Where do you stand on, "The Shooting"?

Hmmm, food for thought. Thank you for sharing that with us and let us know when you can verify them. I think this shows how much a balance is needed between control and freedom.

Jidun,

I am an Australian and I am appalled at the numbers of Australian shooting but I must speak my mind.

'BE ONE OF THE VOCAL MINORITY WHO WON'T LET THIS HAPPEN IN THE U.S.A.' You have got to be joking!!! It is already happening!!!

I have been watching this thread for quite some time. When the first thread appeared I spoke my mind. I didn't see it appear (why does that not suprise me!)

Australians would not have picked a gun if it hadn't been for the Americans in televison.

We did something about after our guns in the Port Arthur Massarce. How you do something too.

Dhagon Krayt wrote:

Most of us do see the bigger picture, and it would be great if such a utopia that you speak of could exist, but it can't and won't. There will always be disagreements, arguments and fights somewhere. There will always be someone willing to do the unthinkable to get their point across. It is unfortunate yes, but inevitable. I do wonder what better defense for your family there is than a weapon, when a weapon is what is threatening your family? Maybe you can help us on that one. I believe that criminals began the escalation of force so to speak back with the tommy gun. Police only had pistols back then, to start with atleast. With every new invention, there will be someone attempting to do criminal activity with it, that is the criminal mind. Look at the internet, not meant to be a weapon, but when used by criminals can facilitate statatory rape, theft and fraud to name a few. In reality it doesn't matter what \"weapons\" are available, criminals will do criminal activity.

DK

The point I was attempting to make was how EASY we as a society make it for these criminals for facilitate said activity.

As far as \"a weapon\" threatening my family... do all and everything you can to protect them so such an event will never happen. Alarm Systems, keeping track of your children, and all that jazz that coinsides with family security. There are peaceful replacements for a weapon, and they are implimented in my house. A weapon will be the last and final step in my household. And if you would like to think of some elaborate example, I can counter that with the same.

jidun wrote:

Houru Rinia wrote:

jidun wrote:

Now, liberals will be saying take all the guns away... I side with the article below, and said as much, shortly after the shooting.


Guns on campus: One is one too few


57 minutes ago

BLACKSBURG, VA., IS a college town surrounded by countryside full of good ole boys who grew up shooting and hunting. Virginia Tech undoubtedly has a good number of ............................................................ The best defense against such people is to increase the number of armed good guys so that there is always someone nearby able to respond.

See original article at The Union Leader ....<br><br>Post edited by: admin, at: 2007/04/17 22:16

So basically what you are saying is that everyone should carry a weapon to defend yourself against people with weapons? That is madness!

If the United States, or any country for that matter, makes weapons such as pistols, shot guns, or any firearm as easily accessable as they are then they are... you are asking for events such as the Shooting in Virginia or Columbine, Colorado to happen. Violence simply begets more violence... and if you are living in fear of other people and the weapons they could have... you are bound to that state for the rest of your life.

Let go your fear, and your hate... and embrace life. Focus not on the aforementioned, and on your family, friends, and these things that allow you to reach the pinnicle of your existance.

Ya know some people are very naive. I am not saying you are but, look at countries like Darfur where most of it's poor citizens are being DINED on by evil warlords with guns. IF those people owned firearms that entire situation would never have happened.

Ohh, I forgot all these goody two shoes sitting in their fine homes whooping out with their wallets and their prayers, I am sure that is GREAT help to those poor ravaged individuals. Better help would have been to have made sure they were well armed beforehand.

Good people MUST be prepared to do the unthinkable to those who would perform unmentionable horrors upon others. Where kisses and wishes won't stop the evil..... Bullets will.

It's nice in our ivory towers, too bad we can't all be out there in the dirt.

This was replied to my first comment in this thread. And you know, I really wouldn't know what it is like in the \"Ivory Towers\" back where you speak of...

Try I am in Iraq right now. Operation: Iraqi Freedom. You experience something like being charged by a child with explosives strapped to his chest and knowing that it is you or him... your perspective on weapons will change.

Seems like an easy choice to me. Its unfortunate that terrorist would use their children in ways like this, but your family should not have to suffer from the loss of you because of it. Obviously you made the same decision, since you are here. I have been there, so I do understand.

