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 2

post #41 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Help me out people...is there a three strike law for illegally possessing, selling a weapon(s)? I know the three strikes law involves federal offenses so I'd think it would (should) in those cases.

Acutally, it is a felony to TRY to buy a gun when you are a felon, much less being caught in actual possession. There is no "three strike" law... it is a felony to posses a gun if you are a felon. Programs like Project Exile have very effectively lowered gun crime, by prosecuting people who get guns that should not have them. If you are caught dealing guns without a Federal Firearms License (FFL) that is a felony as well. You cannot deal guns, or purchase them from manufacturers without this license.

The answer is to enforce the laws we already have- when they are, the system works to lower gun crime.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #42 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I know much more about the 2nd Amendment, gun usage, and self defense than you probably care to admit. We all have our "single issue" and this one is mine. I have personally trained over 400 people in the safe and proper usage of their 2nd Amendment rights to defend themselves, their families, and their homes against criminals like the one we saw today.

I am well versed in the reality of the situation, Artman. The reality is that taking guns from law abiding people does not take them from the hands of criminals. Someone willing to rape, rob, murder, or do another criminal act will not be deterred from it simply because they would break yet another law concerning gun possession. The innocent victims will be left defenseless, like they currently are in Britain and Australia. Both nations have seen an increase in violent crime since their guns were banned for use by law abiding people.

All the gun laws in the world will only work when CRIMINALS obey the law. The net effect of such feel-good legislation is to strip peaceful citizens of their ability to defend themselves while the criminals are free to terrorize.

So... in your mind, we are going to make sure this never happens again by making it "more" illegal than it already is, regardless of the effect on the rights of average people. Nonsense.

Guns are not available "on the street" and "to anyone" - the Federal Govt tracks gun sales, and people that should not be able to by are caught and prosecuted by the FBI through the NICS system. Again, please educate yourself in how this stuff works. "Ban them all" will not stop gun crime- it will increase it because criminals will have nothing to fear from their victims.

As I said, I tend to agree. However, there might be something to be said for a total and complete ban on handguns coupled with severe penalties for possession, like life in prison. It would have to be coupled with vastly improved efforts to get guns off the streets. In other words, it would be completely unconstitutional. Of course, we could always change the second amendment.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #43 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

As I said, I tend to agree. However, there might be something to be said for a total and complete ban on handguns coupled with severe penalties for possession, like life in prison. It would have to be coupled with vastly improved efforts to get guns off the streets. In other words, it would be completely unconstitutional. Of course, we could always change the second amendment.

"A complete ban" on handguns will not work. Criminals are by definition, "CRIMINALS"- they will not respect gun laws, because criminals do not respect the law. By definition. Street thugs will have nothing to fear in making average people victims. With 300 million guns in the country, the idea that they are going to evaporate even in a century is a fantasy... criminals will always have them, just like the criminals in the UK and Australia.

The rest of us deserve the same right to protect ourselves.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #44 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

As I said, I tend to agree. However, there might be something to be said for a total and complete ban on handguns coupled with severe penalties for possession, like life in prison.

Whoa. I thought you were a rabid conservative SDW... was I wrong about that?

If more of the staff had been trained and had arms available, it would have been more likely that todays massacre would have been stopped right off.

The problem is not guns. It's when delusional people have access to guns, and there is no counteracting force.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #45 of 524
Actually there is: Seriously get rid of all guns. Seriously. If you are found with a gun, automatic five year prison sentance, period.

And Jubelum... your arguments should be extended, why would criminals fear gun wielding citizens when they don't fear the reprecussions of their actions? They don't.
"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 #46 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Whoa. I thought you were a rabid conservative SDW... was I wrong about that?

If more of the staff had been trained and had arms available, it would have been more likely that todays massacre would have been stopped right off.

The problem is not guns. It's when delusional people have access to guns, and there is no counteracting force.

Our right to carry concealed in Texas came from the Killen/Lubys killings in 1991, where citizens were left bare in the face of an insane person.

