"Guns don't kill people...."

[matcom]

Yeah, actually they fucking DO. See, that is why they are made. To kill people. And animals.

I'm so fucking tired of that stupid argument. "Guns don't kill people...."

Yes. Guns kill fucking people. And they need to be regulated. Heard on the radio this morning (RW radio - is there any other kind?) that there are 12 different regulations on how Teddy Bears are made. Teddy Bears. From the type of stuffing that is allowed to the way the eyes are attached to avoid choking hazards.

You can go to a gun show and show a driver's license on a weekend (to avoid background checks) and walk away with an instrument that was made to kill. THAT is it's only purpose.

I was in the Army. I was 4 points from the top of my class in marksmanship. Both the 9mm pistol and the M16 rifle. I was trained in firearms for 1 reason. To kill. The targets I shot at were silhouettes of guess what - people. I haven't shot a weapon in 15 years but as they say, it's probably like riding a bike.

Let's be fucking realistic about guns. I'm not anti-gun but don't tell me that you spent hundreds of $$ on your weapon(s) to blow away tin cans in the woods. Hunting, protection, whatever the reason is fine with me. But you bought your gun to kill. You may never (hopefully) have to use it for its intended purpose but be fucking honest.

And yes. Regulate the SHIT out of every damned gun in this country. Don't trust the government to know EXACTLY what weapon(s) you own, where you bought them, their serial number, their source? Don't buy them.

[Skidmore]

1. Yes, sir, matcom.

The business end of a gun is no place to be. But, hey, this is the U.S. of A., and we have the right to have the potential to blow away anyone in the world we want to, no exceptions.

Lord, this country becomes some kind of ugly all to frequently these days, doesn't it?

[MemphisTiger]

2. As cheesy as it sounds gun's don't kill people

you still need a human to make the decision to pull the trigger. Sounds like you have some issues from being in the military that you probably volunteered for, what did you think you were going to be trained for? Crochet?


I own a gun to hunt with and one for home protection that I pray everyday that I'll never have to fire other than practice.

All guns that are bought legally are regulated by knowing who owns them, there are loopholes like gun shows and private sales, but the biggest problem is stolen guns that make it on the street that anybody can buy in an alley somewhere with no connection to the buyer.

[Justyce]

23. Agree...

the news said last night that the guns used in this incident had the serial numbers scratched off and were most likely illegally obtained anyway. Gun laws mostly affect the law-abiding citizens IMO - criminals will always find a way to get them.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

24. Yes, guns do kill people

when the holder of that gun has the intent of killing people.

I think besides hunting and clay pigeon shooting (I've done the latter), every gun should be banned. Even your so-called "home protection" one.

Get an alarm system, not a gun.

[michreject]

61. I have an alarm system

They're guns.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

73. So

Assuming you have children, and they decide to sneak back in the house.... do you shoot them?

Hmm?

[MemphisTiger]

75. You must always know exatly what your target is

what is in the line of it and after the target. If you know how to handle a weapon you know that.

[michreject]

84. Why do you assume that I'm careless?

And irresponsible? Are these your traits and you take for granted that everyone acts the same?

[MemphisTiger]

65. I am a law abiding citizen, why take mine?

If I kill someone with my car in an accident, would you call for banning cars?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

72. Cars do not equal guns

I'm just wondering, why do you feel you need a gun? I need a car to get to places, but I most certainly don't need a gun, and neither do you.

[MemphisTiger]

74. You don't need a car to get someplace, but in the wrong

hands it's a very powerful weapon. See where this is going?

[Squatch]

82. How about you leave your opinions of what others "need" to yourself

I'll make the decisions in my life, thank you very much.

[lapfog_1]

29. not true

guns can kill people... one killed one of my best friends when I was 15.

He went hunting with another friend (I had been invited but my dad wouldn't let me hunt unless he went... and I never liked hunting all that much anyway) and that person tripped and his gun discharged and blew a hole in my friends head. He died on the spot. Of course, we will never know for sure (given it was only the two of them), but the safety on the gun that discharged was still set when the police arrived. So who knows.

In any event, it wasn't intentional. Guns kill people. So do cars. and kitchen knives. and bathtubs...

but guns have the purpose of killing something. That is their purpose. Cars and knives and bathtubs have other purposes.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

49. as tragic that is

it is still poor handling of the gun that caused your friend's death...inanimate objects don't kill on their own...

sP

[lapfog_1]

57. Poor handling... how do you come to that conclusion?

The safety was set. People stumble when walking across fields. There was no negligence.

That gun was defective.

Inanimate objects kill all the time. Ask the dinosaurs. Even today, there are rock slides and sink holes and many events on this planet that can kill you.

