[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME] There is a fundamental problem with the people who blame guns for this: Guns don't kill people. A gun sitting on a table, even one that's cocked, is not going to kill anyone. It's the person who picks up that gun and points it at another human being and pulls the trigger...that is a real killer. The gun is merely the device.
Given this information, and the responses of the anti-gun people here, you would think that banning guns from the face of the earth will solve this problem. WRONG! The problem, as you can clearly see, is that the person snapped and decided to become violent. The fact that he used to a gun to do it is a moot point. He owned a gun, just like my father owns a gun. My father does not snap and use it to kill people. The problem isn't with the ownership of the gun...it's with the fact that the person in question decided to use the gun to commit an act of violence.
The Japan argument...this is classic. Yes, they have very low gun murder rates, since guns are forbidden. Does that stop people from being killed? No. It just means they use different methods; in Japan the prefered weapon for such an attack is a knife. Granted in most cases it's easier to survive being knifed than being shot, so the murder rate is lower, but again, keeping in mind that the problem is the person who decided to commit the crime, the problem isn't solved. Do the strict gun laws prevent the mass murder of people like what happened yesterday at VT? Nope. Do I need to remind you of the Sarin Gas Attack in 1995? Those people decided to kill as many people as possible. According to the theory used by the ban-guns people, this should never have happend, because they didn't have guns. Guess what, it happend, and 12 people died with almost 1000 experiencing temporary or permanent disfunctions of the eyes and respiratory system. Those people wanted to hurt people, and they found a way to do it, using Sarin gas.
What should be obvious by now is that it's not the weapon that is used that causes the problems of murder, even on a mass scale. It's the fact that someone snapped and decided to become violent. Whether they use guns, knives or sarin gas, people die. It's not the guns fault, nor the knives, nor the sarin gas. It's the person who uses those weapons as a conduit for their own psychosis.
Ban all the guns you want, and you won't solve the problem. As demonstrated in Japan, people will just use knives. You will never get to a point where you can ban everything that could be used as a weapon...even rocks can be used as weapons, and I don't think we can ban them. The problem lays with the people who use them as weapons. They are where efforts should be focused to prevent these things in the future.
Oh, and whoever sugguested the ROTC be carrying guns to preven this in the future....don't get me started. Turning this into a shooting match between 20 people who aren't sharp shooters is only going to lead to more deaths. [/QUOTE]
You're an intelligent woman and on many points you and I agree, but this to me is total nonsense. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." If this guy didn't have a gun - excuse me TWO guns - all of those people would not have died. Simple. If he had a knife, he would have been taken down. If he had a club, he would have been taken down. Could he have built a bomb or used gas? Sure enough. Timothy McVeigh did it, didn't he? We can't prevent every crime, but we can prevent many crimes from being repeated - and gun crimes are repeated daily. Not banning guns has not lessened crime. How can it be argued that banning them would keep things the same or make them worse? Why does your father own a gun? For hunting? I won't get into that, it’s simply disgusting. For protection? From whom? Other people with guns? This is such a ridiculous a
Thread
Posts in chronological order
IMO, the problem here lies with the police and the Campus folks not securing the buildings, and not locking down the campus until the shooter was apprehended.
That move alone saves 30 lives. There was simply nothing that could have been done to save the two killed in the dorm room, but for the police to act in the non chalant way that they did was and is inexcusable.
That move alone saves 30 lives. There was simply nothing that could have been done to save the two killed in the dorm room, but for the police to act in the non chalant way that they did was and is inexcusable.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]IMO, the problem here lies with the police and the Campus folks not securing the buildings, and not locking down the campus until the shooter was apprehended.
That move alone saves 30 lives. There was simply nothing that could have been done to save the two killed in the dorm room, but for the police to act in the non chalant way that they did was and is inexcusable. [/QUOTE]
For once I agree with Haystacks (never thought I'd say that).
This guy shots his girlfriend and the RA on the floor, and the university officials wait for 2 hours before they decide to send out an e-mail saying "There was a shooting this morning, police are investigating. If you see anything suspicious, call the police"?? Come on!! Exercise a little common sense!! Lock the campus down until you are 100% sure you have the gunman in custody.
That move alone saves 30 lives. There was simply nothing that could have been done to save the two killed in the dorm room, but for the police to act in the non chalant way that they did was and is inexcusable. [/QUOTE]
For once I agree with Haystacks (never thought I'd say that).
