Pro-gun lobby strengthened following US campus shooting

[rodeodance]

Source: afp



Pro-gun lobby strengthened following US campus shooting

by Stephanie Griffith 54 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The powerful US gun lobby, far from being weakened by last week's tragic college campus shooting, actually has emerged stronger, gun advocates said, stepping up calls Sunday for a better-armed US citizenry to prevent future attacks.


Gun rights advocates said that following last week's massacre, in which 23-year-old Cho Seung-Hui fatally shot 32 victims at Virginia Tech University, gun control forces will be hard pressed to make the case for tighter restrictions.

"This is a huge nail in the coffin of gun control," said Philip Van Cleave, president of the gun rights group Virginia Citizens Defense League.

"They had gun control on campus and it got all those people killed, because nobody could defend themselves," he told AFP.

"You want people to be able to defend themselves -- always," he said.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070422/ts_alt_afp/uscrimeshootingguns_070422195959;_ylt=AnLF88Xd1kJn9ZNmj61sJBbMWM0F

---

Lots of newts out there!


Pack a gun

[iverglas]

1. isn't it just marvellous

when you have a agenda that is advanced by the murders of 32 people?

I wish I had an agenda like that ...

[Praw]

36. Really now

You havn't seen the gun banners using this to push their agenda?

[iverglas]

104. hmm. The agenda of the "gun banners" being

to reduce the number of deaths and injuries by firearm, as I understand it, then, oddly enough, I would expect to see someone with that agenda reacting to a mass murder by firearm to call for measures to reduce the insanely easy access to firearms by anyone who wants one.

Of course, if your agenda is to eliminate or render ineffective all such measures, then you gotta come up with some way to spin the 32 murders that have caught the public's attention. Those dead people aren't just gang-bangers or poor unfortunate women who didn't have the guts to leave their abusive husbands, so they're not quite so easily dismissed as just one of those side-effects of all that good 'murrican freedom stuff.

Mind you, rendering firearms control ineffective isn't the whole agenda, of course. Keeping the population terrorized and underdeveloped, particularly the poor and people of colour and women, and pouring big profits into the pockets of the purveyors of the weapons of terror, that's where it's really at.

[VegasWolf]

60. The rednecks to the rescue! nt

[Irreverend IX]

89. That post almost broke my brain.

Have you considered registering your overwhelming insensitivity to irony as a highly lethal weapon with the Canadian Ministry of Peace or whatever bureaucracy is responsible for keeping track of any civilian-held weapon deadlier than a butter knife in Canada? Because you damn near killed me just now.

[iverglas]

2. but cereally now

They do say that the best defence is a good offence.

There's little as offensive as these people and their agenda, but they do seem to grasp that they'll be in need of a good defence.

[onehandle]

3. College students and professors aren't going to carry guns around...

...even if they were allowed to.

Moron.

[fidgeting wildly]

11. That's why this argument is so stupid.

You're exactly right. Even if it had been legal on that day, how many of the students and faculty members in Norris Hall would have been armed? My guess is none.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mcg]

43. Even if it was a little easier to carry a gun in VA and they did, people would still have died.

There's so many errors in the gun lobby's statements.

In Virginia one can carry a concealed weapon with a permit
and it's not hard to get a permit there. The gun lobby is
implying that there wasn't someone with a gun to shoot
Cho because of the weak gun laws in Virginia. BS.

It's unlikely someone would have been carrying a gun to shoot
Cho even if no permit was required.

The gun lobby is implying that it was ok for Cho to buy guns
and that the only problem was that he wasn't shot by someone
else. That would have been AFTER he had already killed people.

[Praw]

50. Not quite

The fact is that psychos like Cho will always find or create a weapon in order to take their anger out on society. Allowing people the fundamental right to adequate self defense is an extremely effective defense.

[mcg]

72. Yes, quite.

"The fact is that psychos like Cho will always find or create a weapon in order to take their anger out on society."

You seem to be implying that had it been more difficult for Cho to buy guns
it would not have made any difference at all. How you know this?
It's not a guarantee but a deterrent, just as drunk driving laws are a deterrent
against people driving drunk.

If Cho had to use a knife he wouldn't have been able to kill so many people.
As it was, society made it EASY for him to kill many people.

"Allowing people the fundamental right to adequate self defense is an extremely effective defense."

In Virginia people already have the right to carry a concealed weapon, they just need a permit,
and neither a permit nor a gun should be issued to someone like Cho.

Should ANYONE, including someone like Cho, should be allowed to buy a gun?
He wasn't buying it for self defense, he was buying it to murder. Many people
have bought guns to murder.

This is not and either/or situation of either 1. banning all guns or 2. allowing
ANYONE to buy a gun.

[northzax]

80. well, as it was

he walked into a gun store and bought the weapons easy as pie. where else was he going to easily get automatic pistols in Blacksburg, VA? Look at it this way: I live in DC, have to 8 years. I am sure that, if I wanted to, I could easily purchase any drug you can think of, legal or not, it's a matter of asking the right people. What I don't think I could easily buy is a handgun. I simply wouldn't know who to ask. I have greater resources than Cho, I know more people, I have more money, (plus, I am not mentally ill that I know of) and frankly, it would be a lot of work, and a lot of risk, to get a couple of automatics. I'm sure I could probably do it, if I put my mind to it, but it would involve other people. can you really see someone like Cho getting around those obstacles? someone who couldn't talk to anyone?

