The massacre at Virginia Tech. :*-(

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

I believe that is a law in most states, but as Lief pointed out everyone dropped the ball on letting people know he was a nut.

You know, the fact that he was put in a mental hospital at one time...and that this fact did not show up on his background check when he purchased the gun...well, it had to do with some kind of legislation that wouldn't allow disclosure of his records. I won't name names...

As I said above it would not be hard to get a hold of a gun, you can buy one privately, you can steal one, not that hard.

Exactly right.

You would have to prove the connection about stricter gun laws, there could be many other variables, cause and effect is not always easy to connect nor is it wise to do so without a lot of info...but I'm not gonna research since I have two papers to write and a test on wednsday.

Have a good one everybody;
Keep it real.

Good luck on those test.

Meanwhile RTR, the study has already been done: Dr Lott.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/chapin/chapin10.html

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

We have very strict gun laws (I have never even touched a gun) yet we still get nutters shooting kids in schools (e.g. Thomas Hamilton, in 1996, killed 15 primary 1 kids, aged 5, and their teacher).

It's worth pointing out that the strictest elements of our current gun laws (e.g. the ban on handguns) were introduced after, and because of, that incident. I'm not suggesting it would have made any difference in that case - just pointing it out for clarity's sake

[hectorberlioz]

I just want to say that while most politicians are divided on this issue right pro/ left con, it is not so plural among the constituency.

http://www.liberalswithguns.com/

http://www.progunprogressive.com/

http://gunowners.org/pres08/richardson.htm

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I don't mean to sound gloating, but are you now a believer in gun carrying, at least in homes?

I can't possibly imagine what you'd have to gloat about in this context. Seriously.

To answer the question, no, absolutely not. I might well feel differently if I lived in the US, where guns are far more prevalent, but I don't think so.

I am mindful of the statistic that if you own a gun you are far more likely to be killed by it than by someone else's.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I can't possibly imagine what you'd have to gloat about in this context. Seriously.

You have to preface these kinds of questions with something self-deprecating

To answer the question, no, absolutely not. I might well feel differently if I lived in the US, where guns are far more prevalent, but I don't think so.

Alright alright...just checking.

I am mindful of the statistic that if you own a gun you are far more likely to be killed by it than by someone else's.

Where might that stat come from?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I actually half-agree, and half-disagree on this whole gun argument. While I certainly think gun bans are ineffectual (guns were banned on the VA Tech campus, btw...since last year), I do think it would be a bad idea for everybody to have a gun.

But: you have to be 21 anyways to get a permit, so that rules out quite a percentage of students on campus. Secondly, not everyone wants a gun.

You don't need to be 21 for all kinds of guns. And you don't need a permit (effectively) if you know where there's an idiot who doesn't keep his guns locked up securely enough to absolutely defy theft.

I think the most important thing is to let the people who already have guns, like military guys, keep theirs. They, after all, are used to carrying their guns around.

And shooting people with them. Swiss gun debate. http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/d...05&sid=7724489

But I can certainly tell you this: if you are going to ban guns, be prepared to go the extra-mile to make sure they are not carried etc. What good is the law if you don't enforce it? Gun bans should not be looked on as the magic potion that eliminates all our fears.

Agree 100%.

As RohirrimTR rightly points out, gun bans usually only result in good folks loosing theirs, and law-breakers keeping theirs (it isn't only about the availability, or the ability to buy one, you know. Most people who are going to use guns already own them).

That's silly. Of course you have to enforce laws. But there's no point in having a strong gun law in place in Kansas if all the gunshops in Missouri can cluster on the border and sell to anyone.


Nice piece on the Court's response to the 2nd amendment and its relationship to militias.

http://www.gunlawsuits.org/defend/se...s/militias.php


Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2003: Trends for the Permanent Brady Period, 1999-2003
Describes background checks for firearm transfers conducted in 2003, and presents trends during the Permanent Brady Period (1999-2003). This annual report provides the number of applications checked by State points of contact, estimates of the number of applications checked by local agencies, the number of applications rejected, the reasons for rejection, and estimates of applications and rejections conducted by each type of approval system. It also provides information about appeals of rejected applications and arrests for falsified applications. The Firearm Inquiry Statistics Program, managed under the National Criminal History Improvement Program, is an ongoing data collection effort focusing on the procedures and statistics related to background checks in selected States.

