NationStates Jolt Archive

Virginia Tech was a very sad tradgedy. Do you think it could have been prevented. Should we change gun laws? Tell me your opions.

Please before you post have a moment of silence for those who died.

Well isn't it pretty obvious that without a Glock or another automatic weapon, he would never have able to kill that many people, he would have been forced to use a kitchen knife of something, in which case he might have killed a few, but in all likelihood he would have been overpowered. Simple really.

Or a bomb.

Well isn't it pretty obvious that without a Glock or another automatic weapon, he would never have able to kill that many people, he would have been forced to use a kitchen knife of something, in which case he might have killed a few, but in all likelihood he would have been overpowered. Simple really.

Obviously, this could be prevented. Let's get into the Wayback Machine... or maybe we could get Doc Brown's DeLorean.

And absolutely, changing gun laws would have helped. Because after all, every person buying a gun is insane, and every nutter planning a shoot-em-up always buys from a licensed dealer.

Obviously, this could be prevented. Let's get into the Wayback Machine... or maybe we could get Doc Brown's DeLorean.

And absolutely, changing gun laws would have helped. Because after all, every person buying a gun is insane, and every nutter planning a shoot-em-up always buys from a licensed dealer.

What she said...

Of course - I mean, every sane person needs a gun right? It's not like there are non-lethal ways of defending you and yours (like tasers).

better school counseling, teachers receiving more training etc etc

all in all much more school funding is in order when you neglect children you neglect the future

every person buying a gun is insane

QFT without the sarcasm

I mean, it's not possible at all to buy a gun from the black market. Nope. No one would ever do that.

I mean, it's not possible at all to buy a gun from the black market.

its actually its very hard to get your hands on a gun in the UK, then again guns haven't really been banned here and I suspect there are allot of guns in the hands of ex-IRA members

then again where an Island that might have something to do with it

Or a bomb.

Unlikely, these type of people want to kill heaps of people up close and personal, and then kill themselves when the police draw in, it's all about drawing attention. Using a bomb and then some how making sure it is traced back to you after you have killed yourself probably entails less 'fame' afterwards for these guys. Plus it's alot easier to buy a gun and shoot (especially a glock, apparently they are dead easier to reload etc) than it is to spend months creating a bomb in complicated ways, and it may not work at all.

Obviously, this could be prevented. Let's get into the Wayback Machine... or maybe we could get Doc Brown's DeLorean.

And absolutely, changing gun laws would have helped. Because after all, every person buying a gun is insane, and every nutter planning a shoot-em-up always buys from a licensed dealer.

Except he did buy from a licensed dealer.

its actually its very hard to get your hands on a gun in the UK, then again guns haven't really been banned here and I suspect there are allot of guns in the hands of ex-IRA members

Not all U.S states allow easy gun ownership , like mine (which I will not mention) I mean even Virginia makes it somewhat difficult. The man was checked but he had No criminal record he had to wait at least a week plus he probably had to be at least 18 to go in th store. You can buy a gun relitively undiificult but certaintly not easy

Not all U.S states allow easy gun ownership , like mine (which I will not mention)

something to hide? ;) :p

You can buy a gun relitively undiificult but certaintly not easy

not difficult enough it appears, maybe its time questions where asked about why you need a gun and only good reasons being accepted, then again I've grown up in a nation with no love for guns

course the swiss manage to pull it off with a nation filled with guns maybe there's a lesson in there?

There are always going to be people who "snap" and start killing people. There is no real defense against it, simply something one must deal with when living among humans. Taking away guns, sending everyone to shrinks, whatever, will not help anything to stop what happened at VT or what happened today at NASA. These things happen.

Unlikely, these type of people want to kill heaps of people up close and personal, and then kill themselves when the police draw in, it's all about drawing attention. Using a bomb and then some how making sure it is traced back to you after you have killed yourself probably entails less 'fame' afterwards for these guys. Plus it's alot easier to buy a gun and shoot (especially a glock, apparently they are dead easier to reload etc) than it is to spend months creating a bomb in complicated ways, and it may not work at all.

Nigh every modern pistol reloads the same way. The guy could have used a Colt, a Kel-tec, a S&W, or a Browning Hi-Power. Just because a pistol was made by a certain company doesn't mean that they are deadlier. Not in the least.