Guns just happen to be one the tools man has invented for the purpose of killing other things (mostly humans for handguns... I don't know anyone that hunts with a handgun). That makes them inherently dangerous to handle. And even if you do everything right, you can still kill someone you didn't intend to. That's a fact.

The question that we face is one of "should these tools be widely and easily available" or not?

We have all set boundaries already on what tools an individual is allowed to have. No one can legally own a nuclear bomb, for example. Nor can anyone own a functional tank. Or a SAM missle... and so on. In fact, most weapons of a modern army are illegal or very very regulated in private hands. Eventually you get to guns. And even within this category, there are many that are either highly regulated or outright illegal (RPGs? machine guns?).

So you can't take the position that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people and therefore guns should be legal" because it's simply not logical... you might as well say "nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people and therefore nuclear weapons should be legal". It's simply the degree of killing tool that you are discussing. And if you did say something as absurd as that, you would find very few supporters, even in the NRA. Same with tanks and missiles and RPGs and machines guns... so why make exceptions for assault rifles (whatever the hell makes a gun into an assault rifle)? Or a handgun?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

62. sorry...but there was negligence if the gun accidentally discharged

I understand what you are saying...but there was no need for the person to be shot in the head whilst walking across a field. That gun, while possibly defective, should never have been pointed in such a way as to allow that...a hunters' safety course would teach that.

Sorry, but I disagree with the premise that a tool, acting on it's own, can kill people. I can see why you feel the way you do...guns DO make it easier to kill people than would a knife. And I agree that there has to be a boundary...but I don't think person use weapons should be outlawed...now a machine gun...yeah...

sP

[MemphisTiger]

66. I agree, always have the safety on and even keep it unloaded

until you are in a position to wait for the animal if you are stationary. If you are stalking, you need to be VERY careful. Hunting accidents happen but you can keep them to a minimum with proper safety. I am sorry for the death of your friend.

[lapfog_1]

114. Your right of course

Whenever I went hunting, the shotguns were carried unloaded and "broken" if they were breech loaded. They were hunting with rifles... and both rifles had the safety set... but there should not have been a round in the chamber. Both boys were young... too young to be hunting by themselves. But they were. However, my contention was simply that guns are inherently unsafe (as are many other things, like a chain saw or a car). The difference is that guns are DESIGNED to kill... they don't work very well when put to other purposes (I've actually SEEN an idiot use one as a hammer, and trust me, I removed myself very quickly from that locale).

So yeah, guns kill people. That's the design.

for me it's like saying chain saws cut down trees, or a hammer hits a nail or a car moves from one place to another. The function defines the tool.

[SlowDownFast]

39. Thanks for your reasonable post. n/t

[Squatch]

3. It's too early for popcorn

So I'll sit back and have a cup o' joe, instead. :donut:

/buying a new shotgun today
//no shit...I'm buying it to kill (apparently)

[Robbien]

11. I beg to differ

It is never to early for popcorn.

:D

[smoogatz]

55. I bought mine for killing clay pigeons.

Nice little 20 gauge, over/under. Loaded with birdshot, I could probably kill a human being with it if they were closer than, say, eight feet. Even then I might have to beat them over the head with the stock to finish the job.

That said, almost 370,000 people were killed in gun homicides in this country between 1976 and 2004--more than the current population of Colorado Springs. There are something like 250 million guns in circulation in the U.S. Large numbers of gun homicides are inevitable in a society in which guns are pervasive. We seem to have decided as a society that widespread carnage is an acceptable price to pay for RTKBA.

[zanne]

4. This is no surprise to many....

But I agree. And I'm so glad you said it.

[Junkdrawer]

5. FYI: After Columbine, when the loophole was first exposed...

there was a deal offered: "We'll close the Gun Show loophole if you reopen the Pawn Shop loophole".

After the offer was made public, the NRA dug in its heels and opposed the ban tooth and nail. To this day, the loophole remains in place.

[scrinmaster]

18. Can you elaborate on what these "loopholes" are?

The gunshow "loophole" is just regular people selling guns face to face, just like I could do if I went over to my friends house to buy a gun from him, and it really has nothing at all to do with gunshows. Actual FFL dealers have to run a background check each time they sell a firearm, whether it's at their gun store, or their booth at a gun show.

[Junkdrawer]

34. Dep't of Treasury/Bureau of Alcohol:

Gun shows provide a large market where criminals can shop for firearms anonymously. Unlicensed sellers have no way of knowing whether they are selling to a violent felon or someone who intends to illegally traffic guns on the streets to juveniles or gangs. Further, unscrupulous gun dealers can use these free-flowing markets to hide their off-the-book sales. While most gun show sellers are honest and law-abiding, it only takes a few to transfer large numbers of firearms into dangerous hands.

