state forest). And there's nothing stopping me from going to my sister's house to shoot (my sister and brother in law have enough land, that's where he shoots, and I've been invited to shoot there). So, if licenses were suddenly required to shoot at a public/state owned range, I could just skip the process and go there.
How is that different from throwing a fit about having to license your weapon?

Also, when I took driver's education, it was at the school, subject to all the school rules, required by the state for anyone under 18, and subsidized by the school system. Therefore, it was part of the school education.
Driver's ed doesn't give you a license.

I did not know that. What determines if it COULD be driven on the road?
I'd presume if it had wheels and a motor.

If I remember rightly the police were on campus with weapons and failed to stop it.

Whatever is discussed about Universities I think what should be a stopping point is schools, which I think absolutely have to stay a gun free zone.

Schools for children? Sure

Colleges for adults? No.

If VA Tech was a gun-free zone, how was there possibly a shooting rampage?

Maybe someone forgot to tell him that he wasnt allowed to have a gun on campus because it was a gun-free zone? Maybe he didnt see the sign?

The fact that VA Tech is a victim disarmament zone is what allowed this maniac to kill as many people as he wanted.

VA law establishes concealed carry for responsible, law abiding adults above the age of 21. Why should a school ban the most responsible and law abiding of all gun owners from keeping concealed weapons on campus, for just such an emergency?

"Gun free zone" - 32
CCW - 0

Schools for children? Sure

Colleges for adults? No.

If VA Tech was a gun-free zone, how was there possibly a shooting rampage?

Maybe someone forgot to tell him that he wasnt allowed to have a gun on campus because it was a gun-free zone? Maybe he didnt see the sign?

The fact that VA Tech is a victim disarmament zone is what allowed this maniac to kill as many people as he wanted.

VA law establishes concealed carry for responsible, law abiding adults above the age of 21. Why should a school ban the most responsible and law abiding of all gun owners from keeping concealed weapons on campus, for just such an emergency?

"Gun free zone" - 32
CCW - 0

It wasn't gun free. After the first incident gun carrying police were on campus, and failed to stop anything (this is off the top of my head and will be retracted in the face of conflicting evidence).

If VA Tech was a gun-free zone, how was there possibly a shooting rampage?


But your logic is flawed. The campus wasn't a gun free zone. I have heard from engineering students (on an Erasmus type year programme) that often times they would be invited to other students dorms' so they could show off their gun collection.

That culture was alien to the Erasmus students. They couldn't understand the purpose of having a gun collection, let alone on campus in their dorms.

How is that different from throwing a fit about having to license your weapon?


Driver's ed doesn't give you a license.


I'd presume if it had wheels and a motor.


It's different because the offer is already there, and isn't contingent on a law that would require gun licenses. I could go up to my sister's house this Friday, and shoot with my brother in law.

I know that Driver's Ed doesn't give you a license to drive. But if you want to require training to get a license (for anything), you should at least provide a way for people to get the training.

Wheels and a motor do not a road-worthy vehicle make. Does the vehicle need a windshield to be considered able to drive on the road? What about seatbelts?

"Maybe in your state - but I wonder if you have just never checked.... in Georgia, even if you only ever drive it on your own property, if it COULD be driven on the road, it has to be insured."---Grave_n_idle

Then Georgia must have different laws than any of the states i know. In other states, it is the driver that needs insurance, not the car. And a person does not need to be insured to drive on private property.....well, assuming they have permission to be driving on the property. If you do not, then for all i know you can get in trouble for not having insurance as well as the whole trespassing thing

But your logic is flawed. The campus wasn't a gun free zone. I have heard from engineering students (on an Erasmus type year programme) that often times they would be invited to other students dorms' so they could show off their gun collection.

That culture was alien to the Erasmus students. They couldn't understand the purpose of having a gun collection, let alone on campus in their dorms.

http://www.judicial.vt.edu/upsl.php#studentcode

"Unauthorized possession, storage (in vehicles on campus as well as in the residence halls), or control of firearms and weapons on university property is prohibited."

Regardless of what you say you heard from someone who says he saw guns in a dorm room at some point, the rules of VATech established it as a gun-free zone.

If the rules said no guns, then how did this tragedy happen? Didn't this guy know the rules???

Does the vehicle need a windshield to be considered able to drive on the road? What about seatbelts?
Those don't have anything to do with being able to drive on the road. Motorcycles have neither, well some have windshields but that is neither here nor there.

http://www.judicial.vt.edu/upsl.php#studentcode

"Unauthorized possession, storage (in vehicles on campus as well as in the residence halls), or control of firearms and weapons on university property is prohibited."

Regardless of what you say you heard from someone who says he saw guns in a dorm room at some point, the rules of VATech established it as a gun-free zone.

If the rules said no guns, then how did this tragedy happen? Didn't this guy know the rules???

Gee, d'ya think maybe not all people abide by the rules? :rolleyes:

Those don't have anything to do with being able to drive on the road. Motorcycles have neither, well some have windshields but that is neither here nor there.

It's too bad I couldn't respond to what you originally wrote before you edited (you left yourself open).

Motorcycles aren't enclosed vehicles, either. Enclosed vehicles need windshields and seatbelts, in order to keep the passengers safe. Also, a vehicle that isn't street legal CAN'T, by definition, be driven on the road.

Also, a vehicle that isn't street legal CAN'T, by definition, be driven on the road.
Unless you're a farmer.

Unless you're a farmer.

Huh? Farmers who drive vehicles on the road have to follow the same laws as everyone else.


ETA: I think we should table the vehicle conversation, or start a new thread. We're starting to get off topic.

Gee, d'ya think maybe not all people abide by the rules? :rolleyes:

Which is an essential part of the argument against gun bans. There is already a deeply rooted, well established gun culture in the United States, and even if you attempt to ban guns, there is no way to guarantee collection of much more than a fraction of a percent, without invasive searches and seizures of vast numbers of American homes.



There are 192 million (http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt) privately owned firearms in the United States. Many for protection, many for sport, many are just simply heirlooms. To even think that a sizable portion of those weapons could be rounded up, knowing the current attitudes that have been displayed in weapons-free zones, is absolutely ludicrous. The only gun that my parents own is a single shot .22 Springfield Model 14 that my Grandfather received from his Grandfather on his 13th birthday. It's there solely for the sentimental value of the object, my parents don't even have bullets.

All that a gun ban would succeed in doing is turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals in the act.

You don't think it is worth supporting gunclubs to try to alleviate perceptions of risk?

You don't value the privilege to own a weapon, enough to be willing to pay for that?

Constitutionally, it's not a privilege to own a weapon, no more so than it is a privilege to vote or speak my mind without fear of direct governmental consequence.

Gee, d'ya think maybe not all people abide by the rules? :rolleyes:

But but but but, wouldnt that imply that a policy banning responsible people from concealing guns doesn't stop criminals and irresponsible people?

Why, if this is the case, then allowing responsible people to conceal guns would only result in more responsible people with guns!

Now imagine if there had been one of those responsible people with a concealed handgun at VATech yesterday.

Might the 'score card' look different than

Gun free zone - 32
CCW - 0

??

All that a gun ban would succeed in doing is turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals in the act.

I wasn't arguing that.
NG said the campus was a gun free zone and the situation would have been different if guns were allowed on campus.

I gave anecdotal evidence showing there were guns on campus, thereby not making it a gun free zone, and disproving his point that if guns were on campus, the result would have been different.

I don't think this has anything to do with a gun ban. It wouldn't change anything solidly. It's more to do with an 'American' culture that permeates the society.

The Frontier times, the Alamo, the Wild West, the idolising of people/characters like John Wayne - eras, events and figures that are central to a lot of American culture and heroic lore: also eras and events that were brutal, violent and centred on guns. It's less to do with banning them and more to do with the culture they are so deeply engrained in. Nothing will change until that mentality is changed.

I wasn't arguing that.
NG said the campus was a gun free zone and the situation would have been different if guns were allowed on campus.

