digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

An Armed Citizen With A Permit Stopped The Last VA College Shooting Rampage

cnsnews.com — After two armed southwest Virginia law students stopped a campus shooting rampage in January 2002, a Second Amendment group at a northern Virginia law school decided it was time to change their own school's ban on guns.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Naidim, on 10/12/2007, -182/+70Logic has nothing to do with the Liberals' BELIEF that guns are bad and need to be banned.
    • polymath22, on 10/12/2007, -30/+267i am a liberal, and i support the bill of rights, including the 2nd amendment.

    • RuffRidr, on 10/12/2007, -20/+215Polymath22 is right. This is not necessarily a liberal vs. conservative arguement. We should all stand united in our support for the Bill of Rights.
    • theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -23/+141"We should all stand united in our support for the Bill of Rights."

      While I agree with you 100%, unfortunately, the majority of Democrats presently serving in Congress and the Senate do not. DiFi, Boxer, Schumer, Obama (favored many anti-2nd Amendment bills while a State Senator in Ill-Annoy. Waiting to see what happens on a national level, but a leopard generally doesn't change his spots), Clinton, Kennedy, and Biden are just SOME of the Dems in the Senate that have actively sought to enact strict Gun Control in the past. These also happen to be some of the most powerful Senators. The Dems in Congress who are anti-2A are legion.

      A few notable Republicans are also anti-2A, starting with Giuliani. Though lately, he has distanced himself from his past remarks, the cliché about the leopard still rings just as true.

    • Groovemaster, on 10/12/2007, -23/+155"Logic has nothing to do with the Liberals' BELIEF that guns are bad and need to be banned."

      It must be fascinating to live in a world where people adhere to one of two predefined sets of opinions.

      The whole liberal/conservative paradigm is nothing more than a front operation to convince Americans that they have a choice while keeping them at each other's throats. Ever heard of "divide and conquer"?
    • flamingmb, on 10/12/2007, -22/+75I am a liberal and I support the 2nd amendment. I plan on getting a CCW and a handgun when I turn 21. I dont see why you took this oppertunity to cheap shot liberals when so many of us are for the 2nd amendment and the upholding of the constitution.
    • Julolidine, on 10/12/2007, -63/+44Theres simply two ways of thinking and they are *both* incorrect

      One person views a situation like this: All guns should be banned - if they were then this killer wouldn't have had a gun.

      The other person views the situation like this: If there were more guns - then maybe someone could have prevented him from taking this action, or people could have defended themselves.

      Situation #1 is improbable, simply because there are too many guns in the country (several hundred million). If all guns were banned, they would simply form a black market.

      Situation #2 is not supported by any sort of evidence what so ever, beyond random cases like this one that people can come up with. In every study which has looked at communities saturated with guns, there is *no* measurable decrease or increase in crime.

      Therefore both sides of the argument are equally blowing steam out of their asses. Gun control or lack of gun control makes absolutely NO difference to crime rates. How about we address the real issues, rather than rehash the same old tired arguments (ie video game violence, TV violence, gun control).
    • NikoKun, on 10/12/2007, -25/+90I can just see it now... after this attack they will form even stricter gun laws, claiming that it will help prevent this next time... but anyone with a brain in their skull can easily see that that would never help prevent an attack... someone that wants a gun will find a way to get it.

      All they accomplish with more restrictions, is making it even harder for the every day person to have a gun... when in reality your everyday non-violent person, is the one that SHOULD be allowed access to guns if they choose for their protection... Hell if more people were freely allowed to have guns... maybe more criminals would be less likely to go after people, because anyone they go after, might also be armed... its more of a deterrent, isn't it?

      I think it can easily be said that if your average joe could keep a gun on their person at any time anywhere, that person isn't going to kill someone as a crime, only as a self defence. So lets say for example, terrorists hijacked a plane, if the civilians had guns on the plane, they could have stopped the bad guys. Sadly the laws and restrictions... ONLY RESTRICT THE GOOD GUYS.... -_-

      There was a reason why our constitution states people should be allowed to have guns, and thats to protect themselves from criminals and from the government if it gets too powerful...

      It just amazes me... in such an appalling way... That people these days pass more gun laws and restrictions, and many people want to ban guns... WHEN THAT WILL CLEARLY NEVER STOP SOMEONE THAT WANTS A GUN!... If they want a gun for violence and crimes they will find a way to get one... How many times to gun supporters have to repeat this before morons get it into their skulls... The laws will only stop someone that might have considered buying a gun for self defense, thus making more people defenseless.

      And if you don't believe me, watch the news for the next week or so... shortly they (officials for either the country, or Virginia) will announce a push for stricter gun laws/control... and the people, in their fear, will willingly give up their rights to weapons, thinking it will make them safer... this is always how our rights are pealed away...
    • dixta, on 10/12/2007, -92/+35Paging Charlton Heston?

      Here's a novel idea: HOW ABOUT...... NOBODY carries a ***** gun???

      I cannot BELIEVE that some idiot student group is asking that the ban on guns be LIFTED after a shooting rampage.

      ADDING GUNS to the equation isn't gonna STOP a massacre from taking place. It's just gonna give a whole lot of people very itchy trigger fingers after one takes place. Stopping the "rampage" in 2002 boils down to one thing.... luck. The nutbag who cut loose today obviously had nothing to lose (so clearly demonstrated by the fact he apparently blew his head clean off when he was done) so what the hell makes you think a couple of students packing heat would make him change his mind about what he was doing?

      Seriously, don't be a huge pack of wankers..... you elect your government, so do what you need to do to have the laws changed. I'm quite happy knowing that it's hard to get a firearm permit in Australia, and it's downright impossible (read: illegal) to own semi-automatic and automatic weapons.

      Ask yourself how you'd feel about a family member being blown away by some ***** who was just "exercising his rights" by owning a firearm.... who happened to have a mental/nervous breakdown. "But if my family member had a gun, he/she coulda stopped him!"

      Yeah, uh, ok. If you really think so.
    • Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -24/+134Liberal here too.

      I'll quote something I read today - it sums up my feelings exactly.

      "Did laws prohibiting gun possession, or carrying guns onto school campuses, prevent what happened at Virginia Tech today?

      Obviously not. The killer ignored any such laws.

      Did gun prohibition laws perhaps prevent someone at Virginia Tech from stopping the killer before his death toll rose so high? Perhaps so.

      Law abiding citizens tend to obey the gun prohibition laws. Criminals do not.

      We are not calling for any action on this issue. We are not politicians, who, in moments of crisis, want to pose as saviors. Instead, we just want to encourage people to stop and think.

      We also want to express our condolences to the family members and friends of the promising young people whose lives were taken in this criminal act."

      Gun Control is idiotic - it only gives criminals an advantage.

      Honest law abiding citizens who legally carry firearms PREVENT crime. Stopping them from doing so INCREASES crime. If just one of the teachers or students today was packing a gun, this would not have resulted in over 30 needless deaths. Obviously the cops and/or security were ineffective.

      It's the same principal we now apply to airlines and hiijackings. Before 9-11 we were all told to 'comply' and 'don't resist' if someone hijacks a plane. Pilots were unarmed. Armed Air Marshals were random and few and far between. That's how over 3000 people died. United flight 93 figured out what these guys were doing and prevented more deaths, by sacrificing themselves and taking action.

      Now, try hijacking an American plane and the passengers and crew will beat you to death. Plus, there's a good chance the pilot is armed now too.

      Gun control is stupid, unconstitutional and dangerous.
    • bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -49/+9If any US citizens are confused by the gun debate, simply substitute any instance of "gun" with "fertilizer bomb" and you'll get your answer...

      it's really not rocket science
    • Caps, on 10/12/2007, -44/+25@dixta

      I'm with you brother. I'm an Aussie and never in my 23 years here have I ever worried about myself, family or friends being put in a position where it is necessary to defend yourself from an armed person. I don't know anyone at all that owns a gun or who has even fired one! We had a massacre in Tasmania about 10 years ago and strict gun regulations have been brought into place and we haven't had another tragedy of that scale since..

      Introducing more guns into the equation will only bring more accidents and further tragedies..
    • omatsei, on 10/12/2007, -15/+112@Julolidine: Actually, there is plenty of evidence that shows that states and countries that have fewer restrictions on guns have lower crime rates.

      http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-13-00.html
      http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
      http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp
      http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

      Those are just the first 4 I found. There are plenty more.
    • DAGONthehauge, on 10/12/2007, -61/+15***** americans are nuts. Completely insane.
    • Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -17/+78We like being nuts if you're talking about our right to bear arms. The right exists so we can protect ourselves from the government getting out of control actually, but it's also effective in protecting us from nut jobs too.

      Normal people are not nut jobs - they are responsible. Unless they proove otherwise, they deserve to protect themselves and those around them

      Because we have so many guns in the country criminals have them too - yes. There is nothing that can be done about that now, there are easily over 200 million firearms in the US - impossible to reverse that. So, we need legally armed good guys too - not just the cops.

      It has the added benefit that America is impossible to invade too. What idiot would even try when the citizens have hundreds of millions of weapons to fight back with, on top of the best military in the world? :)

      Yea, we know we're arrogant too. :) We have that right...
    • dixta, on 10/12/2007, -30/+6@psypherx:

      Wooooow GREAT argument, very compelling.


    • 34tnu5x199, on 10/12/2007, -54/+7Americans are pathetic.
    • theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -10/+54If the college would allow the people who take their time and money to jump through the hoops to qualify to carry a concealed weapon, like had happened a few years earlier, and that person was allowed to have their pistol in their dorm room, 32+ people would NOT be dead.

      The decision to obtain a CCW and carry a weapon is a grave one that NO ONE takes lightly. And those who choose to do so are with out any shadow of a doubt THE most law abiding citizens in the country. Magnitudes more cops are arrested for crimes than CCW holders. There is NO reason why a person who takes the responsibility upon themselves should be infringed from doing so.

    • nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -9/+94The Supreme Court ruled LONG AGO, that the POLICE are **NOT** responsbile to protect citizens, they are not libel if they do not show up in time, or do not act fact enough, and just show up later to take the reports and do the paperwork. There is a rich history of court decisions that found the police to have no constitutional obligation to protect individuals from private individuals. In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement OFFICERS HAD NO affirmative DUTY to provide such protection. In 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." There is a right to bear arms given to the "People" in the 2nd amendment of the constitution.


      Security, self defense, protection are the**resposibility of each and every INDIVIDUAL** - never can it be left to the "state" -as this is an invitation to tyranny, oppression, and terror -in any form -e.g. facism

      To take away the most effective means of self-defense, security, protection - to disarm the good citizens - is to create a vacuum- which WILL be filled and ruled by evil



    • brufleth, on 10/12/2007, -9/+53I'm a liberal but gun bans don't make much sense in many cases.

      People can get guns. They can cross state borders, buy them from yard sales, etc. They're out there and available if you at least look old enough and are remotely with it you can get one. If someone intends to injure someone else a rule (not even a law in this case) is not going to make them go, "Oh gee, guns are banned on school campus. Guess I'll just have to use my sling shot." Instead they'll simply assume that nobody else (read: All the people who are not insanely trying to shoot innocents) will be unarmed and they'll be free to go nuts.

      This is in part a simplification but the logic stands that people who are going to break a major law like "don't kill people" are perfectly willing to break a much smaller rule like "pls don't carry a gun here kthx."
    • macatak, on 10/12/2007, -47/+14It constantly amazes me how entrenched the right to own a gun is in Americans.

      People keep saying "if someone wants a gun they will get a gun". well let me tell you that if I want a gun to shoot my girlfriend, I pretty quickly realise that would require hanging around trying to find someone who knows someone who knows someone who can get me a gun (they are illegal in Britain. Some guy shot some kids and we decided we'd had enough). And I'm not gonna do that. I'm gonna knife her (and only her).

      Then again you guys had a civil war before you gave up on slavery, so I guess something less obviously bad would require even greater turmoil to sort out.
    • bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -28/+8I got modded down, i can only assume, because I was misunderstood.

      The "right to bear arms" is not an intrinsic right simply because of the fuzzy value of the term "arms".

      Does your right extend to a handgun? a semi? a full auto? fertilizer bombs? chemical weapons? sniper rifles?
      why/why not? (no i won't answer the question. Please think about this before you respond)
    • Dolomite, on 10/12/2007, -14/+45one gun weilding student could have stopped this whole thing. i never wanted a gun before, but this incident has me thinking of getting a few.
    • philz, on 10/12/2007, -19/+10omatsei,

      let me be the first who calls ***** on your 'states/countries with fewer restrictions'. Switzerland may have more guns per citizen than the US, but our restrictions are as tight as for example Germany. You need a reason to have a gun, you cannot just walk into store and buy one.
    • jordansampson, on 10/12/2007, -11/+32Here is an idea, instead of using this horrible tragedy to push an agenda, why don't we take a little time for the magnitude of what has just happened to sink in. These where real people the same age as most of us. Before today they had the same stupid problems as the rest of us; does that cute girl in the front row notice me? Am i going to make my raid time with finals coming up? Now, they are dead, and instead of showing an once of sympathy, you are attempting to use this event to further their cause. These are people, with mothers, fathers, and siblings who will NEVER get to see their loved one again, give it a few days before talking about gun reforms (that never would have prevented this). Instead of wasting your time on here, call your mother, your father, your best friend and let them know how important they are. Hell, take them out for a beer and just enjoy the life that you have, that these children were robbed of.
    • cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+32To Julolidine, in addition to omatsei's response, I give you "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott. This book has changed many people's minds with regards to the necessity of firearms in the prevention of crime. These people include the AUTHOR himself. He started out with a goal of showing that concealed carry laws contribute to gun crimes and came away with the opposite conclusion. I would suggest you, and everyone that believes guns cause crime, read it. You will have your mind opened more than you think.
    • omatsei, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34@jordansampson: I absolutely agree, but part of honoring their memory is trying to prevent this type of thing from happening again. I firmly believe that if there had been law-abiding people in that building carrying their concealed weapons, that nutcase might have only been able to kill a few people before he was taken down himself. No, it wouldn't have prevented it, but it might have saved some lives.

      I actually work in an Engineering building at a different, but large, university. We're not allowed to carry weapons on campus, and right now, I'm scared ***** that someone might snap and do something similar. If I wasn't a law-abiding citizen, I'd carry my gun anyway, and if an incident did occur, I might be able to stop it before more people die. To understand what I mean, check out Suzanna Hupp's story about the Luby's Massacre in 1991. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp
    • bcasper1, on 10/12/2007, -35/+12here is the problem with the 2nd amendment. When it was established the need for citizens to bare arms was high due to the fact we revolted against British control. But the weapons at the creation of the amendment were single shot rifles which took a trained soldier 30sec to reload. Today we have oozies and other automatic weapons which can kill dozens of people in a matter of two hours apparantly. The writters of the Bill of Rights did not intend for regular citizens to bare such leathal weapons because knowledge of their eventual creation did not exist. As weapons evolve so should the laws governing them. WE ARE ABIDING BY A LAW BASED ON A TECHNOLOGY OVER 200 YEARS AGO.
    • mstoneburner, on 10/12/2007, -7/+52What's with all the "Americans are pathetic" nonsense? The mass murderer in question was a Korean national.
    • PommyBrit, on 10/12/2007, -28/+12So a madman goes crazy with a gun and you Americans think the answer is to give everyone a gun, eh?
    • Riluske, on 10/12/2007, -21/+12Yeah, probably get dugg down for this but oh well.

      This is the stupidest story I have seen on digg in a long time. Our nation should be focusing on helping the people affected by this horrific tragedy. Instead, we have ***** like this trying to make it a political issue. Gun control is not the issue here. The issue is that 32 people are dead. 32 mothers, fathers, sons and daughters.

      Grow up and stop using this tragedy to propagate your beliefs.
    • Anigav, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25@bcasper1

      That's incorrect. Although rifles back then did take quite a long time to reload, the issue was more about having firepower equal to those of army soldiers as a means of defense from oppression. The founding fathers wanted the average citizen to have access to small arms that could be used to fight a tyrannical government. If they had semi-auto rifles back then I'm willing to bet the average citizen would be allowed to own one.
    • ajkrik, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25hey, here's a thought, let's make it illegal to kill people!
      Oh, that's right, murder already is a crime. Well, let's DO SOMETHING like ban guns. Or maybe ban romantic relationships going bad, or banning alcohol and driving, or cigarettes or heart disease. . .
      Bad ***** happens. Try to accept it and make changes to the underlying source of violent behavior.

      I'm sorry these people were killed. I'm actually surprised it doesn't happen more often . . . don't get any ideas fellas.
    • hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -20/+6I think it's inappropriate to attempt to use this tragedy to push a political agenda regarding gun control or gun rights. I will note for the record that Virginia does not have onerous laws designed to gut the 2nd Amendment. They have no restrictions on concealed weapons permits. They don't require background checks at gun shows or for private sales. There are no limits on assault weapons. They have no laws banning cheaply made "Saturday Night Specials." They've even passed legislation to make sure that local gun laws can never be stricter than the state's regulations.

      So Virginia already has the types of gun laws (or lack thereof) that the submitter would approve of -- and this tragedy happened anyway. There was no insidious liberal plot to prevent the good people of Virginia from exercising their right to bear arms, and this tragedy happened anyway.

      Frankly, it disgusts me that this tragedy is being exploited to further a political agenda before the corpses are even cold.

      Buried and pissed upon. Someone should be ashamed of themselves.
    • OrlyonokEaglet, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4You should have a nationwide referendum on this. It's an issue everyone can understand and decide. For example if I don't wan't a gun myself and wouldn't trust people around me carrying a gun - I would vote against allowing guns.

      Instead, there are lobbyists and hobbyists deciding for everyone else and then there's the ancient law...
    • theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -8/+25@bcaspar1

      here is the problem with the 1st amendment. When it was established the need for citizens to communicate was high due to the fact we revolted against British control. But the printing presses at the creation of the amendment were hand set presses which took a trained newspaperman 30min to reload. Today we have computers and digital presses which can print out tens of thousands of newspapers in a matter of two hours apparently. The writers of the Bill of Rights did not intend for regular citizens to bare such powerful word processors because knowledge of their eventual creation did not exist. As communications evolve so should the laws governing them. WE ARE ABIDING BY A LAW BASED ON A TECHNOLOGY OVER 200 YEARS AGO.

    • zonk3r, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5An armed citizen with a permit stopped the killers rampage.

      And it has come out today that the shooter purchased at least one of his guns legally.

      Not really sure what the point of this article is other than to try to promote guns and their ownership... something I've never really understood and I have a bunch of them myself.
    • mapkinase, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2Well, "liberals supporting 2nd amendment", who is then pushing gun banning and bashing then? Aren't Moore liberal? Who is mocking late Heston?
    • hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15@mapkinase: "Well, "liberals supporting 2nd amendment", who is then pushing gun banning and bashing then? Aren't Moore liberal? Who is mocking late Heston?"

      Well, no one is pushing gun bans that I am aware of, not even Michael Moore. Watch "Bowling for Columbine" again. Moore makes a point that it is not gun ownership that is the problem, but gun culture in the U.S. He points out that Canadians own many more guns per capita than the U.S., but have very little gun violence.

      There is a huge straw man argument in this thread. It is accepted as fact that "liberals" will exploit and politicize this tragedy to pass gun control laws. I have not heard of anyone in the government or media attempting to do so. On the other hand, the prevailing wisdom in the thread appears to be that exploiting and politicizing this tragedy to attack gun control laws is perfectly acceptable -- even though Virginia already has some of the most lax gun control laws in the country.