This guy shots his girlfriend and the RA on the floor, and the university officials wait for 2 hours before they decide to send out an e-mail saying "There was a shooting this morning, police are investigating. If you see anything suspicious, call the police"?? Come on!! Exercise a little common sense!! Lock the campus down until you are 100% sure you have the gunman in custody.
Not all car accidents are "accidents", regardless of country. Breaking the law with an automobile and causing death is no different whatsoever than shooting someone. Both acts are breaking the law, period. If you break the law, you break the law.
Abortion, legal or otherwise, is taking a human life. You can argue semantics on that until the cows come home, but the bottom line is, more lives are taken that way than with guns. Some call it murder, some call it "choice", but either way, millions of humans never walk this earth because of that act.
Today, far more than 25 people will be killed in car accidents, for more than that will be taken out by the effects of smoking, the effects of eating artery clogging foods, etc.
The point is pretty damn clear. If you are going to get on the bandwagon and scream for the banning of guns, you are simply a hypocrite if you don't act the same way for all other forms of murder.
Abortion, legal or otherwise, is taking a human life. You can argue semantics on that until the cows come home, but the bottom line is, more lives are taken that way than with guns. Some call it murder, some call it "choice", but either way, millions of humans never walk this earth because of that act.
Today, far more than 25 people will be killed in car accidents, for more than that will be taken out by the effects of smoking, the effects of eating artery clogging foods, etc.
The point is pretty damn clear. If you are going to get on the bandwagon and scream for the banning of guns, you are simply a hypocrite if you don't act the same way for all other forms of murder.
" As far as the US...Raker is falling into the classic trap. When you are in a different country, your view of other countries in the world is warped by what you are presented with. Something like this, or Columbine, or Hurricane Katrina makes news internationally because it is a disaster. Just like the Tsunami in Asia made news. Don't let you view of the US be warped by things like this, Raker. It only leads to stereotyping, which gets you no where."
That is ridiculous. I appreciate where you're coming from CMU History Girl, but I'm old enough to know of what I speak, I don't hate the US, I have no biases, but please! Forgetting everything else, do more Americans die in gun crimes than in any other Western nation? It's yes or no. If you feel it's no, then you're wrong. If you agree with the numbers, but feel that guns keep you safer, I'll respectfully disagree, as I know for a fact that the nations of the G8 who are America's allies are so much safer than the US it's a joke. So if your premise is that guns keep you safer as a nation, it's a flawed argument. I don't care how many people die from cars or abortions or posion gas, we're talking guns, and guns kill people in the US at a rate that is exponentially greater than elsewhere in the civilized world. If Americans want to keep the right to bear arms, that's cool, it's their country. But if there's ever a time for a discussion about guns and their role in the US it's now.
That is ridiculous. I appreciate where you're coming from CMU History Girl, but I'm old enough to know of what I speak, I don't hate the US, I have no biases, but please! Forgetting everything else, do more Americans die in gun crimes than in any other Western nation? It's yes or no. If you feel it's no, then you're wrong. If you agree with the numbers, but feel that guns keep you safer, I'll respectfully disagree, as I know for a fact that the nations of the G8 who are America's allies are so much safer than the US it's a joke. So if your premise is that guns keep you safer as a nation, it's a flawed argument. I don't care how many people die from cars or abortions or posion gas, we're talking guns, and guns kill people in the US at a rate that is exponentially greater than elsewhere in the civilized world. If Americans want to keep the right to bear arms, that's cool, it's their country. But if there's ever a time for a discussion about guns and their role in the US it's now.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Abortion, legal or otherwise, is taking a human life. You can argue semantics on that until the cows come home, but the bottom line is, more lives are taken that way than with guns. Some call it murder, some call it "choice", but either way, millions of humans never walk this earth because of that act.
[/QUOTE]
An act which then prevents over population, and avoids a lot of social problems caused by raising a child in an environment where they would be subject to emotional and economical problems caused by unqualified parenting and growing up in a socially troubled environment.
Since abortion is such a horrible act, I'd like to see all the anti-abortion moralists put their tax money on social programs to help raise all the kids born whose parents would have chosen to abort.
...Oh wait! They are against that too.