I gave anecdotal evidence showing there were guns on campus, thereby not making it a gun free zone, and disproving his point that if guns were on campus, the result would have been different.

I don't think this has anything to do with a gun ban. It wouldn't change anything solidly. It's more to do with an 'American' culture that permeates the society.

The Frontier times, the Alamo, the Wild West, the idolising of people/characters like John Wayne - eras, events and figures that are central to a lot of American culture and heroic lore: also eras and events that were brutal, violent and centred on guns. It's less to do with banning them and more to do with the culture they are so deeply engrained in. Nothing will change until that mentality is changed.


Some kids who keep a rifle hidden in their dorm, supposedly, according to your purported account of what some anonymous person said he saw :rolleyes: is quite different from a policy that would let people with CCW licenses keep guns concealed on their persons on class.

One person in one of those classes with one handgun could have stopped that maniac and saved countless lives.

Gun free zone - 32
CCW - 0

Some kids who keep a rifle hidden in their dorm, supposedly, according to your purported account of what some anonymous person said he saw :rolleyes: is quite different from a policy that would let people with CCW licenses keep guns concealed on their persons on class.
I said nothing about 'a rifle'. I said 'gun collection' (her own words) from a member of a group of engineering students who are there on an exchange programme.

One person in one of those classes with one handgun could have stopped that maniac and saved countless lives.

Gun free zone - 32
CCW - 0
Thats a big 'if' argument.
You said if there were guns on campus, it would have been different. I gave you anecdotal evidence of guns on campus.

Guess what? The result was the same. You're arguing over a pedantic point for no reason I can fathom.

"But if we allow students to carry guns, we can prevent this from happening again" - But we also increase the odds and danger of something like this happening again by the sheer increase and presence of firearms in the area.

I said nothing about 'a rifle'. I said 'gun collection' (her own words) from a member of a group of engineering students who are there on an exchange programme.


Thats a big 'if' argument.
You said if there were guns on campus, it would have been different. I gave you anecdotal evidence of guns on campus.

Guess what? The result was the same. You're arguing over a pedantic point for no reason I can fathom.

"But if we allow students to carry guns, we can prevent this from happening again" - But we also increase the odds and danger of something like this happening again by the sheer increase and presence of firearms in the area.

No, I didnt say "if there were guns on campus," you wont score any points with this asinine strawman nonsense. I'm not interested at all in whether or not you misunderstood what I meant, or are just posting this crap as a strawman argument.

My contention from the beginning has been not "guns on campus" (which would include all the guns locked up in the police station there, any gun buried in concrete, any gun on top of a flag pole, any other gun not relevant to self-defense, in other words)

but CONCEALED CARRY OF HANDGUNS BY STUDENTS AND FACULTY

SO that you don't make the same mistake again, i'm going to repeat it for you

"Concealed carry of handguns by students and faculty"

and then one more time, in case you still don't get it

Concealed. Carry. Of. Handguns. By. Students. And. Faculty.


Your maybe-exists-maybe-doesnt friend's maybe-happened-maybe-didnt experience with "gun collections" doesnt have any bearing at all on the school's gun-free policy and rule against concealed carry.

A concealed handgun on the person of one of the people there as the shooter was massacring his disarmed victims could have stopped him. A CCW holder must qualify shooting the gun, &c. Not such a big "if."

Don't bother, you are wasting your time. Granada will not actually read what you are saying and then repeat inane arguments.

Even Gun Manufacturers admitted that in this, and other murder-suicide cases, guns on campus (even when drawn) would have no effect.

They will have no deterrent effect, rather they will have a counterforce effect.

Thats a big 'if' argument.
You said if there were guns on campus, it would have been different. I gave you anecdotal evidence of guns on campus.
Don't bother, you are wasting your time. Granada will not actually read what you are saying and then repeat inane arguments.

Even Gun Manufacturers admitted that in this, and other murder-suicide cases, guns on campus (even when drawn) would have no effect.

It's weird. It really is like talking to some sort of inanimate object.

Clever. :rolleyes:

I'd imagine NG would say the exact same thing about talking to you.

Don't bother, you are wasting your time. Granada will not actually read what you are saying and then repeat inane arguments.

Even Gun Manufacturers admitted that in this, and other murder-suicide cases, guns on campus (even when drawn) would have no effect.

It's weird. It really is like talking to some sort of inanimate object.

Clever. :rolleyes:

I'd imagine NG would say the exact same thing about talking to you.

I don't really care to be honest. I won't lose sleep over his opinion of me.

I said (for nigh on the tenth time): You said if there were guns on campus, it would have been different. I gave you anecdotal evidence of guns on campus. The result was the same.

He said:
"Concealed carry of handguns by students and faculty"

Now, to me and this may just be me, that would fall under "guns on campus". Why he makes it specific is beyond me. It doesn't change the point that guns were on campus - be they concealed or not.

Then this
Your maybe-exists-maybe-doesnt friend's maybe-happened-maybe-didnt experience with "gun collections" doesnt have any bearing at all on the school's gun-free policy and rule against concealed carry.

which shows that NG is allergic to some sort of evidence. I gave a perfectly legitimate eye witness account from students who are still there (and who are from my university and in the same year/course/class as a close fried of mine - who is in contact with them) NG offers..... nothing.

I'll give you the three girls names and addresses if you like, but I doubt they'd appreciate that ;)

They will have no deterrent effect, rather they will have a counterforce effect.
Even if a counterforce effect is what you're looking for, conventional firearms are only the status quo. I say again, Concealed Carry will become a viable option when weaponry that is concealable, is effective at dropping someone and that is effectively incapable of causing death can be widely distributed, and the way to get such weapons developed is to redirect the resources of the firearms industry, the people who would have the most knowledge on this sort of thing to begin with, into developing them; threatening them with legal action if necessary. Until then, we cannot justify putting weapons designed to kill in the hands of people who want those very same weapons for the stated aim of improving security.

You people didn't waste anytime using this to make a cheap political point did you? :rolleyes: What do you want to do? Arrest anybody who has a gun if they comitted a crime or not? You guys parrott what people say in support of the war on drugs, just on guns. Why don't you stop wasting peoples time and figure why he did it and get to the root of the problem instead of pointing fingers and trying to find an easy out? Instead of clamoring ban guns, try to find out why he used it in the first place and stop using deaths of innocent people to violate our rights.

Clever. :rolleyes:

I'd imagine NG would say the exact same thing about talking to you.

Except, because I respond in detail to his posts and he does not respond to mine, except to attack strawmen of his own devising, I would be more correct in that characterization.

And as an example of the kind of drive-by nonsense that passes for 'debate' here, take another poster's strawman drivel,

to wit

"guns would not stop these kind of murder/suicide cases, even if drawn"

The argument here is that drawing a weapon and threatening a maniac won't make him stop.

Sure, we can agree to this.

The dishonesty comes when he pretends that this means "therefore, guns would not stop suicide maniacs."

This is dishonest because any reasonable person should be able to figure out that "drawing a gun" is not the only thing that can be done with a gun, in fact, a person can actually shoot a gun and severely wound or kill a maniac, in that way stopping him.

Another example of this is Psycho M's contention that "VGTech was not a gun free school, because he heard from his friend that some kids had guns in their dorms somewhere at some time, therefore it was an armed campus"

The dishonest argument here is to say "because there might have been guns on campus somewhere (unloaded and locked in a dorm, perhaps, or buried in concerete, or locked in a safe - the arugment just says 'guns on campus somewhere') and the massacre was successful, having guns on campus could not prevent the massacre.

The dishonest poster ignored the fact that what he pretended to argue against was the claim that guns on the persons of responsible, trained students and faculty could have prevented the attack. This has nothing to do with whether or not kids had guns locked in their dorms, or any other kind of gun not carried on the person for the purpose of self defense.

This is called a strawman argument, and the transparency of it suggests that it must be rooted in dishonesty.

"Gun free zone" - 32
CCW - 0

This has to be wrong. Someone would have died anyway, and the rest is pure speculation.