[Irreverend IX]

86. "Automatic" pistols?

Cho's guns weren't automatic, unless you're using that word to refer to all autoloading pistols. Any crack or heroin dealer can refer you to an illegal gun dealer; many deal in guns as a side business. Cho was a dedicated guy; he would have figured out some way to commit mayhem if he'd been denied guns. Explosives could have been even deadlier.

The real issue here is that social services are not effectively dealing with dangerously mentally ill people. Unless they attempt murder, people like Cho are often run through the system and tossed back into society with nothing done to address their issues. There have probably been thousands of violent crimes committed by people who should be getting treatment in institutions but were ignored by the system. Cho just committed a particularly heinous crime.

[northzax]

93. 'automatic' is the customary shorthand

for a semi-automatic pistol. you knew what I meant.

your suggestion is a crack dealer? oh great. well next time I am buying crack, I will ask my guy for a referral. come on. you think a lot of crack dealers are going to sell a gun to a 32 year old white guy in a brooks brothers polo shirt they don't know? how quickly you think I'd be pegged as a narc in Anacostia, 5 minutes or 3? which means I'd have to start asking around, which exponentially inproves the odds of someone finding out I am up to no good. can you really see a guy like Cho, too reticent to talk to his roommate, walking down a dark alley to buy a gun, not once, but twice? not really. if Cho was a student at GW, or Georgetown, or Catholic, or American, and a resident of DC, these shooting don't happen. you can't argue that. he would not have had access to the weapons he had access to as easily. it is a LOT harder to do this kind of spree killing in a jurisdiction with strict gun control.

and yes, explosives are much more frightening, but then they also take much more expertise and access to equipment. it's not that easy to build a bomb that weill kill 32 people, even in a classroom. plus, you don't get to have the catharsis of rage, bombings are cold and calculated, when effective, not raging. look at the three effective bombings done by civilians in the US in the last 20 years (Oklahoma City, Olympic Park/clinics (Rudolph), Kazinscki) one took two people and a year of planning (and would be harder to duplicate now, especially by a 22 year old), Olympic Park, despite going off in a crowd of spectators, managed to kill one person (plus a heart attack victim) and the Unabomber had a Ph.D in mathematics. it's not easy to kill large numbers of people with bombs in places where explosives are hard to come by (which explains that despite almost daily car bombs in Iraq, you don't hear about them in places without active and well funded terrorist or insurgent groups (the IRA, for instance, was a big user of car bombs)

there are two real issues here: the first, as you point out, is the failure of the social system. the second is that once the system fails, it was all too easy for Cho to get his hands on weapons capable of killing large numbers of people. both need to be addressed to help prevent future occurences.

[porque no]

113. With the gun jargon police,

there is no margin for error. If you do not know the exact definition of every category of gun, then you must abdicate your right to speak your mind.

[S_B_Jackson]

123. You say that you could easily purchase drugs....

but that you couldn't easily purchase a gun? Hate to break it to you but the same "right people" you had to talk to to get to the drugs could just as easily point you to someone who would sell you a gun. And please let's not raise the phantasm of "automatic weapons". They're tightly controlled, prohibitively expensive, and not very prevalent in the commission of any crimes.

[northzax]

124. no, because if I was looking for drugs

I would talk to people who use them. or do you suppose that guns are highly prevalent among the indie hipster crowd in DC? hate to break it to you, but it's not actually THAT easy. pretty sure my friendly neighborhod bartender would sell me any drug I wanted, or refer me to a seller, highly doubt he would sell me a gun, even though you think they are the same people.

[Fierce]

4. "Nail in the coffin."

Nice fucking metaphor.

[nebula]

5. Utter BS

If we had gun control laws that prevented people with a documented history of mental problems from legally purchasing firearms, the VA Tech students would probably be alive today.

Our current 'gun control laws' are just insane. They are woefully inadequate and allow almost any nutcase like Cho to legally, and all too easily, arm themselves to the teeth with high-powered firearms.

[mcg]

35. Indeed, a good background check was absent,

even if questions asked on the applications were worded better,
Cho could have and would have (I believe) answered no. He was
planning to kill, why would he care about lying on an application?

There should be a mandatory background check of one's medical history,
also the sale of guns with high capacity magazines should be outlawed.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/21/cho_could_have_been_denied_firearms/

' ... Federal law prohibits anyone who has been "adjudicated as a mental defective,"
as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility,
from purchasing a gun.

A special justice's order in late 2005 that directed Cho to seek outpatient treatment and declared him to be mentally ill and an imminent danger to himself fits the federal criteria and should have immediately disqualified him, said Richard J. Bonnie, chairman of the Virginia Supreme Court's Commission on Mental Health Law Reform. ...'

The Federal law should be reworded, it should strictly prohibit the SALE of a gun
to anyone who has been "adjudicated as a mental defective", and there
should be severe penalties for doing so. This is an 'economics of security'
issue, the penalties for lax security need to be put where they will make
a difference. It's not enough to tell criminals and mentally ill people
'you can't buy a gun'.

The gun store is not being prosecuted. Why?

