What would you do about Virginia Tech?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or it gives any of those 30 people a fighting chance against a Korean guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those students could have had guns already if they wanted them. Why didn't they have any?

The answer to that question is why I think gun control is the best solution to stopping gun deaths. The vast majority of law-abiding citizens do not want to carry concealed handguns around. So I'd rather it be more difficult for the criminals (and yes, by extension law-abiding citizens who want one) to get them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding me? It's a CRIME to carry a gun onto a campus, and if you are caught with one you will almost certainly be expelled.

I can guarantee you that if I wasn't barred from carrying on campus I would. And if a nutjob came into my classroom hoping to shoot up myself and my students, we would have a chance that right now we would not.

It's unbelievable how you people think. It's not just ridiculously poor logic (ban guns and guns will magically disappear!), it's just downright evil to make it a crime for people to defend themselves.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
It's unbelievable how you people think. It's not just ridiculously poor logic (ban guns and guns will magically disappear!), it's just downright evil to make it a crime for people to defend themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I know it's illegal to carry a gun on campus. Which is why the "if they had guns they could've defended themselves" argument is meaningless.

My point was that most people will not have a gun, period. Not little old ladies being mugged, not people faced with a maniac in McDonalds, etc. Regardless of whether they are allowed, usually only the killer will actually have a gun.

And I never said guns should be outlawed only that it shouldn't be so easy for a person to get one. Training, background checks, and waiting periods (including at gun shows) seem like reasonable steps that would not prevent a law-abiding citizen from owning a gun if he/she wants one.

[kevin017]

i don't see why everyone thinks gun control has to be all or nothing. we don't have to ban guns in order to make it more difficult for mentally unstable individuals to buy them.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's unbelievable how you people think. It's not just ridiculously poor logic (ban guns and guns will magically disappear!), it's just downright evil to make it a crime for people to defend themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I know it's illegal to carry a gun on campus. Which is why the "if they had guns they could've defended themselves" argument is meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF are you talking about? You said that "those people could have carried guns if they wanted to, why didn't they?" Now you're saying that yes, you know they could not have carried those guns without risk of expulsion and ruining their academic careers, hence the argument that if they had guns they could have defended themselves is meaningless? WTF? Take a frigging logic class, because that ain't it.

[ QUOTE ]
My point was that most people will not have a gun, period. Not little old ladies being mugged, not people faced with a maniac in McDonalds, etc. Regardless of whether they are allowed, usually only the killer will actually have a gun.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're just pulling [censored] out of your ass. I personally know little old ladies who carry guns; they are members of the Second Amendment Sisters. Have you not heard of the woman who watched her paretns die in the McDonald's shooting because her gun was locked outside in the car, where she had to leave it before entering the restaurant? You are just totally making [censored] up. Roughly 10% of people carry guns to defend themselves when they are allowed by law. The rooms this guy was shooting up has dozens of people in them, including professors. You don't think a handful of people armed would have made a difference? Stop arguing by bull [censored].

[ QUOTE ]
And I never said guns should be outlawed only that it shouldn't be so easy for a person to get one. Training, background checks, and waiting periods (including at gun shows) seem like reasonable steps that would not prevent a law-abiding citizen from owning a gun if he/she wants one.

[/ QUOTE ]

So ridiculous. Criminals will have none of these stupid hoops to jump through. All you want to do is make it more difficult for law abiding people to defend themselves, and hence easier for criminals to kill them.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah I know it's illegal to carry a gun on campus. Which is why the "if they had guns they could've defended themselves" argument is meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? It's illegal because lawmakers said so, not because everyone chooses not to carry a concealed weapon on campus.

[ QUOTE ]
My point was that most people will not have a gun, period. Not little old ladies being mugged, not people faced with a maniac in McDonalds, etc. Regardless of whether they are allowed, usually only the killer will actually have a gun.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that's fine. If you don't want to carry a gun, you have that option. But some people choose to carry a gun in order to defend themselves, and they should also have the option. And also, it doesn't matter that "most" people won't carry. All it takes is ONE person in that entirely school building to be carrying a weapon.

[ QUOTE ]
And I never said guns should be outlawed only that it shouldn't be so easy for a person to get one. Training, background checks, and waiting periods (including at gun shows) seem like reasonable steps that would not prevent a law-abiding citizen from owning a gun if he/she wants one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Guess what? None of this stops the Korean kid either.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

~150,000,000 firearms VS ~4,000,000 troops? I'd have to spread some of my personal arsenal around but....not a fair fight.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi Politics Forum,

The problem with the way the gun debate is conducted is that everyone seems to assume that there's a system that is best for every society. Switzerland is awash with guns and has a relatively low rate of crimes involving firearms. My country, Australia, has a total ban on semi-automatic rifles (and anything more powerful) and has a low ownership rate of firearms. I have never, in real life, seen a gun that was not attached to a police officer's belt. Australia has an extremely low rate of crimes involving firearms. So it should be obvious that there is more than one solution to the problem of gun crime.

Gun control works just great here, but I don't think it would work in the US. The genie is out of the bottle. What needs addressing in the US are social problems which lead to the high incidence of gun crime. Legalising abortion and decriminalising drugs would in my opinion both be more positive steps to reducing gun crime than anything that could be done with gun laws.

It's also important to realise that preventing events such as the Virginia massacre is only one facet of the fight against gun crime. The deaths of college students who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time is unquestionably more tragic than gangland drive-bys, but it is still the case that today's killings represent 30 amongst many thousands every year in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post.

I'll just add, that as tragic as the events like Virginia Tech and Columbine are, I'll bet there is a greater chance of being struck by lightning than there is of being the victim of a mass murderer gone crazy with a gun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lightning FTW.
Death by bees FTW.
Drowning FTW.
Death by skateboard FTW.
School bus accident FTW.
Alcohol poisoning FTW.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if you really want to protect the homestead, use a knife or a bat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Old Lady vs. Young Thug

Give them both knives - who wins?

Give them both baseball bats - who wins?

Give them both guns - who wins?

The gun is the equalizer. It gives the weak a fighting chance against the strong.

[/ QUOTE ]

God created men; Sam Colt made them equal.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't compare banning handguns to banning knives or cars, because handguns have as their primary purpose to kill human beings.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but the primary purpose of my handgun is to protect my life. And you'll never get it.

[pdjplano]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't compare banning handguns to banning knives or cars, because handguns have as their primary purpose to kill human beings.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but the primary purpose of my handgun is to protect my life. And you'll never get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT...