or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Virginia Tech killing: more than 30 dead
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Virginia Tech killing: more than 30 dead - Page 5

post #161 of 524
I'm not going to continue to argue with you. I respect your opinions, but I don't think they are practical.
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #162 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Correct. From my cold dead hands.

The criminals are going to carry guns no matter how many utopian laws you make. You will never stop them. Not one bit. You'll just cost the lives of innocent, disarmed people.

Wow that's a pretty bold statement. You're telling me this little 23 year old Korean kid would have got a gun otherwise if he wasn't able to buy it in that store?

He isn't wasn't a dope runner or black market arms dealer, just a disturbed kid to bought a gun just as easy as we buy ipods, if he wasn't able to purchase that gun or at least the ammo in a regular store do you seriously believe beyond the shadow of a doubt that yesterday would have happened?
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #163 of 524
As if there was any question, the shooter was a hopeless psychotic. Link to story and plays by the shooter (WARNING: Graphic content).

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #164 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecking View Post

Wow that's a pretty bold statement. You're telling me this little 23 year old Korean kid would have got a gun otherwise if he wasn't able to buy it in that store?




What is more likely being suggested is that he'd have found another means to his end. And that's all a gun is: a means to an end. It's not the ACTUAL problem. That crazy kid was a more dangerous instrument of death than the gun he was weilding.

When people decide they want to kill large scale, a gun is a means to that end. Tim McVeigh didn't need a gun. Ted Kaczynski didn't.

Killers will find ways to fulfill their homicidal impulse one way or another.

I'm going to need to hear a more compelling argument before you convince me we need to disarm the law abiding citizens of this country because a small number of people (not irrelevant, but statistically small) violate the law and use a gun to do so.

Where does it end if we take that route? Law breakers use MANY instruments to commit their crimes. Should we ban crow bars because of car theft? Credit cards because of ID theft? Automobiles because of drunk drivers?
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #165 of 524
Rageous-- you say guns aren't the problem-- but you're missing the link between gun prevalence and homicide rates.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rageous View Post

I'm going to need to hear a more compelling argument before you convince me we need to disarm the law abiding citizens of this country because a small number of people (not irrelevant, but statistically small) violate the law and use a gun to do so.

I'll give you quantifiable reasons:
  1. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
  2. After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
  3. Children in states with many guns have elevated rates of unintentional gun deaths, suicide and homicide
  4. Women in states with many guns have elevated rates of unintentional gun deaths, suicides and homicide, particularly firearm suicides and firearm homicides.

We can hem and haw about how the darkness of the human psyche is really the culprit, but that's not a practical way of looking at the problem. It ignores the data showing that gun prevalence *is* a significant factor in homicide rates. If we take away guns, we might still get the occasional mustachioed mail-bomber or machete-wielding maniac, but I think we'd see fewer homicides.
post #166 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

We can hem and haw about how the darkness of the human psyche is really the culprit, but that's not a practical way of looking at the problem. It ignores the data showing that gun prevalence *is* a significant factor in homicide rates. If we take away guns, we might still get the occasional mustachioed mail-bomber or machete-wielding maniac, but I think we'd see fewer homicides.

Significant factor in no way ties into REASON. I don't deny the fact that guns are a signifcant factor, and nowhere have I stated such.

I also don't doubt we'd see fewer homicides.

Those are not the issues I am addressing.




Absense of guns does not do away with the homicidal impulse. So what we then have to discuss is whether or not repealing the second amendment or restricting the availablilty of guns and ammunition will have such an impact on society that it CLEARLY warrants the removal of something granted to us in the Bill of Rights.

I am not taking an unyielding stance one way or the other. But I am going to go ahead and throw my weight behind my rights as an American citizen (incidently one who does not and will never own a gun) and wait for a compelling argument that moves me to, well, move me.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #167 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by rageous View Post

What is more likely being suggested is that he'd have found another means to his end. And that's all a gun is: a means to an end. It's not the ACTUAL problem. That crazy kid was a more dangerous instrument of death than the gun he was weilding.

When people decide they want to kill large scale, a gun is a means to that end. Tim McVeigh didn't need a gun. Ted Kaczynski didn't.