Dep't of Treasury/Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Gun Shows: Brady Checks and Crime Gun Traces

[SidDithers]

6. K&R, matcom...

and I couldn't agree more.

Sid

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. And it takes a clearly mentally ill person to do what happened at VT

I agree, we do need to regulate guns, but how about creating a mental health care system that isn't a total fucking joke? Perhaps then, this person would've gotten the help they needed instead of feeling the need to kill 32 people.

[EstimatedProphet]

88. Thank God someone brought up the elephant in the room!

We SHOULD have a society where everyone can have 100 guns of all types in their possession and still everyone feels safe. We don't. The reason we don't is because we have people that think an appropriate solution to their problems is to pick up a gun and solve them through violence. THAT is what the real issue is here.

Banning guns will not solve one thing at all. All it will do is make violence in other forms more likely. Arguing to ban guns only serves to distract from doing the really hard job of trying to find out what is wrong with this country. Until we can fix our social issues we are just spinning our wheels, and trying to ban guns just lets people think they are doing something about our social problems when they aren't.

[Beausoir]

8. I agree. 110%. . You are going to take a beating from the gun loons.

Most sensible people see the problem. Silly jingoistic catch phrases from the NRA won't bring back those dead kids.

[Prophet 451]

20. Not all of us are "gun loons"

Some of us have principled, well thought out reasons for objecting. And incidently, it's exactly that kind of stereotyping which causes much of the USA's inability to have a sensible debate on firearm regulation.

[Beausoir]

31. Deal with it.

[Prophet 451]

35. Ah, an unreasoned response to a reasoned arguement! How... predictable.

[Beausoir]

38. There was nothing reasoned about your NRA propaganda. You flatter yourself.

And with that, buh-bye.

[Prophet 451]

47. Not an NRA member, not even American

And with that, you prove you haven't read anything I wrote.

[Scout]

102. if you aren't a gun loon, then no one was talking about you...

they referred specifically to gun loons, they did not say all gun owners are loons.

[Missy M]

9. I'm in total agreement with you!!

[wakeme2008]

10. Thanks Matcom :) LOL forgot I added a nom :)

I have not touched a weapon since 69.

Outside of a Lotto dream of getting a place in Juneau for some camping and photo work which caused me to think about something with Bear stopping power, I have no thoughts of buying one.

[scrinmaster]

12. What the hell are you talking about,

going to a gun show on the weekend to avoid a background check? Any gun dealer that sells firearms has to do a background check on every firearm they sell, including the ones at gun shows.

Do you really think there are less than 12 regulations on manufacturing or selling firearms?

[southpaw]

26. Key words: "gun dealer"

You don't have to ge a licensed 'gun dealer' to sell guns at a gun show.

[scrinmaster]

54. If you sell guns for a profit, the ATF will be on your ass about it.

[LostinVA]

60. Nope -- it's perfectly legal in many states

[TnDem]

67. Wrong...

Here we go again...

I wished people understood what they were arguing about before they set out to do that...

It is most definitely NOT legal to sell firearms "engaged as a business" without a valid 01,02,etc. Federal Firearms License. You can sell an occasional gun but if you continually buy and sell guns "off book" just to make some extar cash, then you are "engaged in the business". There is no set number of guns in a certain period of time. It is based on more of how you conduct yourself and if you meet a pattern.

Now the states may or may not have rules/laws against that. However, if the BATFE sets their sights on you and proves you are doing that, you will be charged with a federal felony for being an unlicensed gun dealer.

[LostinVA]

68. You didn't read what I wrote -- I am right

You can buy guns at a gun show in many states without background checks, etc.

[LostinVA]

58. Of course they don't have to do background checks

Some don't even require real ID. You go to a gun show and give them money and get your gun. It's that easy.

[Irreverend IX]

113. Private sellers at gun shows...

Are not a great source for guns. It's basically people selling random stuff out of their personal collections. At the last gun show I was at, there were only two private sellers: one selling old rifles and one selling single-action revolvers. All the other sellers were licensed dealers, required to run background checks on all buyers. I've seen a general decrease in the number of private sellers in gun shows in the last few years. Most private sellers these days do business through the Internet, and any guns sent through the mail have to go through a licensed dealer who will do a background check on the recipient.

[William769]

13. Stupidity kills people

And that does not necessarily need a gun.

[Midlodemocrat]

14. Thank you. K & R.

[A Simple Game]

15. I like your argument. You are of course wrong, but I like your argument.

They are right but for the wrong reason. Oh, occasionally a gun can be used as a weapon to kill someone, if swung hard enough and you hit the person in the right spot.