Highlights include the following:

State and local agencies conducted background checks on about half of the applications for firearm transfers or permits in 2003, while the FBI was responsible for the remainder.
In 2003, 126,000 (1.6%) of approximately 7,831,000 applications for firearms transfers or permits were rejected by the FBI or State and local agencies.
An estimated 8,000 persons were arrested from 1999 to 2003 for an outstanding warrant or submission of false information on an application, according to ATF and checking agencies reporting arrests to FIST.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/bcft03.htm

Several good references on things like gun theft, and lack of enforcement of gun laws.
http://ww2.americansforgunsafety.com/reports.asp

And, I'd like to say again, I'm unhappy that this debate is taking place on this thread.

[The Gaffer]

Dunno, but here's a study on using your gun to kill yourself:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum
Edit: agree with sis on that.

Hopefully the quality and extent of media coverage might be fair game.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

You don't need to be 21 for all kinds of guns.

IIRC, it's only handguns, right?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

You don't need to be 21 for all kinds of guns. And you don't need a permit (effectively) if you know where there's an idiot who doesn't keep his guns locked up securely enough to absolutely defy theft.

Nobody, who is self-concious enough, is going to carry a rifle on campus...unless they are the killer.

And shooting people with them. Swiss gun debate. http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/d...05&sid=7724489

So those military guys are just...waiting to fire off?:confused" I wonder why the police aren't the same....hmm....hmmm...

That's silly. Of course you have to enforce laws. But there's no point in having a strong gun law in place in Kansas if all the gunshops in Missouri can cluster on the border and sell to anyone.

Forget about the sale of guns, outlawing that is cake.
No, the point is: how are you going to MAKE certain people give up their guns once they are banned?

And, I'd like to say again, I'm unhappy that this debate is taking place on this thread.

I was going to make a seperate one...

[Insidious Rex]

One can go back and forth as to how at fault the gun laws were in this particular case. But it IS clear that the Columbine kids exploited known loopholes in the gun laws of the time to obtain guns through an unlicensed dealer at a gun show which they used to kill 12 of their classmates and teachers. This unlicensed dealer did not run any background checks because he wasn’t legally obligated to. If that loophole had not existed the Columbine kids would not have been able to get guns that way. So of course there was a huge hue and cry about this horrible loophole and how it needed to be closed so that this couldn’t happen again. Its been 8 years and its still not closed… The NRA is simply too powerful in the country to even push across absolutely rational and common sense reforms in our many inept and ridiculous gun laws. And you can be rest assured the NRA will not allow the Virginia Tech massacre to change a thing either. They will just say gosh that’s too bad. Those kids really all should have been armed and be done with it.

[hectorberlioz]

Well if you REALLY want to get down to it, guns shouldn't exist.

Unfortunately they do exist, and no silly "ban" is going to keep them gone, just as Prohibition didn't keep the liquor gone.

Maybe the NRA hasn't done enough to condemn the violence guns cause...(on the other hand, Home Depot hasn't condemned fertilizer for it's use in the McVeigh bombing...), but as far as I know, the NRA promotes more gun-safety stuff than anybody else. But they cannot control what happens with them, just like you Rex, can't control what happens if some maniac decides to murder somebody else with your butterknife.

I'm not trying to say that fertilizer and knives are equivalent to guns: guns are definitely more dangerous than either, for the simple convenience of them...

[hectorberlioz]

Now what did I say about that English class imagination, folks?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/M..._english_class

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Well if you REALLY want to get down to it, guns shouldn't exist.

Unfortunately they do exist, and no silly "ban" is going to keep them gone, just as Prohibition didn't keep the liquor gone.