[TX-RAT]

101. There are 2 people to blame in this case.

Cho himself, and the judge who changed his order to outpatient. Had the judge let it stand, then it would have been reported to the feds and red flagged him for purchase.


"The Federal law should be reworded, it should strictly prohibit the SALE of a gun
to anyone who has been "adjudicated as a mental defective", and there
should be severe penalties for doing so."


It already is.

" The gun store is not being prosecuted. Why?"

Because it was a legal transaction, no laws were broken.

[mcg]

112. More than 2 people, and no, it isn't.

"It already is."
"Because it was a legal transaction, no laws were broken."

Contradiction.

[tidy_bowl]

105. However, there was such a law...

'If we had gun control laws that prevented people with a documented history of mental problems from legally purchasing firearms, the VA Tech students would probably be alive today.'

Had the magistrate so ruled Cho a danger then that information would have prevented Cho from buying guns. There was a law already in place for that eventuality, it was just not followed.

[michreject]

108. Not so

If we had gun control laws that prevented people with a documented history of mental problems from legally purchasing firearms, the VA Tech students would probably be alive today.

He would have just bought them illegally on the street. Easy to do.

[nebula]

120. Not easy to do

That's nonsense. Where the hell does one go to purchase a high-quality semi-automatic handgun (from an unlicensed dealer) in a suburban area?

These black market arms dealers simply do not exist, at least not in the vast numbers that pro-gun advocates would have people believe. When they do exist, they are difficult if not impossible for the average person to find. They don't exactly advertise their services in the Yellow Pages. Its just another false talking point.

Buying a gun on the street, especially a good quality one that actually FUNCTIONS, is infinitely harder to do than walking into a gun store for it. The point is to limit access to firearms to these nutcases as much as possible, not to make it easier for them to obtain.

Your argument is like saying, let's legalize liquor sales to minors because they're going to get it off the street anyway.

What is with us Americans and our borderline psychotic obsession with GUNS??

[michreject]

126. I'm not obsessed

I just have over 50 of em.:evilgrin: They're good investments and legally owned. All modern firearms are safe and high quality and available on the black market. You gotta get out more.

[villager]

6. GOP-style psy-ops/newspeak

"War is peace," etc., etc...

[wtmusic]

7. ex-actly.

Never defend. Attack. Black is white, defeat is victory.

And at the end is APF's version of equal time, which basically contradicts the whole premise of their article:

"Reports that Cho's past brush with mental health authorities should have prevented him from being able to purchase a firearm is prompting a legislative reaction, however.

US Senator Chuck Schumer and Representative Carolyn McCarthy (news, bio, voting record) on Sunday announced plans to introduce federal bill requiring states to send critical mental health information to the federal government, which will allow them to screen out those who don't qualify to own firearms.

US media reported Sunday that a similar proposed bill in California impose mandatory background checks for buyers of handgun ammunition, require a face-to-face purchase instead of by mail, and require gun shops to store ammunition behind counters.

Schumer said about his bill that federal gun laws are only as the records provided by states.

"Our legislation, had it been in place last week, may well have stopped last weeks unspeakable tragedy," Schumer said in a statement."

[hogwyld]

107. I love Schumer

I hope he also reintroduces the magazine capacity limits from the AWB. I wish we had a lot more Schumers, Feingolds, and Kuciniches in our Congress.

[Festivito]

95. Ding ding ding: "gun advocates said." (Sounds self-serving to me.)

These guys will not be happy EVEN WHEN everyone carries a gun.

"Everyone needs a rocket launcher" is next, in order to defeat criminals with guns.

Then "Everyone needs an anti-rocket-launched-missle-defence system in order to defeat criminals with rocket launchers."

Then "Everyone needs multiple warhead pocket launchers in order to defeat criminals with anti-..."

Then ... on and on.

[porque no]

114. Right On!

:toast:

[annabanana]

8. A lot of pre-emptive yowling is what it is...

They are going to have to come to terms with the fact that paranoid schizophrenics ought not to have easy access to firearms..

[TX-RAT]

102. paranoid schizophrenics ought not to have easy access to firearms..

I don't think you'll find anybody disagreeing with that. Well, maybe the judge who changed the order.

[jody]

9. The Democratic Party says, "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms". n/t

[virginia mountainman]

10. Heck most of the Democrats I know

(outside of here)are EXTREMELY PRO GUN..

We are just as electrified, writing pro-2nd amendment pieces to the paper, Jamming phone lines of our legislators to INSURE they don't touch the 2nd amendment with a ten foot pole....

I wrote and sent 3 letters last week myself!

And without ANY help from the NRA I might add!! THIS IS GRASS ROOTS AT ITS BEST!!

The Anti-Gun-CONTROL lobby is getting stronger and stronger! And the more the anti-gunners talk, mislead, lie, and whine, the STRONGER we get.

I don't understand why all the resistance in here? I thought we all was pro-civil rights? and Pro-choice?? Let the repukes be the ones that we saddle with breaking the Bill of Rights, not us.

The anti-bill of rights people, better realize what will happen to us, if we again, become the party of "gun grabbers".

[iverglas]

17. grass roots at its best!!

Where "best" = "where the smell of the natural fertilizer is strongest", I guess.

Some people don't have too much trouble figuring out that what a bunch of allegedly average janes/joes do isn't always smart, and isn't always in even their own best interests, let alone anybody else's.

