0

yea, but theres other more lethal ways.. he could have made some bombs or somethn like this kids at Columbine did.

True.
But it's also much easier to purchase a gun... then to make a bomb.

0

True True.. I just don't understand why some young kid would just snap like that... and start shooting up a university..

0

True.
But it's also much easier to purchase a gun... then to make a bomb.

Is it? Have you looked into making explosives before? There's probably a long list of explosive mixtures that can be made from common, cheap stuff. A little creativity and I'm sure one could come up with something...

0

yea, but It's much easer to walk to a store and simply buy a gun.. But, if guns were illegal, who's to say the guy wouldn't just make a couple of bombs and kill a lot more people?

0

IMHO Bush is a fool.

And in relation to the post on drugs, they have that in (switzerland?) - drugs are legal and subsidised by the government. Crime dropped nearly 40%.

0

IMHO Bush is a fool.

And in relation to the post on drugs, they have that in (switzerland?) - drugs are legal and subsidised by the government. Crime dropped nearly 40%.

really? Wow...
Yea, Bush is a damned idiot.. I have no frikn clue how that man was elected twice by the American public! He's a complete dumbass! ...And this is coming from Republican. I dunno what yall think, but in '08 the dems are taking over

0

yea, but It's much easer to walk to a store and simply buy a gun.. But, if guns were illegal, who's to say the guy wouldn't just make a couple of bombs and kill a lot more people?

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 :icon_redface:) killed his ex, then himself. The gal had already gotten a court protection order, but obviously the law can't stop a determined psycho.

0

IMHO Bush is a fool.

And in relation to the post on drugs, they have that in (switzerland?) - drugs are legal and subsidised by the government. Crime dropped nearly 40%.

I'll reply to the drug bit with the oldest comeback in the book: if you make less things illegal, you'll have less crime. Amazing how that works.

0

really? Wow...
Yea, Bush is a damned idiot.. I have no frikn clue how that man was elected twice by the American public! He's a complete dumbass! ...And this is coming from Republican. I dunno what yall think, but in '08 the dems are taking over

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)

0

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 :icon_redface:) killed his ex, then himself. The gal had already gotten a court protection order, but obviously the law can't stop a determined psycho.

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?

0

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)

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

0

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?

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 :angry:

0

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 :angry:

icic.. did you know the shooter or victim very well? It must have been tough for yall.. I can't even imagine...

0

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?

0

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

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...

0

icic.. did you know the shooter or victim very well? It must have been tough for yall.. I can't even imagine...

I didn't know her at all (it's a pretty big school, afterall), but the flag's been at half-mast for weeks now... if it's not one thing it's another.

0

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.

The best thing we can do is make people take some kind of a test before buying any firearm, as you said. Perhaps pass a psychology test, and then firearm basics or something.. But there really is nothing we can do other than this. Sane people may snap and just start shooting up schools, and there is no way we can defend against it. We can make all the laws we want, but they wont solve the problem.
I agree with everything you said, great post:cool:

0

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...

You know what, I don't even know who the Republican front-runners are. Yea, Clinton is way too radical and liberal for my tastes; Obama is definitely a more suitable candidate.
.. I'm too tired to talk politics lol.. I'll respond better tomorrow

0

<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.

There's also a sport element to target shooting. I for one find that to be fun and a lot more convenient than waiting for hunting season.

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.

Good points, and I agree about the safety course. Youngsters (age < 21 I think) around here have to take one before they can purchase a hunting license, but after the course they are also allowed to own a gun IIRC (not purchase though). Of course, the class focuses on hunting stuff mainly, but at least there's some effort to promote gun awareness.

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.

Also good points. Our nation has a unique culture with a do-it-yourself aspect, and we demand a right to protect us and ours. Removing gun ownership would fail, either by lack of legislative progress or by large scale dissent against such legislature if passed. Oh, and I've never registered any of my guns (even if they're only for hunting; one's a muzzle-loader, the other's a shotgun with an uncommon fiberglass barrel, so it can't even take steel shot and I don't use it anymore).

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.

It would only have required one person to be armed. The argument of arming everyone is just that the perpetrator would know that he'd make little progress before someone stopped him by deadly force. And even if he was going to throw his life away like he did, he would not have been able to take 30+ innocent people with him. Not like everyone's gonna get in a circle and shoot the perpetrator. IMO though, gun discipline should be something taught to everyone, even if they never end up owning a gun. I was brough up knowing how to treat guns, and I even have a hard time pointing toys directly at people. :$

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.