The question you should be asking is, what can we do to prevent this from happening again? It's happend wheter we could have prevented it or not, now we must look to make sure it never happens again

Nigh every modern pistol reloads the same way. The guy could have used a Colt, a Kel-tec, a S&W, or a Browning Hi-Power. Just because a pistol was made by a certain company doesn't mean that they are deadlier. Not in the least.

Sorry, I didn't mean to make my post sound that way. What I meant was that it's easier to buy a gun/ammo and kill ppl than it is to spend ages making a bomb etc.

Sorry, I didn't mean to make my post sound that way. What I meant was that it's easier to buy a gun/ammo and kill ppl than it is to spend ages making a bomb etc.

It doesn't take much to make a bomb. Take a lead pipe, pack it full of gunpowder (or another explosive), chuck some nails in, and voila, a bomb. A primative bomb, but a bomb none the less.

Toss a bunch of these into a few classrooms, and boom, instant bloodbath.

Sorry, I didn't mean to make my post sound that way. What I meant was that it's easier to buy a gun/ammo and kill ppl than it is to spend ages making a bomb etc.

I am guessing if you have the gumption to go from classroom to classroom methodically picking people off with a handgun, building a bomb is not much of a test of willpower.

Maybe if we had better mental health policies, but I can't see much else that would have changed this.

Could the shooting have been prevented?

Well of course it could have, just like I could prevent myself from wearing shoes for the rest of my life, or choosing not to watch TV, or preventing everyone from dying from car crashes or smoking.

These kinds of questions piss me off.

"So would you have sold him the guns if you had known he would kill so many people?"

Seriously...

Except he did buy from a licensed dealer.

Yes, well clearly that means everyone always buys from dealers, and everyone who buys a gun is also insane.

I mean, it's not possible at all to buy a gun from the black market. Nope. No one would ever do that.
Sure, it's possible. Could you do it? I'm not sure I could--I wouldn't know where to begin. After all, it's not like unlicensed gun dealers have storefront and a display case. I suppose I could wander into a bad part of town and start asking around, but who would I ask, and how would I be able to convince them that I'm not a cop looking to bust them?

And most importantly, why should I go to all that trouble when I can buy one legally, especially if, like the guy around whom this thread is based, I'm planning on offing myself at the end of it anyway?

It's not so simple when someone actually asks questions of your lame assumptions, now is it?

Yes, well clearly that means everyone always buys from dealers, and everyone who buys a gun is also insane.

I don't hear the majority of people suggesting we ought to completely ban guns in the US. I hear a lot of NRA types shouting that there are lots of people suggesting that, but I don't hear many actually doing the suggesting.

That said, would it be a tremendous burden to make purchasing a handgun a little tougher? As was argued in another thread, we require people to undergo training and pass both written and practical tests before legally operating a car--why not require that of people who want to legally purchase a gun? After all, those kinds of safeguards might have kept this guy from getting a gun so easily. It might not have stopped him completely, but it would have made it more difficult, and it's possible he could have been busted trying to purchase guns illegally before he went on his killing spree.

Yes, well clearly that means everyone always buys from dealers, and everyone who buys a gun is also insane.
What it actually does mean is that the regulations as they stand obviously arn't working well enough.

The guns aren't the problem, it's the same deal with video games, banning guns would not fix the problem. There would still be people with mental problems in society who will find other ways to hurt others because they feel they have to.

Instead of banning guns we should address the real problems. The mental problems that people in society have. The shooters english teacher voiced her concerns a lot about this person. She talked to police, councellors etc and was ignored.

How about the next time a teacher has serious concerns about a student's mental state he or she is not ignored but everything is done to cure the person of his problems.

A gun in the hands of a sane person will not kill innocent people. A gun in the hands of an insane person will kill innocent people. Therefore instead of banning guns we should do everything we can to help people with mental problems.

Could VT have been prevented is not the question.
We all know the answer. Yes. It could have.

The important part is No, it wasn't. It happened. It is reality, and it is history.



The question is what could be done to prevent it in the future. And honestly, I'm not sure we'll ever know the answer.

