Virginia Tech killing: more than 30 dead

http://www.suntimes.com/news/343354,vatech041607.article

Terrible.

Today, a major killing occured in virginia tech : more than 20 deaths :(
It's seems that a new columbine drama occured
http://www.cnn.com/

PS : can somebody update the title of this thread ? I did a mistake in the title : it's not day but people . Thanks in advance

I was waiting to post about this because I wanted to see how everyone else would handle it. And I was correct. You posted it in the political forum.

Pathetic.

A terrible tragedy and you want to discuss it in a political forum.

Jesus.

USAToday has a refresh blog up (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/04/reports_of_shoo.html).

Don't go to the college's website. If you have friends or need info check the other local news site for information.

My one question. If the first shooting occured at 7:00 AM and then the rampage at 9:00 AM, why didn't they raise the security alert after the first one?

They have had a shooting at this college last year!

"The shootings came three days after a bomb threat Friday forced the cancellation of classes in three buildings, WDBJ in Roanoke reported. Also, the 100,000-square-foot Torgersen Hall was evacuated April 2 after police received a written bomb threat, The Roanoke Times reported."

wHAT?

I was waiting to post about this because I wanted to see how everyone else would handle it. And I was correct. You posted it in the political forum.

Pathetic.

A terrible tragedy and you want to discuss it in a political forum.

This is where it belongs. Too intense for other forums.

I was waiting to post about this because I wanted to see how everyone else would handle it. And I was correct. You posted it in the political forum.

Pathetic.

A terrible tragedy and you want to discuss it in a political forum. What's pathetic is to complain about how someone posted this. He probably just posted it in the wrong forum or thought it would be better here.

I can't beleive it. You know they will be beefing up their security 10-fold after this. And to top it all off it looks like they have been receiving bomb threats for the last couple weeks. What's going on here? Disgruntled student/faculty member?

The BBC is saying 30 dead now.

I was waiting to post about this because I wanted to see how everyone else would handle it. And I was correct. You posted it in the political forum.

Pathetic.

A terrible tragedy and you want to discuss it in a political forum.

By experience (and I have a lot more than you in this forum) I know how this kind of thread can evolve, and after a while I finally decided to post it here.
I could just have posted it in apple outsider, but my past experience as mod and admin told me, that after a while (after the shock of such a new) this kind of thread could be passionate.
Now a mod, will probabily fix the title of this thread and may move it in the proper forum according to him.

The important point of this thread is the subject itself, and not where I choosed to post it.

PS : I truly expect, that nobody is directly or indirectly involved with this drama here

Good job, Artman...

Sad...

It sounds like it was a student...

Good job, Artman...

Sad...

It sounds like it was a student...

A proposition to the reason behind the two hours between the shootings is that the PD arrested an asian man in a dark jacket thinking that he was the shooter and they thought that everything was fine.

Oh shut the fuck up, El Capitan.

You dishonor the dead by attempting to separate yourself from the real intellectual meat of the matter:

Obviously these kids deserved to die, placing themselves in front of the bullets like that.

[/sacasm, as if you needed a reminder]

I don't feel that I have to post my emotions and sympathies (well there, I did) about this tragedy. It happened. It will happen again and again and again...

In January, the bill to allow students the right to defend themselves was defeated in committee in Virginia. They were sitting ducks, denied their right to self defense by their elected officials. Even trained and background-checked students were denied the basic right of self defense.

My handgun saved my life in 2001. Banning handguns will not prevent committed, insane people from acts like this. It will simply disarm law-abiding people, as they were disarmed in this situation. Disarmed victims cannot stand up and prevent this, nor can kneejerk calls to "take them all away."

Still, a very sad and awful situation. :no:

In January, the bill to allow students the right to defend themselves was defeated in committee in Virginia. They were sitting ducks, denied their right to self defense by their elected officials. Even trained and background-checked students were denied the basic right of self defense.

My handgun saved my life in 2001. Banning handguns will not prevent committed, insane people from acts like this. It will simply disarm law-abiding people, as they were disarmed in this situation. Disarmed victims cannot stand up and prevent this, nor can kneejerk calls to "take them all away."

Still, a very sad and awful situation. :no:
Not really...