Bullets are what usually do the killing. Above and beyond the cost of the bullets, a refundable federal fee should be charged. Bring the spent shell back to the dealer and get your 1 hundred dollar deposit back. Nothing to it. This was not my idea originally, read it somewhere a while ago.

Few students or anyone else for that matter, mad at the world, a professor, a girl friend, or just plain mad, could afford a hundred dollars a bullet to go on a shooting spree.

[Prophet 451]

17. They wouldn't care

Read a bit about killer psychology. They wouldn't be thinking about getting the money back because the human mind just doesn't work that way.

[A Simple Game]

46. You couldn't stop the planners, very little can be done to stop them.

But you could stop the ones that just go crazy. The ones that just snap.

You know many students that could afford to keep thirty or fourty bullets around if they needed 3 or 4 thousand dollars in deposit money?

[Prophet 451]

50. Point

You'd still be looking at between six and twelve dead though.

Interesting idea although I personally think a ton a round is a little steep. Also, and this might be just me, I'd worry about actually getting my deposit back when I went to reclaim it from the dealer.

[A Simple Game]

59. A hundred dollars a bullet is a bit steep and probably not necessary.

Five or ten dollars would probably be enough to do the job.

I'm sure how to identify the bullets for the deposit could be worked out. A hologram, special dye in the casing, or something else could do the trick. Someone with more knowledge than me could figure it out.

it's just a thought to be kicked around, could be set up to satisfy most people. The person that thinks they need a thousand rounds in the compound at all times, they may not be happy. Another downside would be probably be having to go to a firing range for target practice; buy the bullets on the inside, and return all the casings or unused bullets before you leave, no deposits. I suspect most shooters in urban areas already do most of their shooting at a firing range, where I live most can just go out back of the house.

There are just way too many bullets laying around. People don't need boxes and boxes of shells for hunting or home defense. If you do need a hundred rounds for home defense, you should think about moving.

Again this is not my idea, I would give credit if I knew who to give it to. I just agree that it could be made workable and be of some help in stopping many of these shootings.

[Prophet 451]

63. Identifying rounds is easy

All rounds already have their calibre and brand stamped into the base, wouldn't be that difficult to add a serial number and I for one would have no problem plunking down a few hundred dollar deposit on, say, fifty rounds (a couple of hours target shooting can easily go through that) if I could be sure of getting it back when I returned the cases. You'd need a case-catcher of course but they're only about twenty bucks.

Here (Britain), it's been illegal to practice outside of a firing range for years (unless you hold a hunting license). Yeah, it'd need a little tinkering of course but it could be made to work and arranged to satisfy most people (the extremes at either end are never going to be happy). Since I'm a sport shooter, I wouldn't even mind leaving my rifle in a lockbox at the range (and you'd need a rocket launcher to crack one of those) so long as some kind of permit system could be worked out to allow me to attend Bisley.

[zanne]

32. Excellent idea.

It's so good it's kind of Rovian. (No offense intended). If it costs $4.00 to buy a pack of cigarettes (highly taxed because they're "harmful"), then why not do the same with bullets?

[piedmont]

97. Because ammunition can be made at home or in a balckmarket lab. nt

[Prophet 451]

117. And that's cheap

Smokes are the equivelant of around $11 a pack here.

[TnDem]

70. Here we go again...

Man does anyone know ANYTHING about guns on this forum?

In regards to your questions about "refundable fees" for bullets and other such proposals...Let me ask you this...What about handloaders? What about pre-cast bullets? What about bullet casting molds? And then finally....What about all the hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition that is already in circulation?

If you don't know what any of that means, Google is your friend...Let me add that Google would probably be this forum's BEST friend when it comes to gun proposals. Since no one on here seems to have even a basic knowledge of weapons systems and the realities of them, they probably need to educate themselves before they make a fool of themselves proposing a handwringing, "feel good" proposal because, after all....We need to do SOMETHING, right? :sarcasm:

[Prophet 451]

87. In theory

Handloaders, pre-casts and moulds, you can't do anything about but fact is, very few people want to go to that much trouble and if someone is going to commit a murder with a handload weapon, they're motivated enough to get around any law you put in place.

Ah, thinking it through, that means the only people such a system would affect are law-abiding shooters who aren't likely to snap in the first place. Conceded.

[A Simple Game]

99. So your solution is? Fly off the handle? Criticize? Go negative?

Let's do the easiest first, the hundreds of thousands of rounds already in circulation. I suspect there are really hundreds of millions of rounds in circulation. Google could be your friend, look it up. Simple we just all clap our hands three times, all together now; just kidding. Some people think a solution has to be fast, many including myself think a solution just has to start sometime, the sooner the better. Fortunately most of the rounds already in circulation are in the hands of good people. Time is what is needed to take care of them.