A gun in the hands of a sane person will not kill innocent people. A gun in the hands of an insane person will kill innocent people. Maybe I'm totally off base here, but all the sane, well balanced people I know don't feel the need to own large quantities of firearms and enough ammunition to substain a long seige. In fact the more guns someone owns seems to be proportional to their likelyhood to have a substance abuse problem or social issues. I also know very few females that own guns and none of those that do own more than one.
Hey, I just had a thought... All the big killing sprees seem to done by males with social skill issues.

Maybe we should just limit gun ownership to women.

Yes, well clearly that means everyone always buys from dealers, and everyone who buys a gun is also insane.

I just realized something. Doesn't this put bunk to the claim by the NRA that no crime was ever committed with a registered firearm?

I just realized something. Doesn't this put bunk to the claim by the NRA that no crime was ever committed with a registered firearm?That was untrue long before this incident.

Yes, well clearly that means everyone always buys from dealers, ...Not necessarily....and everyone who buys a gun is also insane.Definitely.

Why is everyone focusing on gun control and weapon accessibility here? The biggest issue that comes to mind is a massive failure of the state- if not national- mental health system.

What do Larry Gene Ashbrook, Andrew Goldstein, and Cho Seung-Hui all have in common? They were all diagnosed with serious mental health issues yet they were turned loose despite countless warnings that they could snap at any moment.

Gun control didn't do shit here obviously. What needs to be done is to bitch-slap the country's mental health care system to an operational state so these potential cases can be screened out and contained.

So far those three are the biggest alarm bells that have rung, with the blood of innocent people being spattered. Yet nothing changes especially after the mourning is over.

I am aware of the huge culteral differences between the US and the UK, but I live in a rural area, where there are hunters and there are people who own guns, but they are shot guns. No private citizen needs or should want to, or be allowed to own a hand gun or an automatic weapon. Handguns are not for hunting anything other than people. Nobody sane and normal would go out hunting a deer for food with a magnum or a glock. Nobody other than the armed services needs to own an automatic weapon. End of story as far as I am concerned, no argument will persuade me otherwise. In the UK, following the shooting of 16 small children in their school by maniac with a gun, hand guns became illegal, because as far as most people in this country are concerned, this is what we wanted to happen. I am aware that people kill, but they kill much less efficiently with other weapons than they do with guns, that would be why the army doesn't go into battle anymore brandishing claymores.

Britain - 46 murders involving firearms last year. New York City, with 8 million people compared to 53 million in England and Wales, recorded 590 murders with guns last year. New York has some of the country's strictest gun laws. Gun mayhem occurred with some regularity in Australia until the Port Arthur massacre. Within days, Prime Minister John Howard launched a gun reform proposal that culminated with the country banning the possession of automatic rifles and shotguns. Since 1996, the rate of gun deaths in Australia - including suicides, accidents and homicides - has fallen by half. Australia today has a per capita gun crime rate less than a 10th of that in the U.S. In Russia, which has one of the highest homicide rates in the world, strict gun laws ban possession for self-defense purposes and require sportsmen to keep their guns at clubs. Less than 12 percent of murders are committed with guns.

:(

Maybe I'm totally off base here, but all the sane, well balanced people I know don't feel the need to own large quantities of firearms and enough ammunition to substain a long seige. In fact the more guns someone owns seems to be proportional to their likelyhood to have a substance abuse problem or social issues. I also know very few females that own guns and none of those that do own more than one.
Hey, I just had a thought... All the big killing sprees seem to done by males with social skill issues.

Maybe we should just limit gun ownership to women.

Lol, i don't feel the need to own a firearm myself but i respect the rights of others to own one if they choose to. Of course owning many guns is going over the top but my arguement is still valid.

100 guns in the hands of a sane person won't kill innocent people. 1 gun in the hands of an insane person will kill innocent people.

Guns should not be banned. Instead we should make sure any mentally unstable people are found and treated before they do something like this. If the system worked the Virginia Tech shootings would not have happened. If we had the system in place to be able to do something about the teacher's worries about the guy something could have been done to stop this.

