Home | Register | Login | Members  

Current Events > University Shootings in Virginia
New Topic | Post Reply
<< | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | >>  
51. Monday, April 23, 2007 11:55 PM
cybacaT RE: University Shootings in Virginia


 Member Since
 5/25/2006
 Posts:1216

 View Profile
 Send PM

Unless my birth certificate is mistaken...you may call me Mr Sharp!

 
52. Tuesday, April 24, 2007 5:14 AM
jordan RE: University Shootings in Virginia

 Admin
 Member Since
 12/17/2005
 Posts:2274

 View Profile
 Send PM

"I'm for balance - not extremist approaches either way.  I just think you have way too many people being killed unnecessarily by guns each year - and I know that can be drastically reduced by modifying the controls you already have in place to make them more effective."

I'd strongly suggest you stop, go do some gun control law research for the US, and then let's talk about "extremist approaches" and "balance" in the US. Susan has been trying to make this point again and again - we already have laws - what other law would stop this.

The laws we have in place did not stop Cho, so I ask - what would've stopped Cho from carrying out his crime? Maybe that's where we should start.

In any case, we have too many people dying for a lot of different reasons in the US. If that is your core argument (which it is), then that argument can be applied to situations in which more people are dying from it rather than gun shots.

Has anyone ever noticed that in the VAST MAJORITY of shooting deaths, it rarely involves a legal weapon bought and stored properly? What does that say?


Jordan .

 
53. Tuesday, April 24, 2007 10:00 AM
JVSCant RE: University Shootings in Virginia


 Member Since
 12/18/2005
 Posts:2870

 View Profile
 Send PM

QUOTE:

Unless my birth certificate is mistaken...you may call me Mr Sharp!

It's like, 'cause, I'm, you know, psychic.

But seriously, if I'd known that I'd have chosen a different joke, for fear of referencing a relative of yours. 



 
54. Tuesday, April 24, 2007 11:58 AM
nuart RE: University Shootings in Virginia


 Member Since
 12/18/2005
 Posts:7632

 View Profile
 Send PM

Images of strange bedfellows...

An op-ed piece from the LA Times.

One thing I learned from this article is I may have overstated the figure when I rounded off 260,000,000 firearms to 300 million. I was close.

Either way, it's a numbers game. If you made a ratio of the number of actual guns responsible for that nearly 30,000 (more like 28,000+ according to the CDC stats) deaths-by-gun figure, over the 260,000,000 figure, you hone in on the miniscule percentage of gun-owners who use them to kill humans. Hey, 16,000+ were suicides.  Their firearms are most likely out of circulation with that final shot. Of the 11,000+ human beings killed by criminals with guns, probably several were part of a multiple victims crime, equalling fewer assailants. Of however many thousand criminals using guns to kill remain,  maybe one third of them end up in custody with their guns confiscated. A third is generally the figure I hear in big city LA when it comes to apprehension statistics for violent crime. 

Another stat I'd be interested to know, would be the ratio of gun-owners to gun deaths from country to country.  Maybe in Australia or England,  that small number of folks who actually OWN guns is disproportionately more likely to use them in violent crime than that far greater number of mostly law-abiding American gun owners.  (estimated 70,000,000)  I wonder.

I didn't learn that the English are less violent than their offspring, the Americans. I already knew that. Oh, the yin-yang of it all!

Susan 

Gun control isn't the answer

Why one reaction to Virginia Tech shouldn't be tightening firearm laws.

By James Q. Wilson
JAMES Q. WILSON teaches public policy at Pepperdine University and previously taught at UCLA and Harvard University. He is the author of several books, including "Thinking About Crime."

April 20, 2007

THE TRAGEDY at Virginia Tech may tell us something about how a young man could be driven to commit terrible actions, but it does not teach us very much about gun control.

So far, not many prominent Americans have tried to use the college rampage as an argument for gun control. One reason is that we are in the midst of a presidential race in which leading Democratic candidates are aware that endorsing gun control can cost them votes.