      I don't think it is appropriate to use these students' deaths to score cheap political points in a gun control debate. It's true that if someone else on campus was armed, maybe they could have stopped him. It is also true that if Virginia had tougher gun control laws, maybe a foriegn national couldn't have purchased a small armory with no background checks from a gun show.

      Laws passed in the aftermath of a tragedy often are ill-conceived and have unforeseen repercussions. Look at the Patriot Act. This isn't the right time to debate this issue, and it is disrespectful to the victims to use their deaths to promote a narrow political agenda.
    • birkoph, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2"An Armed Citizen With A Permit Stopped The Last VA College Shooting Rampage"

      - I though he shot himself.

      Yeah right, The media is probably hyping up guns so that they blame video games.

      Guns saved the day, blame video games instead.



    • BigManOnCampus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16I don't quite understand what I'm seeing/reading here. I see a lot of people who claim to be liberal and pro-2nd-amendment, pro-gun-ownership/concealed-carry. But when I hear most of the democratic elected officials speak, I do not hear anything close to the kind of support I'm reading here. All I ever hear from the democratic leaders is how Guns are bad, Europe banned weapons so we should too, etc..etc..

      Something is obviously out-of-whack. Either this sample of liberals here is biased by the title of the digg article (probably the most likely case), or the people voting in democratic primaries don't really consider it an important enough issue to select democrats who value civilian gun ownership. The latter is far more concerning.
    • tsf5000, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14@naidim

      I'm a liberal and I own a gun. How do you explain that?

    • 2k3john, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@bcasper1

      You convey your argument in such a forthright and certain manner that it's scary. Never underestimate the power of a spellchecker to lend credence to your contentions. "Bare Arms" are the result of tank-tops. "Oozies," I would guess, occasionally escape from babies' diapers. This reminds me of the woman who contemptuously yelled at her husband on a nationally televised game show: "The sun doesn't rise in the East, you idiot! It rises in the South!! Ain't you never been to Mexico???"
    • Shuk, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8I must say that I usually agree with the digg mentality on most issues, but might I say something against the prevailing view and not get dugg down? Let me just acknowledge that yes, if more citizens carried guns at that university on that day, the shooter may have been stopped, but what about other situations?

      What about situations where an unstable, but previously law abiding citizen with a gun just goes nuts and on the spur of the moment pulls out a gun in an emotional situation? What about situations where the killer decides within the span of half a day that he wants to go on a gun rampage and easily finds a gun in his dad's house?

      Also, what about the availability of guns? If more law abiding citizens want more guns, fine, but then you also have more guns being manufactured, creeping into poorer areas, getting into the hands of unstable or desperate citizens. If it was hard to find a gun, an emotional person might go on a knife rampage instead, or might not have that kind of drive to go out and search the seediest parts of the neighbourhood for a gun to buy.

      Nevertheless, I think it's unfair to use this as a platform as a point for pro or anti-gun legislation. In the discourse on gun legislation, lets use statistics of the wider situation, nation-wide.
    • Babyknuckle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@nixfu

      The linked article doesn't mention this, but the two law students who stopped the gunman were off-duty police officers, FYI
    • birkoph, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3048108

      "... he killed 30 more people in four classrooms before shooting himself in the head."

      GET YOUR ***** FACTS RIGHT!!!
    • fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15@birkoph: "After two armed southwest Virginia law students stopped a campus shooting rampage in January 2002, a Second Amendment group at a northern Virginia law school decided it was time to change their own school's ban on guns."

      First: Calm the heck down.
      Second: It says January 2002, not April 2007. That means it's a different incident.
      Third: The article linked was published in 2002.
      Fourth: The article linked is about events at George Mason University School of Law, not Virginia Tech.
      Fifth: If the the suspect in the VT shootings had a permit, then it would not be inaccurate to say that "An Armed Citizen With A Permit Stopped The Last VA College Shooting Rampage". Misleading? Certainly, but not inaccurate.

      Just straightening up the facts for people.
    • stinkypyper, on 10/12/2007, -13/+9I am from Canada where there is much stricter gun laws. You can get a hunting rifle(s), but other types of weapons are very difficult to get. This works, we have very low crime rates here. Your second amendment was written in a completely different time; before assault rifles; before semi-automatic handguns; when your country was under constant threat; when your people lived far apart; when weapons where muskets that took 30 seconds to load and fire. The second amendment guarantees you the National Guard, not a personal right to an arsenal.

      These days a lot of people live in large urban settings. Allowing your citizens to carry very deadly and compact weapons in these settings is absurd. Whether you like it or not the world has crazy people. When these people have guns ***** happens. If there where no guns the nut job who did this at most could show up with a knife or a baseball bat, something a group of unarmed citizens can deal with. These guns don't protect people, they create a large killing zone that stops people from protecting themselves.

      As for everyone Else's response about other countries having more guns per capita and lower crime rates, it's a different situation. Canada, for instance, has a high number of guns per capita, so does Switzerland. However, Canada is the worlds second largest country with many citizens living in remote regions where guns(hunting rifles) are necessary for survival. Switzerland has a large Army Reserve force who are required to keeps there weapons and a sealed canister of ammunition at home, and are required to present them regularly for inspection.
    • codmate, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4"People can get guns. They can cross state borders, buy them from yard sales, etc."

      You can buy a gun in a 'yard sale' in the States?!
      Did I read that wrong?!

      Wow - you *really* have problems!
      Good luck to you all!
    • Popbot, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9The fact about the second amendment is it was created to allow states to have armed militias (important to note, militias were not militias in today's sense, they were more like the national guard), because at the time most people didn't like the idea of a central government having a huge army that could control them. I believe the constitution is a living document, so certainly the interpretation has changed, but it is incorrect to say the constitution was written originally so as to allow everyday citizens to own guns and carry/use them as they please.

      The biggest problem here is people really think more or less guns is the answer. Personally I don't think we should try to restrict or loosen gun laws. The problem is that this really isn't a issue (that sound weird I know). You can't legislate away crazy people or their guns. It won't work. When a tragedy like this happens, everyone on both side scrambles to show how the other side caused the massacre. But the truth is the Columbines and the Blacksburgs are not really preventable. We, as a culture, like to believe they are, and there is something we can do to prevent them because it comforts us, but there isn't. They are like lightning strikes or earthquakes, unpredictable and certainly deadly, but we don't try and legislate away lava every time a volcano erupts. No one likes to hear it, especially the close ones of the victims, but frankly the nation as a whole would be better served if we simply mourned and moved on. We need to control what we can, and not waste energy on that which we cannot change. It's the cost of living in a free society, the only absolutely positive way to curb gun violence is to take away all guns and become a 1984-esque police state to ensure total compliance, which is completely unacceptable. Legislation should respond to the needs of society, not try and become an active force in social change.

      On a personal note, if you go out and buy a gun just because of this incident, I think you are an idiot. You should go buy a safer car, or stop smoking, or start exercising, or do one of a million other things that are more likely to keep you healthy and alive for longer. Again, no one likes to hear about bike safety because it's just not as sexy as guns are, but that is the cold hard statistical truth. Spend that $1000 you would have used on gun to enjoy life. Please.
    • gasconne, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15@stinkypyper and popbot: The Second Amendment was written decades before the National Guard was established. Federal law lists American citizens between the ages of 18-40 as the "unorganized militia" to support the "organized militia" known as the US military, so the "well-regulated militia" phrase applies to people outside of the government-run military. Furthermore, the 2A says "right of the people." The other amendments to the Constitution that use that phrase are always interpreted to give rights to all citizens of the United States, not just people who enlist in the National Guard. Therefore, it is the people, meaning US citizens, who have the right to keep and bear arms. If we don't, we don't have the right to free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, or any other right listed as belonging to the people, unless we're enlisted in the National Guard. I find it endlessly fascinating that people who claim to be the intelligent members of this debate can't parse basic English when it comes to the Second Amendment.

      Yours, a gun-carrying liberal queer pagan (AKA the right wing's worst nightmare)
    • beosnitch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14
      @macatak

      Unlike you, many Americans feel they deserve a fair chance at defending themselves
      if they ever find themselves in a situation that calls for it.
      The crimes at VT were not even committed by an american.

      I hope you are not pretending that the British are more civilized than Americans
      because they have decided to give away their right to self defense.
      In the absence of guns in Britain, your countrymen slash each other to bits
      with sharpened pieces of metal.

      Read up.

      "UK is knife crime capital"
      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1626691.ece

      Have a nice day.


    • Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I support the second amendment. People deserve the right to defend themselves because bottom line, no matter what state our government is in or how many laws there are, there are ***** up assholes in the world who will find a way to kill you if they want. Taking away guns just makes it harder for good people to do anything in the face of violent brutes. I just hope the state of mind in people does not force America to resort to a nationwide wild-west.
    • Popbot, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2It's ironic that you would chastise me so condescendingly yet commit the same error you have claimed I made. I said the militias were LIKE (as in SIMILAR TO, so as to provide some common ground or point of reference) the national guard . So you proceeded to assume I meant I thought there was a national guard, and that I believed that 2nd said only they could carry firearms. I think someone we both know said it best: "I find it endlessly fascinating that people who claim to be the intelligent members of this debate can't parse basic English... ".