By making hand guns harder if not impossible to acquire and possess, there will rapidly be a lot fewer hand guns out there. Whether this is a good solution to a much deeper problem is debateable, but all arguments about victims are inherently idiotic as in a gun battle your chances of survival are slim and the likelihood of hitting a non-intended target high...

correction: How large a campus is this?

My one question. If the first shooting occured at 7:00 AM and then the rampage at 9:00 AM, why didn't they raise the security alert after the first one?

They have had a shooting at this college last year!

"The shootings came three days after a bomb threat Friday forced the cancellation of classes in three buildings, WDBJ in Roanoke reported. Also, the 100,000-square-foot Torgersen Hall was evacuated April 2 after police received a written bomb threat, The Roanoke Times reported."

wHAT?

I imagine they share the common trait of thinking it'll never happen to you (even when it happens to you!)... :no:

Illegal handguns are already, uh, "illegal." Please, define "illegal handgun"

Uh, illegal as in on the street and available to anyone? Therefore they should be removed from the streets including the sellers. Ban. Prohibit. Stop.

Define "high caliber"

Like the ones described here that blew the heads off some of these students today (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=529562&format=print)? Ban. Prohibit. Stop.

Automatic weapons are already registered with the ATF and take a huge amount of government paperwork and tens of thousands of dollars to acquire.

Yes. And you know that they can be bought illegally too? Search for drug dealer's weapons caches (http://blogs.kansascity.com/photos/uncategorized/leavco_raid_weapons_1.JPG) or "lone quiet man" basement cache of weapons (http://www.newburyportnews.com/punews/local_story_101115929). Ban. Prohibit. Stop.

Please, educate yourself about your terminology.

Educate yourself with the reality of the situation.

About guns I was just talking to a coworker the other day about this issue. He said " Well if you make guns illegal then there will still be knives. If you make knives illegal there will still be wooden bats. "

My reply was " Well if they make guns illegal there will still be guns sold on the black market just like alcohol was during prohibition. However not as many out there. Also nobody has been killed by a knife straying through their living room wall. The same with bats ".

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

People will always kill other people, sometimes in lunatic rages. But yes, it would be more difficult to kill large numbers of people without a gun...

That being said, if I, a law abiding citizen, trained in firearm use, with no criminal record, wants to own a pistol for plinking at the shooting range, (I don't, but we're talking in principle) I should be able to. There are already a plethora of gun laws on the books that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals, or gun using criminals behind bars, but they are rarely enforced, for various reasons. (too much prison crowding, 'feel-goody' judges, those who think repeat criminals can be re-integrated into society, etc.)

My two cents:

It is tempting to ban handguns. I agree. However, I really don't think it will solve our gun violence problems. I don't think doing so will reduce the numbers of guns in the hands of people that commit crimes. I have to agree with Jubelum in that it would take guns away from the law abiding people that own them for self defense. Criminals would still get them, unless you're going to ban the manufacture of handguns too? If someone makes them, someone will buy them...the wrong someone.

That said, it's sort of a moot point. There is no way such a ban would be consistent with the second amendment. No way. We've already "infringed" on gun owners rights to a high degree. Notice the amendment doesn't say "shall not be banned". It says "infringed". There is certainly a reasonable argument in that the government has already "infringed" on the right to keep and bear arms...extensively (not that I favor someone's right to hunt squirrel with an AK-47, believe me).

"A patient hit in the head by a smaller, .22-caliber bullet might live 36 hours, while a similar wound from a 9mm might be fatal in an hour."

I'm for banning what I feel are crucial to what occurred today. High caliber handguns are more designed for self-defense from lions, tigers and bears. Not some crackhead with a tire iron. A small caliber weapon (when used correctly with training and practice) can put an intruder down. There will always be unusual cases, but I think it's unusual to have someone carrying a weapon that only a police officer or a Marine in Iraq should have.

Help me out people...is there a three strike law for illegally possessing, selling a weapon(s)? I know the three strikes law involves federal offenses so I'd think it would (should) in those cases.