This concern has not prevented the New York Times from editorializing in favor of "stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage." Nor has it stopped the European press from beating up on us unmercifully.

Leading British, French, German, Italian and Spanish newspapers have blamed the United States for listening to Charlton Heston and the National Rifle Assn. Many of their claims are a little strange. At least two papers said we should ban semiautomatic assault weapons (even though the killer did not use one); another said that buying a machine gun is easier than getting a driver's license (even though no one can legally buy a machine gun); a third wrote that gun violence is becoming more common (when in fact the U.S. homicide rate has fallen dramatically over the last dozen years).

Let's take a deep breath and think about what we know about gun violence and gun control.

First: There is no doubt that the existence of some 260 million guns (of which perhaps 60 million are handguns) increases the death rate in this country. We do not have drive-by poisonings or drive-by knifings, but we do have drive-by shootings. Easy access to guns makes deadly violence more common in drug deals, gang fights and street corner brawls.

However, there is no way to extinguish this supply of guns. It would be constitutionally suspect and politically impossible to confiscate hundreds of millions of weapons. You can declare a place gun-free, as Virginia Tech had done, and guns will still be brought there.

If we want to guess by how much the U.S. murder rate would fall if civilians had no guns, we should begin by realizing — as criminologists Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins have shown — that the non-gun homicide rate in this country is three times higher than the non-gun homicide rate in England. For historical and cultural reasons, Americans are a more violent people than the English, even when they can't use a gun. This fact sets a floor below which the murder rate won't be reduced even if, by some constitutional or political miracle, we became gun-free.

There are federally required background checks on purchasing weapons; many states (including Virginia) limit gun purchases to one a month, and juveniles may not buy them at all. But even if there were even tougher limits, access to guns would remain relatively easy. Not the least because, as is true today, many would be stolen and others would be obtained through straw purchases made by a willing confederate. It is virtually impossible to use new background check or waiting-period laws to prevent dangerous people from getting guns. Those that they cannot buy, they will steal or borrow.

It's also important to note that guns play an important role in self defense. Estimates differ as to how common this is, but the numbers are not trivial. Somewhere between 100,000 and more than 2 million cases of self-defense occur every year.

There are many compelling cases. In one Mississippi high school, an armed administrator apprehended a school shooter. In a Pennsylvania high school, an armed merchant prevented further deaths. Would an armed teacher have prevented some of the deaths at Virginia Tech? We cannot know, but it is not unlikely.

AS FOR THE European disdain for our criminal culture, many of those countries should not spend too much time congratulating themselves. In 2000, the rate at which people were robbed or assaulted was higher in England, Scotland, Finland, Poland, Denmark and Sweden than it was in the United States. The assault rate in England was twice that in the United States. In the decade since England banned all private possession of handguns, the BBC reported that the number of gun crimes has gone up sharply.

Some of the worst examples of mass gun violence have also occurred in Europe. In recent years, 17 students and teachers were killed by a shooter in one incident at a German public school; 14 legislators were shot to death in Switzerland, and eight city council members were shot to death near Paris.

The main lesson that should emerge from the Virginia Tech killings is that we need to work harder to identify and cope with dangerously unstable personalities.

It is a problem for Europeans as well as Americans, one for which there are no easy solutions — such as passing more gun control laws.

 


     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

 

Ben Franklin

 
55. Tuesday, April 24, 2007 5:26 PM
FireMoth RE: University Shootings in Virginia


 Member Since
 4/20/2007
 Posts:21

 View Profile
 Send PM
QUOTE:

firemoth

If you're starting to grate off enamel, do what you do in times of stress. Just grab that Glock, cradle it to your cheek, rock it gently and feel all your anger just melt away... (I'm picturing Tackleberry off Police Academy at this point)

Sorry - I just read your last post. Wow - you must be desperate to find an argument buddy!