DK

To further this discussion, I'm willing to bet that you didnt' use any non lethal form of \"protection\" to stop this child either. You either shot him, or ran/drove away before he could explode and kill you. The thing is we can't un-invent the gun (which was originally created for hunting) or the bomb, or any other weapon. What we can do is invent new ways to counter them, but most will be lethal. By being in Iraq, I'm going to assume you know what \"deadly force\" and \"escalation of force\" is, meaning you use the least possible amount of force to nuetralize an opponent, but when necessary you mame or kill said opponent. Its the nature of the beast that is reality, especially in a war environment.

DK

Not to be a downer or anything, but um.......why were people packing steel in an establishment that sold alcohol in the first place? I agree with the fact that a potential travesty was prevented, but, at least where I'm from, even with a Concealed Carry permit, you can't have a weapon in a drinking establishment?! Oh well, good that the situation was ended in a somewhat peacable manner though.

I agree with most of that article, also. Regretable as it is, the only sure way to stop most violence is an equal and efficient violent response. Not to kill, but to disable the attacker. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
If another student or faculty member had some way to defend themselves or a weapon or means to stop the shooting, it would not have been as terrible as it had turned out.
When a person has become so twisted and so tormented as to approach the place where they can needlessly hurt or intend to kill innocents, then force must and should be used to stop them by all means. They don't have to be killed, just stopped.
Defend, defend, defend. That is what it all comes down to. We should each and every one of us be able to defend any innocent, at any time.

Sharmilla Wymann wrote:

Jidun,

I am an Australian and I am appalled at the numbers of Australian shooting but I must speak my mind.

'BE ONE OF THE VOCAL MINORITY WHO WON'T LET THIS HAPPEN IN THE U.S.A.' You have got to be joking!!! It is already happening!!!

I think you mis-understood what he was implying

---

Don't let them take the guns away

---

Was the full intent you totally took the meaning out of context, I guess.

I have been watching this thread for quite some time. When the first thread appeared I spoke my mind. I didn't see it appear (why does that not suprise me!)

I never erase a post unless it is an accidental exact duplicate and I have the time.

Australians would not have picked a gun if it hadn't been for the Americans in televison.

You really floor me on this one. I do not want to offend you but it is obvious you don't have a full understanding of how your OWN country was founded.

We did something about after our guns in the Port Arthur Massarce. How you do something too.

Well, here in Texas our Governeor, (Rick Perry) God bless his soul is moving to have the right to carry a concealed firearm into ANY establishment EVEN courtrooms, schools and aclohol selling establishments.

And I would love to see it happen.

A law abiding citizen with a firearm is a blessed defender.

Americans are in a unique situation, with unique views on gun control. Because the right to bear arms is perceived asenshrined in the constitution, they have come to regard it as an essential component of their freedom and security.
But if the founding fathers regarded the constitution as absolute and unchangeable as many americans do today, there wouldn't have been a 2nd amendment to begin with! Amendments are, by definition, esentially “Whoops, forgot something.”
The second amendment, as I understand it, only came about as a provisio, in the event that England decided to reclaim it's unlucky number of lost colonies.
That danger, I would say, is long past.
Increased gun control might not keep guns out of the hands of outlaws, but it might keep them out of the hands of the insane. As I recall, this guy had been diagnosed as mentally ill, or institutionalized. I have to admit I don't the precise wording of your gun laws, but I can't think of any reason why someone like thar should have as easy a time acquiring a firearm as an average person.
Not that can I claim to trust even the average person to be disciplined and responsible with their firearms. Put a little liquor in your system and responsibilty is the first thing out the window. Also, the average person is not a jedi; they are ruled by emotion, and aggressive feelings are easily aroused. With a gun in hand, they are that much more likely to use it, especially if they think there's a possibilty that their opponent might have one.
If you compared the number of gun related crimes and deaths in america with those of other, more gun restrictive countries, I expect the more gun controlled countries (1st world democracies) would have far lower rates of both. That's just my guess; anybody know where to find this kind of info? It might do some good to gets some statistics in here so we can root our opinions in truths rather than truthiness.

as requested: So that it is known I actually have no opinion other than to err on the side of freedom. I present this information simply for the use of it in the topic. All sources are cited on the Notes page

#1: National Center for Policy Analysis
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/

Policy Report
No. 176
December, 1992
by Morgan O. Reynolds and W. W. Caruth III

Executive Summary

Firearms are used to commit as many as 650,000 crimes each year. But firearms are also used to prevent crimes as many as one million times each year. In fact, criminals are three times more likely to be killed by armed victims who resist them than by the police. Would tougher gun control laws make our lives safer? Fair appraisal of the issue requires us to put aside some common myths.

Myth No. 1: Guns cause crime. A careful review of 18 academic studies shows that there is no relationship between the number of guns and the amount of crime in the United States. International evidence tells a similar story.