The correct way to say it would be

"Gun free zone" - 32
CCW - ??? > 0

Don't bother, you are wasting your time. Granada will not actually read what you are saying and then repeat inane arguments.

Even Gun Manufacturers admitted that in this, and other murder-suicide cases, guns on campus (even when drawn) would have no effect.

Don't change what I said to make it fit what you want. It riles up the Irish in me. :mad:


What I said was:

I don't think students would be able to stop the gunman in the VA Tech case, without discharging their firearms, but in the Appalachian school shooting, it wasn't necessary to shoot the assailant.

Complete post is here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12553641&postcount=107

Gnaah... I'm not from the united states, so maybe I just don't get the 'american way' well enough, but I have no damn clue what the good thing about having so many handguns around might be... I mean, are americans(or let's say USians just to avoid pissing some people off) just more psycotic than most other people or do the high number of violent crimes involving firearms actually*ghasp* have something to do with 45's being readily avalible over counter in many states? I heard or read somewhere(don't ask for a source, its just a rumor, if someone wish to look it up and correct me if I'm wrong, please do) that more children are killed every year from finding and playing with their parents pistols than burglars or murderers shot annualy. If that is so, or if the numbers are even remotely accurate, it should be clear to any sane person that firearms made for anything but hunting and sports is a crazy thing to have around.
There not.

i can't believe you americans still have guns.....what is the point other than to make up for your teeny weenies!

Constitutionally, it's not a privilege to own a weapon, no more so than it is a privilege to vote or speak my mind without fear of direct governmental consequence.

The fun thing about the constitution is that Moses wasn't actually involved.

Some kids who keep a rifle hidden in their dorm, supposedly, according to your purported account of what some anonymous person said he saw :rolleyes: is quite different from a policy that would let people with CCW licenses keep guns concealed on their persons on class.

One person in one of those classes with one handgun could have stopped that maniac and saved countless lives.

Gun free zone - 32
CCW - 0

I assume you are saying that, with concealed carry, no one would have died? And, our concealed carrier was going to do what - tickle the shooter?

Add to which - we already had an example in this thread of three people with guns at a school that had a shooting... there were still people hurt and people killed.

Your numbers are conjecture, and not actually based on anything.

i can't believe you americans still have guns.....what is the point other than to make up for your teeny weenies!


I can't believe that you hoplophobes still make up false claims about people that you don't know, in a feeble attempt to belittle us for owning firearms.

I assume you are saying that, with concealed carry, no one would have died? And, our concealed carrier was going to do what - tickle the shooter?

Add to which - we already had an example in this thread of three people with guns at a school that had a shooting... there were still people hurt and people killed.

Your numbers are conjecture, and not actually based on anything.

It does prove however, that instead of 30 some odd dead, only one died and two were hurt when guns were used to defend.

You can't argue that it didn't save lives by comparison with zero defense.

A concealed handgun on the person of one of the people there as the shooter was massacring his disarmed victims could have stopped him. A CCW holder must qualify shooting the gun, &c. Not such a big "if."

Because what... good guys always win?

A student with concealed carry might have been able to do something positive.

Or - they just might not have been anywhere near the right location at the right time.

Or - they could have their gun stolen, leaving an extra unaccounted weapon on an already dangerous campus.

Or - they could be shot by the 'shooter'... in which case, concealed carry was no help.

Or - they could accidentally hit someone else trying to take down the 'shooter'.

Or - they could become a target for legitimate law enforcement, when they arrive on the scene.

etc.

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/80510

From a Virginia Tech Student who was there. I think it sums up my views. No sense in trusting your security to people who can't put an individual guard on every individual 24 hours a day to make sure bad things don't happen.
Great post, five stars! But don't try telling the anti-gun nuts this because they won't ever get it.

Because what... good guys always win?

A student with concealed carry might have been able to do something positive.

Or - they just might not have been anywhere near the right location at the right time.

Or - they could have their gun stolen, leaving an extra unaccounted weapon on an already dangerous campus.

Or - they could be shot by the 'shooter'... in which case, concealed carry was no help.

Or - they could accidentally hit someone else trying to take down the 'shooter'.

Or - they could become a target for legitimate law enforcement, when they arrive on the scene.

etc.

At the shooting at Appalachian Law School, none of those things happened...

so your conjecture is not supported by facts.

I'm not the one who came up with these thoughts and I'm sure I'm not the first to ever synthesize them into something coherent, but here it is.

I carry a handgun specifically because I do not expect trouble. Let me repeat that. I carry a handgun because I'm not looking for trouble, I'm not expecting it and I think the odds of needing it are so slim as to be almost incalculable.

A handgun is ballistically inefficient and we carry them because they are small, portable and concealable. Notwithstanding the 32 people killed with 9mm (HP or FMJ?) and .22 handguns at VT, they are not high powered. If I expect there might be trouble, I don't go there. I don't look to get into a fight, I look to avoid them. If I have to go somewhere and I think there is any chance for a gunfight, then I'm packing a rifle or a shotgun. The handgun is for when nothing should happen, but does anyway.

It does prove however, that instead of 30 some odd dead, only one died and two were hurt when guns were used to defend.

You can't argue that it didn't save lives by comparison with zero defense.

It only proves that it happened in that one case. Nothing more. The rest is pure speculation.

Could it have gotten the shooter to give himself up in this case? Doubtful, as he shot himself. No reason to believe that he planned to be captured alive.
Would CCW have saved anyone? Maybe. We don't know.
Would CCW have caused anyone to get hurt / die? Maybe. We don't know.

Everyone should remember that there are no sure answers. Everything you say about this situation is only speculation, and there are, for that matter, still things that are unknown to us.

You people didn't waste anytime using this to make a cheap political point did you? :rolleyes: What do you want to do? Arrest anybody who has a gun if they comitted a crime or not? You guys parrott what people say in support of the war on drugs, just on guns. Why don't you stop wasting peoples time and figure why he did it and get to the root of the problem instead of pointing fingers and trying to find an easy out? Instead of clamoring ban guns, try to find out why he used it in the first place and stop using deaths of innocent people to violate our rights.

The funny thing is - when no one has a gun, it's much harder to shoot someone.

The root of the problem isn't the gun - everyone knows that. But, faced with the choice of a flawed system where people can 'point' at each other, pull a trigger, and leave brains spattered on a wall... or a flawed system where people can point at each other, say 'bang',and earn themselves a weird look... the weird looks scenario just seems... I don't know... safer?

It does prove however, that instead of 30 some odd dead, only one died and two were hurt when guns were used to defend.
In what case? Not the Appalachian one, so what case are you citing?

I carry a handgun specifically because I do not expect trouble. Let me repeat that. I carry a handgun because I'm not looking for trouble, I'm not expecting it and I think the odds of needing it are so slim as to be almost incalculable.
Logically indefensible. Why carry a weapon if you don't expect trouble, much less because you don't expect trouble? The only possible reason is you have a gun fetish.


A handgun is ballistically inefficient
To do what? Kill buffalo?

and we carry them because they are small, portable and concealable.
So you have no actual reason for carrying them?

If I have to go somewhere and I think there is any chance for a gunfight, then I'm packing a rifle or a shotgun. The handgun is for when nothing should happen, but does anyway.
So you do have a gun fetish. Do you stroke your handgun at night saying "my precioussss..."?

It only proves that it happened in that one case. Nothing more. The rest is pure speculation.

I'm only talking about that one case.

The other poster seems to be doing the pure speculation about possible outcomes in a defensive situation with a firearm.

I can't believe that you hoplophobes still make up false claims about people that you don't know, in a feeble attempt to belittle us for owning firearms.

I'm not hearing a 'no'.

Everyone should remember that there are no sure answers. Everything you say about this situation is only speculation, and there are, for that matter, still things that are unknown to us.

Here's some speculation for you:

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.

And as for the peer review status of the comments above, why don't we hear from a peer reviewer:

Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995:

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. ["Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in that same issue of The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology] The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... 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."

Apparently, the pure speculation that a gun used in a defensive situation is bound to result in some catastrophic failure is false - proven by study in the US and peer reviewed as unimpeachable.