I am aware of the huge culteral differences between the US and the UK, but I live in a rural area, where there are hunters and there are people who own guns, but they are shot guns. No private citizen needs or should want to, or be allowed to own a hand gun or an automatic weapon. Handguns are not for hunting anything other than people. Nobody sane and normal would go out hunting a deer for food with a magnum or a glock. Nobody other than the armed services needs to own an automatic weapon. End of story as far as I am concerned, no argument will persuade me otherwise. In the UK, following the shooting of 16 small children in their school by maniac with a gun, hand guns became illegal, because as far as most people in this country are concerned, this is what we wanted to happen. I am aware that people kill, but they kill much less efficiently with other weapons than they do with guns, that would be why the army doesn't go into battle anymore brandishing claymores.

Britain - 46 murders involving firearms last year. New York City, with 8 million people compared to 53 million in England and Wales, recorded 590 murders with guns last year. New York has some of the country's strictest gun laws. Gun mayhem occurred with some regularity in Australia until the Port Arthur massacre. Within days, Prime Minister John Howard launched a gun reform proposal that culminated with the country banning the possession of automatic rifles and shotguns. Since 1996, the rate of gun deaths in Australia - including suicides, accidents and homicides - has fallen by half. Australia today has a per capita gun crime rate less than a 10th of that in the U.S. In Russia, which has one of the highest homicide rates in the world, strict gun laws ban possession for self-defense purposes and require sportsmen to keep their guns at clubs. Less than 12 percent of murders are committed with guns.

:(

And yet murders still happen. Banning guns is not the answer. Instead of your government doing it right and fixing the cause of such mass killings they just banned guns because it is a lot easier and they look like they are doing something without actually doing anything worthwhile.

I am happy President Bush or most of our congress and most state governments don't agree with banning guns. I hope they make sure they do everything they can to fix mental illness which is the real problem behind this issue, not guns.

Virginia Tech was a very sad tradgedy. Do you think it could have been prevented. Should we change gun laws? Tell me your opions.

Please before you post have a moment of silence for those who died.

There was not much that the school could do about it. As to changing gun laws, maybe due a mental health check before giving someone a gun.

And yet murders still happen. Banning guns is not the answer. Instead of your government doing it right and fixing the cause of such mass killings they just banned guns because it is a lot easier and they look like they are doing something without actually doing anything worthwhile.

I am happy President Bush or most of our congress and most state governments don't agree with banning guns. I hope they make sure they do everything they can to fix mental illness which is the real problem behind this issue, not guns.But if guns weren't available then mentally ill people wouldn't have access to guns and thus they won't use them to kill.
Guns are an unnecessary vanity for people with inferiority complex.There was not much that the school could do about it. As to changing gun laws, maybe due a mental health check before giving someone a gun.But if you don't give people guns you would need no mental health checks, which are impracticable anyways.

If all the people who realised he was completely mental had done something about it! I mean his tutors were giving him A+ marks for his course work because they were scared of him! And of course whatever your views on gun ownership, one trip to the funny farm should disqualify anybody from buying or owning a firearm.

If all the people who realised he was completely mental had done something about it!

If you have been following the story, he was referred to the counciling center. I believe he was even declared nuts an institution if I followed things correctly.

I mean his tutors were giving him A+ marks for his course work because they were scared of him!

This is a new one. Can I have a link to this please?

And of course whatever your views on gun ownership, one trip to the funny farm should disqualify anybody from buying or owning a firearm.

I do have to agree there.

Oh yeah! (slaps forehead) Its America! All the mental cases already own guns! They are called the NRA!

Guns are an unnecessary vanity for people with inferiority complex.

For which I totally disagree with you.

But if you don't give people guns you would need no mental health checks, which are impracticable anyways.

Guns are not impracticable and neither are mental health checks before being allowed to by a gun.

Oh yeah! (slaps forehead) Its America! All the mental cases already own guns! They are called the NRA!

But yet the NRA does not go around shooting at everything that moves.

I know he had a period in a Nut house, but they let him out while he was still mad. Was there any medication? And if he was likely to self harm or harm others why was he allowed two pistols and a shed load of ammo? Sounds as tho his civil rights to be a nutter were taken to be more important than his danger to others. A mate of mine came up with an exellent idea. Let people buy guns but charge 'em $10,000 per bullet!

The NRA does not shoot at anything that moves? HA HA HA! tell that to the passinger pigeon, the califonian condor and the Bald Eagle! Imagine, you nearly shot your national animal, the simbol of your nation into extinction! As Stans uncle in south park shouts " LOOKOUT, ITS COMING STRAIGHT FOR US!"