      Do you take exception to my statement that the 2nd amendment was not "written originally so as to allow everyday citizens to own guns and carry/use them AS THEY PLEASE."? (yah I know I just quoted myself) Certainly the constitution gives citizens the right to bear arms, but it is a fallacy to say it was a blanket statement allowing unfettered use of a deadly implement. The amendment insured the government could not take away guns, just as it cannot take away property (without due process), but we do not think it is unconstitutional for the government to restrict how we use our property (cars, zoning), why do we think it is unconstitutional for the government to restrict how we use our guns? Again, I don't believe current law should be changed. Although I do admit don't understand why anyone would object to a waiting period or background check, I would think pro-gun activists would be all for it as it would be another step in helping to keep guns out of the hands of "the crazies", thus making gun ownership less objectionable to non-gun owners.
    • Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The national guard IS a militia. Just sanctioned by the military.
    • ffejrey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:
      “ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ”

      The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Last time I checked, we are the People. Enough said.
    • tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@theblooms
      If he runs, it will not be on a platform of gun control.
    • glxyjones, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I support the 2nd amendment...

      I just don't see the need for someone to own an AK-47 or some other automatic/semi automatic weapon. I believe people should be allowed to own guns for protection and hunting, if you so desire. Automatic weapons do not fit that criteria. I also believe a more thorough investigation should be done before you can buy a gun.

      Granted, such a ban would not have prevented such a tragedy that happened yesterday, but perhaps it will stop one from happening in the future.
    • GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I'm a liberal (whatever that means), but I am very much "on the fence" when it comes to gun control. This is where Digg shines. We read, try to comprehend, and discuss very difficult issues like this every day. This site is here to help fight ignorance. After reaping the wealth of knowledge and opinion (mostly opinion) here, let me put in my 2 cents. And please read all of the way through before digging up/down. I don't have a clear opinion and I might suprise you...

      First, I am more than just a fan of the bill of rights. I try to live by them. They form the basis of my political opinions and I will fight to whatever end to defend them. If the Bill of Rights guarantees the right to own a firearm, then I will fight for your right to own that weapon. I am not a constitutional lawyer, so I may get a few things wrong, but I do what I can.

      That said, without any convincing studies one way or the other on whether gun control prevents violent crimes, I have based my opinion of gun control completely on the 2nd Amendment. However, my understanding of the 2nd amendment is that it does not prevent gun control. As many here already know, the amendment reads; "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.". An entire half of the amendment is dedicated to prefacing the "right of the People to keep and bear arms" with the need for a "well regulated militia". The "well regulated" part was explicitly added and thus was/is important. Would that not make sense that the right to bear arms be contingent on a persons membership into a "well regulated militia"? This point of view has led me to the opinion that a person should be required to join the militia or the National Guard as it is now known before they can possess a weapon?

      Perhaps at the very least, we can require a gun owner to be a card carrying member of the NRA? The result would be an effective wait period for new gun owners and a self regulated organization that becomes responsible for the filtering of societies "crazies" and the discontinuation of membership for those that have proved themselves to be dangerous. Of course the real bad guys are still going to have guns, but then so will the real good guys.
    • Kavok, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I'm a liberal socialist that is pro-guns. So don't blame gun control on liberals. :)
    • GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@anigav
      "That's incorrect. Although rifles back then did take quite a long time to reload, the issue was more about having firepower equal to those of army soldiers as a means of defense from oppression. The founding fathers wanted the average citizen to have access to small arms that could be used to fight a tyrannical government. If they had semi-auto rifles back then I'm willing to bet the average citizen would be allowed to own one."

      Not that I entirely disagree with the right to bear arms (I think that the right should continue to exist but be well regulated), wouldn't your argument give the right for an average citizen to own a nuke, or at least a few anti-aircraft rockets?
    • GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ theblooms
      "here is the problem with the 1st amendment. When it was established the need for citizens to communicate was high due to the fact we revolted against British control. But the printing presses at the creation of the amendment were hand set presses which took a trained newspaperman 30min to reload. Today we have computers and digital presses which can print out tens of thousands of newspapers in a matter of two hours apparently. The writers of the Bill of Rights did not intend for regular citizens to bare such powerful word processors because knowledge of their eventual creation did not exist. As communications evolve so should the laws governing them. WE ARE ABIDING BY A LAW BASED ON A TECHNOLOGY OVER 200 YEARS AGO"

      Again, not that I disagree with the "right to bear arms" in a "well regulated" way, or with the current state of mass media law, but Isn't your analogy what the DMCA was all about?.
    • etruscan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4"someone that wants a gun will find a way to get it"

      That's because there are too many of them freely available in the United States. Try stepping back one more logical pace and removing the guns from the streets entirely.
    • Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"Try stepping back one more logical pace and removing the guns from the streets entirely."

      How, exactly, do you propose that this be accomplished?
    • Anigav, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@GeneralFault

      I'm referring to small arms. Nuclear weapons are obviously completely different. I am by no means saying we should all be allowed to have nukes, tanks, jet fighters, etc. The everyday American citizen soldier (anyone currently enlisted in the U.S. military) carries "small arms" (pistols, rifles) as an individual. We as citizens should be allowed to carry the same types of small arms (although we cannot carry fully automatic weapons). I am not afraid of my government even though I'm displeased with it. As long as we can bear arms we will rest easy.

      I'm shocked at how quickly Europe has forgotten about the mass murder committed by monsters like Hitler and Stalin. The lives of millions could've been saved had these tyrannical regimes not known to disarm them before committing genocide. Thomas Jefferson said it best:

      "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

      The right to bear arms is an incredible safeguard against this.

      Oh, and for the "enlightened" Europeans:
      More guns does not mean more crime.

      Switzerland vs. Japan (abundant fully automatic weapons in the hands of many vs. a completely disarmed society): both have almost identical murder rates (some of the lowest in the world). Japan's suicide rate is unbelievably high despite having a completely disarmed society.

      The Japanese suicide rate (36.5 per 100,000 males and 14.1 per 100,000 females) is higher than the U.S. rate (17.6 per 100,000 males and 4.1 per 100,000 females) and we're very well-armed (source: http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suiciderates/en/). Russia's suicide rate is unbelievable (70.6 males per 100,000)!!

      Gun crime in the UK:
      "UK banned private ownership of all handguns in 1997. Since 1998 the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled, despite massive increase in number of police personnel" -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control. There are thousands of other documents supporting this notion. I cited wikipedia to save time.

      Own a gun and you'll understand. I had a legally purchased (semi-automatic) AK-47 when I was 18. Go shoot a rifle or a handgun and you'll learn to respect it. Europeans act like having a gun automatically makes you dangerous and almost every European (besides the Swiss) has zero experience with one. Honest citizens follow the laws and criminals don't. The UK has always had lower crime rates than the US (before and AFTER the handgun ban in 1997) but gun crimes rates are going up in the UK. I live in a region of the U.S. that is saturated with gun owners and I've never once witnessed any kind of gun crime. I've had many friends use their weapons for self defense without firing a shot. You won't see this on the use because A) most citizens don't report acts of defense (especially without firing a shot) and B) stories of defense aren't as popular as cold blooded murder.
  • Groovemaster, on 10/12/2007, -47/+30If Virginia tech hadn't recently been forced to ban concealed weapons (in complete contradiction to state law) the killer (or killers - initial reports stated there were two gunmen) wouldn't have been so confident that his victims would be unarmed, and probably wouldn't have carried out the attack.
    • shellacked, on 10/12/2007, -26/+58Great point groovemaster.. he was so concerned about not dying that he shot himself. I can see how fear of getting shot by would have prevented this tragedy. Eloquently spoken.
    • jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -24/+62@shellacked
      " I can see how fear of getting shot by would have prevented this tragedy."

      Fear may not have stopped the attack, but armed teachers/students would have prevented it from turning into a tragedy.
    • the6thReplicant, on 10/12/2007, -44/+24can someone please tell me how having teachers and student with guns would have made VT any safer? sure maybe this guy would of killed 15 instead of over 30, but how many students would have died *during the year* because someone got drunk at a frat party? sure the 2A is fine, I even like it, but I can't see how VT would have been saver with more guns on the campus - can we have stats please
    • ihaveplans, on 10/12/2007, -10/+28I don't know why you think he wouldn't have gone through with it. He committed suicide, remember? I doubt he would be too concerned with being killed in the process. Oh, and the fact that he was totally nuts. Don't try to apply a rational argument to his hypothetical actions.
    • flamingmb, on 10/12/2007, -7/+25"the killer wouldn't have been so confident that his victims would be unarmed, and probably wouldn't have carried out the attack."

      if you go into a biulding killing any one in your path I dont think you would be right enough in the head to worry if anyone else had a gun.
    • over9, on 10/12/2007, -27/+10Since anti murder laws didn't stop anyone killing each other, we should legalize murder as well right? What's wrong with America and common sensibilities.
    • Skeptic1970, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18Gun's don't stop mass murdering gunmen, peolpe do.

      After what happened on with flights being highjacked, I really do not understand why no one/group of peolpe tried to rush the guy with the gun. Timed right/with a bit of luck they would have disarmed him and perhaps prevented some of the carnage. Of course they could have been easily shoot and killed. but where is Americas sense of self sacrifice and laying it down for the greater good.

      That rant said, I would most likely pissed my pants and cowered in the corner then got shot between the eyes with out lifting my finger.
    • Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -12/+36http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=372361

      More Guns = Less Crime

      Here's the stats.

      Confirming More Guns, Less Crime

      JOHN R. LOTT Jr.
      State University of New York - Department of Economics
      FLORENZ PLASSMANN
      State University of New York - Department of Economics
      JOHN E. WHITLEY
      University of Adelaide - School of Economics December 9, 2002


      Abstract:
      Analyzing county level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5 and 2.3 percent for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect. For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 billion and $3 billion per year.

      Ayres and Donohue have simply misread their own results. Their own most generalized specification that breaks down the impact of the law on a year-by-year basis shows large crime reducing benefits. Virtually none of their claims that their county level hybrid model implies initial significant increases in crime are correct. Overall, the vast majority of their estimates based on data up to 1997 actually demonstrate that right-to-carry laws produce substantial crime reducing benefits. We show that their models also do an extremely poor job of predicting the changes in crime rates after 1997.
    • Timmmm, on 10/12/2007, -30/+12> More Guns = Less Crime

      I call *****. I mean shenanigans.