The funny thing is - when no one has a gun, it's much harder to shoot someone.

The root of the problem isn't the gun - everyone knows that. But, faced with the choice of a flawed system where people can 'point' at each other, pull a trigger, and leave brains spattered on a wall... or a flawed system where people can point at each other, say 'bang',and earn themselves a weird look... the weird looks scenario just seems... I don't know... safer?


Just how, exactly, would you ensure that you got rid of ALL firearms? Door to door involuntary searches? Offer an incentive?

The FACT of the matter is, you'll never get all of the firearms away from civilians. Criminals won't turn theirs in, and manufacturing firearms isn't rocket science. Philip Luty, a brit, wrote a book detailing how to make an open bolt, full auto, submachinegun (all in a country that has restrictive firearms laws).

It does prove however, that instead of 30 some odd dead, only one died and two were hurt when guns were used to defend.

You can't argue that it didn't save lives by comparison with zero defense.

Of course I can argue that. In the Appalachian scenario, there is more than a good chance that the 'shooter' had already run out of ammunition. Guns in the hands of other students - in that situation - would then be irrelevent.

And, different situation. We can't draw any legitimate conclusions about how many would or would not have died, because the two instances are so unalike.

Great post, five stars! But don't try telling the anti-gun nuts this because they won't ever get it.

Is another gun nut trying to say that any number of people pointing guns was going to stop a planned murder-suicide without further casualties on both the part of the pointers and the pointee, and probably some bystanders.

Of course I can argue that. In the Appalachian scenario, there is more than a good chance that the 'shooter' had already run out of ammunition. Guns in the hands of other students - in that situation - would then be irrelevent.

And, different situation. We can't draw any legitimate conclusions about how many would or would not have died, because the two instances are so unalike.

See my post about the peer reviewed study of millions of defensive gun uses.

Also, consider the following:

Gun control activists were unhappy with the National Self Defense Survey's results, which show that "Every 13 seconds an American gun owner uses a firearm in defense against a criminal."

In a 1994 TV news taping, Handgun Control, Inc.’s, spokesman, Sandy Cooney, called the National Self Defense Survey “obscene” and threw ad hominem slurs at its lead researcher, professor of criminology, Dr. Gary Kleck. Since Kleck is an impartial social scientist with no links to gun advocates or manufacturers — in fact he’s a liberal Democrat — it appears that Kleck’s only sin was doing research which produced results that challenged the gun-control agenda of Handgun Control, Inc., the "Million" Moms, and similar organizations.

So, to refute the results of the National Self Defense Survey, two pro-gun-control researchers, Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig, were given funding by the Clinton administration's Department of Justice to do their own survey of Defensive Gun Uses, to attempt to prove that the National Self Defense Survey's estimate was too high.

Unfortunately for advocates of gun control, the Cook-Ludwig survey produced results about the same as the National Self Defense Survey and -- in one remarkable paragraph -- suggested that their methodology was too conservative and that the Defensive Gun Use figure could even be doubled:

"Because respondents were asked to describe only their most recent defensive gun use, our comparisons are conservative, as they assume only one defensive gun use per defender. ...Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs[emphasis added]."

Source: The National Institute of Justice, in its survey Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig.

The Defensive Gun Use figure shown under the heading "Could It Be...?" is not intended to replace the more-accepted estimate from the National Self Defense Survey, which is 2.5 million Defensive Gun Uses per year -- one every 13 seconds. Instead, it is intended to show that the researchers who did the National Defense Survey were extremely careful in their methodology and conservative in their statements regarding its results.

Gun-control activists are always speculating, without any data, that increasing the availability of firearms will lead to gunfights at every traffic accident. The purpose of showing the higher figure of Defensive Gun Uses drawn from the Cook-Ludwig Survey is to show that even gun-control advocates produce research which show that Defensive Gun Uses are far more common than any tragedies correlated to easy gun availability

You can't throw around cites without citing the source. Bad everything.
Maybe you should just sit back and stroke the preciousss some more.

At the shooting at Appalachian Law School, none of those things happened...


Don't be ridiculous. Because no shots were fired by the other three students there, we can safely assume that no shots would have been fired this time?

Because no innocents were caught in crossfires targetting 'the shooter' there, we can safely assume no one ever gets caught in crossfires?

At the Appaclachian school, the gun seems to have been empty - they could have subdued him without guns. If we are going to apply your bizarre 'it happened once, it must happen everytime' logic, three students could have subdued the Tech shooter with their bare hands.

I can't believe that you hoplophobes still make up false claims about people that you don't know, in a feeble attempt to belittle us for owning firearms.

yes being worried about people roaming the streets with guns truely is a bad thing....

in england we dont have guns so we dont have horrible disasters like this happen its pretty simple really...

I'm not hearing a 'no'.

Feel free to hear and believe what you want, regardless of the truth.

I want to know what case Remote is talking about where only 1 person died and only 2 were injured, because it isn't the Appalachian case.

I'm only talking about that one case.

The other poster seems to be doing the pure speculation about possible outcomes in a defensive situation with a firearm.
There are also others who seem to claim that CCW would, in this case, have resulted in 0 deaths...

And in that one case you're talking about, remember the possibility that he was out of ammo. At least, that's what wiki is saying.
Here's some speculation for you:

And as for the peer review status of the comments above, why don't we hear from a peer reviewer:

Apparently, the pure speculation that a gun used in a defensive situation is bound to result in some catastrophic failure is false - proven by study in the US and peer reviewed as unimpeachable.
In most normal cases, this is true. But can one say the same when it's a shooter who's on a random killing spree like this case? I don't see that you can. And I therefor stand by my statement that we don't know if more people would have died in the chaotic situation this case presented if the students had been armed.

You can't throw around cites without citing the source. Bad everything.
Maybe you should just sit back and stroke the preciousss some more.

National Self Defense Survey

Why don't you Google it?

See my post about the peer reviewed study of millions of defensive gun uses.


Why? It's irrelevent.

Try to address the points being debated, rather than trying to turn the debate into an opportunity to preach.

How many of the cases of defensive use... only necessitate use BECAUSE there is an assailant armed with a gun? How many times does a gun feaute in a potential crime that doesn't ever get to the point where legal action is taken?

National Self Defense Survey

Why don't you Google it?

Oh, and since it's peer reviewed, and the anti-gun reviewers found it without a single flaw, don't bother trying to pick it apart.

Why? It's irrelevent.

Try to address the points being debated, rather than trying to turn the debate into an opportunity to preach.

How many of the cases of defensive use... only necessitate use BECAUSE there is an assailant armed with a gun? How many times does a gun feaute in a potential crime that doesn't ever get to the point where legal action is taken?

The defensive uses somehow aren't devolving into the wild west shootouts or innocent civilians killed in crossfires that you have been pulling out of thin air.

National Self Defense Survey

Why don't you Google it?
Why don't you cite it.

National Self Defense Survey

Why don't you Google it?

Because there are multiple ones, meaning everyone would have to be searched through to find the one being sourced.

Why don't you cite it.

Why don't you pay for it?

http://jrc.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/35/2/193

"And I therefor stand by my statement that we don't know if more people would have died in the chaotic situation this case presented if the students had been armed."---Gravlen

Just as we don't know that firing a machine gun into a crowded room for 5 minutes will actually hit anybody....because we haven't done it. But statistically, it is far more likely than not.

Same thing with a defensive shooter. Statistically, far fewer people get killed in a crossfire, than when the shooters are actually aiming at them.

At work today a coworker was telling me what kind of gun the Va Tech attacker used, and I said that this was a good argument for gun control. Another passing worker overheard me say that and said "How so?" with an argumentative tone. To make a long story short, he disagreed and stated "When someone threatens my First Amendment rights, I get riled up."

I left it at that.

Feel free to hear and believe what you want, regardless of the truth.

Again, I'm not hearing a 'no'.