Having failed in all other tactics, your brilliant retort to my call for better gun control is that:

1. cybacaT is Australian

2. cybacaT is a Christian.

Therefore, cybacaT's arguments are invalid!

Hmmm - yes...a compelling, well thought-out argument there...

You're an Australian Christain? No shit... I was TOTALLY unaware.

I have to assume its the slow trade in the south pacific that kept sarcasm from reaching the Australian shores yet... but don't worry, its coming soon! It should be following right on the heels of literacy.

I'm curious, my dear Guru of positive self affirmations and group hugs, what sort of work is it you do or have done that you are such an expert on the effects of stress?  

 

 


 


Vis Ab Naivete
 
56. Tuesday, April 24, 2007 5:28 PM
FireMoth RE: University Shootings in Virginia


 Member Since
 4/20/2007
 Posts:21

 View Profile
 Send PM

Dangerous and unstable personalities? Would religious Zealots fall into that category?

...Wait, never mind. They aren't dangerous... its not like some god crazed religious nut has ever killed anyone...

 Anybody thirsty? I just made up some punch... 


Vis Ab Naivete
 
57. Tuesday, April 24, 2007 7:45 PM
12rainbow RE: University Shootings in Virginia


 Member Since
 12/19/2005
 Posts:4953

 View Profile
 Send PM

Not dangerous and unstable. "Dorky, timid and pushy," according to the escort he hired last month.

http://wsls.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSLS/MGArticle/SLS_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173350907846

"Damn, Coop, that really narrows it down. You're talking about half the college guys in America!"

 
58. Wednesday, April 25, 2007 5:36 AM
cybacaT RE: University Shootings in Virginia


 Member Since
 5/25/2006
 Posts:1216

 View Profile
 Send PM

JVSCant 

It's like, 'cause, I'm, you know, psychic.

:-)

But seriously, if I'd known that I'd have chosen a different joke, for fear of referencing a relative of yours. 

Even if it were the case I wouldn't take offence.  It's a combination of an extremely thick skin, and a generally laidback attitude.  For future reference, there's no need to tiptoe on eggshells around me, or mince words - if you think what I'm saying is rubbish, or I'm acting like a dickhead, feel free to go ahead and say it.  Oftentimes you'll probably be right!

 
59. Wednesday, April 25, 2007 5:40 AM
cybacaT RE: University Shootings in Virginia


 Member Since
 5/25/2006
 Posts:1216

 View Profile
 Send PM

jordan

Sounds like you and I are sorta in argument then.  There are a variety of different gun laws across the US, and there is a need for gun laws.  So the point of difference we have is how strict those gun laws should be.

I personally see no need for guns in the hands of citizens, but undoubtedly that'll be a very difficult pill to swallow.  So let's at least start by banning entirely - handguns, semi-autos and autos.  That'd be a reasonable starting point given there is little justification for people carrying these pieces around in public.  A gun is not a requirement for getting through the day, unless you're living somewhere like Iraq.

What do you say?  Is that a reasonable starting point?

If not...what guns do you think US citizens should have in their posession?  Keep in mind "the right to bear arms" is already restricted - you can't buy RPGs remember?  So what's in...and what's out...in your ideal view of the situation?

 

 
60. Wednesday, April 25, 2007 5:48 AM
cybacaT RE: University Shootings in Virginia


 Member Since
 5/25/2006
 Posts:1216

 View Profile
 Send PM

Susan

I may be wrong, but you appear to me to be an uncomfortable apologist for gun owners in the US.  Almost as though you're somehow forced to dig up some justification for what's going on.

I also keep getting the message from you that you believe strict gun control in the US is just too hard to implement - virtually impossible.

In Australia we heard all the same arguments:

- you'll never get gun owners to turn in their guns.

- if guns are outlawed...only outlaws will have guns!

- it's just too hard, so just leave things as they are.

Here were the factors that made a difference though:

- Australians decided that the right to own guns and hunt wasn't as important as the gun death toll which we were unhappy with.