Did those Democrats you cite vote for Al Gore in 2002? Kerry in 2006? If not, I wonder what their qualifications as "Democrats" are ... and if so, I wonder how it is that the anti-firearms control vote lost the election for the Democrats ...

[skipos]

26. I own a gun and *I* didn't vote for Gore or Kerry

in 2002 and 2006.

I voted for them in 2000 and 2004.
:)

[iverglas]

47. g'day g'day

I'm from the Ottawa Valley. We use a different calendar up here. ;)

[Bridget Burke]

98. NRA Astroturf is more likely. n/t

[ProudDad]

70. Ah the pathological sickness of gun love

seems quite alive and well in Virginia.

Red necks abound...

[rusty charly]

12. "gun advocates said"

of course they do.

[Turbineguy]

13. Back in the day

When auto manufacturers were fighting seatbelts it must have occurred to someone that people who die in auto crashes stop buying new cars. But people don't go out and buy more cars because someone they know crashes.

With guns, the sales increase following terrible shooting events. After all, how many have come forward to turn their guns in, just in case they go crazy?

So it's important for the gun lobby to make sure that criminals and the mentally ill can obtain guns. That way the rest of us will buy guns at a brisk pace to "defend" ourselves. They can't come right out and say this of course. But turning the country into an armed camp where everyone is afraid of everyone else would appear to be Utopia for these people.

The argument that these at VT people died because there was gun control is idiotic. They died because somebody who was mentally ill was able to purchase guns and he shot them.

Taken to its ultimate logic, we will start seeing people shot mistakenly by fear crazed gun toting shoppers in Malls and people will stay away in droves for fear of being shot when they reach into their pocket to answer their cellphone.

I guess we can throw the idea of living in a proper civilized society out the window.

[jody]

14. Do you know the Democratic Platform says We will protect Americans' Second Amendment rights?

Given your broad brush assertion, the Democratic Party is part of the gun lobby.

If you're a Democrat and anti-RKBA, do you feel out of place in a political party that supports all civil rights?

On the other hand your post might have been :sarcasm:

[Turbineguy]

31. I am in favor of the Second Amendment as written.

And in its entirety.

"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."

A lot of people who own guns have nothing whatsoever to do with the security of a free state.

[Praw]

33. Incorrect

We'll start with the "militia" argument.

U.S. Code Title 10 Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

As you can see, the milita is not (or at least much more than) the national guard. Keep in mind that the national guard was established after the Bill of Rights was created, and that the national guard is federally run and controlled. Surely you do not believe that the government was give itself the right to keep and bare arms?


Also, each and every citizen of the united states is involved with the security of a free state. Armed citizens are a primary check that keeps the state free. Governments are less likely to run out of control and subjegate the populace when they populace has the capacity to fight back.

"Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control"

[porque no]

115. I gotta say that you can't have it both ways,

either there is a "militia", which would be cool with me, and it should be well regulated. But now we have a standing army, which doesn't comply with this whole arrangement. If we have a standing army, do we need a militia? I think not. surely the founders did not foresee what is today's reality. surely there is a problem.

[jody]

34. Interesting view however a majority in congress passed Public Law no 109-092 with a different view.

QUOTE
Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.
UNQUOTE

SCOTUS said in UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939):

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they <307 U.S. 174, 179> were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

The kind of arms, i.e. standard arms, used by active duty and organized militia today are the M16 rifle and M9 pistol.

[Turbineguy]

48. I'll admit,

I have not made an extensive study of the rules and subsequent interpretations and loopholes that serve to increase gun ownership.

All I want is that criminals and nuts can't get guns. All I want is to be able to go about my normal business or enjoyment without the fear of getting shot. That does not seem all that unreasonable does it?

It seems that when ever somebody advocates any sort of suggestion that guns are inherently dangerous and are too often misused that person is deemed to be some sort of wacko who wants to take away your gun.

The simple fact is that on the one hand people fear the acts of those with bad intent and assuage that fear by purchasing and carrying guns and on the other hand other fear getting caught in the crossfire between those two groups.

So the challenge to those who are law abiding persons who are concerned gun owners (and maintain skills at their use) is to keep criminals and crazies from obtaining guns. Because that is the real problem with guns.

[jody]

97. IMO the problem is balancing your fear against the right of a law-abiding citizen's to self-defense.

A handgun is the most effective, efficient tool for self-defense.

Current federal law prevents anyone from purchasing a firearm if she/he "has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution". (18 USC 922)

ATF interpreted that law as including those who were a threat to others and not just to them self. Cho had not been diagnosed as threat to others so he was not in the NICS data base.

Congress is discussing how to make that part of the law more effective.

[porque no]

117. You gun folk keep placing the responsibility on those of us

who wish to live a gun free, threat free life, for controlling what you enable. It is up to you to police yourselves. An obligation which you have obviously, an purposefully abdicated.

Fear? Look in the mirror.

[jody]

125. Law-abiding citizens do police ourselves, that's what self-defense means. Police are not obligated

to protect you.

Apparently you've forgotten that law-abiding citizens are not the problem it's criminals.

Self-defense is your personal problem and no amount of anger at we pro-RKBA Democrats and the Democratic Party that says "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms" will change that basic fact of your life.

[porque no]

116. According to the average gun worshiper,

you need to "cowboy up" you god-damned sissy Mary. Deal with it.