Next, a little more on topic: If the facts as released today concering VT's conduct are true, I think VT is going to be sued out the ass. Perhaps there may even be criminal charges. It seems the University took no action to protect students for about four hours. They knew of a morning shooting and did not know where the suspect was, if he would strike again, etc. Yet there was no warning. There was no "lockdown." They let the University operate on a business-as-usual schedule (again, according to what has been released so far). If these facts hold up, the University President and all upper level persons responsible for student saftey and security should be 1) fired and 2) sued into oblivion. If in fact the University took no action, I would also support criminal negligence charges. It's very possible these officials got another 30 people killed.

Your thoughts.

I mentioned the 2 hour lag time too. I haven't wanted to discuss this until the facts and evidence come out clearly, not from a sputtering talking head. If the allegations are true, there should be an investigation and justice for the victims and families.

"A patient hit in the head by a smaller, .22-caliber bullet might live 36 hours, while a similar wound from a 9mm might be fatal in an hour."

I'm for banning what I feel are crucial to what occurred today. High caliber handguns are more designed for self-defense from lions, tigers and bears. Not some crackhead with a tire iron. A small caliber weapon (when used correctly with training and practice) can put an intruder down. There will always be unusual cases, but I think it's unusual to have someone carrying a weapon that only a police officer or a Marine in Iraq should have.

Help me out people...is there a three strike law for illegally possessing, selling a weapon(s)? I know the three strikes law involves federal offenses so I'd think it would (should) in those cases.

I mentioned the 2 hour lag time too. I haven't wanted to discuss this until the facts and evidence come out clearly, not from a sputtering talking head. If the allegations are true, there should be an investigation and justice for the victims and families.

I don't think banning high caliber guns would change much. .22s are still lethal.

As for the "facts" well I've seen several students interviewed. Those who were on campus, in class, using the VT facilities etc. say they knew nothing of the first shooting. All this could change, but I have a feeling there is going to be major fallout wrt to the University's lack of action.

I know much more about the 2nd Amendment, gun usage, and self defense than you probably care to admit. We all have our "single issue" and this one is mine. I have personally trained over 400 people in the safe and proper usage of their 2nd Amendment rights to defend themselves, their families, and their homes against criminals like the one we saw today.

I am well versed in the reality of the situation, Artman. The reality is that taking guns from law abiding people does not take them from the hands of criminals. Someone willing to rape, rob, murder, or do another criminal act will not be deterred from it simply because they would break yet another law concerning gun possession. The innocent victims will be left defenseless, like they currently are in Britain and Australia. Both nations have seen an increase in violent crime since their guns were banned for use by law abiding people.

All the gun laws in the world will only work when CRIMINALS obey the law. The net effect of such feel-good legislation is to strip peaceful citizens of their ability to defend themselves while the criminals are free to terrorize.

So... in your mind, we are going to make sure this never happens again by making it "more" illegal than it already is, regardless of the effect on the rights of average people. Nonsense.

Guns are not available "on the street" and "to anyone" - the Federal Govt tracks gun sales, and people that should not be able to by are caught and prosecuted by the FBI through the NICS system. Again, please educate yourself in how this stuff works. "Ban them all" will not stop gun crime- it will increase it because criminals will have nothing to fear from their victims.

As I said, I tend to agree. However, there might be something to be said for a total and complete ban on handguns coupled with severe penalties for possession, like life in prison. It would have to be coupled with vastly improved efforts to get guns off the streets. In other words, it would be completely unconstitutional. Of course, we could always change the second amendment.

As I said, I tend to agree. However, there might be something to be said for a total and complete ban on handguns coupled with severe penalties for possession, like life in prison.

Whoa. I thought you were a rabid conservative SDW... was I wrong about that?

If more of the staff had been trained and had arms available, it would have been more likely that todays massacre would have been stopped right off.

The problem is not guns. It's when delusional people have access to guns, and there is no counteracting force.

Whoa. I thought you were a rabid conservative SDW... was I wrong about that?

If more of the staff had been trained and had arms available, it would have been more likely that todays massacre would have been stopped right off.

The problem is not guns. It's when delusional people have access to guns, and there is no counteracting force.

Our right to carry concealed in Texas came from the Killen/Lubys killings in 1991, where citizens were left bare in the face of an insane person.