Another valid point, but I'll refer again to our unique culture. Also, I vastly prefer the current system to having the government own all the firearms.

<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.

Unfortunately, sometimes the guns are fired by their legal owners. Also, there are legitimate incidences of loaning/borrowing guns to other people.

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?

Or swimming pools. Those should definitely be banned.

0

We can make all the laws we want, but they wont solve the problem.

Uh, that made my shiver. Making laws is directly related to stripping freedoms, and we've had enough of that the last few years...

0

Infraction, as I said previously the government has about as much chance as a snow ball chance in hell of taking away our firearms.

Another means of taking lives mentioned was the use of bombs. In 1997 Congress voted 94-0 to add an amendment to a Department of Defense spending bill to prohibit the distribution of bomb-making instructions, but there are still copies of books such as The Anarchist Cookbook to be found. There are even web sites that will describe the materials and instructions for building a fertilizer bomb. Most anyone can purchase black powder and figure out how to build a pipe bomb. What scares me about these is that they can be left in a public location with several means of initiating the explosive, either by timer or by remote control.

0

Another means of taking lives mentioned was the use of bombs. In 1997 Congress voted 94-0 to add an amendment to a Department of Defense spending bill to prohibit the distribution of bomb-making instructions, but there are still copies of books such as The Anarchist Cookbook to be found. There are even web sites that will describe the materials and instructions for building a fertilizer bomb.

In 1997, the government dreamed it could control the Internet. It still does, but everyone else knows better. Unless they implement a national filter, which would cause yet another uproar.

0

In 1997 Congress voted 94-0 to add an amendment to a Department of Defense spending bill to prohibit the distribution of bomb-making instructions, but there are still copies of books such as The Anarchist Cookbook to be found.

That law's unconstitutional anyway. Or would be, since the provision was later removed before the bill's passage.

0

If they ban guns, that dosen't mean that they will abolish them. As long as law enforcement use them and the military use them there will be opportunities that will arise where criminals can get their hands on them, AND THEY WILL. So where does that leave the us? Pretty much where we are now.

Anyhow on the REAL subject at hand. To the response on if they knew why he did it. Authorities said he left a note in his dorm explaining why he did what he did, quoting that the letter said "you guys made me do this."

0

This was a very disturbed individual, enough so that fellow student stated that they didn't feel safe in the same class with him. One of his instructors even went to the extent of reporting her concern for his potential for violence. Plays that he had written were full of violence. This basically was a violent action looking for a place to happen.

0

Anyhow on the REAL subject at hand. To the response on if they knew why he did it. Authorities said he left a note in his dorm explaining why he did what he did, quoting that the letter said "you guys made me do this."

Ah, he realized the best way to commit a crime: make it someone else's fault. Why can't people be responsible for their own lives and actions anymore?

This was a very disturbed individual, enough so that fellow student stated that they didn't feel safe in the same class with him. One of his instructors even went to the extent of reporting her concern for his potential for violence. Plays that he had written were full of violence. This basically was a violent action looking for a place to happen.

I read somewhere that he'd been referred to a counselor as well. At least they tried to do something, but apparently they didn't catch it in time or didn't try hard enough.

0

but apparently they didn't catch it in time or didn't try hard enough.

I think its the latter. Apparently, his witting had been very violent, and his teacher referred him to the counselors. Also, there was a 2 hour lag between the murders in the dorms and the murders in the class room.. VA Tech didn't act quickly enough, or else they may have been able to avoid some of the murders.

0

I read somewhere that he'd been referred to a counselor as well. At least they tried to do something, but apparently they didn't catch it in time or didn't try hard enough.

Sadly, that seems the case. He also stalked two women from the university both in person, and by e-mail, but they both declined to press charges. Some may say that if the women would have pressed charges that may have prevented him from being able to purchase the guns. I think he was intelligent enough to know that if those charges would have been filed he would have to find another means in obtaining a firearm.

On the gun issue that seems to be the flotation device of this thread, I think they should make bullets extremely exspensive for firearms used for other than hunting i.e. handguns, semi-auto handguns/rifles, and of course fully automatic firearms. Atleast that way anyone looking to harm of this nature (god forbid, it NEVER happens on this scale again) would have a lot harder time trying to conceal a hunting rifle.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.