Virginia Tech Shootings

To many ads? Support ODJT and see no ads!
Excuse me...it's not like Canada has idly sat by in times of war. Canada may not be in Iraq (and rightfully so - that's your mess).........we are in Afghanistan; at a great cost as well and I question our reason to be there. i still support the trops there as well as those, including Americans in Iraq. They're just following orders ...

Rick, when you folks get invaded..... we''ll be the first putting ourselves on the line...we may be small.....remember David and Goliath.....

Bryan.....do you really think only the brave live in the U.S.

I'll introduce you to my uncle; he volunteered for the army at 16 (he lied about his age..) and was a paratrooper in WW II. He was dropped into Dieppe prior to the landing forces with a knife and piano wire...you can well imagine what he went through; his job was to weaken German defences prior to the landing....his brothers, including my father all served in the military, all voluntarily.

This topic isn't about the U.S.'s perceived military might and whether Americans are braver than the rest of the world.

Your fathers and forefather and my forefathers did not fight for the right to sell weapons en masse from the local sports store on 6th and Main to any nut job with 100 bucks.

So at least, let's agree to disagree and stay on topic...let's not be disrespectful....

Thanks
 
Rick, when you folks get invaded..... we''ll be the first putting ourselves on the line.
*cough cough* World Trade Center, Pentagon, most likely the Capitol.

The invasion is already underway.

Your fathers and forefather and my forefathers did not fight for the right to sell weapons en masse from the local sports store on 6th and Main to any nut job with 100 bucks.

No, they fought to protect and preserve the Second Amendment. Was a proper background check done on Cho when he purchased the guns?

Look, if the warning signs that everyone sees NOW because of hindsight were acted upon, the Left would be screaming about ethnic profiling, racism, etc.

You can't have it both ways. Either do away with all the whining about profiling and prevent people of a certain profile from purchasing guns, or don't profile out of sensitivity and run the risk of more Cho's emerging.

One or the other.
 
Yes John.. and 9 Canadian soldiers lost their lives last week in Afghanistan..isn't that where the Taliban is?

John - cough! cough! Afganistan, Iraq, Panama, Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, Somalia, Bosnia...and so on......you guys are pretty good at invading as well.....

John, do you really feel that when your forefathers fought to protect the second amendment; they contemplated what exists now....It was a different time, but of course the right wingers will twist it whatever way they can....

Anyway...I'm done with this discussion; it seems apparent that it's not going to stay on topic...

Stay the course......I'll gladly continue to be oppressed up here......
 
Steve, my forefathers grew up in Italy. They lived under facist rule where the rights of the people were routinely trampled by a government they were powerless to change. My forefathers had to slip out of their village in the middle of the night to begin their passage to America.

My family has only been in this country for a couple of generations. They arrived as immigrants swearing to uphold the laws of the land, which included the right of the people to bear arms.

This country has been wonderful to my family. While remaining in touch with the customs and culture of the old country, they embraced the customs and culture of their new country, which included the right of the people to bear arms.

The world did nothing when Hitler could have been stopped very early in his tracks and World War 2 might never have happened. Striking pre-emptively against a perceived threat might have saved millions of lives. Had this occurred, we never would have known just how powerful and evil Nazi Germany was because it would have never had a chance to get off the ground.

Likewise, the world will never know just what Saddam was capable of. He did want control of the oil in the Middle East, and whine as the Left does about Big Oil, there's no getting around the fact that without a free flow of oil at reasonable prices, the economy of this country grinds to a halt. It is in our interest to see that such a precious commoditity doesn't fall into the wrong hands and cripple the US.

How does all this tie in to the gun debate? Imagine the world without access to the oil it needs. Anyone who thinks society is violent now, such a scenario would result in unbelieveable chaos and violence. Think post-nuclear without the radiation.

Protecting one's property and family would be pretty pointless when the wolf approaching your door has guns and you can't at least match firepower.

The principal behind The Second Amendment was important enough that it was the Second Amendment, right after Free Speech. The Second Amendment protects and guarantees the First.

Every now and then, a wacko will abuse it. The abuse of one nut shouldn't deprive the rest of the law abiding citizens from lawfully using a legal item in a legal manner.
 
the issue I see here is the availability of semi automatic weapons to a guy, while nuts....had easy access to the weapons he needed to do the job....Would some one have died that day....likely. I agree that criminals will always have handguns.....the fact is , is that the average thug doesn't use his gun to massacre 30+ innocent people at a college. The thug wants to live; the gun is a "tool" of his trade.