Read the story here... (http://www.wmsa.net/gratia-hupp_1992.htm)

By Dr. Hupp, who watched her parents' murders in that Luby's: "Let me make a point here, in case this isn't becoming extremely clear. My state has gun control laws. It did not keep Hennard from coming in and killing everybody! What it did do, was keep me from protecting my family! That's the only thing that cotton pickin' law did! OK! Understand that! That's - that's so important!"

Actually there is: Seriously get rid of all guns. Seriously. If you are found with a gun, automatic five year prison sentance, period.

And Jubelum... your arguments should be extended, why would criminals fear gun wielding citizens when they don't fear the reprecussions of their actions? They don't.

Most criminals are not suicidal... or on Kamikazi missions, as it were. As we have found from 911 to Jerusalem to Baghdad, nothing will stop a person willing to die. If a petty criminal feared bodily harm or death, they would think twice. Nothing will stop the insane, short of killing them BEFORE they can commit mass murder. That is how restricting the rights of law abiding people can cost them their lives.

That's ridiculous. The market determines the cost. And if bullets cost too much here, they'll be smuggled in from Mexico or Canada.

"A complete ban" on handguns will not work. Criminals are by definition, "CRIMINALS"- they will not respect gun laws, because criminals do not respect the law. By definition. Street thugs will have nothing to fear in making average people victims. With 300 million guns in the country, the idea that they are going to evaporate even in a century is a fantasy... criminals will always have them, just like the criminals in the UK and Australia.

The rest of us deserve the same right to protect ourselves.

Not if you don't allow the manufacter and sale of said weapons to anyone other than police and punish possession severely.

Whoa. I thought you were a rabid conservative SDW... was I wrong about that?

If more of the staff had been trained and had arms available, it would have been more likely that todays massacre would have been stopped right off.

The problem is not guns. It's when delusional people have access to guns, and there is no counteracting force.

Well, I am ;) No worries! But that said, I'm not advocating a policy here, merely discussing and tossing ideas around...not to be flippant on such a serious topic, of course. I'm really just saying that I think it's pretty much one or the other...black or white. You either totally ban handguns, or you allow people to arm themselves.

As for my "real" feelings, I'm unsure. It's clear the government has infringed on our liberties wrt the 2nd amendment. That said, the amendment was created for the purposes of allowing people to form a militia, which is clearly no longer required (and ironically, it's the actual militias that the government really goes after forcefully). I mean, we have a serious gun violence problem. What should we do about it? Is drastic action needed? I don't know...maybe it is. Nothing we do seems to help the problem. I wouldn't advocate banning all guns (hunting guns for example), but really...the only reason to have a handgun is to shoot people. . Is that really reasonable in our modern society? Part of me says no. Part of me believes that a total ban on handguns may just reduce violence and accidental gun deaths. However, it would have to be coupled with other actions, as I said...and it would require the Constitution to be amended, or so I think.

That's ridiculous. The market determines the cost. And if bullets cost too much here, they'll be smuggled in from Mexico or Canada.

Bullets = heroin. Interesting idea.

BTW- it costs, depending on caliber, over $1500 in ammunition at today's prices to make someone proficient in using a handgun for self-defense. At minimum.

And lest I be unfair on this, I must say that guns are not for everyone. I do not deride anyone for their choice to not own or use firearms. It is a right that some choose not to exercise. But the criminals in our world do not know for sure if they are attacking a gun owner or not, and that keeps everyone safer.

Ironic that those that would vote to take my gun are in effect ALSO protected by me having it. It's a great deterrent to the vast majority of criminals. When that right is gone, no one but criminals will be safe.

I tell people straight out in my training classes... if you are not willing to store your gun safely, away from children, know how to use it properly and safely, and know the ultimate power you have, I will refund your money and ask you to never own a gun until you are ready for the responsibility. I do not encourage everyone to get a gun just to get a gun. The safe and proper use of firearms for sport and personal defense are two things I have devoted thousands of hours to in my life. What happened today makes me angry beyond belief- because of the human tragedy and the predictable calls for policies that will cost even more lives.

"A complete ban" on handguns will not work. Criminals are by definition, "CRIMINALS"- they will not respect gun laws, because criminals do not respect the law. By definition. Street thugs will have nothing to fear in making average people victims. With 300 million guns in the country, the idea that they are going to evaporate even in a century is a fantasy... criminals will always have them, just like the criminals in the UK and Australia.