Freud had theories about compensation - about aggression - especially in the young - being directly related to feelings of sexual inadequacy. His ideas would suggest that every young male compares himself to his father, and finds himself wanting, and attempts to compensate for it through aggression.

Thus - a young male will want to carry a gun, for example, because it increases his aggressive potential, compensating for the fact that he feels he cannot genitally match-up to his parental rolemodel.

It isn't so much that people want guns because they have tiny penises - more that they want guns to compensate for their fears that they have tiny penises.

Here you go pantless, since you're cheap.

The summary of the National Self Defense Survey.

Once again - its data and conclusions are found by peer review by anti-gun reviewers to be unimpeachable.

http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

The defensive uses somehow aren't devolving into the wild west shootouts or innocent civilians killed in crossfires that you have been pulling out of thin air.

I think you are cognizant that your argument is sufficiently weak, that you have begun constructing strawman defenses, yes?

Also - let us look at what you are claiming - you are implying that there is never a crossfire, never an injured spectator, never an escalation of arms, in these alleged 'defensive ises' scenarios.

One of us is being unrealistic. And, let me give you a clue... it's not the one who feels the need for weapons that can kill at a distance. That's a reassuring thought.

To make a long story short, he disagreed and stated "When someone threatens my First Amendment rights, I get riled up."

I left it at that.

*nervous laughter*

I'd keep an eye on him...

Just as we don't know that firing a machine gun into a crowded room for 5 minutes will actually hit anybody....because we haven't done it. But statistically, it is far more likely than not.

Same thing with a defensive shooter. Statistically, far fewer people get killed in a crossfire, than when the shooters are actually aiming at them.
Possibly, but we don't know what would have happened in this case, do we now...

And there haven't been presented any statistics to show how many people actually die in a crossfire, nor anything to indicate how many (if any) would have died in a panicky and chaotic situation such as this one.

Again, I'm not hearing a 'no'.

Freud had theories about compensation - about aggression - especially in the young - being directly related to feelings of sexual inadequacy. His ideas would suggest that every young male compares himself to his father, and finds himself wanting, and attempts to compensate for it through aggression.

Thus - a young male will want to carry a gun, for example, because it increases his aggressive potential, compensating for the fact that he feels he cannot genitally match-up to his parental rolemodel.

It isn't so much that people want guns because they have tiny penises - more that they want guns to compensate for their fears that they have tiny penises.

I have a firearm because I enjoy punching little holes in paper, from hundreds of yards, away. I didn't buy my rifle to increase my aggression potential, and I'm hoping that I never have to use my rifle against anyone.

My brother in law, his brother in law, and my brother in law's father have firearms because they like deer meat.

My uncle has firearms because he's required to (he's a cop), but also because he inherited some (family heirlooms).

If you want to start throwing around Freud quotes, in the book General Introduction to Psychoanalysis, he said, "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity".

Oh, and since it's peer reviewed, and the anti-gun reviewers found it without a single flaw, don't bother trying to pick it apart.

'Peer review' is a basic quality test. It can tell you whether the study passes a minimum standard of rigour. It cannot tell you if the study is right, and it certainly isn't gospel.

And, because one peer didn't find anything outrageous to fight, doesn't mean the study is secure.

Looking at just the excerpt you cited, I can see immediate flaws in the data - most notably:

1) The whole figure of 'defensive use' is pure extrapolation from a much smaller test group. We have no way of knowing how realistic a representation that group provides - we certainly should admit we don't KNOW how many defensive uses there actually are... we are just guessing.

But - more importantly:

2) The test is based on entirely subjective evidence. The paradigm which is being assessed isn't about something that can be measured - actual recorded confrontations, shots fired, documented events... it is based on personal opinion. They asked people, basically: 'what do you think...?' It has value as an opinion piece... but much less so as a real study of anything material.

If you want to start throwing around Freud quotes, in the book General Introduction to Psychoanalysis, he said, "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity".

I always loved that argument. "Anyone who doesn't love guns or even like them, is afraid of them".

Fear isn't the opposite of liking something.

I have a firearm because I enjoy punching little holes in paper, from hundreds of yards, away. I didn't buy my rifle to increase my aggression potential, and I'm hoping that I never have to use my rifle against anyone.

My brother in law, his brother in law, and my brother in law's father have firearms because they like deer meat.

My uncle has firearms because he's required to (he's a cop), but also because he inherited some (family heirlooms).


Of course - you must realise that this doesn't oppose the idea of compensation? Indeed - if just about everyone in a family engages in an activity that might be considered compensation for genital inadequacy... might that not just bear testament to the fact that genital size is hereditary?

You've all got very good 'reasons' why you want... or even 'need' guns. That doesn't mean those reasons are the underlying base reason.


If you want to start throwing around Freud quotes, in the book General Introduction to Psychoanalysis, he said, "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity".

Well, of course it is. It is an example of a castration fear. You have just presented the flipside of the same argument as an attempt at rebuttal?

"You've all got very good 'reasons' why you want... or even 'need' guns. That doesn't mean those reasons are the underlying base reason."---Grave_n_idle

Hey, i don't care if there is some sort of genetic or even psychological reason behind some people being able to understand mistakes made in history. The fact that they DO is what matters.

Even if there is a reason like that behind it (for which you have shown absolutely no evidence or backing), it doesn't change the bottom line.

Why don't you pay for it?
If you're going to be an asshat that refuses to cite supposedly peer-reviewed sources, why should anyone listen to you?

If you want to start throwing around Freud quotes, in the book General Introduction to Psychoanalysis, he said, "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity".
I'm sure Freud would have a lot to say about some one who carries around a handgun just to carry one around, *cough* Remote *cough*. A lethal weapon, carried around without rhyme or reason, admittedly. Freud loves his phallic references and if that isn't one I will eat my hat.

"You've all got very good 'reasons' why you want... or even 'need' guns. That doesn't mean those reasons are the underlying base reason."---Grave_n_idle
Try the button that says "quote."

Hey, i don't care if there is some sort of genetic or even psychological reason behind some people being able to understand mistakes made in history. The fact that they DO is what matters.
I fail to see your point, or any one at all.

Of course - you must realise that this doesn't oppose the idea of compensation? Indeed - if just about everyone in a family engages in an activity that might be considered compensation for genital inadequacy... might that not just bear testament to the fact that genital size is hereditary?

You've all got very good 'reasons' why you want... or even 'need' guns. That doesn't mean those reasons are the underlying base reason.



Well, of course it is. It is an example of a castration fear. You have just presented the flipside of the same argument as an attempt at rebuttal?

:rolleyes:

You'll read into, and believe anything you want to, regardless of what people say, to fit your view. So I'm done with this part of the conversation.

I don't like the way this site formats the quotes, so i do not use it. I was under the impression that any semi-intelligent person could still figure out what the quotation marks meant.

But as long as you feel we should be telling each other what to do....

Pantless, i order you to type up a post that actually has something useful to say.


"I fail to see your point, or any one at all."---The_pantless_hero

your failures are not my fault

Found this on another site.

Irony FTW!

Gun bill gets shot down by panel (http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658)

HB 1572, which would have allowed handguns on college campuses, died in subcommittee.

By Greg Esposito
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
381-1675

A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.

House Bill 1572 didn't get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.

The bill was proposed by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Gilbert was unavailable Monday and spokesman Gary Frink would not comment on the bill's defeat other than to say the issue was dead for this General Assembly session.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Del. Dave Nutter, R-Christiansburg, would not comment Monday because he was not part of the subcommittee that discussed the bill.

Most universities in Virginia require students and employees, other than police, to check their guns with police or campus security upon entering campus. The legislation was designed to prohibit public universities from making "rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit ... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun."

The legislation allowed for exceptions for participants in athletic events, storage of guns in residence halls and military training programs.

Last spring a Virginia Tech student was disciplined for bringing a handgun to class, despite having a concealed handgun permit. Some gun owners questioned the university's authority, while the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police came out against the presence of guns on campus.

In June, Tech's governing board approved a violence prevention policy reiterating its ban on students or employees carrying guns and prohibiting visitors from bringing them into campus facilities.
Political fallout?