Read the story here...

By Dr. Hupp, who watched her parents' murders in that Luby's: "Let me make a point here, in case this isn't becoming extremely clear. My state has gun control laws. It did not keep Hennard from coming in and killing everybody! What it did do, was keep me from protecting my family! That's the only thing that cotton pickin' law did! OK! Understand that! That's - that's so important!"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #47 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Our right to carry concealed in Texas came from the Killen/Lubys killings in 1991, where citizens were left bare in the face of an insane person.

Read the story here...

By Dr. Hupp, who watched her parents' murders in that Luby's: "Let me make a point here, in case this isn't becoming extremely clear. My state has gun control laws. It did not keep Hennard from coming in and killing everybody! What it did do, was keep me from protecting my family! That's the only thing that cotton pickin' law did! OK! Understand that! That's - that's so important!"

I wish other states had votes with the backbone to support the individual's right to self-protection.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #48 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Actually there is: Seriously get rid of all guns. Seriously. If you are found with a gun, automatic five year prison sentance, period.

And Jubelum... your arguments should be extended, why would criminals fear gun wielding citizens when they don't fear the reprecussions of their actions? They don't.

Most criminals are not suicidal... or on Kamikazi missions, as it were. As we have found from 911 to Jerusalem to Baghdad, nothing will stop a person willing to die. If a petty criminal feared bodily harm or death, they would think twice. Nothing will stop the insane, short of killing them BEFORE they can commit mass murder. That is how restricting the rights of law abiding people can cost them their lives.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #49 of 524
Jubelum, I respect you for what you have done to let civilians protect themselves. Won't discount that. And you've cleared up some legal questions too. I learned something. But..


"Instead of gun control we should have bullet control. If each bullet cost five thousand dollars, people would think twice before they shoot someone!" - Chris Rock

We need ammunition controls

"However, now that we have come so far down this road to hell, it is too little too late to begin placing restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns.

What we can do is control the item that turns a mere chunk of metal into a dangerous killing machine, bullets. Bullets should be heavily taxed, say $1000 per bullet, by the United States government with the resulting revenue being placed into the Homeland Security fund. This solves two problems.

One, this still allows any resident of the United States to purchase and possess a firearm.

For anyone who has purchased a gun for the purpose of personal safety, they will be willing to buy one or two bullets.

These expensive bullets will certainly be considered a valuable item and will be locked away. Bullets are easier to hide than guns and hence lower the possibility of theft."

Interesting idea.
post #50 of 524
That's ridiculous. The market determines the cost. And if bullets cost too much here, they'll be smuggled in from Mexico or Canada.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #51 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Actually there is: Seriously get rid of all guns.

Will not work. If a criminal will commit a murder that could get him executed, does an additional five year sentence matter? or even a 40 year sentence? No... he is going to enjoy the peace of mind of knowing that his victim cannot resist him effectively. The world is his buffet now because the cowering law-abiding people have no way to stop him.

At least the playing field is level in most places. A gun ban would be a daydream for petty and capital criminals alike.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #52 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

"A complete ban" on handguns will not work. Criminals are by definition, "CRIMINALS"- they will not respect gun laws, because criminals do not respect the law. By definition. Street thugs will have nothing to fear in making average people victims. With 300 million guns in the country, the idea that they are going to evaporate even in a century is a fantasy... criminals will always have them, just like the criminals in the UK and Australia.

The rest of us deserve the same right to protect ourselves.

Not if you don't allow the manufacter and sale of said weapons to anyone other than police and punish possession severely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Whoa. I thought you were a rabid conservative SDW... was I wrong about that?

If more of the staff had been trained and had arms available, it would have been more likely that todays massacre would have been stopped right off.

The problem is not guns. It's when delusional people have access to guns, and there is no counteracting force.