For the record, I'm with you. I would like to just live a gun nut free life.

[Mojorabbit]

84. The supreme court

just ruled that women can't be trusted to have controll over their bodies too.

[Irreverend IX]

91. The militia clause is a justification for the amendment...

And nothing more. See this article from the Yale Law Journal:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/embar.html

[Kajsa]

15. Are they also advocating the ENFORCEMENT of existing gun control laws,

not giving a " clean bill of health" to someone deemed " a danger to himself and others",
therefore making it impossible for him to buy a gun?( legally)

I didn't think so.

[jody]

16. Cho was not deemed a danger to others & under BATF guidelines he was not reported to NICS. n/t

[Kajsa]

19. OMG!

I had heard the opposite!

Now here's one of the biggest mistakes made by the
mental health professionals.

People who worked with him and knew him saw the
danger long before it happened.

[jody]

22. LA Times link below.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guns20apr20,0,1362784.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[Kajsa]

23. Thanks!

:hi:

[brentspeak]

77. That's what happens when the local police aren't involved in granting handgun permits

Criminals and psychos easily fall through the computerized background checks. The system of having local police query people who know the handgun permit applicant would have prevented Cho from making his handgun purchases.

[jody]

110. Interesting view. How could someone defend them self against a false accusation? n/t

[BlooInBloo]

18. Not surprising. Americans REALLY ARE stupid enough to believe that more guns = less violence.

[virginia mountainman]

20. Odd..

I have a whole safe full, the neighbors are all heavily armed it is always been nice and peaceful here.

[BlooInBloo]

21. Well that cinches it! Everywhere is like your house! ROFL!

[michreject]

109. Mine is

But I have three full safes.:evilgrin:

[ProudDad]

71. You appear to be part of the problem

sick, sick ,sick!

[jody]

24. If there were no crime, then law-abiding citizens would not need arms for self-defense but then RKBA

would not be an issue since accidental deaths due to firearms rank #16.

QUESTION: How do we reduce violent crime?

See 20 Leading Causes of Unintentional Injury Deaths, United States 2004, All Races, Both Sexes

Rank Age over 1
1 Unintentional MV Traffic 43,293
2 Unintentional Poisoning 20,937
3 Unintentional Fall 18,784
4 Unintentional Unspecified 6,152
5 Unintentional Suffocation 5,166
6 Unintentional Fire/burn 3,294
7 Unintentional Drowning 3,246
8 Unintentional Other Spec., classifiable 1,415
9 Unintentional Other Land Transport 1,355
10 Unintentional Natural/ Environment 1,339
11 Unintentional Other Transport 1,252
12 Unintentional Pedestrian, Other 1,134
13 Unintentional Other Spec., NECN 983
14 Unintentional Struck by or Against 842
15 Unintentional Machinery 795
16 Unintentional Firearm 648
17 Unintentional Pedal cyclist, Other 206
18 Unintentional Cut/pierce 107
19 Unintentional Overexertion 12

[Name removed]

37. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[anakie]

25. to paraphrase an Australianism

you guys are a weird mob.

Being in a country with relatively few guns in private ownership; when a massacre actually strengthens the gun lobby it is just really difficult to compute.

Your country, your laws

Peace

[irislake]

28. Agree 100%

Thank God Canadians who need to feel strong invest their fantasies in the game of hockey rather that the wild western frontier. I am not a sports fan but I can understand its uses. But some of the fans get out of hand in England, wot?

[rodeodance]

39. I can't figure it out.

[depakid]

45. It's called "American Exceptionalism"

de Tocqueville coined the term about 170 years ago- and it's even more relevant today.

Americans don't think that natural, economic or sociological laws apply to them- much less common sense.

And as you've probably noticed, many of them tend to reinforce each other and often go to absurd lengths to preserve cherished yet irrational beliefs.

[wtmusic]

81. Interesting

Though the sheer difficulty of getting here no doubt emphasized traits like pioneering spirit and individualism in the American gene pool, the bastard siblings to those traits--selfishness and a sense of entitlement--were emphasized as well.

America is on the brink of becoming another Rome unless we can find a source for humility.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

100. I don't know about a "genetic" connection

It was just as difficult to get to Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Similar "voluntary" migration, except the US also had the slave trade. I don't think CA, AU, or NZ had anything quite like that.

[THUNDER HANDS]

27. funny how Al Queda was also strengthened following 911

seems like it's a backwards world we're living in.

[Doctor_J]

29. It seems like everything that happens in this country strngthens the evil parts

and chips away at the good parts. 3,000 dead at the WTC turned the worst president in history into a two-termer. Every rampage by a gun nut results in more guns. This is what a death spiral looks like.

[THUNDER HANDS]

30. gun owners can be like

SUV owners, who see what their cars do to the environment, but don't care because THEY NEEEEED their SUVs. Fuck the planet.

[depakid]

38. Oh, bullshit. These jerks always pipe up when things like this happen

It was the EXACT same way after the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania.

The only difference is that:

1. Australians aren't cowards- they weren't afraid to step up and do the right thing for their society in the face of the loudmouth gun nuts; and

2. The corporate media and the extreme right didn't have a stranglehold over the sensibilities of their population.

[MadMaddie]

40. I have read most of your posts Pro-Gun and Anti-Gun

And I think many of you have gotten sucked into the Propaganda machine.