For hand loaders the answer could be in the powder, bring in your empty casings and get the powder to load them, something like that. I'm sure something could be worked out.

Oh, what about muzzle loaders? What about bows, what about slingshots?

If everyone that is concerned about guns gets involved in the dialog a solution could be found to help solve the problem. What kind of solution could you live with? A better question to ask would have been; why is America one of the few countries to have this problem? Got an answer?

edit poor spelling

[piedmont]

96. A cute, but woefully ignorant solution. AMMO CAN BE MADE AT HOME!

[A Simple Game]

100. Really! What non-ignorant solution could you come up with to

solve that problem? Bring the casings in to get your next bag of powder? What do you think would work?

Oh My God, I just found out there are guns called muzzle loaders! And many of them are real cheap to buy! What are we going to do?

There is an old saying, if you aren't part of the "cute but woefully ignorant solution", you are part of the problem.

[piedmont]

103. The availibility of ammunition isn't a problem unless you're an authoritarian gun-banner.

Your solution is even more ignorant than you realize. Ammunition production doesn't require some magical property or substance only found in big factories. Casings, smokeless powder, bullets can all be produced by relatively simple processes. If you artificially elevate the price of ammo, the black market will step in with ammo smuggled in or produced in clandestine labs-- just like what happened with alcohol prohibition or the "war on drugs."

[A Simple Game]

106. And your solution is as non-existent as I thought it would be. n/t

[piedmont]

107. And your solution is as shallow and ignorant as I first told you.

[A Simple Game]

115. This is my last post on this subject.

Please read the comments section of your profile, something about Knee-jerk emotional responses (call me on it if I do it) That wouldn't include name calling would it? That wouldn't include not answering a question in the post your responding to would it?

You make some valid points but don't think past the rhetoric to find a solution.

If you really value your guns, you best get serious about a solution. If there are many more shootings like the last one, you will not like the solution that will then be imposed upon you. I am not trying to take anybodies gun away from them, I am trying to prevent it from happening, is that ignorant?

[piedmont]

116. Good.

I told you your "solution" is flawed. You got defensive, and I returned the tone.

"If you really value your guns, you best get serious about a solution. If there are many more shootings like the last one, you will not like the solution that will then be imposed upon you. I am not trying to take anybodies gun away from them, I am trying to prevent it from happening, is that ignorant?"

Why thanks, Your Imperial Highness, for allowing your ignoble subjects to participate in this discussion over what you should do with our rights.

[Prophet 451]

16. No, they don't

I can kind of see where you're coming from but the fact is, guns don't kill people. A gun is an inanimate tool, it has no motivation. Yes, it may be a tool made to kill but it is still a tool, it has no animus and therefore, it cannot kill. It can be used to kill but so can many things and the man planning or determined to kill will figure out a way to do so. That doesn't mean that firearms should be unregulated (in fact, let's close that fucking gun show loophole straight away) but the intention to kill would still be there and your typical rage killer is as likely to pick up a kitchen knife or a boken bottle or a hammer or, well, just look around your home.

When I started shooting, I didn't intend to or want to kill anyone. I wanted to win medals in shooting and wrestling (I wasn't that good at either sadly). Well, about a decade ago, my government, in a typical act of knee-jerk panic legislation, banned all handguns from civilian hands. Prior to that, there were around 130,000 privately legally owned handguns in the country. Today, discounting a few law enforcement agents, there are zero. Know what difference that's made to our crime rate? Zero. Zip, zilch, nil. Because the people who owned their firearms legally were never likely to snap in the first place and the ones who were didn't obtain their weapons legally.

A certain amount of sensible regulation is worthwhile (I still think mandatory training in basic firearm safety would save many lives) but crime is a reflection of culture, not of available weapons. There are nations which have both high levels of firearm ownership and low crime rates (Switzerland for example).

[Midlodemocrat]

22. Except if the guy yesterday had a knife, instead of a gun,

he would have been subdued prior to 32 people losing their lives.

I know the pro-RKBA and people like me will never agree, but I love OPs like this because I agree so completely and totally. It's like preaching to the choir.

[Prophet 451]

30. True enough, maybe

Or maybe he would have blown the school up instead (the Columbine killers planned to use explosives) or maybe he would have obtained his firearm illegally (as I gather he did). A crime that kills 33 people (according to the BBC) is usually planned and someone planning that is going to obtain a weapon somehow. You're never going to be able to uninvent the firearm (nice as that might be), the best you're going to be able to do is regulate their sale and ownership and as long as there's an illegal market in firearms, massacres will happen on occasion. If you want to try putting the illegal market out of business, fine, I'll help but let's not pretend that banning firearms or heavily regulating their purchase and use is going to stop massacres like this because it isn't. A "planned snap" killer will find a weapon somehow.