      Only in America do you think it is your 'right' to own guns. Certainly no one in the UK thinks they would be better off if everyone could buy a gun.

      E.g. from the BBC (mother talking about her son who was at VT): "The first day he started there last year, he e-mailed us to say a man had shot a police officer on campus and it was evacuated, so it brought home the strange ideas they have about guns in the country."

      I don't have statistics but random shootings seem to be far more common in America. The only one I can think of here was Dunblane.
    • Sarajevo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9@groovemaster
      "If Virginia tech hadn't recently been forced to ban concealed weapons (in complete contradiction to state law) "....
      It's not in contravention to state law. It's a property owners right(i.e. the school) to allow/disallow weapons on their property.
      I support the 2nd, but I'm not about to allow a stranger on my property with a weapon.
    • farkdog, on 05/20/2008, -4/+26>can someone please tell me how having teachers and student with guns would have made VT any safer?

      Because you would have had at least a chance to defend yourself against a deadly attack?

      >sure maybe this guy would of killed 15 instead of over 30, but how many students would have died *during the year* because
      >someone got drunk at a frat party?

      Do you realize that people who go to the trouble to get a concealed carry permit are statistically some of the most law-abiding folks in the nation? I'd be willing to bet you a million bucks more people are killed by drunk drivers leaving frat parties than from firearm deaths caused by concealed carry holders.

      In fact, a Google turns up this:

      In 2005, 12,945 people died from drunk drivers:
      http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2006/12/26/75423.htm

      But in 2005, only 10,100 people died from ALL firearms.
      http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html

      I bet you if you looked at the number of firearms deaths caused by people with concealed carry permits it would be less than 1000.

    • Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27@Timmmm

      We don't think it's our right - we KNOW it is our right. See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

      Amendment II

      A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
    • codmate, on 10/12/2007, -25/+8"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

      Hahahahahahaha....

      So some evil future government has taken away habus corpus and loads of civil rights (oh - hang on, your current government has done all that and worse...), and the 'american people' rise up with their guns and take back control.

      What a quaint idea.

      If the American population were to organise themselves into rag-tag militias, do you really think they would stand a hope in hell against AH-64 attack helicopters and big fat tanks?

      Why are Americans so keen on civil war anyway? If you don't want a civil war, why arm yourselves for one?
      It all seems like total madness from here in the UK. Maybe this stuff was relevant when the constitution was written - it's certainly nothing to do with reality now!
    • shutupanddie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Tanks/Helicopters are not anti-infantry weapons. See Vietnam, Iraq.
    • thebaron2, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25@codmate

      "If the American population were to organise themselves into rag-tag militias, do you really think they would stand a hope in hell against AH-64 attack helicopters and big fat tanks?

      Why are Americans so keen on civil war anyway? If you don't want a civil war, why arm yourselves for one?
      It all seems like total madness from here in the UK. Maybe this stuff was relevant when the constitution was written - it's certainly nothing to do with reality now!"

      That's funny... about 225 years ago a whole lot of folks from your side of the pond thought the same thing. Surprising how that worked out.

      I also don't remember anyone saying that they WANTED a civil war - where, exactly, did you get that gem from? I don't WANT my house to get pulverized by a hurricane, but I'm still going to go out and buy non-perishables so that I'm prepared. How that seems like "total madness" is beyond me. And which civil rights have we American citizens lost, while I'm here calling out your *****? I can walk outside and do anything today that I was also allowed to do 5, 6, 7, years ago.

      But of course you know a lot more about my rights in my country, seeing as how you live here... oh wait...
    • codmate, on 10/12/2007, -17/+6@ thebaron2

      Firstly you're confusing the war of independance with a potential civil war, which is what the American constitution protects your right to have. Isn't the idea that you can easily rise up and overthrow an evil govenment by force? It's not about foriegn invasions - you have a large army to deal with them.

      Isn't the idea of violent revolution against your government rather brutalistic, backward and primative?
      This is the given reason for the 'right to bear arms' though.
      I don't think Americans actually ever consider the harsh reality presented by this premise, and think about what such an armed struggle would actually be like, and if indeed it could ever realistically happen or have a desirable effect. It seems to be something that residents of the USA just don't question.
      It seems to be more like "Oh - of course we need guns! What if our government goes all avil and we can't defend ourselves?".
      This assumes there would be goodies ('the people') vs baddies ('the government or whoever').
      What a simplistic view of the world.

      Secondly - yes, it's a good idea to protect yourself from natural disasters.
      The truth is though, that by effectivly preparing for civil war, and living in constant fear of gun crime as a result, America has created its own natural disaster of huge gun crime and a culture of violence.

      Thirdly - if you want to know how your rights have been erroded - google for The Patriot Act and habus corpus. If you're going to rise up against the goverment, surely now is the time...
      ...thought not.
    • Anigav, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17@codmate

      This is a little foolish. Americans are just smart enough to realize that there is no correlation between the availability of guns and violent deaths. Take Switzerland / Japan for example. Both countries have similar murder rates (some of the lowest in the world) but Japan has a higher suicide rate than the US. Switzerland has a high number of firearms possessed by the general population while Japan has virtually no firearms.

      You'll probably say that the UK's murder rate is lower than the US rate because of the firearms ban but the truth is the UK murder rate has always been lower (before and after the gun bans in the UK).

      I've grown up in the southern US and I'm at a southern University and I cannot think of one male friend that doesn't own at least one weapon. My campus is flooded with armed citizens and I feel just as safe here as I have felt in the UK and across the rest of Europe.

      It's ironic that you mention this:

      "So some evil future government has taken away habus corpus and loads of civil rights (oh - hang on, your current government has done all that and worse...), and the 'american people' rise up with their guns and take back control."

      We all know Europe's 20th century track record on government stability. I'm sure the mass execution of millions of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, and the mentally handicapped would've been a little more difficult had Hitler not ensured they were disarmed before he captured them. I'm also sure Stalin wouldn't have had the success in genocide had he not disarmed his population either. It's also ironic that a European is not more afraid or skeptical of his or her government.
    • JArrodIsCool, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@Sarajevo
      "It's not in contravention to state law. It's a property owners right(i.e. the school) to allow/disallow weapons on their property.
      I support the 2nd, but I'm not about to allow a stranger on my property with a weapon."

      Not really. Public universities, some by law, are required to allow anyone to enter their campus. So, it's not necessarily private. I agree with you, I would not allow some stranger on my property who I do not trust. Everyone has that right for any reason. But from what I understand, universities that hold special information/etc. are supposed to be open to everyone.
    • codmate, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5@anigav - look at the *policy* of the countries involved and not just the laws as they stand.

      Swizerland and Japan have *very* stringently enforced laws.
      In many states of the USA you seem to be able to leave your fully loaded gun in an unlocked wooden draw with a sign reading 'burglers please take' in big red letters.

      Government instability has little to do with gun control - this wasn't the point I was making.
      I'm asking you to question the idea that guns somehow protect you from your own government, and also asking you to question why you aren't choosing this moment to rise up and defeat your current government.

      Maybe you should visit a few different countries.
      I went to college in a really isolated place and nobody around for miles, except farmers, had guns - let alone the students. Surprisingly, since nobody owned a gin, nobody got shot (except somebody's dog by a crazy farmer).

      Personally, if I were to live in a country where gins were more prevelant, I would feel incredibly paranoid and depressed, like most of America...

      Gun control is not about taking away legally owned guns.
      It's about making sure the people that do own these weapons are properly responsible for them and:
      ...Don't have a criminal record
      ...Keep the weapon unloaded in a securely locked metal cabinet (in parts and in seperate sections with different locks if the gun comes to pieces) that is screwed to the wall. Ammunition must be kept in a seperate, similarly secured cabinet in a different room.
      ...Have the gun for a legitimate purpose which must be given at the time of the licence application
      ...Are subject to inspections to make sure they are complying with the regulations
      ...Are fully trained in the use and safety proceedures of the weapon

      Any person requiring a weapon for legit use should be OK with the above.
      If not - face it - you want a gun for it's own sake, you probably have a small penis, Bruce Willis is your hero and you think you can solve any problem by shooting somebody :p
    • ScionAltera, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@Timmmm

      We DO have a right to own guns in the USA. It's the second of ten items in our Bill of Rights. There is some argument about whether it allows individuals to own personal guns or whether it allows only for groups to organize into militias for defense purposes, but that is irrelevant to this discussion because the first interpretation is the one in use by existing law.

      Nobody is seriously suggesting that we _give everybody_ a gun. I personally have no interest in owning or using one. I'm saying that if you can pass a background check to legally purchase a gun and take the classes required to get a concealed weapons permit, you should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. There is no way to ensure that crazy people never get guns and go on rampages. It is impossible to confiscate all the guns in the USA. I would encourage all gun owners to use their guns to fight back against law enforcement if such a thing were to happen. The crazy people will get guns and go on rampages regardless of whether guns are legal or not. If there are gun carrying, law abiding citizens around when the rampages happen, they will be stopped before they get out of hand.

      The argument is often made that having guns around will increase the number of crimes of passion... an angry drunk with a legal weapon and a permit pulls out his gun and fatally shoots the guy who pissed him off. It's not impossible that this would happen. I'd say the shooter should be tried for his crime and put in jail for a very long time. Everybody who applies for a permit to carry a gun understands the laws that apply if they happen to actually shoot someone (it's part of the class), and takes those laws very seriously. The chances of getting away with shooting someone are miniscule, and everybody knows that.
    • Guydevice, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@codmate:
      "Government instability has little to do with gun control - this wasn't the point I was making.
      I'm asking you to question the idea that guns somehow protect you from your own government, and also asking you to question why you aren't choosing this moment to rise up and defeat your current government."