The imformation about the A+ marks came from an interview in the Daily Mail withone of his tutors who was British.

And yet murders still happen. Banning guns is not the answer. Instead of your government doing it right and fixing the cause of such mass killings they just banned guns because it is a lot easier and they look like they are doing something without actually doing anything worthwhile.

I am happy President Bush or most of our congress and most state governments don't agree with banning guns. I hope they make sure they do everything they can to fix mental illness which is the real problem behind this issue, not guns.

I really want to address this misunderstanding. Guns are not banned in the UK.

Just heavily restricted.

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

What about limiting gun ownership to BLACK POWDER weapons? That would limit massacres to six people (from a revolver) and then the shooter would have to take half an hour reloading.

And yet murders still happen.Yes, but in much less degree: No mass killings, much less random shootings, etc...

The problem with gun as protection is that it's protective value is in stopping, killing people who are acting threateningly: A gun never saves lives but destroys them (bit same as death penalty).

In Virginia Tech case, common student concealed gun carry & ownership would've meant *at the very best* 3-5 casualties instead of 33, at worst much much more due to paranoia and panic of untrained gun wielders.

According to pro-gun logic 3-5 is much better than the option of having no casualties. I also think that the pro-gun people blaming state legislature are hypocrites if they *also* adhere to the 'criminalize guns and only criminals have guns' philosophy ie. that laws can't control the prevalence of guns except in those circles who would follow the laws in first place (clearly a massacre isn't following those laws).

Then again, in the end, the massacre was not the fault of the guns. Instead I'd turn my eyes to the culture of violence, gunfetishism and egoism that is so terribly prevalent in the US: Banning privately owned hand guns would be a solution but not to the actual problem - The real question is whether teaching compassion, morals and cooperation is more difficult than banning guns in a society where person's value is measured by wealth?

And yet murders still happen. Banning guns is not the answer. Instead of your government doing it right and fixing the cause of such mass killings they just banned guns because it is a lot easier and they look like they are doing something without actually doing anything worthwhile.


Murders still happen, but not killing sprees. It's very hard to go on an indiscriminate killing spree without firearms and a shitload of ammunition. There have been a few instances in the UK of people trying to go on a stabbing spree, but they never manage to kill more than one or two people, if any at all. I think another reason firearms make this kind of thing more attractive to the psychos is that they offer an easy and reliable way to commit suicide at the end.

Yes, well clearly that means everyone always buys from dealers, and everyone who buys a gun is also insane.

You don't think it might be a good idea to stop those who are insane from buying guns. A tick box question on whether you're crazy is hardly a stringent examination.

You don't think it might be a good idea to stop those who are insane from buying guns. A tick box question on whether you're crazy is hardly a stringent examination.
Gun form: Are you mentally sound? Have you killed anybody? Do you want to kill people?
Ted Bundy: Yes, No, and No. He he he.

Guns should not be banned. Instead we should make sure any mentally unstable people are found and treated before they do something like this. If the system worked the Virginia Tech shootings would not have happened. If we had the system in place to be able to do something about the teacher's worries about the guy something could have been done to stop this.Weeding out the mentally unstable (which supposedly is already done), isn't going to help when Joe Citizen gets drunk and in his impaired state decides that shooting the guy his girlfriend left him for, the guy who got the promotion over him or the boss that fired him not only seems like a good idea but, thanks to the glock in his glove compartment, is an easily viable option to carry out. Although a mass killing like VT brings out discussion, in reality they are only a very small portion of gun deaths. Scenarios such as I listed are far more likely to happen.

The gun laws do need to change but an out right ban here would never work. There are so many guns in the US right now it would take years and Billions of dollars to get them out of peoples hands. I hate to agree with the NRA but if there was a ban the law abiding people would turn in their guns and I am sure all of the criminals would turn in theirs to.
VT was a gun free zone no one could legally bring a gun on that campass. So the ban really worked there, he brought in two guns in and killed 31 people.
Also for all those people who are saying ban handguns imagine if he we using a shotgun in the same situation. It would have been just as bad if not worse.