This is moderately disingenious. We have restricted access to fertilizer to make another OKC more difficult to replicate. Given that I think folks might agree that fertilizer have more productive uses than handguns then restricting handguns in some manner would not be illogical.

All forms of high explosives post 911 are likely harder to get.

Quote:
Killers will find ways to fulfill their homicidal impulse one way or another.

I'm going to need to hear a more compelling argument before you convince me we need to disarm the law abiding citizens of this country because a small number of people (not irrelevant, but statistically small) violate the law and use a gun to do so.

There are some categories of firearms pose higher risk to public safety than sporting/recreational/2nd amendment value. Handguns and large caliber rifles (.50 cal) come to mind. I'd really like a pre-ban SPAS-12 or better yet a USAS-12 but I really have no home defense or practical need that I think I'm really missing out. Even if it might be fun to empty a 20 rnd drum...and if I thought it all that important I'd try to get a class III license.

Nor would I be disarmed if these category of weapons were removed.

Vinea
post #168 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

This is moderately disingenious. We have restricted access to fertilizer to make another OKC more difficult to replicate. Given that I think folks might agree that fertilizer have more productive uses than handguns so restricting handguns in some manner would make practical sense.

All forms of explosives post 911 are likely harder to get.

And I really have little issue with restriction as long as it's not to a ridiculous degree.



Quote:
There are some categories of firearms pose higher risk to public safety than sporting/recreational/2nd amendment value. Handguns and large caliber rifles (.50 cal) come to mind. I'd really like a pre-ban SPAS-12 or better yet a USAS-12 but I really have no home defense or practical need that I think I'm really missing out. Even if it might be fun to empty a 20 rnd drum...and if I thought it all that important I'd try to get a class III license.

Nor would I be disarmed if these category of weapons were removed.

Vinea

I also have little issue with restricting the type of weapons. It's much harder for someone to justify the "need" for a full-auto machine gun. Hand guns and smaller calibur rifles can accomplish pretty much any and all legal reasons for possessing firearms.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #169 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Rageous-- you say guns aren't the problem-- but you're missing the link between gun prevalence and homicide rates.
I'll give you quantifiable reasons:
  1. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
  2. After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
  3. Children in states with many guns have elevated rates of unintentional gun deaths, suicide and homicide
  4. Women in states with many guns have elevated rates of unintentional gun deaths, suicides and homicide, particularly firearm suicides and firearm homicides.
We can hem and haw about how the darkness of the human psyche is really the culprit, but that's not a practical way of looking at the problem. It ignores the data showing that gun prevalence *is* a significant factor in homicide rates. If we take away guns, we might still get the occasional mustachioed mail-bomber or machete-wielding maniac, but I think we'd see fewer homicides.

You live in Philly? Just curious. I am in Center City. But I work in South East Philly. East Erie Avenue and G Street. Seen many a funeral procession go by on Erie Ave...But the heavier shootings are happening in the NorthEast. If there is a reason for me still standing for handgun bans it is for the sale of illegal guns and drugs. It's as if the press has made the gun runners flock here and spread death across these areas.
post #170 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecking View Post

Wow that's a pretty bold statement. You're telling me this little 23 year old Korean kid would have got a gun otherwise if he wasn't able to buy it in that store?

He isn't wasn't a dope runner or black market arms dealer, just a disturbed kid to bought a gun just as easy as we buy ipods, if he wasn't able to purchase that gun or at least the ammo in a regular store do you seriously believe beyond the shadow of a doubt that yesterday would have happened?

Yes, I am telling you that. Most guns used in crimes in this country are stolen guns. If a CRIMINAL wants a gun, what is breaking a law about getting that gun going to do? NOTHING. I'll say again, criminals don't obey gun laws.

You mean to tell me THIS is going to happen? : ---- "I'm going to kill 30 people and then myself... but oh, no, I can't get a handgun legally? Guess I better not do that now." What brazen naiveté.

"As easy as we buy iPods" - when was the last time you bought a gun? Do you know of that which you speak? All the gun banners always say that you can get them like buying ________. There is a background check, paperwork, and a process. Not just a shopping mall experience. Geez.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #171 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by rageous View Post

And I really have little issue with restriction as long as it's not to a ridiculous degree.

