GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Rosario: Ted Nugent? Is that the very best you can come up with? A guy who hasn't had a hit in 25 years isn't a qualified weapons critic. 
The link to Tom Plate's article in the same one is just as sage
BigJ: the laws that were in play were followed. The laws aren't the problem, easy access to weapons is the problem. Seriously speaking (Not defending the OP, because this is a belief that a lot of people hold), Seung-Hui Cho had to pass to very flimsy criminal records checks (which, if Brendan had read the actual VA purchasing laws for resident aliens was all that was needed along with 3 pieces of Identification), which don't include PERS or person records information, such as mental or weapons adjudication. NCIC was not checked for rap sheet information, and NO fingerprints were required to certify the information.
The fact that there isn't any one authority that governs the sale, transport and ownership of firearms... makes it even harder to reign in states with lax ownership requirements.
Making personal firearms illegal isn't an answer, but neither is complete de-regulation. The answer is most likely outside the box.
Doesn't matter who he is, or what hes qualified in, he makes a valid point... And I @!#$ hate Tom Plate, If you read it, half of what he said was BS. That actually how I found Ted's Artical is by reading Plates first..
.
Quote:
These students were not killed by a Korean, they were killed by a 9 mm handgun and a .22-caliber handgun.
Really? Last time I checked, my 22 wasnt capable of loading it self, aiming it self, and fireing it self at 32 people. Granted it was a Korean that killed these people, it was a human being.
Quote:
"Guns don't kill people," goes the gun lobby's absurd mantra. Far fewer guns in America would logically result in far fewer deaths from people pulling the trigger. The probability of the Virginia Tech gun massacre happening would have been greatly reduced if guns weren't so easily available to ordinary citizens.
Back that up...he cant. The kid would have easily gotten a gun. If I want a hand gun, I know where to go to get one, i could have it in 2 hours and that includs the 1:55 minute drive...
Quote:
Last month, I was robbed at 10 in the evening in the alley behind my home. As I was carrying groceries inside, a man with a gun approached me where my car was parked. The gun he carried featured one of those red-dot laser beams, which he pointed right at my head.
Because I'm anything but a James Bond type, I quickly complied with all of his requests. Perhaps because of my rapid response (it is called surrender), he chose not to shoot me; but he just as easily could have. What was to stop him?
I have no idea what point he was trying to prove with mentioning the red dot sight..but anyways, Proper training and a .40 cal would have stopped him from shooting you. Granted, when someone has a gun pointed at you, its not best to just pull out a gun cause it can get you shot..however, if he was using the gun as a scare tatic(which alot of people do) then you would have scared him away. Look up armed citizens in American Hunter Magazine..youll see..
Also any bets on whether this gun he was using was obtained legally?
Quote:
Oh, and police tell me the armed robber definitely was not Korean. Not that I would have known one way or the other: Basically the only thing I saw or can remember was the gun, with the red dot, pointed right at my head.
And you proved? That koreans dont kill people? I dont get it..
Quote:
A near-death experience does focus the mind. We need to get rid of our guns.
Its your choice, if you dont want to own a gun, then dont. But if you really think keeping legal citizens from owning guns, its going to stop people from illegally obtaining them and shooting you...your dead wrong. I mean that litterally, as crime rates will more than likely go up. If your a theif...and you know your victim definitely isn't carrying, whats to stop you?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Friday, April 20, 2007 8:36 PM
I didn't mean that there should be a total deregulation. What I meant is that we need to keep guns away from people like this and ENCOURAGE ownership by law abiding citizens instead of vilifying and inanimate object and those that own them. I believe that the psychiatrists that were counseling Cho did a poor job and that he should have been admitted. Another problem is that in many states, like mine, they ask the applicant but do NOT verify that if they have had mental problems, you just check a box. In my state they make sure that the address on your DL is correct ( I had to get a new one with the correct address) but they don't verify your mental health?! This information needs to be part of the background check that is ran by the gun dealers and the check takes minutes. Maybe that would require a new law, but that is something I believe in and that's rare. Any law that does not serve to keep guns out of criminals hands I do not support, that includes "gun free zones" and "AWBs". Anyway, you are correct the laws were being followed, except for the USELESS "gun free zone" policy.
________________________
Ron Paul in 2008!