      While it is true that most Americans hate Bush and disapprove of the war, most are unaware of how corrupt their government truly is. This is largely due to the mainstream media being bought out for fifty years. If not for the Internet, I would probably still be in support of the war in Iraq and would still be thinking of issues in terms of left vs. right. Most people I have talked to have not even heard about the Real ID Act that was recently passed or plans for a North American Union or the 600 FEMA camps placed throughout the U.S. in case of "mass immigration". Nor do they know about our corrupt Federal Reserve system and how little of the 1/3 of their paychecks that gets stolen by the government gets put to good use.

      Those who do realize the dire state that our country is in are hopeful for the next presidential election. A lot of us are trying to get the word out about Ron Paul, and we believe that during the presidential debates he will expose the mainstream candidates as phonies who won't address the important issues.

      BTW, Britain isn't any better off with its being a member of the EU, having one camera (some using children's voices to police delinquents) for every fourteen people, and having its own national ID legislation. How long until people start getting charged for thought crime?
  • caponumen, on 10/12/2007, -13/+34The dems have largely dropped this platform plank (finally).
    The statistics in right to carry states being incontrovertible.
    But they are still very much anti second amendment.

    Once again the facts prove that law enforcement is powerless to help you in this type of situation.
    • JigoroKano, on 10/12/2007, -18/+21"The statistics in right to carry states being incontrovertible."

      Actually the correlation between crime and gun freedom is insignificant in comparison to the correlation between crime and poverty. The NRA likes to state that the national (or a particular state's) violent crime rate has gone down as gun rights have gone up. This is true. What they do not state is that we have also come out of a recession. If you look at the crime rate changes on a state by state basis and correct for the poverty correlation by fitting to both poverty and gun rights, your incontrovertible statistics vanish into thin air.

      Unfortunately, it is no more reasonable to argue that the lack of pirates is causing global warming.
  • Sub7, on 10/12/2007, -42/+13WOW! I'm sure glad that you guys in the US get to carry guns to defend yourselves against this kind of psycho that is allowed to walk into a corner shop and buy any firearms he likes. That makes real good sense.

    Morons.

    When are you going to learn that giving firearms to the public is a bad idea? Lets say everyone was armed in that school, it would be like one big wild west shootout. That's NOT better than having no guns at all mmmkay?

    'Worst School Shooting Ever' ...think about it, there should be no guns for school kids. Just the thought of the title of this whole story doesn't make sense god gave a mule. It's like saying 'Worst Gay Gang Rape by Police of Man Held In Custody Ever' it just shouldn't EVER happen and you stupid ***** yanks actively encourage this with your YE-HA WHOOPASS attitude.

    Maybe this will make you sit up and pay attention if anything good is going to come of it.

    GUNS ARE BAD THINGS PERIOD.
    • gzim, on 10/12/2007, -15/+34The problem is that people who want to use weapons against others for harm will get them regardless of the law. Criminals will break laws, that's what they do. Making gun laws to stop people who are already committed to ignoring them is a waste of legislative time and further restricts our limited civil rights.
    • JigoroKano, on 10/12/2007, -22/+25@gzim

      That argument only works in the U.S. Try to get hold of a handgun in Britain.

      Gun rights really seem to be an all or nothing proposition. If a criminal can go one city or state away and easily acquire a handgun (legally or illegally), then yeah I really don't see much point to local gun restrictions... at least not without somebody providing me with some kind of evidence.

      But if the entire U.S. were run like Britain with hunting weapons requiring permits and concealable firearms being pretty much illegal, then our murder rates would probably drop hard. Even when Britain's economy tanks and their overall crime rates surpass that of the U.S., their murder rates still remain lower than ours. I can find nothing to attribute this to other than handgun access.
    • flamingmb, on 10/12/2007, -11/+31"GUNS ARE BAD THINGS PERIOD. "
      well so are bombs, and you cant really restrict those when crimials use them (remember the bus bombings?) Criminals will find things to hurt other people, be it guns or fertilizer bombs.
      "there should be no guns for school kids" this wasent a kid, it was a crazy man. You make it sound like it happened in elementry school and some 5 year old kid did it. The head line could have been "worst subway shooting" it had nothing to do with youth.
      "you stupid ***** yanks actively encourage this with your YE-HA WHOOPASS attitude."
      Contrary to popular belief not many amercians are as you described, you also lost what little credibility you had with that statement.
    • darkhorse85, on 10/12/2007, -13/+25it doesnt necessarily matter whether or not the public actually carries weapons.

      but the very fact that they COULD be armed most likely deters many crimes. look at the stats.....all of the worst mass shootings and murders occur in 'gun-free zones.'
    • over9, on 10/12/2007, -18/+6@flaminggmb: Guns are convinient, bomb are not. Not all shootings are pre planned. Most of them happen at the spur of the moment. What if the enemey is wearing a bullet proof vest? we should be wearing one too and we can keep on going. is this the society you want to live in where everyone is on edge with fear of getting shot.

      @darkhorse: we will look at the stats when you provide us with some.
    • Casedot, on 10/12/2007, -16/+18jeez havn't you Brits seen Snatch? anyone can get guns on your little island.

      seriously though, guns have the potential to save as many lives as they can take; but while it is unfortunate that pretty much any criminal can get a gun, it is tradition and it isn't going to change any time soon.

      and I'd rather have a country full of whoopass than smug fairies...

    • dixta, on 10/12/2007, -17/+10@casedot......

      "jeez havn't you Brits seen Snatch? anyone can get guns on your little island." - I so hope you're kidding. Movies Are Not Reality.

      "and I'd rather have a country full of whoopass than smug fairies..." - I'd rather live in a country that doesn't have to worry about ***** like you advocating gun ownership and "solving the problem" by escalating it.
    • jakeweston, on 10/12/2007, -18/+13@casedot:

      "pretty much any criminal can get a gun"

      I don't think it's the criminals, it's the fact that anyone can think "hey, maybe I feel a little nuts today" and cause carnage with their readily available gun.

      Laugh at the Brits all you like, but it's just bizarre watching all the coverage of "why, oh why, does this happen" and proposed solutions. Arm the students! Remote machine guns in the halls! Require students to be armed...
    • Casedot, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16yeah I don't mean to talk down on all Brits but I hate being called a stupid American because some coked out psychopath shot people because he didn't get enough hugs when we was a toddler.

      Here's some numbers i was thinking about (from google):
      United Kingdom — Population: 60,609,153 (July 2006 est.)
      United States — Population: 298,444,215 (July 2006 est.)

      Could it be that maybe it is much easier to control guns on an island that holds less than a quarter of the population of the US? The US is really large, so it's not like someone can go out door to door and get all the guns, ESPECIALLY IN VIRGINA. Also a greater population has an increased chance of containing psychopathic individuals, but when something like this happens of course it is the product of governmental restrictions and not violent twisted human nature.
    • Casedot, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11@dixta

      i guess the "seriously though" didn't quite get through to you... it's ok, with practice reading gets easier and easier.


      You wanna know something back-asswards? It is a felony to carry a knife in your car but it is only a misdemeanor when you carry a gun.
    • zengonzo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9
      Maybe, casedot, but your point about guns as a responsible defensive measure was somewhat obscured by 'country full of whoopass'.
    • Casedot, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1IGNORE
    • foamcow, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11While it's not true to say that it's easy to get a gun in the UK, a determined individual could do so without too much trouble.

      The thing is, people are lazy. There's an effort involved in getting hold of the weapon, plus one would need to 'get your hands dirty' and perhaps deal with people and go to places otherwise avoided.
      So the point is, the general populus don't ever go anywhere near a gun, ever. Those times when people are at breaking point and in danger of harming others pass before a weapon is obtained.

      The logic of arming the public to protect themselves from the criminals is highly flawed.
      If you believe that someone determined to obtain a gun will do then why do you not believe that by arming everyone you will not make more criminals? Why would there not be more people willing to settle an argument with a weapon rather than harsh words or a fist?
      If you put enough kids in a candy store you can pretty much guarantee that they'll eat the candy.

    • Casedot, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3tell that to all of the rape victims that wish they had guns.

      I think the solution will come slowly with better technology.

      I do agree that arming the public is generally a bad idea, but i believe it isn't something we should prevent. I mean, criminals obtain guns mainly from stealing them from people who own them legitimately. If guns could be tracked easily it would solve some huge problems for us.
    • PsypherX, on 10/12/2007, -9/+31Ok, so the U.S. is now like Britain. HOLY ***** *****... people can't get guns anymore! So what do we do? We start ***** hacking off each other's limbs with samurai swords, leading to a ban on those. THEN, we decide to start stabbing people with knives. Uh oh, guess we'll ban them too. Have fun sawing away at your steak with a goddamn plastic spork, you dumb *****.

      A gun is nothing but a tool. Stupid ***** people kill people. Why can't you ***** anti-gun idiots figure that out?!

      SOCIETY is what needs to be changed. Parents need to raise their ***** kids not to be goddamn inconsiderate ***** insane *****.

      And until they do, I'm ***** packing.
    • hersito, on 10/12/2007, -16/+7 Guess what I live in Argentina and we don't have this kind of shootings and guess why, because we don't let everyone have guns! So if you wanna stop this kind of killings just stop selling guns to anyone. And we do have black market for guns and criminals have guns and we have crimes but for common people like this shooter is not easy to get a gun in the black market so you need much more premeditation and is way more difficult to do something like this. We only had one shooting like this and guess who did it? the son of a cop that had a gun available to take to school. But I'm tying to teach something to people that invaded a country and took war to Iraq in the name of peace so it's difficult to make you think otherwise so digg me down.
    • foamcow, on 10/12/2007, -16/+7"A gun is nothing but a tool. Stupid ***** people kill people. Why can't you ***** anti-gun idiots figure that out?! "

      What a tired argument that is. Why can't the '***** pro-gun idiots" figure out that by allowing these "stupid ***** people" to carry a handgun in public you are basically making it a whole ***** load easier for them to put a hole through the back of your head when you are out walking your dog.
      I think that the argument goes something along the lines of "why make it easier"?