The difficulty is determination what is a ridiculous degree. What I propose is more than what I feel would be adopted but I also feel that anything less is pointless.

Pointless restriction of firearms for show is silly. For example a law advocating removing 9mm pistols given the numbers in the wild is pointless. You'd only end up removing those from law-abiding citizens. Controlling ammo might be viable but elimination of reloading seems really unlikely. Without eliminating reloading and restricting ammo is pointless.

Total elimination of handguns seems really really unlikely. Even control of ammunition isn't foolproof from a handgun perspective given I would allow .22LR ammo...which I think was one of the ones used in the shooting (along with a 9mm).

Vinea
post #172 of 524
Vinea... do you think the anti-gun crowd is going to stop with handguns? Have you read a single thing from the IANSA lately? They want to REPEAL the 2nd Amendment. The VPC and Brady crowd as well. Give an inch, lose a mile, I say. This is a slippery slope based on language.

Some of their greatest hits "sniper rifle" and "assault weapon" and "high powered _______" have completely rewritten the gun control debate in order to trick people into taking YOUR gun rights away.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #173 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Yes, I am telling you that. Most guns used in crimes in this country are stolen guns. If a CRIMINAL wants a gun, what is breaking a law about getting that gun going to do? NOTHING. I'll say again, criminals don't obey gun laws.

You mean to tell me THIS is going to happen? : ---- "I'm going to kill 30 people and then myself... but oh, no, I can't get a handgun legally? Guess I better not do that now." What brazen naiveté.

"As easy as we buy iPods" - when was the last time you bought a gun? Do you know of that which you speak? All the gun banners always say that you can get them like buying ________. There is a background check, paperwork, and a process. Not just a shopping mall experience. Geez.

The background check in this case took all of a minute, showed nothing and out he walked with his future murder weapon of choice. As easy as a walk in the mall.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/17/vte...ing/index.html

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #174 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by rageous View Post

If they don't want them, get rid of them.

If they feel they need them, who gets to decide otherwise?

Need is decided by society all the time.

Some drug addicts might think they NEED drugs, but society deems that they do not.

Some parents might think that they NEED to beat their children, but society deems that they should not.

Etc etc.

This argument has always been specious...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #175 of 524
Damn. As odd as it is here, the mayor of Nagasaki got shot (just read the paper) yesterday.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-b...0070418a1.html

The criminal was caught immediately and has confessed; he was a mobster.

The mayor is in critical condition, but still, an attempted murder using a handgun is extremely rare here.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #176 of 524
Someone remind me to post about this when Finals are over on May 1st. Till then, I wonder what would happen if we all, rather than slipping to the polar opposites of total gun control and total armament, explored the middle ground?

Questions:

1) What is the fundamental thing that we object to? Guns being used, guns being used to commit violence, violence being committed, people dying violently, or people dying?

2) What would prevent that objectionable act from being possible?

3) Is the answer to #2 fully realizable? If not, would a partial realization help to prevent the act, or would it make the act more likely to occur?

4) Has our society degraded to the point where we erroneously believe that those few people who make up our police force are able to guarantee our INDIVIDUAL safety and security?

5) Should individuals be permitted the right to self defense?

6) What options exist for ensuring the safety and security of society?

7) Realistically, how effective would that be?

8) What are the costs in terms of natural rights and basic freedoms that accompany 6?

9) Can another method be effectively used which will not incur those costs?

10) How far does the principle of free action extend? If we pretend that someone does not have the right to kill others, does that reflect reality? Does our proclamation really inhibit that?

I'll post a perspective for open debate once finals are over.

Later

Paul
A Conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking. - Lesicus Stupidicus
Reply
A Conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking. - Lesicus Stupidicus
Reply
post #177 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Vinea... do you think the anti-gun crowd is going to stop with handguns? Have you read a single thing from the IANSA lately? They want to REPEAL the 2nd Amendment. The VPC and Brady crowd as well. Give an inch, lose a mile, I say. This is a slippery slope based on language.

Some of their greatest hits "sniper rifle" and "assault weapon" and "high powered _______" have completely rewritten the gun control debate in order to trick people into taking YOUR gun rights away.



Fear tactics.