Bullshit on this story...What proof does this article point to that the Gun lobby was actually strengthened? What statistics do they point to. Apparently statistical data is word of mouth these days and watching Ted Nugent on the television.

Until everyone agrees that there are multiple issues that cropped up during the Cho shooting then nothing will improve. When Columbine happened both sides claimed that they had the upper hand on the issue.

The Gun Lobby policing itself and trying to help prevent more tragedies is like big Corporations policing themselves....big fat nothing.

Something else that's important-We are not sending our students to college to be sharpshooters or to react like a police officer or soldiers when a crisis hits....We are sending them to college to be our future leaders.

The Universities have a huge responsibility to make sure the campuses are safe for the students, if that involves removing students like Cho-who are a danger to themselves and to others than so be it.

[Praw]

41. All of the major polls say the same thing

Every major poll I have seen, including those by CNN and NBC, show a majority of respondants against more gun control.

[depakid]

42. Really?

Maybe you might share those "polls" with us, so we can see for ourselves what they might say (or what the methodology was or who polling outfit is).

[mcg]

44. Maybe a poll question should be....

Should it be easy for someone with a documented history of mental illness to buy a gun?

[Praw]

54. Someone who has been adjudicated as mentally unfit, threat to others, shouldn't be free in society

They should be in a mental institution, not enrolled at VA Tech..

[mcg]

66. True, but that doesn't cover all cases.

There will be cases where there isn't sufficient evidence to lock someone up, but enough to indicate that that person should not be sold a gun.

[onehandle]

73. I agree.

They're easy to spot. They quote a selective bit of science fiction when they actually want to quote Ayn Rand.

They should say what they mean.

[porque no]

119. Now we gotta round up all the unstable cause otherwise

they might get guns. well we'll get right on that, missr gun lover sir. Cause we certainly don't want to infringe upon your right to sell them guns, missr gun lover sir.

[Praw]

46. Sure. Here are some...

CNN.com quickvote poll results.

http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/31341.exclude.html

Do you believe the U.S. should have tighter laws on gun control?

Yes 8% 582 votes

No 92% 6309 votes
Total: 6891 votes

92% DO NOT WANT TIGHTER LAWS ON GUN CONTROL



MSNBC poll results:

http://men.msn.com/articlepollgc.aspx?cp-documentid=4732850>1=9311

Which do you support?
More gun control 30%
More gun rights 56%
Neither 13%
151,938 responses, not scientifically valid, results updated every minute.

56% SUPPORT MORE GUN RIGHTS, only 30% SUPPORT MORE GUN CONTROL

Newsday poll:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--rangel-guns0417apr17,0,6131808.story?coll=ny-sports-headlines&vote29128380=1

Should gun control laws be tightened?

13.6%
Yes (132 responses)

86.4%
No (842 responses)

974 total responses

This one does not have very many responses, but it is quite lopsided in favor of less control at this time.

http://www.time.com/time/polls/gunpoll.html



Feel free to rush over and vote in these again, but it won't make much difference in the outcome given the number of responses to the first two.

[daleo]

49. Those aren't scientific polls

Internet polls just don't represent public opinion, although they can be fun to "Freep" or "DU".

[Praw]

52. Care to present a scientific poll, then?

I'm all ears. Give a scientific, unbias, recent poll that says otherwise.

I never claimed the polls were "scientific". I claimed that every single poll I have seen has been against gun control. They are. In fact, some are VERY MUCH SO against gun control.

[0rganism]

56. "all of the major polls" are your words, it's up to you to back that up

Go find a real poll result, okay?

[Praw]

64. I did

IMO polls by major news organizations were major. Apparently when the results are not what you want they are meaningless. They may not be scientific, but they offer some kind of indication.

[0rganism]

78. the hell you did

You posted bullshit. First you cited self-selected online polls as indicative of "all major polls", then you made false assertions about what real polls you did find. That's pretty weak stuff.

Furthermore, you have no idea what I want. I haven't told you -- and you might just be surprised if I did. However, that aside, you've been told the reasons why those online polls are crap, and all you have to do is look at the real polls (go reread the page you linked) to see just how crappy they are.

[porque no]

121. Are you for real?

You can't believe that those polls are accurate?

whatever blows your skirt up I guess. Damn.

[mcg]

65. Yes, Gallup poll.

Gallup Summary: Americans and Gun Control
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27229&pg=1

"In every instance, at least a majority has agreed that gun laws should be made more strict"

[daleo]

79. I am not necessarily taking a position on the debate

I am just pointing out that your stated evidence isn't a representative of public opinion.

[Diogenes2]

51. "Lopsided" indeed. And "unscientific"...

and completely skewed by the concerted efforts of the "gun-nut" Freepers, as is always the case in these "instant" online polls concerning this issue. Nice try, though.

[Praw]

55. I'm still waiting

For a major, recent poll supporting gun control. Just one. I havn't seen any.

[northzax]

83. is January 9, 2007 recent enough?

Gallup:



(yes, it says 2006, but the text, and other charts on the site say it was 2007) that is a strong majority, 83%, favouring either current standards or stricter standards, with 51%, a bare majority, favouring stricter standards.

methodology:

Results are based on telephone interviews with approximately 1,000 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted across several surveys in 2006 and 2007. For results based on the total sample of national adults in any one survey, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27229&pg=1

how's that for a recent poll showing strong support for gun control?

