 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Shooting at Virginia Tech
 |
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by Infarction 
I'd say it's easier to buy some household chemicals and mix them up a li'l. I'm not a chemist though, and detonators would likely be the hardest part. Buying a gun will often (if not always) involve some paperwork and a background check. And a bomb could be much more discrete. Most of these people who commit crimes like this one save a bullet for themselves; they obviously have issues. If only we could catch those issues before they happened. We had a shooting here at my school two weeks ago where some jerk (it censored the first word I put) killed his ex, then himself. The gal had already gotten a court protection order, but obviously the law can't stop a determined psycho.
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by Infarction
Unfortunately, Bush did mismanage quite a few things. On the one hand, I'll openly admit that. On the other, I worry what would happen if we'd had some pussyfooted democrat in office with a Republican congress. As we can already see with the Iraq legislation, things just aren't getting done like they used to. And I don't agree with lots of the typical Dem platform, so I'll be freaking when they have both the executive and legistlative branches again. And I'll be looking to move if the Clinton dynasty returns... (I would totally vote for Obama if it came to that)
Hopefully the dems will offer America a change for the better b/c the republicans sure didn't do very well
•
•
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,580
Reputation: 
Solved Threads: 52
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by joshSCH
damn.. That's crazy.. was everyone else alright? I dunno, I just don't understand why some1 would get that upset that he/she would go off on a shooting rampage.. I mean sure, life's a B***h sometimes.. but why end it all?
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by Infarction
Fortunately our incident was only the one victim and the perpetrator. It happened in one of the offices so nobody else was very close by. Really puts things into perspective though, when an innocent person being murdered is considered a "fortunate" event
I live in a rural area where the good ole boys define gun control as having a steady hand. But these good ole boys also have a practical appreciation for their firearms, generations of the people have hunted in the foothills and mountains where I live. These people don't depend on their firearms to feed them as they did in the past, but the marksmanship and safety skills are still taught in the family tradition. My point here is that this is the only practical application for owning a gun...unless you intend on shooting someone.
Keeping a firearm for protection has become a way of life for an ever increasing number of people, and most anyone can purchase a firearm for that purpose. Unfortunately this purchase does not require the same type of training that you have to have to pass the written and driving test for a drivers license. Perhaps requiring a certificate of completion from a gun safety course would be good requirement for anyone who wants to purchase a firearm, then again licensed teens are killing themselves and others street racing.
The argument that we should abolish ownership of firearms is a moot point, it just isn't going to happen. If you looks at the statistics 38% of households in the US won firearms. Of those the total amount of firearms is large enough to provide a firearm for every person in the US. These statistics come from a study done in 2004 and is base on registered firearms, lord knows how many other firearms there are out there. Even if the government could figure out how to abolish the ownership of firearms those determined to own a firearm will still be able to find someone willing to sell one to them.
It has been suggested here that we limit the sale of firearms to only the sane people, good luck on that one as well. NASA who recruits the best of the best can't determine the sanity of their astronauts and you want to determine the sanity of the average person? This also isn't going to happen.
It also has been suggested that we arm everyone as a form of deterrent, the first of many problems with this idea is the practice of muzzle discipline. Can you imagine how many people would have been shot by friendly fire if all of those students at Virginia Tech had been armed and fired on the shooter. People like this student who went on this shooting spree had intending on taking their own life in the process, so there wouldn't be a deterrent there.
There is a misconception that has been mentioned here regarding the second amendment to the constitution regarding the right to bare arms. Courts have consistently held that the amendment's language--"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"--only gives the states the right to maintain well-regulated militias, which since 1903 have taken the form of the National Guard.
At this time there are no easy solutions for this dilemma. As I stated previously a certification of a gun safety course should be required in order to purchase a firearm. I also believe that the same certification and proper identification should be required for the purchase of ammunition. Another solution is in the works in the form of "smart" firearms, these are firearms that will recognize the proper owner and will only allow that person to discharge that firearm. I would also like to see that the sale of firearms be restricted to US citizens.
As for the moral question of owning firearms, I don't believe that this is germane to this subject.