I have the right to live in peace knowing that I am not going to get killed by crossfire when some self-inflated dude opens fire on a perceived threat when it is quite possible he could have resolved the situation by other, more peaceful means.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #178 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Damn. As odd as it is here, the mayor of Nagasaki got shot (just read the paper) yesterday.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-b...0070418a1.html

The criminal was caught immediately and has confessed; he was a mobster.

The mayor is in critical condition, but still, an attempted murder using a handgun is extremely rare here.

The Japanese Government had better pass some damn stringent laws prohibiting the possession of firearms, then! No one in Japan can have a firearm!

No legal firearms = no more gun crime!!!

... hey, wait a minute!

V/R,

Aries 1B
"I pictured myself sitting in the shade of a leafy tree in a public park, a stylus in hand, a shiny Apple Tablet computer in my lap, and a pouty Jennifer Connelly stirring a pitcher of gimlets a...
Reply
"I pictured myself sitting in the shade of a leafy tree in a public park, a stylus in hand, a shiny Apple Tablet computer in my lap, and a pouty Jennifer Connelly stirring a pitcher of gimlets a...
Reply
post #179 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aries 1B View Post

The Japanese Government had better pass some damn stringent laws prohibiting the possession of firearms, then! No one in Japan can have a firearm!

No legal firearms = no more gun crime!!!

... hey, wait a minute!

V/R,

Aries 1B

Eggggggggggg-zatctly.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #180 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aries 1B View Post

No legal firearms = no more gun crime!!!

No one's arguing no gun crime would result.

And I have a feeling Japan's homicide rate or gun violence rate is far lower than our country's.
post #181 of 524
Only half boiled, obviously.


The gun is obviously smuggled into the country (as they are not sold here; unless it was a leftover from the war). Strict bans will not completely prevent crimes, but will drastically reduce the number. That is all I have been saying, but some people who have weak positions to begin with jump at any tiny little thing and try to twist it to meet their narrow comprehension of the world.

Go back and think again, guys. Nice try.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #182 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Yes, I am telling you that. Most guns used in crimes in this country are stolen guns. If a CRIMINAL wants a gun, what is breaking a law about getting that gun going to do? NOTHING. I'll say again, criminals don't obey gun laws.

You mean to tell me THIS is going to happen? : ---- "I'm going to kill 30 people and then myself... but oh, no, I can't get a handgun legally? Guess I better not do that now." What brazen naiveté.

"As easy as we buy iPods" - when was the last time you bought a gun? Do you know of that which you speak? All the gun banners always say that you can get them like buying ________. There is a background check, paperwork, and a process. Not just a shopping mall experience. Geez.

Where do you get this info? Most guns are stolen? Where do you think they are "STOLEN" from? And what's your definition of stolen anyways? They come from somewhere originally.... Jeez.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...nocents-2.html

Quote:
You've been shrugging for decades as illegal guns from your state plague our city, killing and maiming and terrorizing New Yorkers by the thousands, at one point comprising 47% of the guns our cops recovered.
You even yukked it up with a "Bloomberg Gun GiveAway" raffle at a gun shop that sold at least 22 guns used in crimes in New York.

Daily News editorial responding to Virginia.
post #183 of 524
I listed some data links above.

Some more reading:

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/lrnylstk.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Japan

From Wikipedia for those too lazy to click on links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Japan#Statistics

Statistics

In 1990 the police identified over 2.2 million Penal Code violations. Two types of violationslarceny (65.1 percent of total violations) and negligent homicide or injury as a result of accidents (26.2 percent)accounted for over 90 percent of criminal offenses in Japan. Major crimes occur in Japan at a very low rate. In 1989 Japan experienced 1.3 robberies per 100,000 population, compared with 48.6 for West Germany, 65.8 for Great Britain, and 233.0 for the United States; and it experienced 1.1 murder per 100,000 population, compared with 3.9 for West Germany, 9.1 for Britain, and 8.7 for the United States that same year. Japanese authorities also solve a high percentage of robbery cases (75.9 percent, compared with 43.8 percent for West Germany, 26.5 percent for Britain, and 26.0 percent for the United States) and homicide cases (95.9 percent, compared with 94.4 percent for Germany, 78.0 percent for Britain, and 68.3 percent for the United States).