I'm talking the Coulumbine's, Virginia Tech's and other similar incidents. The people that committed these crimes are not hardened criminals; they likely didn't buy their semi autos from Vinnie in the back alley. They walking into the local store and bought weapons that could fire multiple rounds in seconds. These poor people didn't stand a chance....

Tell me what justifies the need for the average joe to go in and purchase a semi or fully automatic weapon....

There will always be crime; sadly, people will die. None can tell me that by banning the sale of handguns, semi automatic weapons and the like, you aren't going to save lives....putting a gun in everybody's hand won't solve the problem either.....

The justification is obvious: the fact that this CAN happen! Do you remember a woman by the name of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp? She was having lunch with her parents at a place called Luby's cafeteria in Texas when a gunman burst in and started shooting. According to her account, she and her folks immediately hit the floor and she instinctively reached into her purse... but it was futile, since she had left her .45 pistol in her car in accordance with Texas law. She mentioned that if she had her pistol, her angle would've been perfect for a shot.

Instead the killing continued, taking the lives of both of her parents. She only stayed alive by playing dead and lying among the bodies. So outraged that she'd been disarmed and unable to intervene, she ran for a seat in the state legislature and then worked tirelessly to change the Texas CCW law. She succeeded, and violent crime in Texas is now much lower.

There is a book called "More Guns, Less Crime" by John R. Lott that contains actual facts and figures. The bottom line is that when Florida first liberalized their concealed carry laws back in the '80s in response to rampant violent crime, people predicted "blood in the streets" and shoot-outs and fender benders. Instead, to their surprise, licensees behaved themselves and violent crime dropped like a brick. In fact, the difference was so dramatic that other cities and states began to adopt what is known as "shall issue" CCW laws. In every instance, violent crime drops, so it's not just a coincidence and is, in fact, why there's been a virtual "wave" of liberalized carry laws ever since. Now 39 of the 50 states have "shall issue."

I've also read that since Britain banned firearms after an infamous school shooting in Scotland (if I recall correctly), violent crime has soared. Statistically you are now safer in Central Park in New York City than in downtown London. Oh, and despite the ban, criminals still have guns, so much so that British police have had to not only arm themselves (no more of those famous unarmed "bobbies"), but have had to ratchet-up their firepower to match that used by criminal gangs.

Yes, having more guns around means that they'll be used more often. We have more cars than anyone else, too, so I'll bet more people die in car accidents every year in America than in, say, Russia or China. Raw statistics don't show detail. If you look at WHO is causing all the trouble, it is very seldom the trained, legally licensed gun owner. It's a drug dealer, or a gang doing a drive-by. Or a mentally disturbed guy who slipped through the cracks. I'd also bet that none are NRA members.

I think that people on both sides of this debate agree that we need to do more to stop things like this from happening again. I see that people are genuinely concerned, feeling for the victims and their families. What we need to do is work together on real solutions. We don't need to use failed strategies of the past. Virginia has a one-gun-a-month law that didn't stop this shooting. Do you know what it DOES prevent? It prevents a collector from buying the collection of another gun fancier. It allows the State to disburse a collection, rather than hand it down to the rightful heirs. It has NEVER prevented a shooting. Waiting periods? Those don't work either, since the average recoverd crime gun is six years old. What HAS happened, though, is wives who are involved in divorce proceedings with a violent husband have been killed while waiting for government permission to buy a gun! Not only are such restrictions contrary to our Constitution, but they're deadly -- an unintended consequence, to be sure.

We do know what DOES work. Criminals fear armed opposition. By allowing law abiding citizens to own, get trained and carry firearms, violent crime always drops. We've seen it time and again. Stiff sentences tend to deter the non-suicidal among us, so we need those too. The NRA's "Project Exile" has shown some marked results where it has been implemented. Lastly, more police presence. Of course, that's expensive. Armed citizens pay for their own training and firearms. Cops need a check. So while more cops are always a good idea, there is an upper limit as to how many per square mile "We The People" can afford.

Anyway, that's my two pennies. Great discussion, all! I'm proud of the civility that everyone has exibited! Makes me proud to be a DJ!!!
 
For what it's worth, I've already stated I don't care for guns and probably will never by one for myself but I support others rights to own and posses one.