[Prophet 451]

36. BTW, "pro-RKBA"?

Forgive the dumb Brit but what does this mean?

[Midlodemocrat]

41. Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

LOL. The things you learn on DU.

[Prophet 451]

51. Cheers n/t

[piedmont]

104. If the Jews in Poland had guns instead of knives...

perhaps more of them would have escaped the Nazis. Or at least they could have diverted troops and resources from the front lines, making the Nazi military machine less effective.

[Buzz Clik]

19. Thanks. K&R.

Semi-automatics are not for self protection, unless you're fending off an army.

Take that gd 9 mm with a big clip out of that bastard's hands, and there would be fewer grieving people today.

[raccoon]

21. K&R. If this guy had had a knife, or a baseball bat, somebody

could've gotten it away from him, probably.

What I'm saying is, the victims would've had a helluva lot better chance to fight for their lives if the maniac hadn't had guns.

[Prophet 451]

33. And how do you stop him getting guns?

Seriously. Given that we can't uninvent the gun, how do you stop him? I gather his firearms were obtained illegally so banning the things probably wouldn't make much difference (I'm British, we banned all handguns here a decade ago, criminals still have guns). He might have blown the place up instead (not that difficult to do if you know your improvised explosives).

[raccoon]

40. I don't know. I wish I did know. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

90. For that matter, if he'd had a pair of revolvers, instead of big mag

semi-automatics it could have made a significant difference. To be able to shoot 15 rounds, pause for three seconds and then start up again is a lot different from shooting 6, reload, then shoot six again. If you're not police or military, you don't need the big mags. Even for home defense.

[Toots]

25. Won't be mush longer until that right wing meme will be truthful

You know the one that says Detroit or Washington DC are more dangerous than Baghdad..All we need is a few more guns...Every Iraqi has one why don't we?

[Ninja Jordan]

27. What gun law would have SPECIFICALLY prevented this tragedy?

Absent removing all guns from society (like England or Japan), a gun control law isn't going to prevent a loon from getting his hands on a gun in the marketplace. As a society that protects gun ownership, episodes like this are a consequence we have to live with.

[philosophie_en_rose]

45. don't manufacture semi-automatic weapons, if you're not the military.

:shrug:

[Prophet 451]

52. I'm English and it hasn't worked

We still have gun crime, we still have school shootings on occasion. Banning handguns has made no difference whatsoever.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

76. How many gun related deaths did Britain have last year?

I'm betting there is a difference in numbers of deaths from countries that have strict gun control laws and those that don't. In fact, I know it is true but it would be interesting for you to tell me exactly how many gun related deaths Britain had last year. Gun control legislation isn't perfect, there is no perfect law, but it has to help. And at this stage of the bloody game we will take all the help we can get.

There will always be crazy people, mad people, anti-social people but to add a gun to the equation is just insane. Just make it harder to obtain a firearm is all I'm saying.

[Prophet 451]

83. Define "gun crime"

I couldn't find numbers for deaths and the most recent figures I could find were for 2002/03 but there were 24,070 firearms offences. However, over half of those were with air weapons so the number is really a little over ten thousand.

However, it's far more complicated than simply reducing the number of firearms. Switzerland has at least one firearm for every male between 20 and 42 (Switzerland's standing army is tiny, these men may be called upon to act as a citizen militia) and many keep personally owned weapons as well but Switzerland ranks between France and Finland in per capita gun-related deaths (and many of those are suicides). France has lower death rates and doesn't require sports rifles to even be registered. Spain allows licensed shooters to own six rifles and a handgun and yet has a gun death rate of 0.78 per 100,000, Canada (where firearms ownership is fairly regulated) is 4.31, Mexico (where firearms are virtually banned entirely) is 12.69, the third highest in the world.

You see my point? There seems to be little actual connection between firearms regulation and whether criminals get hold of and use those firearms.

[chelsea0011]

28. And can someone answer a question about these guns that were used

If you plan on killing as many as possible and then commit suicide, why go to the trouble of scratching off the registration numbers, if he indeed did that? The news is reporting it shows as being part of a plan. How? It sounds more like he bought illegal weapons on the street(that could have been easily pirchased with VA.'s lax gun laws). He didn't scratch the numbers himself.

[wakeme2008]

37. See the thread on his name

He had the receipt for the gun in his backpack.

[Midlodemocrat]

44. VA has lax gun laws? Why? Because we're limited to one gun

purchase a month?