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #184 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Fear tactics.

I have the right to live in peace knowing that I am not going to get killed by crossfire when some self-inflated dude opens fire on a perceived threat when it is quite possible he could have resolved the situation by other, more peaceful means.


Please let me know an occasion when that has happened. I'd like to read about it.


Not fear tactics... read their own words at the UN and IANSA and VPC. They want every gun on the chop saw, pure and simple.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #185 of 524
Just wondering... do all of you anti-gun people fight for the FIRST amendment?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #186 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Only half boiled, obviously.


The gun is obviously smuggled into the country (as they are not sold here; unless it was a leftover from the war). Strict bans will not completely prevent crimes, but will drastically reduce the number. That is all I have been saying, but some people who have weak positions to begin with jump at any tiny little thing and try to twist it to meet their narrow comprehension of the world.

Go back and think again, guys. Nice try.


If you ban guns, more people will be victimized. There will be no way to resist criminals. Why is this so hard for you to see?

Why don't we all join together to prosecute gun law violators, rather than you anti gunners lunging for the law and violating the Peoples' right to self defense from armed criminals?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #187 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Just wondering... do all of you anti-gun people fight for the FIRST amendment?

Do you not see the possibility that a document written over 200 years ago may have a few outdated, inappropriate, or misguided clauses scattered throughout it?

Times change, apparently you are afraid to.
post #188 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

If you ban guns, more people will be victimized. There will be no way to resist criminals. Why is this so hard for you to see?

Why don't we all join together to prosecute gun law violators, rather than you anti gunners lunging for the law and violating the Peoples' right to self defense from armed criminals?

1. How often have you seen an impact on crime statistics due to armed citizens?
2. How can you ignore all of the data and evidence across the globe that suggests the exact opposite?

You have a theory, fortunately there is fact available to prove your theory wrong.
post #189 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Vinea... do you think the anti-gun crowd is going to stop with handguns? Have you read a single thing from the IANSA lately? They want to REPEAL the 2nd Amendment. The VPC and Brady crowd as well. Give an inch, lose a mile, I say. This is a slippery slope based on language.

Some of their greatest hits "sniper rifle" and "assault weapon" and "high powered _______" have completely rewritten the gun control debate in order to trick people into taking YOUR gun rights away.

I'm not a big proponent of the slippery slope argument because then you're stuck fighting even reasonable changes.

Which simply polarizes the issue into two extremists camps. You may believe that this is the best strategy to maintain the status quo but I think its counterproductive. I also dislike coming off as an extremist idiot.

The probability of their taking away my gun rights in toto legislatively under federal law are slim with 80M gun owners in the country.

The probability that they can repeal the 2nd amendment approaches zero.

Judicially I suspect that SCOTUS will uphold the 2nd amendment as an individual right in Parker vs the District of Columbia after en banc review. The dissent view is interesting so it may yet fizzle en banc but the case seems very competently run (as judged by folks with a clue and not by me) and should move forward. Its not like a ruling is going to be much worse than US v Miller and I'm guessing that SCOTUS will uphold the right to bear arms as an individual right at the federal level but does not transfer to the states.

Well, heck, I can always move to Virginia even I don't think open carry on the eastern seaboard is all that bright. Its not like Texas where if I'm wandering in the brush I want something to kill rattlers with.

As an aside, this is another reason why I think many gun owners don't belong to the NRA...aside from the fact that we're lazy and cheap. Fearmongering has worn off as an effective tactic except among NRA diehards. We aren't idiots.

Oddly, there seems to be some dissention among the ranks that the NRA isn't doing much to support Parker vs DC. The really amusing thing is that if Parker v DC is ruled on as an individual right then the ALCU will likely cease to be neutral and become a RTBA advocate unless the ruling is really really narrow.

Should be interesting.

Vinea

PS I really hate the sheep argument too. It takes a bit of continued training to operate a firearm in a stressful situation usefully. Whether you believe the folks you know are safe gun owners, etc or not the pool of folks that open or conceal carry legally are self-selecting.