Myth No. 2: Gun control laws reduce crime. The nation already has 20,000 gun control laws, and the police arrest 220,000 people a year on weapons violations. Yet the violent crime rate is at an all-time high. Moreover, considering that fewer than 1 percent of all guns are involved in a crime and only 12 percent of all violent crimes involve a gun, gun control laws could have only a modest effect on crime - even if they worked exactly as intended, which they don't. For example, New Jersey, Hawaii and Washington, D.C., experienced sharp murder-rate increases after passing tough gun control laws. Canada, Taiwan and Jamaica reported similar experiences.

Myth No. 3: Guns are of little help in defending against criminals. In fact, guns are a big help. Each year, potential victims kill from 2,000 to 3,000 criminals and wound an additional 9,000 to 17,000. And mishaps are rare. Private citizens mistakenly kill innocent people only 30 times a year, compared with about 330 mistaken killings by police. Criminals succeed in taking a gun away from an armed victim less than 1 percent of the time.

Myth No. 4: Killing someone is the only reason to buy a handgun. The vast majority of gun owners cite protection from crime as one of the main reasons they own a gun. And for good reason. Americans use guns for self-protection about one million times a year. In 98 percent of the cases, they simply brandish the weapon or fire a warning shot.

Myth No. 5: People who buy guns are more prone to violence and crime than are other people. Violence and crime are higher among black than white, lower-income than middle- or upper-income, young than middle-aged, single than married, and urban than rural individuals - all contrary to the pattern of gun ownership.

Myth No. 6: Criminals mainly have guns in order to commit crimes. The number one reason criminals acquire guns is for self-protection against other criminals. Fewer than half of felons think handguns are important for use in committing crimes.

Myth No. 7: Killings and other violent crimes were prevalent in the Old West because guns were so plentiful. Much of the violence on the frontier involved clashes with Indians, bandits and foreigners. Even so, the frontier was a lot safer than America is today. There was very little ordinary crime - less than in most cities in the East.

Myth No. 8: Gun controls keep criminals from obtaining guns. In surveys of prisoners, a majority said that prior to imprisonment they had owned a handgun. But fewer than one in six guns had been purchased from a retail dealer. Three-fourths of the felons said they would have no trouble obtaining a gun when they were released, despite legal prohibitions.

Myth No. 9: Required waiting periods would prevent some of the most vicious crimes. If the Brady bill were law, it would not have saved Jim Brady. Nor would it have prevented the Killeen, Texas, massacre or the slaughter at McDonald's in Stockton, Calif. However, an instant records check (to identify felons when they try to purchase guns from retail dealers) and better enforcement of existing laws (to turn criminals into convicted felons) might well prevent some vicious crimes.

Myth No. 10: Most murders are committed by people killing friends or family members. The actual number is about one out of five. Most in-household killings are not crimes of passion. They're the culmination of years of abusive behavior, and often it is the abuser who is killed.

Myth No. 11: The availability of guns contributes to crimes of passion. In about 90 percent of \"crime-of-passion\" domestic homicides, the police had been called in previously to break up violence. In half the cases, the police had been called in five or more times. There is no evidence that a significant number of homicides occur simply because a lethal weapon is handy.

Myth No. 12: Automatic rifles and so-called assault weapons are too dangerous to be left in private hands. Over the past 50 years no civilian has ever used a legally owned machine gun in a violent crime. And despite their repeated use by drug dealers on \"Miami Vice\" and in the movies, no Uzi has ever been used to kill a police officer. Even gun control advocates concede that so-called assault weapons play a minor role in violent crime.

Myth No. 13: Gun control laws are especially needed to prevent the purchase of \"Saturday Night Specials.\" Inexpensive handguns are involved in only 1 to 3 percent of violent crimes, and criminals are no more likely to use one than any other type of handgun.

Myth No. 14: People don't need guns for self-protection because they can rely on the police. About 83 percent of the population will be victims of violent crime at some point in their lives, and in any given year serious crime touches 25 percent of all households. Considering that, effectively, there is only one police officer on patrol for every 3,300 people, the odds are not likely to improve. And the courts have ruled that government has no duty to protect individual citizens from crime.

Myth No. 15: Gun ownership is not a constitutional right. The Second Amendment reflects the founders' belief that an armed citizenry (called the \"general militia\") was a necessary precaution against tyranny by our own government and its army. The idea that government has a constitutional right to disarm the general citizenry is totally foreign to the intent of the Constitution's framers.