- Australia doesn't have a cashed-up gun lobby with it's hands wrapped around the throat of our govt.

- Australia's PM John Howard is a ballsy fellow who was prepared to lose the votes of many of his core supporters by implementing strict gun laws.

 

The result?  We have 1/15th the ratio of gun deaths in Australia to that which you have in the US.  A miniscule fraction.  Apply that to the US, and you would have lost 2,000 people last year instead of 30,000.  That's 28,000 American lives saved.  Imagine you could put a stop to the Twin Towers disaster and save all those lives - many times over.  Would you do that? 

I know many would give up, thinking the solution was just too hard and unpopular.  But the payoff!

 
61. Wednesday, April 25, 2007 6:55 AM
jordan RE: University Shootings in Virginia

 Admin
 Member Since
 12/17/2005
 Posts:2274

 View Profile
 Send PM

Cybaca - I'm going to try this 1 more time and I will say it very slowly:

the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to own guns.

Read it again. And again.

And then note - Australians never had an amendment right to own weapons. It's a lot easier to have gun control when your Constitution doesn't give your people right to own guns. To ban handguns, you would have to repeal the Second Amendment. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

FireMoth might be able to give us the actual law, but it's already illegal to own automatics and semi-automatics - or maybe it's selling in some situations, I just don't remember. I do remember that the VA Tech massacre that some anti-gun folks were wondering if "semi-automatics" were used. Nope - not used. Used was your basic handgun.

Your missing another important point - you just can't go around carrying guns. Only some states have a concealed weapons law, and then states give cities the right to ban guns in certain places. So people aren't just going to work with a gun in their hand --- legally. Furthermore, most states have laws about how you can carry a gun in the car - it must be unloaded, gun must be in a case, and the ammo on the trunk for example -- again varies from state to state. The reality is that people aren't walking around every day with a gun in their jacket, and if they are, they are probably doing it illegally.

No one is using a gun  "to get through the day." Sounds like you're just reading a bunch of anti-gun talking points at this point.

So we're beyond any type of "starting point" that you are suggesting.

I'm fine with people owning handguns, rifles, and even semi-automatics. But I do beleive every gun bought legally needs to be registered. When a person buys a semi-automatic, there should be stricter laws in place (if not already) about who can own and how those guns are carried and stored. But handguns and rifles cannot be banned due to protection and hunting and sport -- oh, and that nasty amendment in the Constitution.

I think it needs to be remembered that the vast majority of crimes in which guns were used - those guns were illegally obtained, and not registed ,and in the hands of a criminal.

But again, here's a thread about university shootings, and we're talking about guns which is NOT the problem. Ban every single gun in the US, and you'll get it through the black market.

Speaking of Australia and guns....

"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would."  - John Adams


Jordan .

 
62. Wednesday, April 25, 2007 6:58 AM
LetsRoque RE: University Shootings in Virginia


 Member Since
 1/2/2006
 Posts:922

 View Profile
 Send PM
I would like to know the racial breakdownof those 30,000 dead every year. I go out on a limb and assume that a sizeable proportion of that 30,000 is a result of black on black gun crime.


'I look for an opening, do you understand?'
 
63. Wednesday, April 25, 2007 7:11 AM
jordan RE: University Shootings in Virginia

 Admin
 Member Since
 12/17/2005
 Posts:2274

 View Profile
 Send PM

From the US Dept of Justice:

Firearm homicide also disproportionately affects African-Americans. Approximately 52 percent of gun homicide victims are African-American, even though they represent less than 13 percent of the total population. African-American males between the ages of 15 and 24 have the highest firearm homicide rate of any demographic group. Their firearm homicide rate of 103.4 deaths per 100,000 is 10 times higher than the rate for white males in the same age group (10.5 deaths per 100,000). In 1997, 92 percent of homicides of young African-American men occurred by firearms, compared to 68 percent of homicides by firearms in the general population. Even though violent crime rates, including crimes committed with guns, have declined each year since 1993, according to Federal Bureau of Investigation trend reports, guns remain the leading cause of death for young African-American males.


Jordan .

 
64. Wednesday, April 25, 2007 7:23 AM
LetsRoque RE: University Shootings in Virginia


 Member Since
 1/2/2006
 Posts:922

 View Profile
 Send PM

In the UK, there has been a significant increase in gun and knife crime in black areas in London. Very few UK politicians are willing to say it for fear of looking like old farts but I wish RAP MUSIC WOULD STOP GLAMORISING GUN VIOLENCE.


'I look for an opening, do you understand?'
 
65. Wednesday, April 25, 2007 7:25 AM
jordan RE: University Shootings in Virginia

 Admin
 Member Since
 12/17/2005
 Posts:2274

 View Profile
 Send PM
WAIT!!! STOP!!!! you said "gun and knife" violence.....KNIFE!!! TIME TO BAN KNIVES. Guns were made to kill, and knives were made to cut so they must be banned too!


Jordan .

 
66. Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:03 AM
Booth RE: University Shootings in Virginia


 Member Since
 8/20/2006
 Posts:4388

 View Profile
 Send PM
QUOTE:

In 1997, 92 percent of homicides of young African-American men occurred by firearms, compared to 68 percent of homicides by firearms in the general population.

Sounds like it's time to ban fire.

 
67. Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:22 AM
Raymond RE: University Shootings in Virginia


 Member Since
 12/18/2005
 Posts:1664

 View Profile
 Send PM

Lets, The rap music community lead by Russell Simmons , a big producer and brother of REv Run DMC are trying to address that question. They want voluntarily-I like that approach- to stop using Bit--, ho, and Nigg-- in their lyrics and laying off gun glamorization. Our NY Rap, Soul station 105.1 is not using those types of lyrics on their radio broadcast here anymore. (Often there are two versions of rap tracks -one clean , one not. I don't know how that will be affected , if at all.) A 105.1 popular DJ, and a good guy, was shot down and killed in December for a lousy gold chain ! A father of two young kids was dead!

How effective this program will be is up in the air , but it is a start. Alot of rap artists are joining with Simmons in this project.

 
68. Wednesday, April 25, 2007 10:45 AM
nuart RE: University Shootings in Virginia


 Member Since
 12/18/2005
 Posts:7632

 View Profile
 Send PM
QUOTE:

1. I may be wrong, but you appear to me to be an uncomfortable apologist for gun owners in the US. Almost as though you're somehow forced to dig up some justification for what's going on.

I also keep getting the message from you that you believe strict gun control in the US is just too hard to implement - virtually impossible.


 

2. The result? We have 1/15th the ratio of gun deaths in Australia to that which you have in the US. A miniscule fraction. Apply that to the US, and you would have lost 2,000 people last year instead of 30,000. That's 28,000 American lives saved. Imagine you could put a stop to the Twin Towers disaster and save all those lives - many times over. Would you do that?

 

Small point but I'll make it anyway, Cyba. I have not been forced to "dig up" material as part of my "uncomfortable apologist" role. Note the date on the articles I've added to the discussion and the sources. They're often from my local morning newspaper usually of the same day. Sometimes an article I post closely conforms with my way of thinking but more often I post them because they interject thoughts I haven't had. A different angle. Like the Black Swan article that no one seemed to notice. I thought that was on target. So to speak.

Strict gun control? Stricter? Fine, fine, fine!!! Just do it, if the majority of voters agree with another prohibition on gun sales. I've already conceded that. BUT... for every new law some legislator wants to sponsor, what will follow is the more complex problem of enforcement. REALITY. Whenever you deal with great clusters of humanity you are going to have to accept imperfection. I understand reality. There are those who will perennially live outside the law; those who exist to flount the restrictions imposed on all of us. The trick is staying one step ahead of this group, while not infringing on the rights of the larger group of law-abiding citizens.