[0rganism]

53. big differences between "all major polls" and "a handful of online polls"

The big difference is statistical validity: online self-selected polls have ZERO.

Don't get me wrong -- that doesn't mean they don't have some bearing on public opinion, as they are often used by lazy cable news organizations for filler on their newscasts, and the ones you cite are indeed lopsided. The problem with self-selected online polls is, they cannot be regarded as accurate or proportionately representative of the public at large. The sampling is not random, not demographically representative, and not restricted to one response per individual.

Unless you're talking out your ass, there should be at least one major poll which you could use to make your point -- any of Zogby, Harris, or even Gallup would be a step forward. Any news org poll that isn't self-selected would work. And since you suggest ALL of the major ones are in line with the pro-gun lobby, finding one shouldn't be too hard.

[Praw]

58. "that doesn't mean they don't have SOME bearing on public opinion"...I agree

As you said, they have SOME bearing. How much, hard to say. Perfect? Of course not, but it is a hint...

[depakid]

57. I kinda figured that's what you'd cite- internet polls

You'd do well to take a basic stats course.

1. It doesn't matter how many people are in your sample if the sample's skewed! What you have here is classic response bias. Only the people who feel strongly enough about the poll respond!

Since you don't have a representative sample, the "poll" is meaningless at best- and more often than not, totally misleading.

2. You also have several other forms of selection bias, which there's little need to go into.

I bet wine to water that that a proper random sample with validated questions would yield completely different results... and my bet from past polls that I have seen that your initial assertion is wrong.

A majority (on the national level) WOULD support stronger gun control laws- though of course, you'd have regional variations.

Northern Idaho or Tennessee will obviously be stridently pro-gun, whereas New York City or Chicago will support responsible regulations.

[Praw]

59. gallup poll, more gun control loses 47% to 49%

Vs keeping gun control as it is or lessening it.

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

[depakid]

62. Gotta do better than Gallup- it's not a credible organization

In fact, it's often held up in Grad school classes as an example of how NOT to do research.

I'm not kidding you about that.

[Praw]

63. Who would be a good source?

I went with gallup for no reason other than a reply by DU member "organism", who stated that "Unless you're talking out your ass, there should be at least one major poll which you could use to make your point -- any of Zogby, Harris, or even Gallup would be a step forward."




I'm still waiting for a good, recent poll source showing more gun control is what people want, BTW.

[depakid]

67. I hate to cite the Post (I really, really do) but they just had a rundown

Let's Parse the Polls!

Scan recent surveys that touch on guns and gun control and you realize quickly that it has not been a matter of political debate in quite some time. Last fall, a question on gun control was included in an October Post/ABC News survey.

The sample was asked whether they favored or opposed "stricter gun laws." Sixty-one percent said they favored tighter restrictions while 37 percent opposed more stringent regulations.

Not surprisingly, Democrats were generally more supportive of more gun restrictions than Republicans. Seventy-three percent of Democrats favored stricter laws, compared with 52 percent of Republicans who said the same; 56 percent of independents supported tighter strictures.

The same trend was seen when voters were differentiated by ideology. Seventy-one percent of liberals backed stricter gun laws, followed by 61 percent of moderates and 55 percent of conservatives.

It's interesting to note that the Post/ABC poll was in the field shortly after the the shooting at an Amish schoolhouse in Pennsylvania -- the third fatal school shooting in a week's time. Events like the Amish school shooting or even Columbine incident -- i.e. ones that managed to make gun violence in schools a part of the daily debate for several years -- don't have any long-term impact on Americans' overall beliefs about gun laws.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/04/parsing_the_polls_gun_control.html

The bottom is that the issue is emotionally charged. Reasoning has been short-circuited by phenomena known variously as "cognitive dissonance," "hypothesis locking" and confirmation bias.

Sad really- as the results of Australia's actions back in the 90's plainly show:

Gun deaths in rapid decline since buyback
December 14, 2006

THE risk of dying by gunshot has dropped dramatically since the gun buyback scheme was introduced after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, a new report says.

Dr Philip Alpers, a University of Sydney academic who helped write the report, said the buyback saw the number of gun deaths a year fall from an average of 521 to 289, "suggesting that the removal of more than 700,000 guns was associated with a faster declining rate of gun suicide and gun homicide".

The Prime Minister, John Howard, introduced some of the world's toughest gun laws after the massacre, calling on people to surrender semi-automatic's, which reload each time the trigger is pulled, and pump-action shotguns.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-deaths-in-rapid-decline-since-buyback/2006/12/13/1165685752421.html

[0rganism]

75. Did you even READ the page you posted?

Looks to me like you just added the "less strict" and "no difference" numbers in the first poll you saw, I don't know how you got Gallup out of that.

The link you posted is exactly the kind of info that is useful in making your case, since it cites 4 major polling organizations -- except that the results don't back up your assertions. It is more accurate to summarize that the public majority is and has been both pro-regulation and pro-enforcement.

[0rganism]

76. It's not a Gallup poll, it's AP-Ipsos, and the split is 47% stricter, 11% reduced, 38% as-is

Combine the "as-is" with the "reduced" and it's 49%. That's hardly a victory condition for the firearms lobby.

