watch this now: VA tech shootings

[nightrider]

There has never been any case were violent crime has stopped or been limited by gun control.

I'm not "pro-gun control" to start with but the above statement strains credibility. Have you ever seen a violent gun crime that was prevented by gun control? Nope. And the ebb and flow of crime in Australia doesn't mean their gun control program wasn't a successful step in the right direction, which is what it is considered to be by many people.

The funny thing is, the NRA types are saying if "students could have had guns on campus they could have stopped him sooner"... well who the f is going to put a 9mm in their backpack and take it to every college class every single day? How many people would actually do that? Would 1 in 10 students in America packing a pistol to classes make things safer? Hell no.

Is proliferation of weapons really going to help anything? Not likely.

No doubt people should be able to own guns for whatever reason, it's America. But... I think a stricter system of gun control is needed.

[jimbo1]

The issue wasn't about every student carrying a weapon.  The issue that came before the Virginia General Assembly was that CHL holders should be allowed to carry.

The difference between buying a handgun and getting a CHL is night and day.

I'm not "pro-gun control" to start with but the above statement strains credibility. Have you ever seen a violent gun crime that was prevented by gun control? Nope. And the ebb and flow of crime in Australia doesn't mean their gun control program wasn't a successful step in the right direction, which is what it is considered to be by many people.

We already have what should be very effective gun control measures. What should change is, that when people have a history like the shooter this is reported and prosecuted.  There are at least two issues with Cho that by current law, would have stopped him from purchasing ANY type of firearm.   So if it "strains credibility" I would ask for some sort of proof showing this.  And what is "considered a step in the right direction", is a loaded statement.   Just like here and the 1994 Assault weapon ban, it did nothing to curb crime, nor was it designed to.  But was more of a "feel good" law. 

[The Buddha]

No wait huh?  Lame...   

If they make owning a gun criminal, then only criminals will own guns..... 

But, why do we have to take training and tests to drive a car and ride a motorcycle, but not to own a gun or have kids?

Man, they cant just make owning a gun a crime.
They should also stop making them, stop making bullets for them and start a buy back program and take away everything that is high speed, high capacity and replace it with 1 shot rifle or piston. The glocks and semi automatics they take away can be given to police or military etc. Then 10 years from now, we will see a reduction, cos 10 years will be what it will take to get the guns out of the system.
Less guns isn't the answer, it will leave the ones who aren't intent on getting a gun defenseless. The only guns should be big and obvious and slow and you need to have training and practice to use. Semi automatic's with high capacity ... nope, its not a murder weapon, its a massacre weapon.
Rifles and pistols are going to be less effective in the hands of a unstable whack job than in the hands of a steady clear headed person. Automatically its advantage normal person.
Then lets see, you're walking down the street and peppered in the crowd you see several people with rifles on their person. You think to your self, I can kill myself 30 people here with your single shot pistol. Yea right.
The constitution was written when the gun they were talking about was a single shot rifle (or was it a muscat) ... that what you need to have as per the constitution. No licence required. Have at it. Heck, I'll even set up news stand like stands that sell bullets.
Cool.
Srinath.

[Stephen072774]

But, why do we have to take training and tests to drive a car and ride a motorcycle, but not to own a gun or have kids?

I don't disagree with you, at all... but here is why...  Driving is a privilege, not a right...

[natedawg120]

No wait huh?  Lame...   

If they make owning a gun criminal, then only criminals will own guns..... 

But, why do we have to take training and tests to drive a car and ride a motorcycle, but not to own a gun or have kids?

thats what i was hinting at.  I am pretty good with a gun, have wanted one for a long time and frankly the more and more shaZam! happens right in my back yard the more and more i think i should have one in my glove box right now.  But there are too many hot heads that would get pissed at someone denting their car or screwing their girl.  thats what police or fists are for, not guns.......

[jimbo1]

Srinath,,,, that defeats the whole purpose of the 2nd.   

The amendment is that the population is as well armed as the government.  I don't remember for sure, but I think it was James Madison owned his own battle ship.


So if we ban all semi- autos, then those that want to commit mass murder will use a bomb, a chemical, and car.  You can't legislate proper behavior, you only limit those who follow the laws.     

In the 1966 Texas college shootings, the shooter again had a bolt action rifle.  And he still killed 16 people before being killed himself by police. 

And I have semi auto's,, why?  Because many home invasions are done by multiple people.  So if I can only have a single shot weapon and more than one person breaks into my house, what am I supposed to do then?

[Tyro]

Srinath,

Sorry, but given how well prohibition is working for drugs, and how well it worked for alcohol in the past, I'd rather not see that come about for firearms. Anybody who wants drugs can get them anywhere in the country, only the law abiding folks don't. We are not an island nation like Japan or Australia. Our borders are porous to the point that even if all guns in the country magically vanished overnight, the criminal element could and would instantly begin to re-arm themselves. Plus, guns can be fabricated. I could build a single shot zip gun at home and I bet most of you could too. If I had access to a metal shop and didn't care about the legality I could probably build a submachine gun. Are you going to regulate milling machines and blocks of metal?