I think we both would agree that the deterrence rationale plays a huge role in our assumptions.

I think we both would agree that the deterrence rationale plays a huge role in our assumptions.

Indeed. The genie is out of the bottle with firearms... if I could wave a wand and uninvent it, I would. We cannot. As such, I deserve to have a snowball's chance of surviving if some nut goes crazy while I am eating dinner in a restaurant. I refuse to be a victim of someone else's criminal activity. And for some criminals, the only deterrent is the possibility of deadly force.

Personally, I have been arguing that all girls between the ages of 13 and 21 should be required to carry a handgun at all times.

Personally, I have been arguing that all girls between the ages of 13 and 21 should be required to carry a handgun at all times.

That would make dating much more interesting, wouldn't it? :lol:

worried about going off before she does?

Well, it would be a messy situation! :D

Murders can be broken down into several different types:

Crimes of passion, where the weapon is generally purchased ahead of time and used as a matter of convenience.

Crimes of insanity, where the weapon is either stolen or purchased ahead of time.

Crimes of impassion, like the plethora of murders in Philadelphia, for instance, where the weapon is either stolen, purchased, or obtained illegally.

Let's apply the automatic criminalization of gun possession:

Crimes of passion will no longer be committed by guns.

Crimes of insanity will be less likely to be committed by guns, the only exceptions being guns obtain by stealing or buying guns from criminals.

Crimes of impassion committed by guns will be slightly impaired, with the notable ability of police to arrest and hold people found with guns on them, in their houses or otherwise in their possession. This is something that is currently IMPOSSIBLE without a justified warrant and only for concealment crimes.

"A complete ban" on handguns will not work. Criminals are by definition, "CRIMINALS"- they will not respect gun laws, because criminals do not respect the law. By definition. Street thugs will have nothing to fear in making average people victims. With 300 million guns in the country, the idea that they are going to evaporate even in a century is a fantasy... criminals will always have them, just like the criminals in the UK and Australia.

The rest of us deserve the same right to protect ourselves.

"Key points from the 2005/06 data

The risk of becoming a victim of crime has fallen from 40 per cent at its peak in 1995 to 23 per cent according to British Crime Survey (BCS) interviews in 2005/06, the lowest level recorded since the BCS began in 1981."

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page63.asp

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page39.asp

I would guess that elimination of handguns is not required and likely, given the number in wild, difficult to achieve. Elimination of handgun ammo outside of tightly controlled environments (i.e. only at ranges, only match ammo) and by type (say still allow snake shot) would likely reduce handgun crime. You would have to also restrict reloading materials (ie effectively kill it for long arms as well).

Even if handguns were made illegal "the rest of us" could still protect ourselves with shotguns, at least in the home. I prefer that folks didn't typically carry, concealed or otherwise.

Vinea

My deepest sympathies to the families of those who died at V Tech (save one).

V/R,
Aries 1B

Thanks for trying to pull the thread back. I felt this one was too political and people behavior outside of civility. I started a new thread here (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=73728) so that those that actually care about this tragedy can discuss it. My wife and I are both VT alum.

I think there are both needs: one to express feelings about the event and to deal with the emotional stress of it all, and one to deal with the situation and strive to reduce the chances of it happening again.

What happened was a travesty beyond imagination, and all those caught up in it, either as victims, their relatives, friends, etc., have my thoughts and condolences. For some, those who survived the attack or those close enought to witness it as well as those who lost friends or family, it will be a traumatic experience that will haunt them forever. For others more distant, it will be a shocking event that will, sadly, soon be forgotten in all probability.

Some who feel in some way connected to the tragedy will need to express themselves, and mydo has created that outlet. (see link in his post above)

Some who are a little more detached from the event will wish to discuss it in other ways, which this thread turned into.

All discussions are necessary and warranted in their appropriate places.

What a horrible tragedy. I have to go read up on what's "known" at the moment.

As for the pro and against gun discussion, I'm for banning guns. The argument about needing them for personal protection doesn't fly and it only perpetuates unnecessary gun acquisitions both legally and illegally. If you live in a place where you think it's useful to carry a gun, here's my advice.....MOVE.