Found this on another site.

Irony FTW!


Political fallout?

Umm, none.

Last spring a Virginia Tech student was disciplined for bringing a handgun to class, despite having a concealed handgun permit.

Having students bring guns into classrooms would worry me greatly as a student.

"Having students bring guns into classrooms would worry me greatly as a student."---Psychotic Mongooses

Rather a moot point. The only question is whether the students with guns will be breaking the law or not. Allow guns.....you have bad people, responsible people, etc. with guns........Don't allow guns, and you still have bad people, you still have responsible people that value their own lives above the policies of the university.....the people you don't have are the ones that follow all the university policies.....which themselves are a rather moot point when someone is willing to commit violent felonies.

Rather a moot point. The only question is whether the students with guns will be breaking the law or not. Allow guns.....you have bad people, responsible people, etc. with guns........Don't allow guns, and you still have bad people, you still have responsible people that value their own lives above the policies of the university.....the people you don't have are the ones that follow all the university policies.....which themselves are a rather moot point when someone is willing to commit violent felonies.

Yeah..... that's still not going to comfort me as I sit there being able to see his gun on him thinking "I wonder is today the day someone fucks this guy over, and its this class he wants revenge on..."

Lets just break this down to basics shall we? From what I've read the argument goes something like this -

A - If the other students had legally held guns the loony would have been stopped before he could kill so many

B - Ah, but the more guns there are about, the more opportunity there is for loonies to get hold of guns

A - But ban all the guns and only the loonies will have guns.

B - But the less guns that are in circulation, the less chance there will be of a loony getting hold of one.

A - Yes, but the less guns there are, the less chance we have of stopping the loony...........

And round and round we go.

I live in the UK and can honestly say that I have never even seen a gun that wasn't being handled by either a police officer or military personnel. The idea that I need to protect myself and my family against a gun, with a gun, just doesn't even enter my head. It just isn't an issue. No matter what your thoughts on constitutional rights or whatever, surely that situation has to be better than to live in such fear of being shot that you feel the need to be able to retaliate in kind.

I don't like the way this site formats the quotes, so i do not use it.
What you are doing is undifferentiable and therefore unreadable. Use the quote function anyway.

Pantless, i order you to type up a post that actually has something useful to say.
I am. I am providing a public service by telling you something you should already know so that people can effectively know what the fuck you are saying and to who.

your failures are not my fault
They are if you can't clearly make your point.

Yeah..... that's still not going to comfort me as I sit there being able to see his gun on him thinking "I wonder is today the day someone fucks this guy over, and its this class he wants revenge on..."

Cite for me instances when people with Concealed Carry Licenses just flipped out and started killing people. Here I'll help you, it doesn't happen. The crime rate among CCL holders is tiny. They are near you all the time, generally you never know who has one.

"What you are doing is undifferentiable and therefore unreadable."---The_pantless_hero

"I am. I am providing a public service by telling you something you should already know so that people can effectively know what the fuck you are saying and to who."---The_pantless_hero

Unreadable???? Has society sunk so far that people can use computers but are too dumb to figure out what a quotation is???? Heaven forbid they read an actual book!!! Then they wouldn't have little boxes that say 'quote'....oh my!!


Here, i will try to make the point of that post very very clear for you....

The reasons behind a sensible action or belief less important than the actual action or belief.

even simpler:

no matter what the reason behind a good thing, it is still a good thing

Cite for me instances when people with Concealed Carry Licenses just flipped out and started killing people. Here I'll help you, it doesn't happen. The crime rate among CCL holders is tiny.

The South Korean guy got his gun a week or two ago. His background check was clean, his record was fine, he was a "responsible" owner. Doesn't really matter whether it's fucking concealed or not. If he's not searched, no one's going to know until he whips it out in class and starts unloading.

Bit late to go "Er, excuse me. I don't believe you have a concealed lic........"

They are near you all the time, generally you never know who has one.
That's kinda my whole point.

Again, I'm not hearing a 'no'.

Freud had theories about compensation - about aggression - especially in the young - being directly related to feelings of sexual inadequacy. His ideas would suggest that every young male compares himself to his father, and finds himself wanting, and attempts to compensate for it through aggression.

Thus - a young male will want to carry a gun, for example, because it increases his aggressive potential, compensating for the fact that he feels he cannot genitally match-up to his parental rolemodel.

It isn't so much that people want guns because they have tiny penises - more that they want guns to compensate for their fears that they have tiny penises.

Bollocks, Freud was wrong on this and countless other things, pure and simple. He was obsessed with sex, which is not the case with everybody.

Unreadable???? Has society sunk so far that people can use computers but are too dumb to figure out what a quotation is???? Heaven forbid they read an actual book!!! Then they wouldn't have little boxes that say 'quote'....oh my!!

This is the last post of yours I even bother reading because I tired of trying to differentiate your posts from those you "quote."
1) Until your posting style copies that of books, you can't complain about people not being able to read your posts because of flow problems.
2) Quotations in books are set apart noticeably.

This has to be wrong. Someone would have died anyway, and the rest is pure speculation.

The correct way to say it would be

"Gun free zone" - 32
CCW - ??? > 0

Well, i'm just putting the score as it actually was.

What happened yesterday was Gun free zone - 32, CCW 0.

It's almost impossible that ccw could have prevented all the tragedy, but 10 dead innocent kids is better than 30 dead innocent kids, even 28 is better than 30.

If you don't believe me, ask their families.

I assume you are saying that, with concealed carry, no one would have died? And, our concealed carrier was going to do what - tickle the shooter?

Add to which - we already had an example in this thread of three people with guns at a school that had a shooting... there were still people hurt and people killed.

Your numbers are conjecture, and not actually based on anything.

If you assume that then you have trouble making reasonable assumptions...

There is no conjecture whatsoever in the statement of fact
"gun free zone - 32, ccw - 0." Those are the actual number of people who were killed yesterday.

No one was killed by a CCW holder, and 32 compulsorily disarmed innocent people were killed by an unopposed maniac.

If CCW had saved even one innocent person's life, there would be no measuring its immense value.

As it stands, no one there - not the holocaust survivor professor, not a single student, regardless of his or her qualifications or responsibility - was permitted to carry a handgun concealed on his or her person.

Their only option was to be shot to death by a maniac who ignored the "gun free zone" policy.

In the interests of feeling safe, they were made incapable of being safe.

Gun control simplified:

No, we don't need them.

You're right. If someone were to invade, our piddly ass Assault Rifles would be nothing compared to an invaders advanced weaponry.

They ARE used for lethal crimes against other American citizens.

They fall into the wrong hands.

They used inappropriately.

One of the prime uses of firearms (hunting) isn't even really all that justified, since there is no survival-based reason to hunt anymore, and it's really only done for the thrill of killing a living creature with a gun.

In fact, there are no outstanding reasons why anyone should be allowed to own a gun.



There's also no outstanding reason why you should:
be allowed to ride a bus,
have your own home,
be allowed to pollute,
join any particular government party,
not commit suicide.


There are always arguments for either side, and neither side is ever completely right, because both sides have at least 1 valid point, but it all comes down to a simple thing:

America is supposed to be based around our freedoms. We are the land of opportunity. Land of the free and the brave. We are steadfast, strong, and may do as we please, protected by our laws to be the people we truly are, with no reason to feel shame or fear for not fitting into the norms.

I think being allowed to own an assault weapon falls along the lines of "pursuit of happiness" actually.

1. Life (Don't kill anyone)
2. Liberty (As long as you don't do the above ^, you are free, mostly)
3. Pursuit of Happiness. (You may do whatever makes you happy, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the first 2 of yourself or others)

This basically means... If you don't kill someone, and you don't take away someone elses liberties, you can do whatever the fuck you want. That's why laws exist in our country. To protect life and liberty.

Owning a gun doesn't infringe upon either of the first 2, and fulfills the third.
Owning a gun is completely legitimate, legal, and understandable.

Why NOT own a gun?

Im my perfect world, owning at least two firearms, including at least one military-grade assault rifle, would be mandatory. With the exception of criminals, psychopaths, and other mentally-deranged people.

It may seem insane, but I think a man's pretty unlikely to rob the passerby for drug money if he knows the other guy has an M-16 in the back seat and a pistol in his pocket.

"This is the last post of yours I even bother reading because I tired of trying to differentiate your posts from those you "quote."
1) Until your posting style copies that of books, you can't complain about people not being able to read your posts because of flow problems.
2) Quotations in books are set apart noticeably."---The_pantless_hero


There is no way that a person that is actually reading and paying attention to the post can fail to understand. If YOU would actually do that, then you wouldn't be having this problem.

I'm generally for the right to have low-grade firearms in the home, and to provide hunting weapons to hunters contingent on their hunting liscences. However, concealed carry permits carry with them another cost:

I'm stealing the concept from a recommended diary on Daily Kos this morning.

You're in a room with 15 other people. A gun goes off, and a woman screams. You whirl around, pulling your handgun and see 8 people pointing guns at one another. Who do you shoot? What happens if one of them shoots you?

I'm generally for the right to have low-grade firearms in the home, and to provide hunting weapons to hunters contingent on their hunting liscences. However, concealed carry permits carry with them another cost:

I'm stealing the concept from a recommended diary on Daily Kos this morning.

You're in a room with 15 other people. A gun goes off, and a woman screams. You whirl around, pulling your handgun and see 8 people pointing guns at one another. Who do you shoot? What happens if one of them shoots you?

This isnt a realistic scenario, at least in the US.

Most people don't get CCW permits, it is a small minority who have the responsibility and the inclination to get a gun and train with it, better than the police do, to his a man-sized target and save people's lives.

The police are not the military, they "qualify" with their guns - they do not go out and train with them, at least not on "police time."

I know several LEOs here in phoenix, and they in many cases do not put as much time behind the trigger as I do. The self-selection mechanism of CCW permits means that people who have them are likely to be
A) more responsible than average
B) more respectful of the law than average
C) better with their guns than average

this mechanism makes it sensible to expand licensces concealed carry to universities, &c.

How many of the people in norris hall had CCWs but left their guns at home? I bet the number is pretty small.

While 30 innocent people were being murdered, would 8 people have drawn down on eachother yesterday, if CCW holders had been permitted to carry? No.

Is it possible that 1 or 2 of the above could have shot scummy Cho and saved even a single life? Absolutely. Likely even.

If one student in a class of 20 had a CCW and a gun, and scummy Cho was shooting each person three times (as was the case in real life), our CCW holder would have had a 19/20 chance of being able to shoot him before being killed.

Hey, i don't care if there is some sort of genetic or even psychological reason behind some people being able to understand mistakes made in history. The fact that they DO is what matters.

Even if there is a reason like that behind it (for which you have shown absolutely no evidence or backing), it doesn't change the bottom line.

I think I need you to explain this, before I can respond. What would the 'mistakes made in history' be?

:rolleyes:

You'll read into, and believe anything you want to, regardless of what people say, to fit your view. So I'm done with this part of the conversation.

It isn't a matter of 'my view'. Do you honestly think it a coincidence that predominantly male societies always end up with phallic structures as their 'ultimate' expressions? Missiles, rockets, even guns... sportscars, aircraft, even tall buildings. The closer structures get to the 'male ideal' the more phallic they become. I suspect it can't be ALL coincidence.

And, if you reject the idea that a gun is a phallic compensation - how do you feel when you are disarmed?

Bollocks, Freud was wrong on this and countless other things, pure and simple. He was obsessed with sex, which is not the case with everybody.

And... what, I should accept your (rather aggressive, I note) attack on this possible argument because... you don't like Freud?

Whether or not you buy into Freud - whether or not you think he was always right - he was right about some things. We are sexual creatures, and even our non-sexual behaviours contribute to, and are affected by, our sexual condition. Jack the Ripper, with his (allegedly) deformed genitals, and taunting letters about having a 'small' but 'sharp' knife, would be a classic example.

I don't accept your unsupported argument that Freud was wrong (on this). And, now I'm left wondering why you feel you need to be quite so vehement in putting him down?

It isn't a matter of 'my view'. Do you honestly think it a coincidence that predominantly male societies always end up with phallic structures as their 'ultimate' expressions? Missiles, rockets, even guns... sportscars, aircraft, even tall buildings. The closer structures get to the 'male ideal' the more phallic they become. I suspect it can't be ALL coincidence.

And, if you reject the idea that a gun is a phallic compensation - how do you feel when you are disarmed?

Vulnerable when disarmed... not unable to fuck.

The feminist insanity that informs your understanding of guns and cars makes me sick to my stomach.

"sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" - something well known to anyone who smokes cigars.

Looking in from outside, you may be able to come up with trivial, inconsequential platitudes about owning weapons, but the fact is that I own a gun not to make my dick seem bigger, but because it is a tool to kill people.

A hammer pounds a nail into a board to anchor something, a screw does something similar - it anchors something in place - all sexual double entendre aside.

My gun is there in case my life or the life of a friend or neighbor is ever in danger, so that I can kill the person who intends to do wrong on me or another innocent - kill, not wound, not "stop," but kill - the same way my ancestors and your ancestors killed their enemies.

there is nothing in the world wrong with this... it is incumbent upon good people to kill bad people if they can... "all the is required for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing"

The VAtech shootings proved that to be a fact, not a pithy, stupid, coward's platitude.

You know what, You're all nuts! No matter which side you are on, you're all out of your minds one way or another.

If you assume that then you have trouble making reasonable assumptions...

There is no conjecture whatsoever in the statement of fact
"gun free zone - 32, ccw - 0." Those are the actual number of people who were killed yesterday.

No one was killed by a CCW holder, and 32 compulsorily disarmed innocent people were killed by an unopposed maniac.

If CCW had saved even one innocent person's life, there would be no measuring its immense value.

As it stands, no one there - not the holocaust survivor professor, not a single student, regardless of his or her qualifications or responsibility - was permitted to carry a handgun concealed on his or her person.

Their only option was to be shot to death by a maniac who ignored the "gun free zone" policy.

In the interests of feeling safe, they were made incapable of being safe.

1) If the zone was truly 'gun free', then the shooter wouldn't have had a gun. The problem isn't that the campus DOESN'T allow dangerous weapons, it is that the area around the campus DOES.

2) "32 compulsorily disarmed innocent people were killed by an unopposed maniac": two appeals to emotion for the price of one? You are space-efficient, I'll give you that. Students COULD have opposed the gunman anyway - you don't NEED a gun. If 30 students had rushed him, he would have been disarmed, and less people would have died. The problem then - isn't whether or not the students were armed, it is why they didn't capitalise on superior numbers.

3) Again: "32 compulsorily disarmed innocent people": How were they 'compulsorily disarmed'? That would mean they HAD weapons, but had them taken away from them... I don't recall reading anything about any of the victims having guns taken from them.

4) "No one was killed by a CCW holder"... but only because the gunman didn't have a concealed carry permit. If he had one, (and I'm only guessing he didn't) your argument is void. Why didn't he have one?

5) Your argument relies entirely on the idea that someone with a concealed gun would somehow have saved the situation. I find this a baseless assertion. If you were the gunman, and you saw someone going for a concealed weapon, you'd put three shots into him before you picked your next target.

You know what, You're all nuts! No matter which side you are on, you're all out of your minds one way or another.

No, this isnt some postmodernist circle jerk where everything is just 'conflict'...

there is a right position and a wrong position, and the right postion is that CCW could have saved lives yesterday, innocent lives, valuable lives, college-educated lives... the lives people spent their whole lives saving up for, to put their kids through college... invested their whole lives and all their love in...

no ammount of feminist-garbage or postmodern mind-shit-cancer is going to change the fact that a bullet in scummy cho's face would have saved innocent people's lives.

anyone who doesnt believe that scummy cho deserved to die for even shooting a single innocent person needs his head examined and to be beaten within an inch of his life

Im my perfect world, owning at least two firearms, including at least one military-grade assault rifle, would be mandatory. With the exception of criminals, psychopaths, and other mentally-deranged people.