Actually, that page is worth a read. Even the Gallup polls consistently put the deregulation results 45% or more below the increased regulation numbers, although that margin is much-reduced over the last 20 years.

[0rganism]

69. Praw, the poll on that page doesn't say what you want it to say

first of all, the one at the top is an AP-IPSOS poll, not a gallup poll:
stricter gun control: more/less/as-is/unsure = 47/11/38/4

By far, the plurality in that result is for gun control laws to be at least as strict as they are now.

This is further emphasized by those who, in the same poll, say they would be more likely to support a presidential candidate who favored stricter gun control laws: 55% more likely, compared to 34% less likely and 11% no difference. That tracks well with the Harris results further down the page, and the "less strict" 11% tracks well with Gallup's results over the last five years, also listed further down the page.

[northzax]

85. look at those numbers again

what they really say is that first you are citing an AP poll (not the Gallup one further down the page) and that you can as easily say that 85% of Americans like gun control of either the same sort we have now or stricter. only 11% think that gun laws are too strict.

so, by an overwhelming majority, Americans want gun control.

[slackmaster]

88. Way too vague to be of any use in crafting specific new laws

:nuke:

[silvermachine]

106. Nice selective excerpt...

...why aren't you touting this part?

Gallup Poll. Oct. 9-12, 2006. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?"

More Strict 56% Less Strict 9% Kept as Now 33% Unsure 2%


Or this very recent poll...

Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs. April 17-19, 2007. N=996 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1 (for all adults).

"Should gun laws be made more strict, less strict, or remain as they are?"

More Strict 47% Less Strict 11% Kept as Now 38% Unsure 4%

"Would you be more or less likely to support a candidate for president who favors stricter gun control laws?"

More Likely 55% Less Likely 32% No Difference 11% Unsure 3%

[porque no]

118. No, of course not "really", but

in the imaginary world of the gun lover, reality is but a fancy. Alternate reality? Sure. Reality? No.

[MGD]

94. Than by all means, the neo-lib geniuses speaking for all Democrats should increase their rhetoric

against all things guns so we can tap into that election gold. We need to make sure to emphasize how much smarter and better we are than eveyone who disagrees with our left most ideals while we're at it because that always goes over real well come election time too.

[wtmusic]

82. Absolutely.

This is a propaganda piece and AFP should be ashamed. There is no factual basis apart from the claims of the gun lobby.

[slackmaster]

87. Well said MadMaddie

The author of this article took the words of a mouthpiece for a small state organization and painted it as a factual picture of the nation as a whole. It's far from accurate.

[JerseygirlCT]

61. Every time something awful happens, they trot out that old one

about wouldn't it have been dandy to have everyone armed to the teeth...

Since all of those claims are coming from the gun lobby, I'll take them with a huge grain of salt.

[ProudDad]

68. I Promise to

kick the shit out of anyone I find "packing a gun"...

Stupid shits...endanger us all.

[slackmaster]

90. ProudDad threatens violence against people who are trying to defend themselves

...against violence.

ProudDad wrote:

I Promise to kick the shit out of anyone I find "packing a gun"...

I hope I am not the only DUer who finds his statement hypocritical.

[Irreverend IX]

92. I find his statement hilarious!

Hey ProudDad, has it occurred to you that trying to "kick the shit out of" someone who's packing a weapon might not be the smartest thing to do? So much for nonviolent solutions.

[MGD]

96. I find it bordering on insane and suicidal.

Perhaps ProudDad needs to talk to a therapist about his psychotic thoughts before he acts out on them, before someone gets hurt or killed?

[slackmaster]

99. He probably hasn't given a moment's thought to who he'd be beating up

The set of people who carry concealed weapons for self-defense includes:

Off-duty police officers
Accountants
Judges who have given long criminal sentences to violent gang members
Jewelry store owners
Private investigators
Women who are being stalked
Priests and ministers
Elderly people who live alone
Doctors who have been threatened by anti-abortion extremists
Bartenders
Victims of domestic violence
Bodyguards
People who service vending machines
Ordinary folks who have been threatened with violence by anonymous bullies on the Internet

ProudDad joins "curb stomper" billbuckhead in the DUers Who Have Made Threats Against Gun Owners Club.

[TX-RAT]

103. Not a wise move, but it's your life.

So how does a proud dad take care of his family when he's sitting in jail on a felony assault charge, or laying in a morgue, for being stupid. But you do make a strong case for mental evaluations, before purchasing a gun.

{{{I Promise to kick the shit out of anyone i find "packing a gun"}}}

This had to be the stupidest comment I've ever seen, on this board.

[porque no]

122. Careful ProudDad, the "nuts"

will shoot you. As obviously ridiculous as it is to shoot someone for kicking the ass of a gun nut because they refuse to realize that people don't want others constantly having the drop on them in public, regardless of their "good intentions", they would probably do it, being the throw-back, k-drags that they are.

Here's a clue for the the average gunbot: It is unreasonable that we should have to live with you carrying a gun around us. We don't want you or any other "hero" carrying a gun 24/7 around the town. Whatever that means as far as law enforcement goes, then so be it. If you want to be a cop, join the force.

[bluerum]

74. This is maddness. eom

[scrinmaster]

111. This is Sparta!

Couldn't help myself.