For every story about how an armed citizen helped stop a crime, there's dozens of stories of people committing a crime with the use of one they got a hold of too easily. I don't care if there's 1 billion guns in the country either.

I live in California and have NEVER felt the need to own one. I think we've come a long way since the wild wild west days...at least in some places thankfully. :no:

You can't "MOVE" anymore... these things are happening everywhere, from small midwest towns to big cities and all places in between. Killeen Texas is a military town, generally peaceful, until someone goes nuts and no one can stop them from mass murder.

For every story of a gun used improperly, there are stories of people whose possession and use of guns has prevented a crime. When was the last time you heard a story reported when the gun is NOT in the hands of a criminal? It's not part of the Agenda to tell the real stories of lives saved and crimes prevented because the right person had a gun. If your wife or daughter was about to be raped, would you prefer for her to have a means of defense? If you were the target of a random carjacking by someone who had killed the previous victims, would you want to have a chance?

I stopped my attacker simply by having a gun and the ability to use it properly. I saved my own life and that of my family. I will never surrender the right to do that, no matter the laws. This is my life and my family I am talking about. Period.

AS for Kallipornia... I'm glad you feel safe there. Even DiFi carries a gun for protection while she tells the rest of the country that they can't.

For every story of a gun used improperly, there are stories of people whose possession and use of guns has prevented a crime.

There were almost half a million criminal incidents involving firearms in 2005 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/firearmnonfataltab.htm). I'm having a hard time finding half a million stories of conceal and carry folks stopping crimes.

You will have a hard time. They are rarely reported in the media outlets. You cannot quantify the number of crimes that are never attempted because the criminal is deterred by the possibility of an armed victim.

Indeed. It might be none.

It might be 1 billion. Just not in your neighborhood.
:lol: I love ya, midwinter.

Actually, crime in my neck of the woods is pretty rough, depending. Massive amounts of meth + a systemically disenfranchised population of 30% makes for the not happy fun days for cops. I have now lived in three states where folks love them some guns. Love love love. I have also lived in 3 states where people would happily let 6 year olds shoot shotguns and drive cars if they could. Hell, I have been driving since I was 14.

I grew up with guns. I grew up tromping around in the woods shooting things.

I get pissed off when some lunatic guns down 30 kids in a school (and I work at a uni that had a shooting about 10 years ago) in much the same way that I get pissed off when some lunatics blow up the train I was trying to take in London one morning.

Here's what I'd like to see:

You want a gun? Great. You get a gun. But you have to join the national guard.

That's what the country's owner's manual says.

Not really. This is a topic of national Constitutional debate that we'll not solve here. The Bill of Rights are each guaranteed to individuals... all other 9 amendments. The 2nd is no different. The "militia" argument is about as Constitutionally valid as a "Free Speech Zone" is to the first amendment.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that the phrase "free speech zone" actually occurred in the first amendment. Maybe that's just not in my copy.

I'm just glad that Shay's Rebellion wasn't put down singlehandedly by Chuck Norris, otherwise we'd have wound up with a second amendment that read "An ass-kicking karate dude with a moustache being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to learn ass-kicking karate and grow 70s moustaches shall not be infringed."

That 2.5 million statistic seems to have some problems.

But I'll point to a Harvard study (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/Firearms.htm) that has pretty universally damning statistics against other aspects of gun ownership.

Consider the source. Lies. Damn Lies. Statistics. The issue is complex and the "numbers" can be assembled to show either side is "right." I know the only statistic that means anything to me- I am free, safe, and so is my family. The criminal is back in jail where he belongs. The gun was the difference.

The 2nd amendment is out of sync with the times as it was written in a very different era.

That 2.5 million statistic seems to have some problems.

Yes...a following NSPOF study says the following:

"Thus, it is of considerable interest and importance
to check the reasonableness of the NSPOF estimates
before embracing them. Because respondents were
asked to describe only their most recent defensive
gun use, our comparisons are conservative, as they
assume only one defensive gun use per defender. The
results still suggest that DGU estimates are far
too high.