It may seem insane, but I think a man's pretty unlikely to rob the passerby for drug money if he knows the other guy has an M-16 in the back seat and a pistol in his pocket.


On the other hand, the only thing it might do is reduce the number of crimes WITHOUT fatality. After all - why bother trying to just 'snatch' a purse, if you might get shot for it? Instead, a criminal will just shoot the purse-holder dead as a safety precaution.

I'm generally for the right to have low-grade firearms in the home, and to provide hunting weapons to hunters contingent on their hunting liscences. However, concealed carry permits carry with them another cost:

I'm stealing the concept from a recommended diary on Daily Kos this morning.

You're in a room with 15 other people. A gun goes off, and a woman screams. You whirl around, pulling your handgun and see 8 people pointing guns at one another. Who do you shoot? What happens if one of them shoots you?

This, I agree with.

We aren't talking about pretty situations where 2 people square off on a long street. We are talking about messy real life. We are talking about shooting on a campus - a fairly crowded place.

So - you can expect the area where shots are fired to be fairly crowded, at least (increasing the risks of 'collateral damage'), and - if gun advocates had their way - crowded with armed people.

It doesn't sound like a recipe for safety.

Is that how it works in gun-soaked switzerland? Because I dont think thats how it works in gun-soaked switzerland, because that's now how it works in gun-soaked switzerland, Because. You're. Wrong.

I can't make sense of this.

Good way of posting an 'argument' I can't deny.

On the other hand, the only thing it might do is reduce the number of crimes WITHOUT fatality. After all - why bother trying to just 'snatch' a purse, if you might get shot for it? Instead, a criminal will just shoot the purse-holder dead as a safety precaution.

Is that how it works in gun-soaked switzerland? Because I dont think thats how it works in gun-soaked switzerland, because that's now how it works in gun-soaked switzerland, Because. You're. Wrong.

Vulnerable when disarmed... not unable to fuck.


Interesting. So - you do admit you feel impotent without your 'gun'?

See - I don't carry a gun, and I don't feel weaker or more vulnerable for it. I wonder what that means.


The feminist insanity that informs your understanding of guns and cars makes me sick to my stomach.


Feminist insanity?


"sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" - something well known to anyone who smokes cigars.


Well, of course, those who smoke cigars WOULD say that.


Looking in from outside, you may be able to come up with trivial, inconsequential platitudes about owning weapons, but the fact is that I own a gun not to make my dick seem bigger, but because it is a tool to kill people.


And, I think you said it all, right there.

That's why I don't think most people should be allowed to carry guns.


"all the is required for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing"... The VAtech shootings proved that to be a fact, not a pithy, stupid, coward's platitude.

Not at all. On 9/11, unarmed civilians overcame guntoting terrorists on one flight. They were brave.

People on the other flights that didn't use the weight of superior numbers to avoid all the deaths in the Twin Towers? They didn't do it because they were afraid.

The Tech students wouldn't have needed guns - they only had one gunman to deal with. They died because most humans place self-preservation above collective well-being. It says nothing about whether they should have been armed or not.

I can't make sense of this.

Good way of posting an 'argument' I can't deny.

Switzerand is saturated with guns to an extreme degree, guns which are illegal in the united states, and people don't shoot one another for purses.

Therefore, acrual, real-life experience shows that the argument "mandatory gun ownership will lead to shootings over purses" - the argument you made in this thread, is mistaken and incorrect.

You, therefore, are wrong.
This of course coming from Mr "so I assume you think ccw would have prevented all v-tech shootings?" "reasonable poster" :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes::rolleyes:
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

2 for 2 i guess

:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:

Interesting. So - you do admit you feel impotent without your 'gun'?

See - I don't carry a gun, and I don't feel weaker or more vulnerable for it. I wonder what that means.
.

Fallacy of equivocation, you dishonest liar, "impotent" in the sense of "self defense" has no sexual connotation, which you dishonestly imply. shame on you.

also, you are a liar for posting that "9/11 hijackers with their box-cutter knives = VAtech shooter with his guns," the reasonable assumption behind what you posted, shame on you.

the actions of the people on flight 93 were not in the same setting as the victims of scummy cho, you are despicable for pretending that they are, and by doing so insulting the people who were murdered yesterday.

the "guntoting terrorits" of 9/11? they used knives, you despicable, heinous, horrible, disgusting liar...

there is a right position and a wrong position, and the right postion is that CCW could have saved lives


CCW might have saved lives. It could have cost more.

On the other hand - if there had been a STRICT no gun policy, then no one would have died.

So - right or wrong... CCW that might have killed less, or more, people.. or no guns - meaning no deaths.

I think 'right' here has to be strict no gun policy.


yesterday, innocent lives, valuable lives, college-educated lives... the lives people spent their whole lives saving up for, to put their kids through college... invested their whole lives and all their love in...


Appeal to emotion, appeal to emotion, appeal to emotion... appeal to emotion... appeal to emotion.

Did I miss any?


no ammount of feminist-garbage or postmodern mind-shit-cancer is going to change the fact that a bullet in scummy cho's face would have saved innocent people's lives.


So - not wanting free access to guns equates to feminism?

What are you doing - just lumping everything you 'hate' into one tirade?


anyone who doesnt believe that scummy cho deserved to die for even shooting a single innocent person


That's a different question completely. The death penalty is not equivalent to randomly armed civilians.


needs his head examined and to be beaten within an inch of his life

You might want to step away from your keyboard for a couple of days. When you start advocating mandatory psychological treatment and close-to-death violence against other people in a debate... you need to calm down a bit.

Switzerand is saturated with guns to an extreme degree, guns which are illegal in the united states, and people don't shoot one another for purses.


Switzerland isn't America. If one looks just over the border, Canada has about the same sort of weapons law as the US, and about the same percentile gun ownership - but much lower 'paranoia' and gun rampages.

There is just something paranoid about this country... and we have to face up to it. And - it makes parallels with somewhere like Switzerland irrelevent.


Therefore, acrual, real-life experience shows that the argument "mandatory gun ownership will lead to shootings over purses" - the argument you made in this thread, is mistaken and incorrect.


No - it doesn't show that. It shows that in some places, higher rates of gun ownership do not automatically lead to higher gun-fatality rates.


"mandatory gun ownership will lead to shootings over purses"


I don't think those are my words.


:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes::rolleyes:
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


Emoticon spam? Is that serving a purpose for you?


2 for 2 i guess


Cryptic much?


:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:

More emoticon spam. Well, I can't argue with that. It doesn't mean anything... but I certainly can't argue with it. Top hole, old chap.

Fallacy of equivocation, you dishonest liar, "impotent" in the sense of "self defense" has no sexual connotation, which you dishonestly imply. shame on you.


Not at all. Impotent means 'lacking strength'. The sexual connotation comes from the other meaning - not the other way around.

Interesting that you read it that way, though.


also, you are a liar for posting that "9/11 hijackers with their box-cutter knives = VAtech shooter with his guns," the reasonable assumption behind what you posted, shame on you.


So - on those other flights... all those people died because no one was willing to rush a guy with a (maximum) four-inch blade? Surely, that makes it worse.


the actions of the people on flight 93 were not in the same setting as the victims of scummy cho, you are despicable for pretending that they are, and by doing so insulting the people who were murdered yesterday.


Not at all - the situations were equaivalent in that the person(s) intent on doing harm was/were greatly outnumbered, and could have been disarmed (even without guns) fairly quickly and easily. Indeed - 9/11 occured within limited confines... the VA Tech shooting had no such restriction - there were thousands of people available to mob the gunman, if needed.


the "guntoting terrorits" of 9/11? they used knives, you despicable, heinous, horrible, disgusting liar...

The point is - armed men of evil intent need to present only a limited face of threat, and they will cow many times their own number of potential attackers.

And again - you might want to step away from your keyboard and cool off a little.