      Tools, by definition of them being a tool, have a purpose. What is the purpose of a handgun?

      Something else that just came to mind.
      If you scale up the guns for all argument to the current situation with Iran.
      Why not let everyone have nuclear weapons? Is the argument that some countries couldn't be trusted not to use them?
      So why trust everyone to carry a concealed weapon in public?

      That said, I'm not anti-gun at all. I just think the arguments presented by the fanatical pro-gun lobby often seriously fail the basic premise of logic.
    • lonnieh, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14"Morons."
      feel better? now bitch slap yourself back into reality. guns are already here by the millions, and i'd personally like to hear your ***** bold proposal on removing millions of guns from circulation. you might as well explain how hunting season is going to work in your proposal as well. good luck with that, idiot.

      also, did you know that certain drugs are illegal here in the US? where can you find them? EVERYWHERE. making guns illegal will not solve our problem.
    • Ishiguro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@hersito

      You are incorrect. Many in Argentina have firearms.

      Here is one guy's story of surviving Argentina

      http://www.buildanark.net/survival_stories/ferfal3_1.html
    • bumblefoot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@casedot

      you seem to be mistaken

      "and I'd rather have a country full of whoopass than smug fairies..." country full of whoopass? change that to lardass and you'll be closer ;-) (well since we're throwing the stereotypes around in a needless discussion).

      it's not like you guys are going to rise up against an evil government if a civil war is needed you'll sit on your ass's and whine about it online like your doing right now
    • geoken, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"So what do we do? We start ***** hacking off each other's limbs with samurai swords, leading to a ban on those. THEN, we decide to start stabbing people with knives. Uh oh, guess we'll ban them too. Have fun sawing away at your steak with a goddamn plastic spork, you dumb *****."

      At some point you have to draw the line. I mean do you support someone owning hand grenades, anthrax or dirty bombs? Whether or not a weapon is banned seems to be dependent on the weapon's ability to inflict mass amounts of damage. Handguns have technologically progressed to the point where they can inflict large amounts of damage on multiple targets in a very short time. Because of this many countries have re-evaluated their positions on guns. For some reason many American's believe that holding on to a desicion made about guns generations ago (when a guns ability to inflict damage was much different than today) is a feasable proposition.
  • PATSCRU, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4thank you sub7...i was beginning to think that my nyquil was working a little too well while reading this thread.
  • icanoop, on 10/12/2007, -12/+26It's not possible to remove all guns from the public. The questions isn't "should the public have guns?", the question is "given that the public has guns, should good people be allowed to carry them?". Comparing the two VA college shootings mentioned, the one which no students had guns had more than 10 times as many deaths as the one which a couple good students had guns. That doesn't prove anything but it does provide evidence that the second amendment isn't crazy like a few idiots claimed above. Guns in the hands of bad people is a bad thing, guns in the hands of good people is a good thing. We can't control whether bad people have guns, we can only control whether good people are allowed to have guns. The choice is obvious.
    • kevincannon, on 10/12/2007, -12/+10@icanoop - You can't really compare this situation to the ASL incident.

      In that incident, the two students who subdued the gunmen, were actually ex-officers, and were trained and experienced in dealing with that type of situation.

      The average member of public is not and could easily cause more danger and deaths in a high pressure situation.
    • bassmule, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Hey, who's going to decide who's good and who's bad? I say GUNS FOR EVERYBODY! We can have shootouts at the OK Corral every day, and it will be OK! (There may be some technical difficulties to sort out about when a person can justify busting a cap into somebody else's noggin, but we can settle that one easily: Give all the Supreme Court Justices Glocks and let 'em SHOOT IT OUT!) Yeah!
  • icanoop, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7"can someone please tell me how having teachers and student with guns would have made VT any safer? sure maybe this guy would of killed 15 instead of over 30, but how many students would have died *during the year* because someone got drunk at a frat party? sure the 2A is fine, I even like it, but I can't see how VT would have been saver with more guns on the campus - can we have stats please"

    I don't think there are relevant stats, but I'd guess about the same number of people that died during the year by stabbing or choking or beating or poisoning or being run down with a car. Or maybe about the same number of people that died on a military because a soldier got drunk. I'm sure it would happen but there's no reason to believe it would happen more than usual.
  • Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20Group after group jumps on the bandwagon to use this shooting to their political advantage.
    Classy. Real classy.
    • kublerross, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15exactly, god forbid we let this incident go by unexploited, i mean its already been almost 24hrs

      these kids families and friends deserve more than this crap, we truly have no class as a nation
    • Fartag, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Well by the title of the digg submission it involves more the right to bear arms than political advantage. Finding ways to prevent things like the tragedy at VT should be discussed ASAP, and it's not too soon. Before the shooting at VT, it's unlikely that students or professors are armed on a college campus, but what about now? Should we assume it won't happen again because it never happened to such a degree before? or prepare in case of copycat attempts or other things in general?

      I think there's a significant proportion of humanity that _should_ be trusted enough with the power to defend themselves and others. We trust a significant proportion with a license to drive a car after all. I believe that many of the people who pass the test / training should be _encouraged_ to carry a concealed weapon to protect themselves and others in society from danger. A nation of people that are intent on protecting each other is a nation that is far more cohesive than one that strips rights away from people because we don't trust them. Also, such a nation would be hard as hell to screw with and I'd love living there.
    • icanoop, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I am not a politician and never will be. I just feel sorry for the people who died yesterday with absolutely no way to defend themselves against that psycho. I hope that if my kids are ever in that situation they will be armed and trained to have a fighting chance.

      When something like this happens it would be irresponsible not to discuss why it happened or how it can be prevented in the future. I wonder if any of the parents who lost children yesterday at VT are now thinking, "well at least the public had enough class to not try to solve this problem the last time it happened". Of course they aren't. They're thinking "I wish someone would have shot that piece of ***** dead before he killed my kid".
    • roystgnr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5All the groups I've heard from have been trying to figure out how to explain, prevent, and/or reduce the incidence of mass murders like this in the future. Some of their ideas have been debatable ("we need more/fewer gun bans!"), wrong ("it's the fault of violent video games!"), or just plain retarded ("it's the evilutionists' fault!"), but I haven't seen any that seemed insincere.

      I don't think there's anything classless about showing your concern for this tragedy's victims by trying to figure out how to make it less likely that more such tragedies will occur in the future.
    • jobenly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@jordonsamson
      "Hell, take them out for a beer and just enjoy the life that you have, that these *children* were robbed of."

      "Law enforcement officials have provided this official photo of Cho Seung-hui, the *man* they identify as the killer at Virginia Tech. Cho was a 23-year-old student of Korean descent who lived on campus. Sources tell ABC News he was carrying a backpack with a receipt for the purchase of a 9 mm handgun."
      -caption to Cho Seung-hui's photo

      It's tragic when young people die, but please don't call them children. If a killer the respect of being called a man, the VaTech community members who were killed should at least get the same courtesy. I've noticed this many times from many sources. It bothers me how the victims are being infantilized.
  • Nysul, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15It's quite easy to build a bomb, anyone with 30 minutes of free time, internet access, and a couple of easily found ingredients can create something much more damaging than a spray of bullets. Gun control really has nothing to do with this issue, One can easily argue that it would not have happened with stricter gun laws, and one could easily argue that with less strict gun laws (ie concealed permits for students), fewer people could have died.
    • jiggawoot, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7If it is so easy to build a bomb and not so easy to aquire a firearm, why is it that there are more nutbags running around shooting up the place than psychos just walking into a building and blowing it up along with everyone in it?

      You hear of plenty of bomb threats, but not many cases when they follow through. Seems that guns are the weapon of choice for unstable persons with a chip on their shoulder.

      Just a thought.
    • Tourney3p0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@jiggawoot:

      Think middle east. They're suicide bombers, not suicide shooters. People who want mass damage and terror go with bombs. People who have specific targets go with guns (or fists, or something considerably less dangerous than bombs).
  • playthev, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13would those people supporting the right to carry extend their sympathies to other nations developing nuclear weapons?
    • PsypherX, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Yes, and I do. I both own and carry, and I fully believe that Iran (let's just get that out of the way here) should be allowed to develop their own nuclear energy sources (even weapons) as a sovereign ***** country. To each their own.

      We got 'em, why shouldn't they? It's not like I have any more reason to truly trust Bush over Ahmadinejad. They're both just men looking out for what they think is the best interests of their country.
    • HomerS1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6An armed populace is more dangerous to the government than to each other. I think it would be a great idea if the masses in the nuclear-wannabe club nations were well armed.


  • Pyroteq, on 10/12/2007, -25/+12Yay, so then the campus turns into the wild ***** west next time someone goes crazy, then when cops arrive at the scene they have no idea WTF is going on.

    Nice thinking guys!
    • PsypherX, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15You are a ***** moron. Not EVERYONE who owns or carries a gun is ***** crazy. In fact, most of us are probably more stable than you. At the very least, we can think critically and logically. /shrug
    • AutoXer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13You comment would be well founded if the police took action and stopped the guy. However, there seem to be lots of reports of inaction.
    • dinsy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Its the same every time: the cops hide outside until its all over. At VT they were hiding behind the goddamn trees!
  • oMeSSiaHo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15I posted this in another forum but I think it applies to this discussion.

    There's a very simple answer, BOTH SIDES ARE WRONG!

    You can use the argument that readicating guns with obviously take away peoples ability to shoot each other (or at least make it harder).

    On the other side you can say once guns are gone only criminals will have them (fair enough argument).

    We need to look at the root of violence instead of what we use to carry it out. Why do people go crazy and shoot masses of people and what can we do to stop them. Blaiming it on guns, or lack there of is just as bad as blaiming it on rock and roll and video games. They are just easy talking points for people with agendas to take advantage of.