The point that more people have been killed per capita by cars than by firearms, but how many of you are aware that more people have been killed by physicians than by cars?
Keeping a firearm for protection has become a way of life for an ever increasing number of people, and most anyone can purchase a firearm for that purpose. Unfortunately this purchase does not require the same type of training that you have to have to pass the written and driving test for a drivers license. Perhaps requiring a certificate of completion from a gun safety course would be good requirement for anyone who wants to purchase a firearm, then again licensed teens are killing themselves and others street racing.
The argument that we should abolish ownership of firearms is a moot point, it just isn't going to happen. If you looks at the statistics 38% of households in the US won firearms. Of those the total amount of firearms is large enough to provide a firearm for every person in the US. These statistics come from a study done in 2004 and is base on registered firearms, lord knows how many other firearms there are out there. Even if the government could figure out how to abolish the ownership of firearms those determined to own a firearm will still be able to find someone willing to sell one to them.
It has been suggested here that we limit the sale of firearms to only the sane people, good luck on that one as well. NASA who recruits the best of the best can't determine the sanity of their astronauts and you want to determine the sanity of the average person? This also isn't going to happen.
It also has been suggested that we arm everyone as a form of deterrent, the first of many problems with this idea is the practice of muzzle discipline. Can you imagine how many people would have been shot by friendly fire if all of those students at Virginia Tech had been armed and fired on the shooter. People like this student who went on this shooting spree had intending on taking their own life in the process, so there wouldn't be a deterrent there.
There is a misconception that has been mentioned here regarding the second amendment to the constitution regarding the right to bare arms. Courts have consistently held that the amendment's language--"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"--only gives the states the right to maintain well-regulated militias, which since 1903 have taken the form of the National Guard.
At this time there are no easy solutions for this dilemma. As I stated previously a certification of a gun safety course should be required in order to purchase a firearm. I also believe that the same certification and proper identification should be required for the purchase of ammunition. Another solution is in the works in the form of "smart" firearms, these are firearms that will recognize the proper owner and will only allow that person to discharge that firearm. I would also like to see that the sale of firearms be restricted to US citizens.
As for the moral question of owning firearms, I don't believe that this is germane to this subject.
The point that more people have been killed per capita by cars than by firearms, but how many of you are aware that more people have been killed by physicians than by cars?
•
•
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,580
Reputation:
Solved Threads: 52
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by joshSCH
I know, its typical that the dems have a woman and a black dude as candidates. I think I'll vote for Obama too... I've looked at his platform, and he tends to be rather neutral. He's very intelligent too... I doubt America is ready for a woman presidesnt yet.
Hopefully the dems will offer America a change for the better b/c the republicans sure didn't do very well
Obama: A platform based on moderation, probably with a spin on regaining stability. Obama doesn't seem to even want to play the race card, which I find to be very respectable in and of itself. I find this idea most agreeable, possibly more than the Republican platforms (which I've not heard much discussion about), and I'm typically fairly conservative.
Clinton: a more radical "turn everything around" platform, and she probably will use the gender issue at some point. I sincerely hope she doesn't get office because I think she's too extreme for where the country is at the moment. Too much whiplash would only lead to the country hurting more than it is. Also, it would make some 24 years of Clinton+Bush family dynasties, and some fresh blood would be good at this point.
I wish the Republicans had someone who could compete with either of these, but I doubt that'll happen. Pretty sad, having only a 1 party system for this election...
•
•
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,580
Reputation:
Solved Threads: 52
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by joshSCH
icic.. did you know the shooter or victim very well? It must have been tough for yall.. I can't even imagine...
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by dcc
The argument that we should abolish ownership of firearms is a moot point, it just isn't going to happen. If you looks at the statistics 38% of households in the US won firearms. Of those the total amount of firearms is large enough to provide a firearm for every person in the US. These statistics come from a study done in 2004 and is base on registered firearms, lord knows how many other firearms there are out there. Even if the government could figure out how to abolish the ownership of firearms those determined to own a firearm will still be able to find someone willing to sell one to them.
It has been suggested here that we limit the sale of firearms to only the sane people, good luck on that one as well. NASA who recruits the best of the best can't determine the sanity of their astronauts and you want to determine the sanity of the average person? This also isn't going to happen.