Abortion, legal or otherwise, is taking a human life. You can argue semantics on that until the cows come home, but the bottom line is, more lives are taken that way than with guns. Some call it murder, some call it "choice", but either way, millions of humans never walk this earth because of that act.
[/QUOTE]
An act which then prevents over population, and avoids a lot of social problems caused by raising a child in an environment where they would be subject to emotional and economical problems caused by unqualified parenting and growing up in a socially troubled environment.
Since abortion is such a horrible act, I'd like to see all the anti-abortion moralists put their tax money on social programs to help raise all the kids born whose parents would have chosen to abort.
...Oh wait! They are against that too.
To take that argument to the absurd, one could easily argue that the vast majority of gun murders effectively do the same thing that you claim abortion does........
Also, we've banned drugs in this country, and you can easily see how well THAT is working......
Also, we've banned drugs in this country, and you can easily see how well THAT is working......
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Either tackle the whole problem of murder or don't. Don't pick and choose your arguments. That's the point I make here. [/QUOTE]
Picture a housing complex. Structures are made of wood and are surrounded by trees and other brush. A fire breaks out and winds carry the flames across the complex. People scatter in every direction, hoping to escape. Though it's clear some will die and many buildings will be destroyed, do we not try to douse the flames anyway? Or do we say flames, water damage and falling timber will also destroy the complex, so why bother to do anything?
Imagine a woman with breast cancer. If left alone, the cancer will spread and kill her. Logic says remove it and do whatever is possible to extend her life. But... people die. That's a fact. So is saving or extending this woman's life a waste of effort?
That seems to be the argument you are making. No one is saying crime/murder will be eliminated by banning guns or enforcing gun laws. What is being said is that at least one element of crime can be reduced. To say this should not be looked into since crime will still exist is to say fires should not be fought and life-saving surgeries should not be performed.
Either tackle the whole problem of murder or don't. Don't pick and choose your arguments. That's the point I make here. [/QUOTE]
Picture a housing complex. Structures are made of wood and are surrounded by trees and other brush. A fire breaks out and winds carry the flames across the complex. People scatter in every direction, hoping to escape. Though it's clear some will die and many buildings will be destroyed, do we not try to douse the flames anyway? Or do we say flames, water damage and falling timber will also destroy the complex, so why bother to do anything?
Imagine a woman with breast cancer. If left alone, the cancer will spread and kill her. Logic says remove it and do whatever is possible to extend her life. But... people die. That's a fact. So is saving or extending this woman's life a waste of effort?
That seems to be the argument you are making. No one is saying crime/murder will be eliminated by banning guns or enforcing gun laws. What is being said is that at least one element of crime can be reduced. To say this should not be looked into since crime will still exist is to say fires should not be fought and life-saving surgeries should not be performed.
It appears that the Westboro Baptist Church folks are going to "make an appearance" at the Virginia Tech funerals:
"WBC will preach at the funerals of the Virginia Tech students killed on campus during a shooting rampage April 16, 2007. You describe this as monumental horror, but you know nothing of horror -- yet. Your bloody tyrant Bush says he is 'horrified' by it all. You know nothing of horror -- yet. Your true horror is coming. "They shall also gird themselves with sackloth, and horror shall cover them; and shame shall be upon all faces, and baldness upon all their heads" (Eze. 7:18).
Why did this happen, you ask? It's simple. Your military chose to shoot at the servants of God today, and all they got for their effort was terror. Then, the LORD your God sent a crazed madman to shoot at your children. Was God asleep while this took place? Was He on vacation? Of course not. He willed this to happen to punish you for assailing His servants."
http://www.godhatesamerica.com/
Unbelievable.
"WBC will preach at the funerals of the Virginia Tech students killed on campus during a shooting rampage April 16, 2007. You describe this as monumental horror, but you know nothing of horror -- yet. Your bloody tyrant Bush says he is 'horrified' by it all. You know nothing of horror -- yet. Your true horror is coming. "They shall also gird themselves with sackloth, and horror shall cover them; and shame shall be upon all faces, and baldness upon all their heads" (Eze. 7:18).
Why did this happen, you ask? It's simple. Your military chose to shoot at the servants of God today, and all they got for their effort was terror. Then, the LORD your God sent a crazed madman to shoot at your children. Was God asleep while this took place? Was He on vacation? Of course not. He willed this to happen to punish you for assailing His servants."
http://www.godhatesamerica.com/
Unbelievable.