Also for all those people who are saying ban handguns imagine if he we using a shotgun in the same situation. It would have been just as bad if not worse.But he wouldn't have been able to walk onto campus without any commotion toting a shotgun. Doubtful it would have been as bad because an alarm would have been raised long before he barricaded himself in the hall. One of the reasons I refuse to own a handgun is that they are by far the weapon of choice for all gun crimes. Despite what the NRA would have you believe, almost all gun crimes are commited with guns that at least started out as legally purchased weapons. If someone steals your rifle or shotgun, it is far less likely to be used in the commision of a crime than a stolen handgun.

Also for all those people who are saying ban handguns imagine if he we using a shotgun in the same situation.
Unsuspiciously concealing a shotgun is pretty much impossible. It's like sneaking an elephant out of a zoo. Sure, you could paint it like a bus but people would wounder why it kept stealing their food.

It would have been just as bad if not worse.
Shotguns don't have the RoF or reload time of a handgun, especially semi-automatic ones with 13-17 round magazines.

Yes, but in much less degree: No mass killings, much less random shootings, etc...

The problem with gun as protection is that it's protective value is in stopping, killing people who are acting threateningly: A gun never saves lives but destroys them (bit same as death penalty).

In Virginia Tech case, common student concealed gun carry & ownership would've meant *at the very best* 3-5 casualties instead of 33, at worst much much more due to paranoia and panic of untrained gun wielders.

According to pro-gun logic 3-5 is much better than the option of having no casualties. I also think that the pro-gun people blaming state legislature are hypocrites if they *also* adhere to the 'criminalize guns and only criminals have guns' philosophy ie. that laws can't control the prevalence of guns except in those circles who would follow the laws in first place (clearly a massacre isn't following those laws).

Then again, in the end, the massacre was not the fault of the guns. Instead I'd turn my eyes to the culture of violence, gunfetishism and egoism that is so terribly prevalent in the US: Banning privately owned hand guns would be a solution but not to the actual problem - The real question is whether teaching compassion, morals and cooperation is more difficult than banning guns in a society where person's value is measured by wealth?

The Virginia tech massacre was not the fault of the guns. It happened because that man was mentally unstable. There was no system in place to help him. If guns were bad he could easily get a gun illegally. There are illegal guns in the country now, with it being possible to buy legal guns. So imagine if guns were illegalized.

The value of black market guns would go through the roof and the gangs and mafias in the country would make a lot of money selling illegal guns. The shooter could get his hands on an illegal gun and still carry out the massacre.

The only way to have stopped the massacre would have been to help the man with his mental instability. To properly diagnose and treat him so he doesn't do the shooting. There were warning signs. His teacher was worried and tried to contact anyone she could to try and help the man.

But she was ignored. If we have an adequate mental health system in the country so a teachers concernes do not get ignored then massacres like Virginia tech would not happen.

Legalizing or illegalzing guns would not have stopped the massacres or any massacres in the future. Introducing an adequate mental health system in this country would have stopped this tragedy and will stop future tragedies from happening.

If guns were bad he could easily get a gun illegally.
But he bought the guns legally. That is the point.

But he bought the guns legally. That is the point.

And under existing federal law, he shouldn't have been able to (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/us/21guns.html?hp).
Under federal law, the Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho should have been prohibited from buying a gun after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment, a state official and several legal experts said Friday.

A reconstruction of the shootings, with maps and diagrams of campus buildings.

Federal law prohibits anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective,” as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, from buying a gun.

The special justice’s order in late 2005 that directed Mr. Cho to seek outpatient treatment and declared him to be mentally ill and an imminent danger to himself fits the federal criteria and should have immediately disqualified him, said Richard J. Bonnie, chairman of the Supreme Court of Virginia’s Commission on Mental Health Law Reform.

A spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives also said that if Mr. Cho had been found mentally defective by a court, he should have been denied the right to purchase a gun.

The federal law defines adjudication as a mental defective to include “determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority” that as a result of mental illness, the person is a “danger to himself or others.”The problem, apparently, has to do with the crappy way that individual states comply with the requirement that they tell the feds who is mentally unstable and therefore ineligible for gun purchases.

And of course whatever your views on gun ownership, one trip to the funny farm should disqualify anybody from buying or owning a firearm.

I very, very strongly disagree. The last thing mentally ill people need is another incentive not to get the help they need. If a doctor has deemed a particular patient to be at risk of violent behavior, that's one thing, but it's ludicrous to suggest that anyone who has spent time in a mental hospital for any reason should be stripped of their rights because of it.