Laws cannot be written for a single case. If we could only have banned the sale of guns to mum, surly college students, who were once deemed suicidal, who harrassed a couple of coeds via email, who are not American citizens and therefore not party to our Constitutional rights, then 32 human beings (or 33 if you count the murderer. I don't) would still be breathing in and breathing out.

Your second point -- my imaginary putting a stop to the same number of deaths as the victims of 9/11. Hmm, yes, well... maybe. But such a question is rather like, "If you knew you were going to die on a given day would you rather die of cancer, drowning or being mauled by a polar bear?" Uh, I'll take drowning. It's a silly and meaningless response to a question of similar gravity. Were I the dictator of the United States of America with a sufficient crew of loyal minions to implement my strategy of removing 260,000,000 guns from the 60-70% of the households now holding them, what would I do??? Come on, Susan! Think of those people in the WTC on 9/11/01! Wave that magic wand.

Here's the dealio. For the US to change its basic mentality and suddenly become "comfortable" with eliminating the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, would mean we would then be a fundamentally different place. In a cosmic sense, and as a conservative not altogether pleased with the changes I have noticed in my country, I'm not at all certain I'd be happy with that new mentality. I'd wonder what else would accompany that new tender mindset. Make a change here, and like that giant Calder mobile in the sky, everything else shifts position along with it. No, I'm not sure the gain would supercede the losses.

For the 11,000 victims of gun killings, there is a certain proportion, privately described within law enforcement circles as "NVI" - no victim involved -- as in gangsters killing gangsters. Would I wish upon the shining star of gun extrication that these guys could return to life again? Uh, I'd have to consider that on a case by case basis.

Really, though, what is the point to discussing what the United States could be if we suddenly became, oh say... Canada with Canadians or Australia with Australians? We are the United States and we are Americans. With our population of 300,000,000, I am willing to accept the reality that some will be malfunctioning units. Of our malfunctioning units, some will be criminally motivated. Some will be depressed enough to want to end it all by killing themselves. Some victims will be the most innocent -- children hit by stray bullets guilty only of living in a neighborhood improperly policed where many adults eschew law enforcement's visibility. Plenty of tragedy to go around. As a country, you do what you can within the confines of the existing framework of the Constitution to minimize the problem and that's the end result. Violent crime rates rise and fall. For the past several years, they have fallen.

I'll stipulate that the US is MORE violent than many other countries, though nowhere near the champs of some African nations or Brazil or Mexico, but still violent. You gotta hand it to the Rwandans who were able to quickly dispatch with 100,000 fellow Rwandans WITHOUT firearms. They did it mano-a-mano style -- with MACHETES! It's hard to imagine they could have been even more effective with guns but who knows?

Jordan's central point is central to the whole discussion of going Aussie with gun bans:

IN THE USA THERE EXISTS A 2ND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.

And it's here to stay. For that, I have no apology.

Susan


     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

 

Ben Franklin

 
69. Wednesday, April 25, 2007 10:55 AM
one suave folk RE: University Shootings in Virginia


 Member Since
 12/21/2005
 Posts:5862

 View Profile
 Send PM
  I believe a lot of this dispute can be cleared up if people would only realize that the amendment in question was about fashion, compounded by an unfortunate typo. It actually was protecting the "right to BARE arms".  Outmoded Victorian standards were preventing the very buff Ben Franklin from sporting his beloved "tanke toppe" in public. As for firearms, well that right is not across the board, is it? There are restrictions (BUT, THE "CONSTITUTION"!!!), we don't allow minors, criminals or the mentally challeged ownership, do we? Even if they're "citizens". Oh, there is that pesky Black Market. Which I think is still illegal, right?  No, this isn't an easy issue to deal with.  But there are ways to minimize the problem: registration, mandatory safety classes, locks, restrictions on ammunition, & limiting the ability to just procure said weapons at gun shows, pawn shops, or markets in the black part of town (sorry)... The gun has been fetishized to an obscene point in our society: it's sexy, it's fun,  it gives the powerless POWER!!! I think it's admirable that some conscionable members of the rap community are trying to police themselves. Yes, we live in a often violent society & that's frightening. I don't like guns, as they're tools of destruction, but I'll pass on my Constitutional right to "bear" in this unbearable situation.   Okay, let the insulting of my opinion begin!!! (BUT THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH!!!)