Well, I am No worries! But that said, I'm not advocating a policy here, merely discussing and tossing ideas around...not to be flippant on such a serious topic, of course. I'm really just saying that I think it's pretty much one or the other...black or white. You either totally ban handguns, or you allow people to arm themselves.

As for my "real" feelings, I'm unsure. It's clear the government has infringed on our liberties wrt the 2nd amendment. That said, the amendment was created for the purposes of allowing people to form a militia, which is clearly no longer required (and ironically, it's the actual militias that the government really goes after forcefully). I mean, we have a serious gun violence problem. What should we do about it? Is drastic action needed? I don't know...maybe it is. Nothing we do seems to help the problem. I wouldn't advocate banning all guns (hunting guns for example), but really...the only reason to have a handgun is to shoot people. . Is that really reasonable in our modern society? Part of me says no. Part of me believes that a total ban on handguns may just reduce violence and accidental gun deaths. However, it would have to be coupled with other actions, as I said...and it would require the Constitution to be amended, or so I think.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #53 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

What we can do is control the item that turns a mere chunk of metal into a dangerous killing machine, bullets. Bullets should be heavily taxed, say $1000 per bullet, by the United States government with the resulting revenue being placed into the Homeland Security fund. This solves two problems.

One, this still allows any resident of the United States to purchase and possess a firearm.

For anyone who has purchased a gun for the purpose of personal safety, they will be willing to buy one or two bullets.

These expensive bullets will certainly be considered a valuable item and will be locked away. Bullets are easier to hide than guns and hence lower the possibility of theft."

Interesting idea.

Interesting idea, but it would kind of put a serious pinch on hunting (some people do still rely on meat from hunting) and the gun range businesses, wouldn't it? And it would be difficult to develop any familiarity with your weapon through practice, thereby reducing the likely hood of hitting an unintended target.

I would agree that firearms are a big problem for the USA, but it's also a complex problem and not easily solved...
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #54 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

That's ridiculous. The market determines the cost. And if bullets cost too much here, they'll be smuggled in from Mexico or Canada.

Bullets = heroin. Interesting idea.

BTW- it costs, depending on caliber, over $1500 in ammunition at today's prices to make someone proficient in using a handgun for self-defense. At minimum.

And lest I be unfair on this, I must say that guns are not for everyone. I do not deride anyone for their choice to not own or use firearms. It is a right that some choose not to exercise. But the criminals in our world do not know for sure if they are attacking a gun owner or not, and that keeps everyone safer.

Ironic that those that would vote to take my gun are in effect ALSO protected by me having it. It's a great deterrent to the vast majority of criminals. When that right is gone, no one but criminals will be safe.

I tell people straight out in my training classes... if you are not willing to store your gun safely, away from children, know how to use it properly and safely, and know the ultimate power you have, I will refund your money and ask you to never own a gun until you are ready for the responsibility. I do not encourage everyone to get a gun just to get a gun. The safe and proper use of firearms for sport and personal defense are two things I have devoted thousands of hours to in my life. What happened today makes me angry beyond belief- because of the human tragedy and the predictable calls for policies that will cost even more lives.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #55 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

Interesting idea, but it would kind of put a serious pinch on hunting (some people do still rely on meat from hunting) and the gun range businesses, wouldn't it? And it would be difficult to develop any familiarity with your weapon through practice, thereby reducing the likely hood of hitting an unintended target.

I would agree that firearms are a big problem for the USA, but it's also a complex problem and not easily solved...

Not really. There could be a discount for ammo on the range (think of a bucket of balls on a golf range). They would come in droves. As far as hunting's concerned, I know some hunters who'd balk at this, but it is a sport and serious money is put down on equipment in any sport. And maybe the shooters will have to be a little more patient and not shooting at anything that moves. Also it is far more regulated than other sports.

Still, an idea can blossom to fruition. Sadly, it's tragedies like these that seed them.
post #56 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

"A complete ban" on handguns will not work. Criminals are by definition, "CRIMINALS"- they will not respect gun laws, because criminals do not respect the law. By definition. Street thugs will have nothing to fear in making average people victims. With 300 million guns in the country, the idea that they are going to evaporate even in a century is a fantasy... criminals will always have them, just like the criminals in the UK and Australia.