That's just the practical argument, not taking into account Jimbo's point that the 2nd amendment is really about the citizenry being able to resist the federal government if necessary.

This guy was obviously a sociopath who put a deal of thought and planning into this. Firearms were the medium. As jimbo said, he could've gone with a bomb or run people over with a Hummer.

Man, they cant just make owning a gun a crime.
They should also stop making them, stop making bullets for them and start a buy back program and take away everything that is high speed, high capacity and replace it with 1 shot rifle or piston. The glocks and semi automatics they take away can be given to police or military etc. Then 10 years from now, we will see a reduction, cos 10 years will be what it will take to get the guns out of the system.
Less guns isn't the answer, it will leave the ones who aren't intent on getting a gun defenseless. The only guns should be big and obvious and slow and you need to have training and practice to use. Semi automatic's with high capacity ... nope, its not a murder weapon, its a massacre weapon.
Rifles and pistols are going to be less effective in the hands of a unstable whack job than in the hands of a steady clear headed person. Automatically its advantage normal person.
Then lets see, you're walking down the street and peppered in the crowd you see several people with rifles on their person. You think to your self, I can kill myself 30 people here with your single shot pistol. Yea right.
The constitution was written when the gun they were talking about was a single shot rifle (or was it a muscat) ... that what you need to have as per the constitution. No licence required. Have at it. Heck, I'll even set up news stand like stands that sell bullets.
Cool.
Srinath.

[jimbo1]

back yard the more and more i think i should have one in my glove box right now.  But there are too many hot heads that would get pissed at someone denting their car or screwing their girl.  thats what police or fists are for, not guns.

Make sure you get a CHL, putting a weapon in the glove box is concealment and a crime if caught.

Actually most CHL holders I've talked to, they tend to be much more careful of any situation they get into.  I don't have the stats, but have been told that CCW holders nation wide are far less likely to commit ANY crime than the nation averages.

[natedawg120]

back yard the more and more i think i should have one in my glove box right now.  But there are too many hot heads that would get pissed at someone denting their car or screwing their girl.  thats what police or fists are for, not guns.

Make sure you get a CHL, putting a weapon in the glove box is concealment and a crime if caught.

Actually most CHL holders I've talked to, they tend to be much more careful of any situation they get into.  I don't have the stats, but have been told that CCW holders nation wide are far less likely to commit ANY crime than the nation averages.

Yeah I know you have to have a CHL to carry in a glove box, else it hads to be out in plain site, like on a seat.  Police tend to not like it when you have a pistol on the car without a CHL from what i have seen though.

[trumpetguy]

Why is it that when people speak of the right to bear arms, they never repeat the FIRST TWO clauses of the second amendment?

You may read it here if you wish:
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


It doesn't look to me like the founding fathers intended for citizens individually to have unregulated gun ownership.

But what bothers me more than ANY of the gun-control issues is the culture of violence and macho behavior that we encourage.  Go watch Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine."  Even if you don't like his political views, he makes a pretty good argument that our problem in the USA is not gun ownership, but attitudes.  That's what we should be trying to change.

[Tyro]

I've seen Bowling for Columbine twice. I didn't care for it. I agree with you that it's a culture problem not necessarily a gun problem. Look at Switzerland for an example of a country with very high gun ownership but low gun crime.

Also, you may not know it but by federal law:

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

[jimbo1]

But what bothers me more than ANY of the gun-control issues is the culture of violence and macho behavior that we encourage.  Go watch Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine."  Even if you don't like his political views, he makes a pretty good argument that our problem in the USA is not gun ownership, but attitudes.  That's what we should be trying to change.

Very true, it is attitudes.  But macho attitudes are not the ones that kill and victimize people, a predatory attitude does.   I have seen this attitude in many other places other than the US.  And the best I can figure is, some are just like this.  I would LOVE to see none of this predatory mind set, but as long as it exists, I will prepare to deal with it if they threaten me or mine.

[AGSlife]

I don't know guys but I really think that gun control is a minor issue in this one.  I think the main issue is that of a failure of the mental health care system and more specifically the mental health care system within a college setting.  Clearly this guy was a nutjob and several students and professors had identified that he had problems.  Now while it is extremely difficult to commit someone who is 18 years of age and older against their will,  universities can put stipulations on ones enrollment there, such as counseling as a requirement of ones continued enrollment.  They also can search ones dorm room without a warrant because that is their property or at least my college could. Don't ask.  And from all of information we have received about Cho I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't have exhibited these behaviors prior to going to college, which makes me wonder what exactly his family dynamics were and how they could have contributed to his psychosis.  All in all Cho slipped thru some pretty big cracks.