At this time there are no easy solutions for this dilemma. As I stated previously a certification of a gun safety course should be required in order to purchase a firearm. I also believe that the same certification and proper identification should be required for the purchase of ammunition. Another solution is in the works in the form of "smart" firearms, these are firearms that will recognize the proper owner and will only allow that person to discharge that firearm. I would also like to see that the sale of firearms be restricted to US citizens.
I agree with everything you said, great post
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by Infarction
I envision the Dems taking two approaches, one for each of their candidates (sorry, anyone but the big 2 are out):
Obama: A platform based on moderation, probably with a spin on regaining stability. Obama doesn't seem to even want to play the race card, which I find to be very respectable in and of itself. I find this idea most agreeable, possibly more than the Republican platforms (which I've not heard much discussion about), and I'm typically fairly conservative.
Clinton: a more radical "turn everything around" platform, and she probably will use the gender issue at some point. I sincerely hope she doesn't get office because I think she's too extreme for where the country is at the moment. Too much whiplash would only lead to the country hurting more than it is. Also, it would make some 24 years of Clinton+Bush family dynasties, and some fresh blood would be good at this point.
I wish the Republicans had someone who could compete with either of these, but I doubt that'll happen. Pretty sad, having only a 1 party system for this election...
.. I'm too tired to talk politics lol.. I'll respond better tomorrow
•
•
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,580
Reputation:
Solved Threads: 52
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by dcc
<snip about rural areas and hunting> My point here is that this is the only practical application for owning a gun...unless you intend on shooting someone.
•
•
•
•
Perhaps requiring a certificate of completion from a gun safety course would be good requirement for anyone who wants to purchase a firearm, then again licensed teens are killing themselves and others street racing.
•
•
•
•
The argument that we should abolish ownership of firearms is a moot point, it just isn't going to happen. If you looks at the statistics 38% of households in the US won firearms. Of those the total amount of firearms is large enough to provide a firearm for every person in the US. These statistics come from a study done in 2004 and is base on registered firearms, lord knows how many other firearms there are out there.
•
•
•
•
It also has been suggested that we arm everyone as a form of deterrent, the first of many problems with this idea is the practice of muzzle discipline. Can you imagine how many people would have been shot by friendly fire if all of those students at Virginia Tech had been armed and fired on the shooter. People like this student who went on this shooting spree had intending on taking their own life in the process, so there wouldn't be a deterrent there.
•
•
•
•
There is a misconception that has been mentioned here regarding the second amendment to the constitution regarding the right to bare arms. Courts have consistently held that the amendment's language--"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"--only gives the states the right to maintain well-regulated militias, which since 1903 have taken the form of the National Guard.
•
•
•
•
<snip> Another solution is in the works in the form of "smart" firearms, these are firearms that will recognize the proper owner and will only allow that person to discharge that firearm. I would also like to see that the sale of firearms be restricted to US citizens.
•
•
•
•
The point that more people have been killed per capita by cars than by firearms, but how many of you are aware that more people have been killed by physicians than by cars?
|
Other Threads in the Geeks' Lounge Forum
- Previous Thread: SilverFail
- Next Thread: Reflections
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
You need to join our community in order to build your list of favorite forums. You can visit the forum index for a listing of all forums.
Related Forum Features
Latest Geeks' Lounge Posts
- Today's Posts
- Unanswered Threads
advice amazon apple bankruptcy bear beijing bot chat children clocks comedy complaint console consoles convert cracked.com design development disk dlc ebook empty feed financialcrisis future game games gaming garbage google grandtheftauto gta gtaiv happiness hardware hunting information internet kids kindle knife language larnyx life linux love lynx madden manly marketing mars merger microsoft netbook neuropathology news nintendo obama odf olympics operating opinion os outlook parenting playstation ps3 ps4 python research rss school search software softwaredevelopment sony source space starteam survey systems tablet thelostanddamned time timeisonmyside. tinfoil_hat unused usarmy vapid videogames viruses walmart wii windows windows>all windows_wins wow xbox xbox360 zomg_conspiracy