 
70. Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:15 AM
Raymond RE: University Shootings in Virginia


 Member Since
 12/18/2005
 Posts:1664

 View Profile
 Send PM

I, myself, see nothing in your post to insult Chris. 

Ole Herofix had it right when he said " There are no easy answers "

 
71. Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:11 AM
nuart RE: University Shootings in Virginia


 Member Since
 12/18/2005
 Posts:7632

 View Profile
 Send PM

Thanks for the link, Jordan.  The bottom line says it all.

The main point to be learned here is that determining the effect of changes in Australia's gun ownership laws and the government's firearm buy-back program on crime rates requires a complex long-term analysis and can't be discerned from the small, mixed grab bag of short-term statistics offered here. And no matter what the outcome of that analysis, the results aren't necessarily applicable to the USA, where laws regarding gun ownership are (and always have been) much different than those in Australia.

Last updated:   28 January 2004

 


     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

 

Ben Franklin

 
72. Wednesday, April 25, 2007 5:04 PM
FireMoth RE: University Shootings in Virginia


 Member Since
 4/20/2007
 Posts:21

 View Profile
 Send PM
And after all of that, no one even got the Jim Jones reference...


Vis Ab Naivete
 
73. Wednesday, April 25, 2007 6:06 PM
cybacaT RE: University Shootings in Virginia


 Member Since
 5/25/2006
 Posts:1216

 View Profile
 Send PM

Susan

Like the Black Swan article that no one seemed to notice. I thought that was on target. So to speak.

:-)   Yes I thought that was an interesting article.

 

Strict gun control? Stricter? Fine, fine, fine!!! Just do it, if the majority of voters agree with another prohibition on gun sales. I've already conceded that. BUT... for every new law some legislator wants to sponsor, what will follow is the more complex problem of enforcement. REALITY. Whenever you deal with great clusters of humanity you are going to have to accept imperfection. I understand reality. There are those who will perennially live outside the law; those who exist to flount the restrictions imposed on all of us. The trick is staying one step ahead of this group, while not infringing on the rights of the larger group of law-abiding citizens.

I agree, agree, agree.  Yes - there needs to be stricter restrictions.  Yes, you need to equip law enforcement to deal with the handover process.  Yes - it will be imperfect, and some people will never give up their guns until hauled off to jail.

 

Your second point -- my imaginary putting a stop to the same number of deaths as the victims of 9/11. 

It's called a HYPOTHETICAL.  Assume you can enforce stricter laws, and go from there.  You keep chanting "it can't be done!" in a dozen different ways Susan.  But...if you could save that many American lives - would you?  What if a new disease hit the US that suddenly started killing 30,000 American men, women and children each year.  Would you attempt to stop it?  What if the cure was going to be expensive and difficult to find?  At that starting point would you give up...thinking it was all too hard, and therefore not worth trying?

 

For the US to change its basic mentality and suddenly become "comfortable" with eliminating the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, would mean we would then be a fundamentally different place.

Here I'm also in agreement - somewhat.  While I think it's a travesty Americans deliberately misrepresent the 2nd Amendment, the key in a democracy is popular opinion.  If Americans are happy with the death toll, and don't want to change...and a free and unfettered debate has taken place on the subject...then for me that ends the discussion.  It's a democracy, and the majority opinion should rule.  However, that's not the impression I've gotten in my experience talking and living with Americans.  Some would rather die that give up their guns...some want all guns banned...but there's a quiet mass of people somewhere in the middle who realise gun laws should be tighter, are appalled by the needless deaths of so many Americans, yet feel powerless in the NRA-controlled country to speak up.