I think we both would agree that the deterrence rationale plays a huge role in our assumptions.
post #57 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


As for my "real" feelings, I'm unsure. It's clear the government has infringed on our liberties wrt the 2nd amendment. That said, the amendment was created for the purposes of allowing people to form a militia, which is clearly no longer required (and ironically, it's the actual militias that the government really goes after forcefully). I mean, we have a serious gun violence problem. What should we do about it? Is drastic action needed? I don't know...maybe it is. Nothing we do seems to help the problem. I wouldn't advocate banning all guns (hunting guns for example), but really...the only reason to have a handgun is to shoot people. . Is that really reasonable in our modern society? Part of me says no. Part of me believes that a total ban on handguns may just reduce violence and accidental gun deaths. However, it would have to be coupled with other actions, as I said...and it would require the Constitution to be amended, or so I think.

SDW, there are 300 million guns already out there. Stopping future sale will do nothing for a thousand years.

And as far as the rest of your post, I completely disagree with your Constitutional take on this. I hunt with my handgun every year. The other reason to have a handgun is for personal protection. The 2nd Amendment is an individual right, like the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights... they are restrictions on government, not on the citizenry. Many cases are currently in the courts that define the 2nd A as an individual right.

Also, "nothing we does seems to help" - this is not correct. States with concealed carry laws have seen drops in random violent crime. Criminals are, well, finally afraid of finding an armed victim. Leveling the playing field WORKS.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #58 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

I think we both would agree that the deterrence rationale plays a huge role in our assumptions.

Indeed. The genie is out of the bottle with firearms... if I could wave a wand and uninvent it, I would. We cannot. As such, I deserve to have a snowball's chance of surviving if some nut goes crazy while I am eating dinner in a restaurant. I refuse to be a victim of someone else's criminal activity. And for some criminals, the only deterrent is the possibility of deadly force.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #59 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I hunt with my handgun every year.

Seconded. I've never hunted myself, but have known some people over the years who hunted with handguns, when in a brush area where the ranges are short enough that a rifle would be overkill, and the branches are dense enough that both shotguns and rifles would be unwieldy.
(one of them hunted with his police issue S&W...just don't tell the Chief! )
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #60 of 524
Personally, I have been arguing that all girls between the ages of 13 and 21 should be required to carry a handgun at all times.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #61 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Personally, I have been arguing that all girls between the ages of 13 and 21 should be required to carry a handgun at all times.

"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #62 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Personally, I have been arguing that all girls between the ages of 13 and 21 should be required to carry a handgun at all times.

That would make dating much more interesting, wouldn't it?
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #63 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

That would make dating much more interesting, wouldn't it?

worried about going off before she does?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #64 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

worried about going off before she does?

Well, it would be a messy situation!
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #65 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Actually there is: Seriously get rid of all guns. Seriously.

That's nuts. I assume you are being hyperbolic.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #66 of 524
Murders can be broken down into several different types:

Crimes of passion, where the weapon is generally purchased ahead of time and used as a matter of convenience.

Crimes of insanity, where the weapon is either stolen or purchased ahead of time.

Crimes of impassion, like the plethora of murders in Philadelphia, for instance, where the weapon is either stolen, purchased, or obtained illegally.

Let's apply the automatic criminalization of gun possession:

Crimes of passion will no longer be committed by guns.

Crimes of insanity will be less likely to be committed by guns, the only exceptions being guns obtain by stealing or buying guns from criminals.

Crimes of impassion committed by guns will be slightly impaired, with the notable ability of police to arrest and hold people found with guns on them, in their houses or otherwise in their possession. This is something that is currently IMPOSSIBLE without a justified warrant and only for concealment crimes.
"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 #67 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

That's nuts. I assume you are being hyperbolic.

Of course not.