Maybe the NRA hasn't done enough to condemn the violence guns cause...(on the other hand, Home Depot hasn't condemned fertilizer for it's use in the McVeigh bombing...), but as far as I know, the NRA promotes more gun-safety stuff than anybody else. But they cannot control what happens with them, just like you Rex, can't control what happens if some maniac decides to murder somebody else with your butterknife.

I'm not trying to say that fertilizer and knives are equivalent to guns: guns are definitely more dangerous than either, for the simple convenience of them...

What has this got to do with allowing unlicensed dealers to sell kids guns out of the trunks of their cars with no background check exactly? Justification?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

What has this got to do with allowing unlicensed dealers to sell kids guns out of the trunks of their cars with no background check exactly? Justification?

Nothing. Because I wasn't responding to that aspect of your post. I was replying to your comments about the NRA.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Originally Posted by hectorberlioz
Well if you REALLY want to get down to it, guns shouldn't exist.

Unfortunately they do exist, and no silly "ban" is going to keep them gone, just as Prohibition didn't keep the liquor gone.

Maybe the NRA hasn't done enough to condemn the violence guns cause...(on the other hand, Home Depot hasn't condemned fertilizer for it's use in the McVeigh bombing...), but as far as I know, the NRA promotes more gun-safety stuff than anybody else. But they cannot control what happens with them, just like you Rex, can't control what happens if some maniac decides to murder somebody else with your butterknife.

I'm not trying to say that fertilizer and knives are equivalent to guns: guns are definitely more dangerous than either, for the simple convenience of them...


What has this got to do with allowing unlicensed dealers to sell kids guns out of the trunks of their cars with no background check exactly? Justification?

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insidious Rex
What has this got to do with allowing unlicensed dealers to sell kids guns out of the trunks of their cars with no background check exactly? Justification?


Nothing. Because I wasn't responding to that aspect of your post. I was replying to your comments about the NRA.

This is what's going on:
http://infowars.net/articles/may2007...Kent_State.htm

This is the issue, most people are good citizens. Therefore, the students should have been armed; everyone, should be able to have a conceal and carry weapon ok. That is freedom and this horrible incedent would never have happened.

If it is illegal for citizens to own a firearm, then only criminals (and corrupt governments) will have them because good people (which is most of us) won't brake the law. If you have a totally disarmed population you have slavery people; you will be giving others absolute power over you, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Do, you, get, it.

[Grey_Wolf]

....

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

This is the issue, most people are good citizens. Therefore, the students should have been armed; everyone, should be able to have a conceal and carry weapon ok. That is freedom and this horrible incedent would never have happened.

Thanks but no thanks to the kind of loony NRA rational. I will never accept the argument that it’s the victims fault for being killed because if they had just been armed to the teeth in a college classroom then its less likely they would have been shot. What utter and complete nonsense. Guns in the classroom will without doubt lead to MUCH more tragedy then we currently see now. Anyone who argues otherwise is diluded or in cahoots with the gun lobby. So lets not sully the memory of the dead kids and teachers by saying otherwise shall we?

If it is illegal for citizens to own a firearm, then only criminals (and corrupt governments) will have them because good people (which is most of us) won't brake the law.

Despite the fact that this statement is incorrect, I see it as irrelevant to mention here since no one said anything about banning all firearms. Just closing some awful loopholes that scum bags and lunatics like to exploit. It seems as if at least in Virginia the death of 33 people may have spurred this to happen. Its too bad the Columbine tragedy didn’t inspire the gun folks to give up their ridiculous gun show loop hole though. I guess 13 dead isn’t enough. At least in Colorado.

If you have a totally disarmed population you have slavery people; you will be giving others absolute power over you, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Do, you, get, it.

Again no one is saying banish the second amendment so Im not sure what the need for this tired speech was exactly. Although as an aside, I will never understand this logic quite frankly because whether you have a handgun or not, if the evil government really wants to get you, you and your gun will be no match for even one helicopter gun ship. So the fundamental cry of the gun lobby rings hollow to me whenever I hear it because it will not be effective in practice. This aint 1776.