All this gun control talk reminds me of something. Shortly after 9/11 I took a train into the city, when I got off at Hoboken terminal. There were men in military camouflage sporting what looked like machine guns, I assume they were national guard. I remember how scary that looked to me and I wasn't even doing anything wrong. I'm sure their presence would ward off most criminals. -- I've always said regular police should be able to carry weapons that rival anything out there on the streets in the hands of criminals. Patrol officers only carry a pistol and some have a shotgun in their car. That's no match for an automatic weapon.

Admittedly, I don't know much about guns but a few years back there was a officer shooting in my area, the guy who shot the cop had an M-16 or something like that. A big argument was that the police officers revolver was no match at all, now senior officers are allowed to carry semi-autos or something like that.

My buddy bought a pistol in Florida. There's something called the 3 step rule. As he explained it, if you have the gun in the car there has to be three steps until you can shoot. So, he keeps the clip in his console, the gun in it's holster in a locked glove compartment. That's the stupidest rule and makes the gun completely useless in a car jacking situation.

I do think -- had another student in that hall had a gun there may of been only two or three deaths. The "gun free campus law" only aided the criminal in this case.

My other thought is there should be some kind of evaluation before you're allowed to buy a small firearm (pistol). A whack jobs' right to bear arms shouldn't impede my right to feel safe on the streets.
 
Bryan.....do you really think only the brave live in the U.S.
Don't read between the lines and come up with intent that isn't there. Did I actually say that "only the brave live in the U.S."??

In the interest of full disclosure, the sweatshirt bore the insignias of the United States armed forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Jointcolors.jpg" class="image" title="United States Joint Service Color Guard on parade at Fort Myer"><img alt="United States Joint Service Color Guard on parade at Fort Myer" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Jointcolors.jpg/300px-Jointcolors.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/d/d4/Jointcolors.jpg/300px-Jointcolors.jpg. I wanted to honor my father's service to our country. The fact is, we are free because of the bravery of our military throughout our country's history.
 
S

The world did nothing when Hitler could have been stopped very early in his tracks and World War 2 might never have happened. Striking pre-emptively against a perceived threat might have saved millions of lives.

Likewise, the world will never know just what Saddam was capable of. He did want control of the oil in the Middle East.

God...gotta stop this....

John...Let's talk History shall we...I don't believe the world did nothing in WW 2...Canada was involved in WW 2 on September 10, 1939; right at the start. Germany invaded Poland on Sept. 1, 1939; Great Britain declared war on September 3, 1939. Our troops were fighting and dying, as were troops from every corner of the Commonwealth, countries like Australia, New Zealand...all there from Day 1...Canada lost over 10,000 troops in WW 2.

The U.S. entered the war....on December 7, 1941..only after the attack on Pearl Harbour. one wonders if that attack hadn't occurred, would the U.S. ever have entered.

This does not though diminish the contribution by the U.S. to the effort, including a huge loss of life. All countries suffered equally. The bottom line; the U.S. didn't win this war; the Allies did.....

you speak of pre-emptive action.....Remember then it was a different time; no CNN, no internet. News didn't make its way around the world in an instant. Regardless, you just can't invade a country because you don't like what they're doing. Credit to Great Britain; the minute they attacked Poland; they declared war. What did Poland offer Great Britain? No oil, no strategic advantage land-wise. Great Britain got involved because Germany had done wrong.....Canada... an ocean, a world away was involved a week later, defending Poland.....

Why? It was the right thing to do...

Iraq? The world will never know what he was capable of......that statement could be made of North Korea....India, Pakistan, China...so why the need to invade Iraq? Why isn't the U.S. invading N Korea. They aren't friendly and definitely have weapons of mass destruction.....no oil though...and a friend with a really big stick.

The U.S. obviously knew very little, other that they thought there were weapons of mass destruction....

Maybe he wanted control of the Middle East...He tried that a few years ago in the Gulf War; the world stepped up when he crossed the border and put him in his place, then the biggest mistake....let him be. The Coalition should have marched to Baghdad then...You just can't walk in 10 years later on a hunch..no wonder there was little world wide support for the invasion of Iraq.

On that, do you ever foresee a time when that country will be what the U.S. wants it to be...Oh wait; it was supposed to be that when the U.S. enabled Saddam to take power and run the country, just like Iran.....