Want to reduce gun violence?

Reduce the number of guns...

Want to reduce murders?

Well...

Psychological counseling, steady jobs and economic prospects, and increased educational quality/depth are just some of the ways to reduce the likelihood of someone committing a murder.
"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 #68 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

"A complete ban" on handguns will not work. Criminals are by definition, "CRIMINALS"- they will not respect gun laws, because criminals do not respect the law. By definition. Street thugs will have nothing to fear in making average people victims. With 300 million guns in the country, the idea that they are going to evaporate even in a century is a fantasy... criminals will always have them, just like the criminals in the UK and Australia.

The rest of us deserve the same right to protect ourselves.

"Key points from the 2005/06 data

The risk of becoming a victim of crime has fallen from 40 per cent at its peak in 1995 to 23 per cent according to British Crime Survey (BCS) interviews in 2005/06, the lowest level recorded since the BCS began in 1981."

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page63.asp

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page39.asp

I would guess that elimination of handguns is not required and likely, given the number in wild, difficult to achieve. Elimination of handgun ammo outside of tightly controlled environments (i.e. only at ranges, only match ammo) and by type (say still allow snake shot) would likely reduce handgun crime. You would have to also restrict reloading materials (ie effectively kill it for long arms as well).

Even if handguns were made illegal "the rest of us" could still protect ourselves with shotguns, at least in the home. I prefer that folks didn't typically carry, concealed or otherwise.

Vinea
post #69 of 524
My deepest sympathies to the families of those who died at V Tech (save one).

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 #70 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aries 1B View Post

My deepest sympathies to the families of those who died at V Tech (save one).

V/R,
Aries 1B

Thanks for trying to pull the thread back. I felt this one was too political and people behavior outside of civility. I started a new thread here so that those that actually care about this tragedy can discuss it. My wife and I are both VT alum.
post #71 of 524
What a horrible tragedy. I have to go read up on what's "known" at the moment.

As for the pro and against gun discussion, I'm for banning guns. The argument about needing them for personal protection doesn't fly and it only perpetuates unnecessary gun acquisitions both legally and illegally. If you live in a place where you think it's useful to carry a gun, here's my advice......MOVE.

For every story about how an armed citizen helped stop a crime, there's dozens of stories of people committing a crime with the use of one they got a hold of too easily. I don't care if there's 1 billion guns in the country either.

I live in California and have NEVER felt the need to own one. I think we've come a long way since the wild wild west days...at least in some places thankfully.
post #72 of 524
I think there are both needs: one to express feelings about the event and to deal with the emotional stress of it all, and one to deal with the situation and strive to reduce the chances of it happening again.

What happened was a travesty beyond imagination, and all those caught up in it, either as victims, their relatives, friends, etc., have my thoughts and condolences. For some, those who survived the attack or those close enought to witness it as well as those who lost friends or family, it will be a traumatic experience that will haunt them forever. For others more distant, it will be a shocking event that will, sadly, soon be forgotten in all probability.

Some who feel in some way connected to the tragedy will need to express themselves, and mydo has created that outlet. (see link in his post above)

Some who are a little more detached from the event will wish to discuss it in other ways, which this thread turned into.

All discussions are necessary and warranted in their appropriate places.

 

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 #73 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Murders can be broken down into several different types:

Crimes of passion, where the weapon is generally purchased ahead of time and used as a matter of convenience.

Crimes of insanity, where the weapon is either stolen or purchased ahead of time.

Crimes of impassion, like the plethora of murders in Philadelphia, for instance, where the weapon is either stolen, purchased, or obtained illegally.

Let's apply the automatic criminalization of gun possession:

Crimes of passion will no longer be committed by guns.

Crimes of insanity will be less likely to be committed by guns, the only exceptions being guns obtain by stealing or buying guns from criminals.

Crimes of impassion committed by guns will be slightly impaired, with the notable ability of police to arrest and hold people found with guns on them, in their houses or otherwise in their possession. This is something that is currently IMPOSSIBLE without a justified warrant and only for concealment crimes.