:sarcasm:

And people wonder why the I-95 corridor is always in need of repair.

[chelsea0011]

53. that's only 12 a year and 120 in 10 years. In the scheme of things,

not lax at all.:scared: :sarcasm:

[Midlodemocrat]

56. And, the scarier thing, IIRC, THAT bill was considered a form

of gun control.

[SlowDownFast]

42. OK. Let's just outlaw insanity while we're banning guns, too.

Why stop there?

How 'bout introducing some legislation making Evil illegal?

:eyes:

[philosophie_en_rose]

43. Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.

:)

Then again, bullets don't kill people. The bleeding kills people.

So let's focus on the real killer, people.

Let's oulaw bleeding!

:sarcasm:

The shooter had a semi-automatic weapon. There was no chance for anyone to fight him or defend themselves. Even people with a handgun would have been at a disadvantage against him.

There is no reason for this sort of weapon to be sold or even available. Registration or not.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

48. Yep. That's like saying knives don't cut, or matches don't start fires.

Or... "FORMAT C:" command doesn't erase hard drives, people erase hard drives.

(You'll relate to that one, I'm sure)

[bdamomma]

64. People kill people

[meldroc]

69. I still want mine...

Not to say I don't trust the government, but with * in charge, and Cheney, and Rove, and Gonzales, and all those minions from Pat Robertson's Madrassa, no I don't trust the government. They already killed over 650,000. That's why Jefferson put in the Second Amendment.

I pray to God that my guns are never, ever used against another human being, but I do want to retain that option.

Yes, I know that firearms were engineered specifically for the purpose of killing. I'm still keeping mine. I'm a sane, adult human being, with no criminal record whatsoever, who locks up his firearms, and has taken gun safety courses. I take my responsibilities seriously. By all rights, I should be keeping mine.

[lectrobyte]

71. Damn straight. If he'd only had access to a baseball bat or a machete, he'd still

have killed some, but not 32.

[BuddhaGirl]

77. well said!!!

n/t

[SemiCharmedQuark]

78. Atomic bombs don't kill people...

I agree. Tools, fine, but these are tools that allow any idiot to kill massive amounts of people quickly and efficiently.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

79. IMO, we need more "good guys" with guns, and fewer "bad guys"

Unlike any other country in the world, the USA affords INDISCRIMNATE access to guns and high-capacity ammo clips. This allows psychos in many states to buy guns easily and legally and then go out and shoot strangers days later. MSNBC reported that the Va Tech English senior from Fairfax whose fingerprints were lifted from the massacre weapons had a two-day-old gunstore receipt in his bullet-proof ammo vest. Apparently, that's how the police identified him!

Right-wingers like to point out that guns in the hands of thousands of "good guys" scattered throughout the populace would enable them to "take out" bad guys and sickos before they can get off too many rounds. For example, a survivor of the Texas cafeteria massacre whose record Cho Seung-Hui obliterated said that she had a handgun in her car out in the parking-lot, and just wished she had brought it inside with her. Rirghtwingers then go on to argue that there should be FEWER restrictions on gun access, not more restrictions.

I agree with the right wingers, but only up to a point. IMO, thousands of "good guys" ought to be armed and spread throughout the populace. But they all should be screened carefully, trained in negotiation and violence prevention, licensed, and regulated. And it ought to be extremely difficult for anyone else to get a gun more lethal than, say, a 22-caliber hunting rifle.

Loosening gun restrictions would allow more "god guys" to get guns more easily, but the trouble is, more "bad guys" would get easier access too. And then we'd see more Virginia Tech-type massacres, not fewer.

IMO, some kind of police auxiliary organization that would provide status, screening, and training for thousands of people who won't misuse handguns could be the sugary-sweet syrup that would allow rightwingers, NRA sympathizers, and so-called "sportsmen" to swallow the medicine of permanent gun licensing and registration this country sorely needs.

[Prophet 451]

86. .22 is too small

A .22 is really too small to be sure of getting a one-shot kill on anything much bigger than, say, a rabbit. As a personal rule, I won't take a shot unless I can be sure of a single-shot kill (why cause the animal to suffer needlessly?). For hunting deer, elk or similar, you'll need something like a .303.

For the record, NOT a gun nut or an NRA member but I've been around firearms my whole life and sport-shooting since I was eleven (supervised, of course).

[smirkymonkey]

80. You see, people DO need guns!

To kill other people with guns.

:sarcasm:

[madmunchie]

81. Bombs don't kill people; just when they are set off

Disease doesn't kill people; they are just germs - bacteria, it needs a human host to kill

Guillotines don't kill people; The executioner does

We could go on and on and on with this issue, the fact is YES - Gun - Bombs - Disease - Guillotines do KILL PEOPLE, under the right conditions of course.