It was all about the Oil and continues to be that. What's the solution. Stop relying on them for oil....go elsewhere for your supply. Develop other markets, alternative energy. Jeez we can fly to the moon; surely we can reduce our dependence on poil from the middle east. 40 years ago they were all riding camels.....Eliminate their markets; they'll be riding camels again.

When your president and vice president are so tied in with the Middle East oil companies, I guess that's hard to do.....

It's all about the money...cheaper to invade, support puppet governments....and clean up the mess when it goes bad...

So what does this have to do with buying a gun at a local sports store?
 
You're right. This has to stop.

I am stopping my participation right now before it descends into name calling. I think I've made my points pretty clear.

From what you've said, Canada is a brave country. They have no murders at all because no one owns guns. Got it.

The US is bad because the guns. Got it.

Canada doesn't need oil. Got it.

I'm out of this.
 
John - I would never resort to name calling. How this turned into a thread about US foreign policy and history, I don't know...Let's blame Rick...lol

Yes we have gun control...I support it..you obviously don't....That's what healthy debate is all about.

I've never said the U.S. is bad. I've never said the U.S. isn't brave I've never said Canada is better, that we have no murders, guns....

I will defend my country though when taken to task.....We're not perfect; neither is the U.S. We all have work to do on a number of fronts.

Oil....we really don't need oil from the Middle East...we've got plenty out west. Unfortunately though, corporate greed dictates it should go elsewhere besides other Canadians...We unfortunately, have sold our soul to corporate Canada as well.

At some point we're all going to have no choice but to look at alternative sources.

Anyway...I certainly hope there are no hard feelings; that was never my intent.....

Take care y'all

As Kramer would say: "I'm out!"
 
The world sucks, but America sucks just a little bit less. - Ted Nugent
 
Actually, Canada has a very proud military heritage, and it's citizens seem to be much more responsible in the handling of their firearms, since they have nearly as high per capita gun ownership yet only a fraction of the murders involving guns. I think there's much we could learn from our Canadian brethren when it comes to our attitude toward violence.

Canada's gun registry debacle... now that's a whole 'nother story! :D

Everyone seems to have some very legitimate concerns and I'm impressed how well informed y'all are! Guess I haven't cornered the market on gun info among DJs!

A couple of things do seem in question, so for the non gun nuts among us, I thought I'd clarify just a bit. First, the term "semi-automatic" is just another way to load a round of ammunition. A revolver uses a cylinder to rotate another shot into position, while a semi-auto uses the energy of the gun's recoil to cycle a slide, which extracts the old shell and shoves a new round of ammo into the chamber. It is NOT a machinegun. (Those would be referred to as full-auto, or just "automatic.") The advantage to semi-auto pistols is that they usually hold more ammunition than revolvers. They are fed by magazines (sometimes erroneously called "clips" because of the movies), speeding the reloading process. Semi-auto pistols are favored by law enforcement for these reasons.

Why are revolvers still around? The plain truth is their simplicity. They never jam and are very reliable. Many cops favor them for "back-up."

In America, full-auto machineguns are already illegal. Since the '30s, they have been tightly regulated and it's both difficult and expensive to possess a full-auto rifle or pistol. (It's not impossible, though, which is how they got around Constitutional considerations.) Nearly all automatic weapons are in the hands of SWAT and local police departments. The standard M-16, a.k.a. the "ugly black rifle" is the one you often see on CNN being carried by our soldiers. The civilian version, the AR-15, is identical, except that it is semi-auto. That means just one shot per pull of the trigger -- totally legal.

I have one rifle that I won. (I'm generally a handgun guy!) It is a Romanian "sporter" 991 -- a civilian version of an AK-47. This is the rifle you're used to seeing waved around by the Iraqis on TV. Like the AR, mine is semi-auto. Also, it was made / sold during the Clinton "assault weapons" ban, so it's magazine only holds ten shots, not 30 like a standard AK.

By the by, the "AR" in AR-15 doesn't mean "assault rifle." It means "Armalite," the company that holds the patent on the ugly black rifle. But this DOES bring me to another point: so-called "assault weapons."

The whole issue of guns has become political and there are dirty tricks being used by both sides of this debate. A couple decades ago, one group, whose goal is to totally ban civilian gun ownership, applied the term "assault weapon" to any gun with a military appearance. It was devised by Josh Sugarmann of the VPC (Violence Policy Center), from his 1988 strategy paper on gun control. He and his group were frustrated, having made little headway in their quest for an outright ban on All Firearms, so he wrote “The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machineguns versus semi-automatic assault weapons (anything that looks like a machinegun is assumed to be a machinegun) can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these.” This was actually ON their own website for years -- a glaring admission of deception.

