What would you do about Virginia Tech?

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
If someone invades your home you are able to use force in your defense provided it is reasonable given the situation - if the burglar is holding a weapon then a fatal blow from a cricket bat or 7 iron is fine. If you are a woman and there is a burglar there is virtually no limit to what you can do (assuming you arent trained for such a situation, of which a self defense course does not count as training).

[/ QUOTE ]

You kill me. Like you should have to make a decision when a criminal is in your house ... "hmmm, let's see, you suppose he is here to kill me, or just maim me, or maybe he just wants my stuff. Yeah, I think he just wants my stuff, so I can't shoot him."

Talk about BS. You come into my house, without permission and I don't know you, there is a good chance you're going out in a black bag. I'll protect my family and property, thank you very much.

NCAces

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
If given the choice, I would rather live in a society without guns (voluntarily without guns), but if I'm going to live in one with guns I'd prefer that they be spread around and not concentrated in the hands of a few. Gun control is about as stupid as any other type of prohibition.

That being said, I think the 2nd Amendment defense often latched onto is basically irrelevant. The 2nd Amendment had less to do with the right to have guns, than the right to protect yourself against a dictatorial government and the ability to overthrow that government, violently if necessary.

Which stops making sense when the government has apache helicopters and tanks and you have a couple handguns.



[/ QUOTE ]

I could be wrong, as I often am, but don't people in Iraq fight the US Soldiers who have tanks and helecopters, etc etc with mostly guns?

And anyway what is the 'government' going to do with their helecopters and bombs, blow up towns with taxpayers and stores, etc? If it was some sort of all out war you theoretically have a point but the government would be fighting a war on their own soil so they don't really want to destroy the place.

And if it's irrelevant why get rid of the guns? You cant take over a population that is heavily armed I don't think (at least not without their consent). If you kill them all you have no one to rule. And if your gonna fight them with bombs you can't even keep their stuff after you kill them because you blew it all up.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's news when people get shot, not when they don't.

[/ QUOTE ][list]
This is 100% true. I remember back during the late 80s, violent crime had fallen significantly (maybe by half; I can't recall), but coverage of it had increased ~700% in the same time frame, making it appear as if there were some sort of massive upswing in crime.

Edit: Ah, I see now what HA was referencing. Yes there are many cases where shooters have been subdued by armed civies and the fact was effectively hushed up by an anti-gun media. There was such a case a few years back in NC at ASU (I haven't looked back in the thread to see if this is the case HA is referencing).


[/ QUOTE ]

After all we can't have the populace look like they can take care of themselves. We need to spoon feed them fear in the media (so they look to government to protect them while surrendering freedoms and cash for the privilege)

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Borodog,

If the net effect is saving one person, it is a good thing?

Surely you see the logic in that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please show your calculatioins.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*I* have training to do so in a safe manner, and I happen to be a good deal more efficient with their use than your typical cop on the beat. So I guess this means we're good.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is efficient synonymous with trigger-happy?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, but I'm sure Metric and the other millions of gun owners appreciate you sliming them. Gun owners could just as easily call anyone that doesn't own a gun a pansy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im just really curious to how he defines himself as being more efficient.

I mean, cops shoot to kill. They are 100% trained for deadly force. Plus they are trained in an environment that is realistic, and not one like most gun owners learn to use their gun in.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're way overestimating the amount of training regular cops do with their guns. SWAT teams, yeah. Beat cops, not so much.

There are huge numbers of regular citizens who shoot a LOT more than your average cop.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Borodog,

If the net effect is saving one person, it is a good thing?

Surely you see the logic in that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please show your calculatioins.

[/ QUOTE ]

YOUR PONY TOO AWESOME

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
If given the choice, I would rather live in a society without guns (voluntarily without guns), but if I'm going to live in one with guns I'd prefer that they be spread around and not concentrated in the hands of a few. Gun control is about as stupid as any other type of prohibition.

That being said, I think the 2nd Amendment defense often latched onto is basically irrelevant. The 2nd Amendment had less to do with the right to have guns, than the right to protect yourself against a dictatorial government and the ability to overthrow that government, violently if necessary.

Which stops making sense when the government has apache helicopters and tanks and you have a couple handguns.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're forgetting that there are a LOT more regular citizens than soldiers. If it comes down to the army vs. the citizens, even assuming nobody deserts the military, it won't even be close.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]

Re: What would you do about Virginia Tech?
04/16/07 03:55 PM
Edit post Edit Reply to this post Reply Reply to this post Quote Quick Reply Quick Reply

In Britain we had the Dunblane massacre.

We banned all handguns, and highly restricted access to all other guns.

We have had no school shootings since.

Gun control works. Sure the bad guys can get guns if they *really* want to. Im sure i can get a handgun here in Manchester in only 4 degrees of seperation at most.

BUT it does limit these types of attacks, it stops husbands getting pissed off and killing their wives, its limits gun crime massively.

Again - banning guns is 100% a good and logical solution

This is NOT the wild west. And things dont happen like in the films you seem to enjoy.

Ban all guns, or accept school shootings as a normal part of life. That is litterally your choice.

[/ QUOTE ]


Have fun living in your total surveilance society national id card hell. How many cameras are watching downtown london again? so tghere's zero crime there , right?

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
In Britain we had the Dunblane massacre.

We banned all handguns, and highly restricted access to all other guns.

We have had no school shootings since.

Gun control works. Sure the bad guys can get guns if they *really* want to. Im sure i can get a handgun here in Manchester in only 4 degrees of seperation at most.

BUT it does limit these types of attacks, it stops husbands getting pissed off and killing their wives, its limits gun crime massively.

Again - banning guns is 100% a good and logical solution

This is NOT the wild west. And things dont happen like in the films you seem to enjoy.

Ban all guns, or accept school shootings as a normal part of life. That is litterally your choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

For some reason, I never doubted the underlying basis of your argument ... that crime rates are actually lower in the UK than in the US. Ok, you haven't had any school shootings. But, are you aware that the level of crime in the UK is higher than all other industrial nations?

Link1

Link2

Now, I am not sure how much of this can be attributed to lack of gun ownership, but it is reasonable to believe that in England criminals aren't too worried about getting shot when they rob someone.

So, maybe gun control keeps these types of masacres from happening, but the rest of your crime seems out of control.

NCAces

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On another note, why didn't the university cancel classes today when they knew there was a known killer unapprehended on campus?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably because it looked like a domestic homicide and the shooter had apparently left campus.

[/ QUOTE ]

It really doesn't get simpler than this. You have 1,000s of students, a murder on campus, and a murderer on the loose with a gun whose whereabouts are unknown. Do you really need to know much more than this to cancel classes and put everyone on high alert. Do you really need to put the above facts in context before you make a decision?