"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #74 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilsch View Post

What a horrible tragedy. I have to go read up on what's "known" at the moment.

As for the pro and against gun discussion, I'm for banning guns. The argument about needing them for personal protection doesn't fly and it only perpetuates unnecessary gun acquisitions both legally and illegally. If you live in a place where you think it's useful to carry a gun, here's my advice......MOVE.

For every story about how an armed citizen helped stop a crime, there's dozens of stories of people committing a crime with the use of one they got a hold of too easily. I don't care if there's 1 billion guns in the country either.

I live in California and have NEVER felt the need to own one. I think we've come a long way since the wild wild west days...at least in some places thankfully.

You can't "MOVE" anymore... these things are happening everywhere, from small midwest towns to big cities and all places in between. Killeen Texas is a military town, generally peaceful, until someone goes nuts and no one can stop them from mass murder.

For every story of a gun used improperly, there are stories of people whose possession and use of guns has prevented a crime. When was the last time you heard a story reported when the gun is NOT in the hands of a criminal? It's not part of the Agenda to tell the real stories of lives saved and crimes prevented because the right person had a gun. If your wife or daughter was about to be raped, would you prefer for her to have a means of defense? If you were the target of a random carjacking by someone who had killed the previous victims, would you want to have a chance?

I stopped my attacker simply by having a gun and the ability to use it properly. I saved my own life and that of my family. I will never surrender the right to do that, no matter the laws. This is my life and my family I am talking about. Period.

AS for Kallipornia... I'm glad you feel safe there. Even DiFi carries a gun for protection while she tells the rest of the country that they can't.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #75 of 524
I'll up the ante on SDW2001's (surprisingly reasonable) idea that a huge penalty for owning a gun could actually work in deterring criminals after guns are outlawed. How about this, if you are caught with a gun after they are outlawed, you get shot to death by that same gun (no kidding). Five years prison would be a big deterrent for owning an illegal gun, even for criminals. But the thought that that gun itself you are holding will do you in if you get caught would deter virtually anyone.

I would be all for this idea. The only flaw is that it would be much too easy to plant a gun on someone and frame them.
post #76 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

For every story of a gun used improperly, there are stories of people whose possession and use of guns has prevented a crime.


There were almost half a million criminal incidents involving firearms in 2005. I'm having a hard time finding half a million stories of conceal and carry folks stopping crimes.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #77 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

There were almost half a million criminal incidents involving firearms in 2005. I'm having a hard time finding half a million stories of conceal and carry folks stopping crimes.

You will have a hard time. They are rarely reported in the media outlets. You cannot quantify the number of crimes that are never attempted because the criminal is deterred by the possibility of an armed victim.

Quote:
According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #78 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

You will have a hard time. They are rarely reported in the media outlets. You cannot quantify the number of crimes that are never attempted because the criminal is deterred by the possibility of an armed victim.

Indeed. It might be none.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #79 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Indeed. It might be none.

It might be 1 billion. Just not in your neighborhood.
I love ya, midwinter.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #80 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

It might be 1 billion. Just not in your neighborhood.
I love ya, midwinter.

Actually, crime in my neck of the woods is pretty rough, depending. Massive amounts of meth + a systemically disenfranchised population of 30% makes for the not happy fun days for cops. I have now lived in three states where folks love them some guns. Love love love. I have also lived in 3 states where people would happily let 6 year olds shoot shotguns and drive cars if they could. Hell, I have been driving since I was 14.

I grew up with guns. I grew up tromping around in the woods shooting things.

I get pissed off when some lunatic guns down 30 kids in a school (and I work at a uni that had a shooting about 10 years ago) in much the same way that I get pissed off when some lunatics blow up the train I was trying to take in London one morning.

Here's what I'd like to see:

You want a gun? Great. You get a gun. But you have to join the national guard.

That's what the country's owner's manual says.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
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