Widespread carry with the number of idiots out there...well...heck, I may not worry about you but I know some folks dumber than rocks that have guns and stay the heck away when they are armed. They're like walking statistics waiting to happen.
post #190 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Capitan View Post

Do you not see the possibility that a document written over 230 years ago may have a few outdated, inappropriate, or misguided clauses scattered throughout it?

Times change, apparently you are afraid to.

Yawn. The first amendment should be thrown out too, then. It is outdated. The founding fathers never thought there would be easily-available porn and violent movies. It's outdated and needs to go. So does the fourth amendment... and I mean far beyond the PATRIOT Act. It's time to get serious about things, and stop being so worried about "rights." We must make the utopia at any cost.

When basic human rights are taken, then none of them are safe. If they take away the 2nd, then your other rights are next.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #191 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Yawn. The first amendment should be thrown out too, then. It is outdated. The founding fathers never thought there would be easily-available porn and violent movies. It's outdated and needs to go. So does the fourth amendment... and I mean far beyond the PATRIOT Act. It's time to get serious about things, and stop being so worried about "rights." We must make the utopia at any cost.

When basic human rights are taken, then none of them are safe. If they take away the 2nd, then your other rights are next.

Since when is owning a gun a basic human right?

Your argument is pathetic and weak and one created simpy by fear.
post #192 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Capitan View Post

1. How often have you seen an impact on crime statistics due to armed citizens?
2. How can you ignore all of the data and evidence across the globe that suggests the exact opposite?

You have a theory, fortunately there is fact available to prove your theory wrong.

Here you go. Read away

And here (pdf)
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #193 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Here you go. Read away

He uses Ted Nugent as a research source.
post #194 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Capitan View Post

Do you not see the possibility that a document written over 200 years ago may have a few outdated, inappropriate, or misguided clauses scattered throughout it?

Times change, apparently you are afraid to.

That's a misguided statement. They had guns back then too.

Also, why personalize the argument? That's just weak.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #195 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Capitan View Post

Since when is owning a gun a basic human right?

Your argument is pathetic and weak and one created simpy by fear.

It's called the basic human right of self-defense. Look into it.

Fear? Yes. Absent a way to stop being victimized, I do fear being a victim of a violent crime. I fear because I have been attacked before and forced to use my firearm in self-defense. Do you NOT think that I have a right to defend myself and my family? Apparently.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #196 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Capitan View Post

He uses Ted Nugent as a research source.

... and your point is? John Lott is a recognized expert in the field of firearms and crime.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #197 of 524
Lott may not be all you make him out to be:

From the wiki pedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lo..._Lott.27s_work

"Adequacy of data
The data that Lott used for his studies on concealed carry laws and crime rate are publicly available statistical data.[4]
The National Academy of Sciences conducted a review of current research and data on firearms and violent crime, including Lott's work, and found: [5]
There is no credible evidence that "right-to-carry" laws, which allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns, either decrease or increase violent crime.
at least in part because data collection limitations obscure anything more than the largest effects, positive or negative, from being observable. The report calls for the development of a National Violent Death Reporting System and a National Incident-Based Reporting System in order to start collecting accurate and reliable information that describes basic facts about violent injuries and deaths."



-----
AND there is this little snibbit which ruins him as a good source:

"Mary Rosh online persona

In early 2003, after investigative work by blogger Julian Sanchez, Lott admitted that he had created and used "Mary Rosh" as a fake persona to defend his own works on Usenet.[14] Rosh claimed to be one of Lott's former students, and had many good things to say about him: for instance, his teaching style."





Not a reliable source at all.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #198 of 524
One of Cho's teachers refused to let him in her regular class because she was so worried... she recommended counseling.

This guy was allowed to buy a gun through our great system of checks?

Hmm...?


http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/17/vtech.shooting/

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #199 of 524
The mayor of Nagasaki died, according to CNN (I was originally looking at the Japan times Online, which is a newspaper and ths not updated after print time).

This will have some fallout over here.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070418/...mrfUfWcDnMWM0F

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #200 of 524
Good read on CNN about gun control and polticians and why, sadly, this won't changed things.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/...rol/index.html

Pro Gunners vote the issue
Anti Gunners don't vote the issue

Who is more fanatic? (loaded question)

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Virginia Tech killing: more than 30 dead