For example, in only a small fraction of rape and
robbery attempts do victims use guns in
self-defense. It does not make sense, then, that
the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in which
a woman defended herself with a gun was more than
the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS
(exhibit 8). For other crimes listed in exhibit 8,
the results are almost as absurd: the NSPOF
estimate of DGU robberies is 36 percent of all
NCVS-estimated robberies, while the NSPOF estimate
of DGU assaults is 19 percent of all aggravated
assaults. If those percentages were close to
accurate, crime would be a risky business indeed!"

http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt

I really dislike folks that conflate bogus statistics to support some hallowed position. The fact is that there can be responsible gun use/ownership AND gun control at the same time.

There are certainly good recreational and defensive reasons for gun ownership but of all the gun owners I know, other than the military guys, no one has fired at another human in anger. I would hazard none have even pointed a loaded gun at another human even though I know a couple that would undoubtably pull the trigger in a home invasion scenario...if not with glee, then with no hesitation. So what are the odds that I would happen to know the only dozen or so gun owners (including a couple gun nuts complete with the arsenal of democracy in their gun safes) without a DGU incident with 2.5M incidents per year?

If there were a DGU every 13 seconds there's be a whole lot more dead perps and bystanders because I don't believe for one moment that all those respondents have gone through gun safety training or spent any appreciable time learning not to shoot people accidently in a panic situation or actually hit the perp if they actually needed to shoot at them.

Vinea

It's not part of the Agenda to tell the real stories of lives saved and crimes prevented because the right person had a gun Silly me. I forgot about the "Agenda". :lol:
AS for Kallipornia... I'm glad you feel safe there. Even DiFi carries a gun for protection while she tells the rest of the country that they can't.
If I wanted to read the NRA talking points I'd go to the NRA website. But thanks...I think. "Kallipornia"?? I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. Is "DiFi" the next version of "WiFi"?

Let's Google "DiFi" because that's another new one for me. Ahhh, got it. Fifth search result. Wouldn't you know it. It's Michelle Malkin and Free Republic lingo. Brilliant! :lol:

"Even" Diane Feinstein, I'm sorry, "DiFi" carries one eh? You got me there. Not like she's one of California's Senators or anything. :no:

Whatever Gilsch. Believe whatever you want. Millions of us will not surrender our rights just because you say we should.

The NRA has trained more people in gun safety than any other organization, as well as provided more trigger locks than anyone to gun owners. No one is more in favor of the safe, responsible use of firearms than gun owners themselves. When things go bad, it's OUR rights you guys come after.

I will not debate you personally on this. We will not agree in any way. Just another waste of time. :no:

Doesn't seem you "debate" anyone on the topic. When presented with data against your views you simply dismiss them as biased.

Also the NRA does not represent gun owners given the number of NRA members and the number of gun owners. NRA supporters claim the disparity is because the 75 million or so non-members are lazy. The other possibility is that the NRA doesn't really reflect the views of the majority of gun owners...

Vinea

Doesn't seem you "debate" anyone on the topic. When presented with data against your views you simply dismiss them as biased.

Also the NRA does not represent gun owners given the number of NRA members and the number of gun owners. NRA supporters claim the disparity is because the 75 million or so non-members are lazy. The other possibility is that the NRA doesn't really reflect the views of the majority of gun owners...

Vinea

Read my post on statistics... both sides can twist whatever they want to fit. That is a silly accusation. Please do better. :smokey:

Also, please tell me what the other 71 million gun owners believe that the NRA doesn't...

Wording changed so that you cannot attack the wording in order to gloss the message.

About the background checks, some gun owners ain't happy with them:
http://www.gunowners.org/biib.htm

They also may help crime:
http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/BackgroundChk.html

Ooops. And then there are the loops:
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=210

http://w3.agsfoundation.com/s_backg.html

To get a driver's license, you have to show understanding and obeyance of road laws. How many drivers follow said laws after they pass their test?

Anyone could pass the gun test and get a license.

To get a driver's license, you have to show understanding and obeyance of road laws. How many drivers follow said laws after they pass their test?

Anyone could pass the gun test and get a license.

So i guess that means we should ban driving. It might be used unlawfully and kill people. Nope. The answer is to enforce the existing law.

Gunless societies exist.

Japan has an almost complete ban, except for some hunters. There are a few gun incidents (the guns are of course smuggled in), but the user faces a prison sentence if discovered.

There are murders here, but usually stabbings or stranglings, which limits the number of victims dramatically through the difficulty of performing the acts.