Incidentally, "mentally ill" and "mental hospital" were the terms you were looking for. Not "nutter" and "funny farm," unless you'd like me to start referring to you with slurs, too.

I very, very strongly disagree. The last thing mentally ill people need is another incentive not to get the help they need. If a doctor has deemed a particular patient to be at risk of violent behavior, that's one thing, but it's ludicrous to suggest that anyone who has spent time in a mental hospital for any reason should be stripped of their rights because of it.

Incidentally, "mentally ill" and "mental hospital" were the terms you were looking for. Not "nutter" and "funny farm," unless you'd like me to start referring to you with slurs, too.
I have to wonder how many people suffering with mental illness take into consideration the fact that if they're committed, they will lose their ability under federal law to own a firearm when they're deciding whether or not to seek help. My experience with people with mental illness leads me to believe the number is small. It sounds to me like an argument related to the one which says crime will fall if concealed carry permits are allowed because the criminal will think twice before committing the crime. I doubt that plays much of a factor, frankly.

I have to wonder how many people suffering with mental illness take into consideration the fact that if they're committed, they will lose their ability under federal law to own a firearm when they're deciding whether or not to seek help. My experience with people with mental illness leads me to believe the number is small. It sounds to me like an argument related to the one which says crime will fall if concealed carry permits are allowed because the criminal will think twice before committing the crime. I doubt that plays much of a factor, frankly.

I've met at least one person - an avid hunter - who cited precisely that reason for not seeking help for his severe depression.

The big problem, in my view, is that there's no expiration date on these sorts of bans. It's not "you can't buy guns until your doctor says you're safe to do so," but "you can never, ever, ever buy guns again, even if you voluntarily committed yourself 40 years ago, were never violent in the first place, and have been perfectly functional for 39 years." And that's just stupid.

I've met at least one person - an avid hunter - who cited precisely that reason for not seeking help for his severe depression.

The big problem, in my view, is that there's no expiration date on these sorts of bans. It's not "you can't buy guns until your doctor says you're safe to do so," but "you can never, ever, ever buy guns again, even if you voluntarily committed yourself 40 years ago, were never violent in the first place, and have been perfectly functional for 39 years." And that's just stupid.

There certainly needs to be some sort of process which will allow for people who have undergone treatment to have the ban lifted--one size fits all policies rarely work. But I suspect that the person you met was the exception rather than the rule. And it's important to note that the ban I showed above was for people who had been committed involuntarily, not those simply seeking help.

Virginia Tech was a very sad tradgedy. Do you think it could have been prevented. Should we change gun laws? Tell me your opions.

Please before you post have a moment of silence for those who died.

Sure, it could have been prevented - if only Americans were even more receptive to the idea of a Police State than they've already shown themselves to be, nothing need ever happen ever again. Literally.

Well isn't it pretty obvious that without a Glock or another automatic weapon, he would never have able to kill that many people, he would have been forced to use a kitchen knife of something, in which case he might have killed a few, but in all likelihood he would have been overpowered. Simple really.

Hey you know what would prevent at least half of all automobile accident tragedies? Making it illegal for women to drive!

Therefore we should make it illegal for women to drive.

Simple really.

There certainly needs to be some sort of process which will allow for people who have undergone treatment to have the ban lifted--one size fits all policies rarely work. But I suspect that the person you met was the exception rather than the rule. And it's important to note that the ban I showed above was for people who had been committed involuntarily, not those simply seeking help.

Yeah, I have no real problem with such bans if they can be lifted with a minimum of hassle and if they are limited to those who are involuntarily committed and who have been judged to be dangerous. It just gets idiotic when someone like my acquaintance (who, unlike me, researched the relevant laws) finds that, despite being perfectly sane and not at all predisposed to violence, he can never go deer hunting with his brothers again if he simply asks doctors to keep an eye on him for a week or two.

Changing gun laws would be absolutely pointless if no one is going to enforce the laws.

Virginia Tech was a "gun free zone." What does that mean? No guns are allowed. The flaw with this is that they do not check people for guns. Guns are very easy to conceal, so a security guard squinting at people will not be able to see them.