True, but does that mean that everybody should have easy access to guns?
And damn... after reading topic I begin to think even more that there's something genetically wrong with Americans (except some... you know who you are! ;))
And damn... after reading topic I begin to think even more that there's something genetically wrong with Americans (except some... you know who you are! ;))
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Either tackle the whole problem of murder or don't. Don't pick and choose your arguments. That's the point I make here. [/QUOTE]
Picture a housing complex. Structures are made of wood and are surrounded by trees and other brush. A fire breaks out and winds carry the flames across the complex. People scatter in every direction, hoping to escape. Though it's clear some will die and many buildings will be destroyed, do we not try to douse the flames anyway? Or do we say flames, water damage and falling timber will also destroy the complex, so why bother to do anything?
Imagine a woman with breast cancer. If left alone, the cancer will spread and kill her. Logic says remove it and do whatever is possible to extend her life. But... people die. That's a fact. So is saving or extending this woman's life a waste of effort?
That seems to be the argument you are making. No one is saying crime/murder will be eliminated by banning guns or enforcing gun laws. What is being said is that at least one element of crime can be reduced. To say this should not be looked into since crime will still exist is to say fires should not be fought and life-saving surgeries should not be performed.
[/QUOTE]
In Virginia, it is illegal for anyone other than officially designated personnel to carry a firearm on the grounds of a public university. Not even people with valid concealed-carry permits are exempt. So, it was already illegal for the shooter to have the guns on campus.
Tighter laws would have made little difference. This guy carefully planned this whole thing, down to carrying the chains and locks to keep people from escaping, purchashed the guns 31 days apart, filed the serial numbers off of them, which in itself is illegal, and went to make "history" yesterday.
Anyone who thinks that this man would not purchased these guns on the black market is on a pipe dream. That was his weapon, he bought them legally, and did something against the law. With this careful planning, just as you can purchase illegal drugs, you can also purchase illegal guns.
This wasn't a case of some random guy buying a gun at Wal Mart on Sunday, and showing up on Monday blasting everyone in sight. This was a carefully planned murder spree, and no amount of laws on the books was going to stop it.
The only thing that would have stopped this was the school locking the campus down, but, due in part to the bomb threats last week that locked the campus down, and due to the fact that the police thought that they had the suspect in the dorm shootings, they did not lock down the campus.
It make one wonder to the length that this guy went. Did he call in the threats last week to try to use "the boy who cried wolf"? Did he pick to shoot the girl in the dorm room knowing that her boyfriend would be the suspect?
It's odd.....
Either tackle the whole problem of murder or don't. Don't pick and choose your arguments. That's the point I make here. [/QUOTE]
Picture a housing complex. Structures are made of wood and are surrounded by trees and other brush. A fire breaks out and winds carry the flames across the complex. People scatter in every direction, hoping to escape. Though it's clear some will die and many buildings will be destroyed, do we not try to douse the flames anyway? Or do we say flames, water damage and falling timber will also destroy the complex, so why bother to do anything?
Imagine a woman with breast cancer. If left alone, the cancer will spread and kill her. Logic says remove it and do whatever is possible to extend her life. But... people die. That's a fact. So is saving or extending this woman's life a waste of effort?
That seems to be the argument you are making. No one is saying crime/murder will be eliminated by banning guns or enforcing gun laws. What is being said is that at least one element of crime can be reduced. To say this should not be looked into since crime will still exist is to say fires should not be fought and life-saving surgeries should not be performed.
[/QUOTE]
In Virginia, it is illegal for anyone other than officially designated personnel to carry a firearm on the grounds of a public university. Not even people with valid concealed-carry permits are exempt. So, it was already illegal for the shooter to have the guns on campus.
Tighter laws would have made little difference. This guy carefully planned this whole thing, down to carrying the chains and locks to keep people from escaping, purchashed the guns 31 days apart, filed the serial numbers off of them, which in itself is illegal, and went to make "history" yesterday.
Anyone who thinks that this man would not purchased these guns on the black market is on a pipe dream. That was his weapon, he bought them legally, and did something against the law. With this careful planning, just as you can purchase illegal drugs, you can also purchase illegal guns.