Read my post on statistics... both sides can twist whatever they want to fit. That is a silly accusation. Please do better. :smokey:

Then why present incorrect statistics of your own if they are all flawed? In any case, your assertion that violent crime in the UK rose aren't supported.

Also, please tell me what the other 71 million gun owners believe that the NRA doesn't...

Perhaps we don't think gun registration is evil and the first step to gun removal? That some guns really have no sporting value and could be banned? I mean jeez, WTF hunts with a .50 cal? There's a bare handful of folks that target shoot with the thing (under 4000).

The last thing I want is some beltway sniper wannabe taking effective shots at 1000+m at people or objects that go boom.

Vinea

"All the kids in the classroom..." These are adults, those over 21 who can legally possess a handgun. Those under 21 cannot even possess the ammunition, much less the gun itself. Also, to get a CHL, you must show proficiency in all areas- safety, storage, proper use of force, no criminal record, and that you can pass a target test. It's not like we just hand them out for the asking. It takes time, money, effort, skill, and a clean record to get a CHL.

Virginia is an open carry state and fairly liberal about concealed carry. In fact VT has been criticized for trying to limit guns but they can't for anyone with a concealed carry permit. They do try to restrict "weapon storage" in dorms and vehicles but the law is somewhat murky.

So much for this test of DGU in an open carry, permissive state.

You can argue that since the students didn't avail themselves of this right that its not a fair test but imagine the scenario where there was a similar shooting and now you have SWAT trying to identify WHICH of the armed student body are the actual assailants without accidently shooting (or getting shot by) a few students who are a) under fire for the first time b) were shooting at other student like people wielding guns in c) a panic situation because...this is the first time someone is actually trying to kill them with d) over penetration issues galore with armed but likely untrained students exchanging fire with one or more armed gunmen that are mentally prepared to do a Columbine like act.

MAYBE you have a lower body count. MAYBE not. But you sure have a much more dangerous scenario all around against prepared attackers (ie wearing armor under their requisite black trench coats).

Vinea

First of I just want to express my deepest sorrow and sympathy to all those who lost loved ones in the terrible event.

That said, we in Australia suffered a similar event ten years ago at Port Arthur, where a gunman killed 35 and 37 wounded.

On a very personal note, it was the same day that I was severely injured victim of a car smash (I was crushed against a tree while sitting at an outdoor cafe)...so I have good reason to remember the date. It was such a beautiful autumnal day, no one could possibly imagine the horror being perpetrated by Martin Bryant against so many innocents.

Shortly after that event, the Australian Federal and state governments banned all automatic and semi automatic rifles along with severely restricting the ownership of handguns.

In consequence, Australia's numbers of gun related deaths have dropped from nearly 900 per year...to just 250 per year.

It may be of interest to my US friends to note, that if Australia had the same population as the US, that it would have meant a drop from approximately 13,000 deaths per year in 1996 to just over 3500 in 2006.

So, taking the guns out of most peoples hands has worked in our country.

I can't see why the same sort of legislative power couldn't be as effective used in reducing such senseless carnage in the US.

You have the power to do it...it only takes for the vast majority to speak up and force legislators to act.

Aquafire.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that the phrase "free speech zone" actually occurred in the first amendment. Maybe that's just not in my copy.

I'm just glad that Shay's Rebellion wasn't put down singlehandedly by Chuck Norris, otherwise we'd have wound up with a second amendment that read "An ass-kicking karate dude with a moustache being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to learn ass-kicking karate and grow 70s moustaches shall not be infringed."

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: OMG!!! :lol:

Now, a little on topic. Looks like I'm not the only one pissed as hell about the actions of University.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266460,00.html

This is what I'm wondering too. I didn't know the stats, but I suspected that countries with strict gun lawns have fewer...far fewer..gun deaths.

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/miller-table.jpg
Source (http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html)

I Live in the Netherlands. Guns are prohibited here except for hunting. Households with guns are below 1% and gunshot death rate is extremely low compared to the States.
(During last 10 years there were on average between 200 and 300 cases of murder/manslaughter a year on a population of 16 million people, including deaths by other weapons)
News like this makes me very thankfull for the laws and ways of my country.