Constitution > Politics
Guess Im just used to NY...Americans gun laws dont need to be stricter, Just certain States...
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote: such as mental or weapons adjudication.
You know the reason why he wasn't flagged for his mental health history? Because of mental health advocates. Not because of gun advocates or the way they wanted the legislation. Mental health advocates argued that people flagged at Cho's level of illness shouldn't be permanently "stigmatized" because it implies they can't get better.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=cho+mental+health+advocates&btnG=Search+News
Also, GAM, you attacked my source and Rosario's source, but yet you didn't really offer your own to counter. Don't make me bust out the logical fallacies list on you.
The source I offered was just one of MANY I could of choosed from. I even went to the Brady website to find anti-gun arguments but they were flimsy at best. Anti-gun advocates seem, to me, to be largely motivated by emotion.
---
Id have to agree with that...
I didnt really post any info, just something that I i feel is very truthful. You cant argue the truth...
I was being Ironical, both of you
Seriously, I don't like quoting interested groups or people that have something to gain from the exposure of one or another issue from their viewpoint, and then go on to reference their own source information and call it a comprehensive study (without mention of their methods in toto).
If you want to point at a really good source on the gun issue: there is the Gary Kleck's
Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America , and on the flip-side NIJ's:
Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. Both are based on individual survey response information, which isn't 100% reliable. The more definitive (and challenging to Kleck's assertions) National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) actually uses interviews with individuals that have reported a crime, and there are also NIJ studies that use police and prosecutor's information.
The other thing, I don't know if you've ever seen an NCIC report, but there is mental instability risk report information included in the full rapsheet, on most state police rapsheets that's not included, or if there is any indication, it's a ***MENTAL INSTABILITY*** flag, with nothing else (the only states I've seen this on is MI, NY, CA). It's not because of any lobbying group, it's because the state's standard requires the individual be proved violent to themselves or others, if crazy old Benny wants to howl at the moon while naked on his own property behind closed doors or do invisible face-stabs while wearing a Great Gonzorelli costume, that's his business...as long as he isn't hurting anyone, it won't get reported. CPSIC (basically Canada's NCIC) has more complete reporting, and since we don't have each province with their own police agency (only Ontario and Quebec have their own), Entering info is standardized, and everything gets entered in, and in a standard format. If it becomes part of a case, it's in a automatic report synopsis.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
I was just agreeing with emotion comment. I know what you meant Gam..
1HOTCAVFIRE wrote:1. Watch Bowling for Columbine and you'll realize with the death rate in the United States it makes sense that Bearing Arms is not the most logical thing
2. Every American believes its a good way of protection but doesn't realize that in the heat of the moment without further thought people will not hesitate to shoot someone without thinking it through.
3. In Canada you'd get bottled for hitting on a girl that has a boyfriend that you never knew about, after a few stitches everyone is cool.. In the states you'd be shot to death
Yes I know I will have people say AHH F you and so on...... But you CANNOT deny it, that IT IS WRONG, and having guns so easily accessible makes things worse...
And then all you @!#$in morons wonder why some retard shot up a school.....
DUMB @!#$
Guns are way harder to purchase than they were ever intended to be. Our country does not have enough armed citizens.
Chris Crossont
A.H.M. Performance
Baltimore, MD
http://www.ahmperformance.com
Guns are also a whole lot more powerful than they were when that intent was formed.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM wrote:Guns are also a whole lot more powerful than they were when that intent was formed.
yes; but at the time of that formation; the gun was far more powerful than the weapons before it as well. that argument is weak at best if not null. RTKBA (right to keep and bear arms) never exclusively meant guns of the time or any period. sword, dagger, bow, cudgel; all fall under the 2nd; as well will blaster rifles, phasers, death rays/stars.
i dare you all to read through
this. A FAQ that lists sources. OMGWTFBBQ
True... but, at the time it was penned, it was dealing with black powder muskets... How many people owned a 16 pounder? Or a Privateer? Not many... the cost was prohibitive, and even still, it took multiple people to man the cannon and a crew of people to run a Privateer.