The fact is that there is no such thing as an "assault weapon." (Isn't any weapon used in an assault an assault weapon?) There are assault RIFLES, used mostly by the military, which are usually light machineguns with a select-fire switch, allowing the full-auto to be turned on and off. There are full out machineguns which some may classify as assault weapons as well. But a scary looking semi-auto rifle is just that. My AK clone is no more lethal, accurate or powerful than your grand dad's deer rifle or the 30.06 legally available at your corner sporting goods store.

I've found a teriffic way to spot B.S. gun control measures -- a great rule of thumb: If POLICE are exempt from the rule, then it is bad. As I see it, anything that's good for police is good for me. My life is every bit as important as any cop's.

Unlike many of my fellow firearm freaks, I won't say that there should be zero gun controls. I parted company with most of 'em in my support for NICS, the National Instant Check System, because it has a chance of working. (And has been proven to have done so!) When you go to buy a gun and give up your I.D., they check to make sure you're not a convicted felon. Only recently have they included mental health information, and it's not quite done yet. This is why the VT shooter was allowed to buy his pistols. This needs to be fixed! But NICS works, and works FAST. I'm not charged, and approval or denial takes only seconds, so I'm not inconvenienced. I see this as a win-win for everyone.

Gun controls that don't work: waiting periods, one-gun-a-month, ammunition capacity limitations, "no carry" zones (we call them "Criminal Empowerment Zones"), registration (which solves very few crimes, prevents none and CAN lead to confiscation), ballistic fingerprinting (a gun's characteristics can change over time, unlike real fingerprints, making any database useless. After spending millions, Maryland's ballistic database solved ONE crime in it's first three years!) and a bunch more I can't think of at the moment.

Anyway, my two cents has turned into a buck fifty, so I'll shut up now. Just wanted to help fill-in some knowledge gaps where needed. From the look of the boards here, y'all probably know most of this anyway! At this point, maybe any remaining questions should be off list? I'd be happy to answer any y'all might have, and if I don't know, I have ways of finding out.

Great discussion, all!
 
And I thought I was the only gun nut around... :sqbiggrin:

Good words Stu, but I have an issue with one part:

Only recently have they included mental health information, and it's not quite done yet. This is why the VT shooter was allowed to buy his pistols. This needs to be fixed!

The reason I have an issue, is because 'mental health', seems to be defined by whoever is in charge at the moment. It might be a judge, who is actually a 'sanitation engineer', or a therapist who talks to cave men.

There is no definitive test for mental health problems, so one person's problem, may be another's treasure. One shrink may say yer normal, and the other thinks yer a kook, if ya get my drift.

In my eyes, in order to use that as a criteria, one must establish the criteria in as much as you can do with a fingerprint or DNA, and it is not there.

I kind've doubt it will ever be there, as humans differ in their opinions...


Any one of us could snap at any moment -- no one is immune from that. Predicting that, is about akin to predicting the weather.

I think we have a reasonable system in place, that needs no further work, and if anything, less work...
 
Hmmm... a mystery: my last post seems to have disappeared!

There's a whole lot of people who want you to believe that "anyone can snap at any moment." That's not true in general. Yes, we all have a 'breaking point," but one must look at the overall picture. This is how profilers work, and years and years of data gives us profiles that are remarkably accurate. ("Criminal Minds" is a dramatization of FBI profilers.)

Note the killers of both VT and Columbine are adolescent / late adolescent males who feel like outcasts. Maybe they were bullied. They seemed to have problems "fitting in." And they didn't talk about it.

If you look at criminals in general, how often do you hear about their "long record?" I remember seeing an article that showed brain scans of both criminals and control subjects. The scans revealed how the criminal mind is actually different from most normal people. It's wired differently -- they see things differently. There's a scale, of course -- lots of "shades of gray" -- but the difference is unmistakable. Over the years I've been insulted, slapped, flipped off and been pushed to rage, yet never once did I think, "Kill!" My gun stayed in it's holster. I think most normal people think that way. I might want to change their mind, I might abhor their attitude or just plain get away from 'em, but I never wanted anyone dead!

Well, okay, maybe bin Laden. But that's about it. :)