 

Jordan's central point is central to the whole discussion of going Aussie with gun bans: IN THE USA THERE EXISTS A 2ND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.

Ok...so when all else fails, we keep referring to the belt-buckle "snippet" of the 2nd Amendment - "the right to bear arms".  I'm fairly sure I quoted the 2nd Amendment in full for discussion here...but no-one has wanted to go into it.

I have some questions:

- back when the amendment was written, and there WAS a militia who had the right to bear arms, did you think that the developers of the 2nd Amendment ever envisaged that the US would move to a time of peace, yet some Americans would still abuse their amendment by claiming it meant a right for every citizen to bear arms...not just the militia of the day?

- if the only defence for bearing arms is the 2nd amendment, and as you say it would be near impossible to go against the enshrined constitution...then how is that you manage to restrict so many citizens of their right to bear arms?  Why can't kids buy guns?  Why can't adults by fully automatic weapons?  Why isn't every US citizen allowed to carry around weapons in public(bearing arms?)?  Why are some arms allowed, and some arms restricted - if an American wants to bear and RPG - why can't they?  Why can't Americans carry weapons on planes?

All of these rules and laws you have are impinging on your 2nd AMENDMENT!  Surely this is an impossibility - since these many examples contradict your own constitution!  I'm also listening for the screaming cries for those whose constitutional rights are being so grossly violated!  It's the SECOND AMENDMENT!!  Aren't you ashamed that there are 10 year old American Citizens who aren't allowed to tote an RPG onto a plane with them?  I mean - it's the SECOND AMENDMENT!!

 

 
74. Wednesday, April 25, 2007 6:10 PM
cybacaT RE: University Shootings in Virginia


 Member Since
 5/25/2006
 Posts:1216

 View Profile
 Send PM

one suave folk

As always you've put your view more succinctly and with more humour than I'm capable of.  Love your work. 

 
75. Wednesday, April 25, 2007 6:27 PM
cybacaT RE: University Shootings in Virginia


 Member Since
 5/25/2006
 Posts:1216

 View Profile
 Send PM

jordan

When I lived in the US, whether it was legal or not, I remember ladies having handguns in their handbags, glove compartments.  I remember kids bringing weapons to school including automatic, and semi-automatic weapons - one time a friend of mine brought in a sub-machinegun that was similar to an Uzi, but with a longer clip (can't recall the name).  He kept it in his locker.  Driving around, pickup trucks had gun-racks with rifles and shotguns on them - I was careful not to tailgate or have an accident there!  In my 2 years there, I knew 2 people who were killed with guns.

I lived in Georgia.  Contrary to the weak stereotype, I don't live in fear of guns - I loved shooting, loved hunting.  With mates we'd cover a tree in cans and bottles, and then blast away for target practice.  Great fun.

But you're right - it's not the "wild west" right across the country - you have a mix of rules and standards.

I'm fine with people owning handguns, rifles, and even semi-automatics. But I do beleive every gun bought legally needs to be registered. When a person buys a semi-automatic, there should be stricter laws in place (if not already) about who can own and how those guns are carried and stored.

Ok - that's what I was after.  So for most states you'd basically be arguing for no change - because they seem like fairly liberal gun laws.  What are you banning then, and why?  Autos?  Military grade weapons?

 

But handguns and rifles cannot be banned due to protection and hunting and sport -- oh, and that nasty amendment in the Constitution.

I think I've disproved the myth that the 2nd Amendment gives just anyone the right to bear arms when they're not a member of the militia.

Protection is a valid argument - because there are so many guns.  If the guns laws were tighened dramatically, there would be no justification for people carrying guns.

Which leaves hunting...and the question remains - is someone's sport worth 30,000 dead Americans each year?

 

 

New Topic | Post Reply Page 3 of 5 :: << | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | >>
Current Events > University Shootings in Virginia


Users viewing this Topic (1)
1 Guest


This page was generated in 437 ms.