[Xenotime]

85. Isn't it actually the bullet that kills the person?

[ileus]

89. I have 17...9 of them I've never shot. They just sit in my safe

I have fewer than 50 rnds of ammo for all of them. I'd dare to say every house in my county has at least one firearm. Is it really that hard for people to believe that a person can own guns without intent to murder fellow humans? Dude was an english major and I'm sure like most of us a fellow liberal. He went off the deep end for some reason, and I'd dare say it wasn't because of fox news, the NRA or even George Bush.

[Prophet 451]

93. "Is it really that hard for people to believe that a person can own guns without intent to murder"

For many, yes it is.

The biggest problem here is that the discussion is controlled by the extremes of both side. The anti-gun lobby wants to see all guns banned and calls anyone who doesn't a "gun loon" who spouts "NRA propoganda" (I'm quoting directly from posts addressed at me in this thread). The pro-gun lobby decries anyone who wants any kind of regulation as some kind of skirt-wearing, tree-hugging liberal. Those of us (most of us, I would suspect) who are somewhere in the middle are either not allowed to get a word in edgeways or just get villified by both sides.

[KG]

91. rock on, bro.

[underpants]

92. Pistols, with a rare exception, are made and used to kill people

there are people who hunt with them but not many. There are people who just enjoy shooting at targets but seriously you know reason #1A for buying that thing.

Automatic and assault type weapons are the same.

Rifles are another story.

[Prophet 451]

94. I sport-shoot with pistols

or did, before my rockheaded government banned them all. I would imagine that sport-shooting was a major purchase factor in any nation where the pistol wasn't some kind of cultural talisman.

OK, that was cruel but the point stands. The problem is not with the gun, it is with the culture's attitude toward the gun.

That said, even I can't see a reason for a private citizen to own an assault weapon.

[piedmont]

98. They are to fire a bullet. I would fire that bullet in defense of my self or loved ones. nt

[IronLionZion]

95. What about illegal back-alley stolen gun dealers?

I'm 100% sure people are the essential ingredient in killing people. Matcom, I know you were in the Army so that means you know fully well that you don't need a gun to kill people. There are bombs, knives, vehicles, poisons, gases, diseases, fire, water, electricity, psychology, and your own military-trained hands. What they all have in common is the motherfucking people who use them for the horrible purpose of killing people.

Guns are banned on VT campus.

Many people, including good liberal DUers, enjoy the sport of target shooting.

This fellow didn't use a machine gun. Those are illegal.

Mental illness sucks and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

Some people are evil.

It sucks to get dumped. That puts you in a terrible state of mind. My girlfriend unexpectedly dumped me on Easter Sunday over the cell phone while I was driving and I had to pull over or I may have had an accident. Then I went home and sat in the dark by myself and felt really alone and insecure even though she said I'm a wonderful guy and it had nothing to do with me. I had a bad Easter.

[ends_dont_justify]

101. Guns don't kill people, opinions kill people

Time and time again, wars have been started by frivolous opinions people have refused to change. People's obstinancy and their complete disregard of others is what kills people...it is the mentality of society that sociopaths and psychopaths are born. Guns exist because, in people's opinions, they needed to kill more things faster.

The clear answer is to learn to be tolerant; of people, of animals. Of any form of life. People will not do that...so long as people can find a reason to justify harming or killing anything in this planet; guns will kill people, rocks will too, as will swords and bare hands as well.

edit: grammar

[rhiannon55]

105. My RW gun-nut brother brags about owning more than a dozen guns.

And he never goes anywhere (even church) without "packing heat". This is the brother who never stops trying to convince me to be a christian, thinks the war in Iraq is necessary and noble, and opposes abortion (and also, of course, welfare).

I asked him why he needs all those guns and he tells me for target practice and protection. He says he "loves" guns and that there's something wrong with me because I don't.

I will never understand how someone who claims to be a pro-life can love objects whose only purpose is to destroy life.

[WindRavenX]

108. Matcom, you always provide the most common sense analysis

:thumbsup:

and

:yourock:

[piedmont]

109. How very authoritarian and elitist of you.

Am I allowed to have a kitchen knife, or will you ban that and have the government cut my steak for me?

[Canuckistanian]

110. Yes, guns kill people

But only when used as directed.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

111. "I think the gun helps..."

"Otherwise, you'd just have people standing around saying Bang!"
---Eddie Izzard

[Celeborn Skywalker]

112. Well,

I do believe in some common sense regulation. i.e, mandated child safety locks, registration, etc. I do think, however it going too far when people begin to suggest banning handguns altogether.