So unless we start padding people down and sending them through metal detectors, new laws will be pointless.

Also, teachers and professors should be trained to use taser guns, and have them on them personally at all times. That would have saved many lives.

Also, teachers and professors should be trained to use taser guns, and have them on them personally at all times. That would have saved many lives.

I have heard this or some version of this almost non-stop since the Va Tech shooting, and it's just as stupid now as it was the first time I heard it. Teachers and Professors are no better equipped to react in an emergency situation than anyone else is. Some will react well, some will panic, and still others will do some combination of the two. Personally, there are a large number of my colleagues I wouldn't trust with a taser gun, not because I think they'd abuse it, but because in an emergency situation, I think they'd be as likely to shoot themselves with it as shoot the person causing the emergency. And frankly, if that's a policy, that means I'm the first target when they psycho comes in the door because the psycho knows I'm packing. No thanks. I'd rather not have a bulls-eye on my forehead.

I don't hear the majority of people suggesting we ought to completely ban guns in the US. I hear a lot of NRA types shouting that there are lots of people suggesting that, but I don't hear many actually doing the suggesting.
Strange that, because I don't either.

I also find it puzzling that so many people react so strongly when not talking about banning guns: Doing something about the gun culture, having meaningful and effective gun control, or even restricting some types of guns, any debate surrounding guns always meets the "You want to ban our guns!"-cry and derails any useful debate on the subject.

Not every debate has that as a hidden agenda...

Hey you know what would prevent at least half of all automobile accident tragedies? Making it illegal for women to drive!

Therefore we should make it illegal for women to drive.

Simple really.
But if you make it illegal for women to drive, only female criminals would drive cars! :eek:

How about making the car safer or regulating the roads with, I don't know, speed limits? Nah, that would be car control, and only the first step towards banning cars. In fact, if everyone had cars and there were no regulations, there would be no law breakers and probably no hurt pedestrians either. After all, if they saw a car coming towards them they could just drive away. :)
Also, teachers and professors should be trained to use taser guns, and have them on them personally at all times. That would have saved many lives.
Strange how none of this is a serious issue in Europe, eh?

How about making the car safer or regulating the roads with, I don't know, speed limits?

We have those.

Also with guns.

Nah, that would be car control, and only the first step towards banning cars.

No one I know wants to ban cars. On the other hand, a great deal of people want to ban guns.


Strange how none of this is a serious issue in Europe, eh?

They have more important and moral things on their minds, like deciding whether to put Muslims in concentration camps or not.

We have those.

Also with guns.
Just barely.

No one I know wants to ban cars. On the other hand, a great deal of people want to ban guns.
You don't know any green freaks then. There are a lot of people out there who wants to ban cars.

And you can bet that the inventors of the drivers license had some secret anti-car agenda behind them. [/conspiracy]


They have more important and moral things on their minds, like deciding whether to put Muslims in concentration camps or not.
So to the serious part of the post, you have no answer.

Let me ask again: Why does the european communities not worry about teachers having to protect themselves (and their students) while that debate flourishes in the US? Why does nobody in Europe call for the arming of school faculty?

The imformation about the A+ marks came from an interview in the Daily Mail withone of his tutors who was British.

I am not taking your word for this so please provide the proof.

Just barely.

???

You can't fire a gun in just about anywhere except designated target shooting areas. You can't buy a gun unless you're old enough, and have a license and a ton of other regulations. Most places you can't travel with one. Possession is often illegal.

You don't know any green freaks then. There are a lot of people out there who wants to ban cars.

I think it's safe to say there are far more people who want to ban guns.

People who want to ban cars inevitably depend on them on an everyday basis, so they're little more than hypocrites.

And you can bet that the inventors of the drivers license had some secret anti-car agenda behind them. [/conspiracy]

No, but that doesn't mean that people who want to regulate guns don't have an anti-gun position. Certainly the ones who want to ban them do.

[quote]So to the serious part of the post, you have no answer.

Let me ask again: Why does the european communities not worry about teachers having to protect themselves (and their students) while that debate flourishes in the US? Why does nobody in Europe call for the arming of school faculty?

Who says they don't? I see plenty of Europeans worrying about protecting themselves from the unwashed Muslim and immigrant hordes. Not with guns, but what difference does that make?