    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7At the root of shootings like these are usually a) a person with psychological issues, who b) has been left by his girlfriend and/or scorned by the woman he loves. When there are this many dead, there's also a c) access to automatic weapons, aka "assault weapons".

      C) is the point people have the hardest time accepting, but random individuals go off their rocker all the time and there's plenty of examples that if they're armed with an axe, hunting rifle, or even a double-barrel shotgun they don't manage to kill more than a handful.

      An amusing way to maximize the effect of having an armed public, and minimize the effect of having armed criminals, would be to make it easy to get permit for a single-action fine-calibre weapon (and only full metal jacket ammo, no hollowpoints, dumdum, or explosive tips!), but outlaw automatic and semi-automatic weapons.
      You think twice about firing a single-action gun, because it's single-shot, but a single shot goes a long way, usually all the way, if it hits.

      This solution is of course unacceptable to either the gun lobby or the anti-gun lobby, but logically it should achieve what both sides *claim* they want to achieve.

    • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Please don't use the term "assault riffles". This is a meaningless emotionally charged word used to trick those people who are ignorant. Your statements are filled with blatant lies or misinformation.

      "random individuals go off their rocker all the time and there's plenty of examples that if they're armed with an axe, hunting rifle, or even a double-barrel shotgun they don't manage to kill more than a handful."

      First, at the Columbine shooting the two students had 2 sawed off shotguns (1 double barreled) of which both students used as primary weapons to kill other students and then killing themselves with the same weapon. I guess killing 13, and wounding 24 others is a little more than a handful. Also, these types of shotguns are used for hunting.


      "but outlaw automatic and semi-automatic weapons. You think twice about firing a single-action gun, because it's single-shot, but a single shot goes a long way, usually all the way, if it hits."

      Second, outlawing "semi-automatic" weapons? Are you serious? Do you realize that most hunting guns are "semi-automatic"? Do you also realize that the kids at Columbine shot roughly 96 rounds with a riffle that only holds 10 rounds per magazine? You know they had to reload after every empty magazine. Non-Semi-automatic riffles also have magazines, these are called "repeating rifles" and are also used to hunt. Also, several of the top 10 handguns used in gun crimes in the US as reported in 1993 were REVOLVERS and SHOTGUNS.

      I'm sick an tired of all this anti-American European *****. Outsiders think that Americans are all "gun-ho" and it's like the wild west out here. They are simply ignorant about our culture. Either that or they are willfully ignorant about Americans.

      Here's some stats:

      In 2004, 36.5% of Americans reported having a gun in their home, which is down from 46% as reported in 1989.

      In the United States, 11% of households report actively being involved in hunting, with the remaining firearm owners having guns for self protection and other reasons.

      Of all incidents where a gun was used for self defense, victims shot at the offender 28% of the time.

      In 20% of the self defense incidents, the guns were used by police officers.

      Of all incidents where a gun was used for self defense, victims shot at the offender 28% of the time.

      2000 U.S. Statistics
      motor vehicle crashes (43,000)
      incidents involving firearms (29,000)


      Should we ban fast cars?
  • hijstr, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4yep,letting everyone have guns if definitely the solution
    • dixta, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Oh totally, coz nothing is better than police arriving trying to figure out who the shooter is, and who's a "good guy", when half the people in sight have their weapons drawn.

      They'd have to rename the main entrance "Omaha Beach Boulevard".
    • RedHerringHack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7By the time that the cops got there, the situation would be contained. Thats the point.
  • tehSpitfire, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12"It's not possible to remove all guns from the public. The questions isn't "should the public have guns?", the question is "given that the public has guns, should good people be allowed to carry them?". Comparing the two VA college shootings mentioned, the one which no students had guns had more than 10 times as many deaths as the one which a couple good students had guns. That doesn't prove anything but it does provide evidence that the second amendment isn't crazy like a few idiots claimed above. Guns in the hands of bad people is a bad thing, guns in the hands of good people is a good thing. We can't control whether bad people have guns, we can only control whether good people are allowed to have guns. The choice is obvious."

    QFT
    • over9, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5Everyone is a "good" person until they decide to go crazy. If the public was allowed to carry concealed guns such shootins would happen more often but maybe have less casualties, but that's not a given.
    • codmate, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2But you can *try* and control whether 'bad people' have guns.
      It works here in the UK.

      Don't you think it's a bit defeatist to just say - oh well, all the bad guys are probably armed to the teeth already - let's give up on a peace-loving society and go round totally fearful and paranoid the whole time.

      Don't forget - this guy was an 'innocent' and one of the 'good guys' until he opened fire...

      Those guns were legit as i understand it...
    • nigmalg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@codmate
      No actually he had at broken at least 2 laws before he even squeezed the trigger. He removed the serial numbers (Federal Felony), and he brought the weapon on school property (Possibly State and/or Federal violation).
  • madblackeye, on 10/12/2007, -14/+12Hi, I am from the UK and saw the news yesterday.

    Please tell me that someone else finds this submission as frightening as I do.
    • designpunk, on 10/12/2007, -12/+8It's more saddening than anything..
    • Paroparo, on 10/12/2007, -16/+10Hell yes I do. Another mindless shooting in a US school and these guys are demanding more guns in the hands of the general population?! I suppose this is another case of people seeing all things in favor of their own political views, but these guys really should take a look at the gun violence statistics from countries with stricter gun laws.
    • Egoist, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16Parokki, how exactly do laws keep guns out of the hands of criminals?
    • madblackeye, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Laws don't keep the guns out of the hands of criminals, BUT laws do make it very difficult for your average, normally law abiding, nutter to get hold of any gun (inc. air guns!).
    • foamcow, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9@Egoist

      How many known, violent criminals go on killing sprees?

      No you can't take guns out of the hands of the criminal element but my argument is that the perpetrators of such incidents as witnessed at VT are not your common criminal. They are psychologically unbalanced individuals that go off the deep end for some, probably trivial, reason. The fact that they also then have relatively easy access to firearms doesn't really help deal with the prevention of them committing mass murder does it?
      Take the same psychologically unbalanced individual and make it hard for them to get hold of a gun. How many will they kill then?
      I said in an earlier post that if people are going to cause harm then they will cause harm. All we as a society can do is make that as difficult as possible. Sure, one possible suggestion might be to arm everyone but you are putting the tool in to the hands of those that should not have it. The tragic part is that you don't know until it's too late.
      So, consider an alternative option. Don't give access to everyone. You immediately remove the threat of the wrong people getting the weapon.
    • Egoist, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5"How many known, violent criminals go on killing sprees?"

      Are you sure this is the argument that you want to run with? I realize that in your mind it probably made sense, but to everyone else...

      "So, consider an alternative option. Don't give access to everyone. You immediately remove the threat of the wrong people getting the weapon."

      How would you deny access to everyone? Create laws? A law isn't going to stop a criminal from getting a gun just like drug laws don't stop drug users from getting their fix. We don't live in a utopia where everyone hugs each other every morning and ***** rainbows at night. Guns will always be around, no matter how you plan to not "give access" to them.
    • foamcow, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5"How would you deny access to everyone? Create laws? A law isn't going to stop a criminal from getting a gun just like drug laws don't stop drug users from getting their fix. We don't live in a utopia where everyone hugs each other every morning and ***** rainbows at night. Guns will always be around, no matter how you plan to not "give access" to them."

      Yes, create laws. Or rather remove the 'right' for people to carry firearms that serve no purpose other than for killing and maiming other people. By not giving easy access I mean remove the ability to legally obtain and retain a firearm.
      And no, of course it won't stop a criminal getting a gun. That was not my point. My point was that these terrible, tragic events are not carried out by your 'regular' criminal. Maybe I'm wrong, but someone show me an instance of a known violent offender (a 'criminal') entering a public place and shooting it up for no apparent reason.

      Comparing drug laws to gun laws huh? Well ask yourself this. If guns were treated in the same way as drugs would 'average Joe' go out to the trouble of obtaining a weapon? Do they go out and regularly score heroin for the hell of it? I think not, not least because they are law abiding and do not wish to fall foul of the law. Of course, some people would still illegaly obtain guns. Of course other people would supply them. But by making it more difficult to procure a weapon you remove it's 'casual' use and it becomes seen as unacceptable. By removing the simplicity and protective umbrella given by your 'rights' you can reduce the number of incidents of gun deaths since, lo and behold, less people have guns.

      By the same argument, why not legalise every form of drug out there and allow people to then administer those drugs to whomever they liked on random basis. Does that sound sensible?

      People do stupid things. It's human nature. While it's fine for the gene pool to get a little chlorine now and again surely it's our duty to each other to ensure that stupid people doing stupid things don't harm other people? If you want to shoot yourself up with heroin or a .45 bullet then go ahead, but it's a totally different matter when you are doing it to innocent bystanders.

      Ask yourself if average Joe would still carry a concealed firearm if it were made illegal to do so? Would average Joe be willing to fall foul of the law for being armed, knowing that the Police response would be to disarm him via whatever means were necessary? Ditch the weapon or get killed. It kind of takes the attraction out of it huh? By making the possession of the article a criminal offence you move it into the realms where only criminals have them. No, this would not completely remove the threat of gun violence, but it would greatly reduce it.

    • codmate, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4I'm also in the UK.

      This entire thread is terrifying.

      I don't think i even want to visit America now!
    • tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Typical "***** the gun-loving Americans" UK BS.
  • Wildhoney, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3What places me into a state of disbelief is why do these people decide to burst into a school and open fire. They know for a fact that the majority, if any, of the children will not have guns, and therefore it'd closely resemble a coconut shy. Are the individuals who decide to shoot people too cowardly to do anything worthwhile in society to vent their anger against people who they feel have done them wrong. It's always the same, it seems, such as that shooting a few months ago in the Amish comm