This wasn't a case of some random guy buying a gun at Wal Mart on Sunday, and showing up on Monday blasting everyone in sight. This was a carefully planned murder spree, and no amount of laws on the books was going to stop it.
The only thing that would have stopped this was the school locking the campus down, but, due in part to the bomb threats last week that locked the campus down, and due to the fact that the police thought that they had the suspect in the dorm shootings, they did not lock down the campus.
It make one wonder to the length that this guy went. Did he call in the threats last week to try to use "the boy who cried wolf"? Did he pick to shoot the girl in the dorm room knowing that her boyfriend would be the suspect?
It's odd.....
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME] I wonder how long it will take for people to blame George Bush. [/QUOTE]
Well... he did allow the ban on assault weapons to expire without requiring a renewal, so...
[/QUOTE]
Oh, a 9mm handgun is an assault weapon.
Why is it that ALL the Euros can do is throw an insult: Americans are so stupid, Americans are afraid, blah blah blah. Yes when we got over here there was something in the water that just MADE US CRAZY!!!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]after reading topic I begin to think even more that there's something genetically wrong with Americans (except some... you know who you are! ;))[/QUOTE]
And I think there's something wrong with your Mom.
It's safer in Europe, huh? I swear I heard somewhere they used to kill millions of people there. Oh, I didn't know Croatia was in South Dakota. Hitler was not American. Neither was Stalin, Erik The Red, Alexander, or Mao Tse Tung. Let's add up those numbers.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I would assume then that you have a problem with the 47,282,923 abortions performed in the US since 1973?
[/QUOTE]
After reading some of these posts, I have a problem with a couple that weren't performed. But then some idiot will probably claim that America is the most unsafe place on earth and lack of gun control made it that way.
Isn't it a little more dangerous in Iraq? Boy Thomas Niave.
Well... he did allow the ban on assault weapons to expire without requiring a renewal, so...
[/QUOTE]
Oh, a 9mm handgun is an assault weapon.
Why is it that ALL the Euros can do is throw an insult: Americans are so stupid, Americans are afraid, blah blah blah. Yes when we got over here there was something in the water that just MADE US CRAZY!!!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]after reading topic I begin to think even more that there's something genetically wrong with Americans (except some... you know who you are! ;))[/QUOTE]
And I think there's something wrong with your Mom.
It's safer in Europe, huh? I swear I heard somewhere they used to kill millions of people there. Oh, I didn't know Croatia was in South Dakota. Hitler was not American. Neither was Stalin, Erik The Red, Alexander, or Mao Tse Tung. Let's add up those numbers.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I would assume then that you have a problem with the 47,282,923 abortions performed in the US since 1973?
[/QUOTE]
After reading some of these posts, I have a problem with a couple that weren't performed. But then some idiot will probably claim that America is the most unsafe place on earth and lack of gun control made it that way.
Isn't it a little more dangerous in Iraq? Boy Thomas Niave.
So, again, if Haystacks Calhounski, Music Man or CMU History Girl could answer why the most heavily armed country on earth is by far the most unsafe, I'd be willing to hear how lack of gun control is a good thing.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]mahlerscom wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
The above listing is the parents home of the gunman[/QUOTE]
How bout posting your parent's home address and phone number. Like it's their fault.
BARB: You need to ban this guy immediately. This is simply promoting hate.
UPDATE: Post removed, Mahlerscom wiped from existance.
The above listing is the parents home of the gunman[/QUOTE]
How bout posting your parent's home address and phone number. Like it's their fault.
BARB: You need to ban this guy immediately. This is simply promoting hate.
UPDATE: Post removed, Mahlerscom wiped from existance.
[QUOTE]The Japan argument...this is classic. Yes, they have very low gun murder rates, since guns are forbidden. Does that stop people from being killed? No. It just means they use different methods; in Japan the prefered weapon for such an attack is a knife.[/QUOTE]
Would he have been able to kill 32 people with a knife???!!! he still would have killed some people but he would have been stopped way before 32!
Can anybody kill 32 people with a mere knife? (I mean except Chuck Norris, the greatest American of all time)
Would he have been able to kill 32 people with a knife???!!! he still would have killed some people but he would have been stopped way before 32!
Can anybody kill 32 people with a mere knife? (I mean except Chuck Norris, the greatest American of all time)