You can dispense lead with higher accuracy, and MUCH faster (with a lot less fouling) out of today's weapons. I don't think the framers of the second amendment took technological upgrades into account.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
but in fact, they did. RTKBA is framed around the militia defending against a tyrannical federal gov; and that arms borne by private citizens and members of the militia may be equal to those borne by a federal military in order to "keep the playing field level" so to speak.
even still; given your argument about black powder muskets; the cost was still greater as opposed to a knife or cutlass or pike or other martial weapons of the time. (all of which were guaranteed to "kill you better" than a black powder musket).
weapon cost is a constant; of course better weapons are going to cost more. again, that's a null argument. i could spend twenty dollars to build a 12 gauge pipe-rifle; or i could spend two-hundred dollars to buy a 12 gauge shotgun. both are lethal weapons, both are intended to kill something. cost is NOT prohibitive to lethality.
now; equate it to you not wanting a wrench to tighten your lug nuts only some-of-the-time and under the right conditions. with that being known, whoever is utilizing such a tool (knife, gun, sword) would want to guarantee that the tool did it's job. hence the reasoning a better shotgun costs more.
basically; you can kill something for less than 20 dollars; but you can always improve your odds by upgrading your equipment. which leads us back to my first sentance.
Good enough, but in the Faq that you posted, following that logic, a private citizen or State of means may own a nuclear weapon.
By your line of reasoning, it's perfectly reasonable, and constitutionally protected, cost-prohibitive as it is.
I can lay my bottom dollar that this was not intended. At some point you just have to say whoa.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
of course; it is perfectly reasonable for a multibillion dollar entity (i.e. a state) to arm it's militia and national guard with a nuclear weapon. RTKBA applies to the militia; which is defined (at it's core) as the ordinary able-bodied american citizen (the unorganized militia). the big however; is that a state has the power to regulate RTKBA, not the federal government; so if nuclear weapons were to go on sale at your local wal-mart; it would fall on the state to regulate the sale of such arms and the federal government could do nothing about it. This is the reason why it is perfectly legal to openly carry a handgun in vermont; but completely illegal to even travel through mass. with an unloaded and torn down handgun in your glovebox. There is no standardization to RTKBA, only regulation by the state--where it belongs.
The worry here (in a way to show you that I agree to an extent) is that if a state legislation were passed regulating the sale of nuclear weapons to the private citizen (unorganized militia) that state for sure has a governor and state representation that is completely and utterly irresponsible and stupid. However; it is not relatively rare to find private citizens in the piloting community who own and fly operating (and firing) warplanes. There are a bunch of MiGs out in Utah owned by a private flying club.
If the 2nd amendment only applies to the technology available at draft, then so does the 1st; and the freedom of expression only applies to implements printed on Benjamin Franklin's printing press and calligraphy quills on rudimentary parchment. Is it reasonable to say that right now everyone reading this post is undertaking an act that was not considered or intended during the creation of the 1st amendment; and that is should then regulated and made illegal to access or share thoughts and information via the internet?
I believe that if one supports any amendment; he should arbitrarily support all to the fullest. I've always wondered what Larry Flynt thought about gun control and stuff, since he fought so hard for first amendment rights, would he be supportive of second amendment rights?
On an aside; as I know this thread is about the VT shootings, I'll say this. I play violent video games (and partake in violent media), I own firearms, and I'm a male aged 18-45; which automatically makes me confused, angry and frustrated. I have NOT gone on a shooting rampage; and I'm not the only one in the world who is in this predicament. It's foolish to think that violent video games, firearms, or demographics in any combination are a direct cause of a shooting rampage.
I think that's all for today. Good talking with you GAM. I wonder where the OP and other trolls went.
.................... ..... /´¯/)
.................... ..,/¯ ..//
.................... ./... ./ /
............./´¯/' ...'/´¯ ¯`•¸
........../'/.../... ./... ..../¨¯\
........('(...´(.. (...... ,~/'...')
.........\.......... ..... ..\/..../
..........''...\.... ..... . _.•´
............\....... ..... ..(
..............\..... ..... ...\
I didn't imply anything about violent video games, but that at some point you have to stop.
I'll be honest, I really REALLY have problems trusting the average person (meaning whomever wishes to purchase whatever high-powered rifle, either automatic or semiautomatic) with a lot of firepower. I'm not a cop, but you can't look at what has happened recently (at Virginia Tech) and previously (at Columbine) and then at the incidents you don't hear about, where a person of means who has a large amount of firepower attempts to repel lawful search and arrest of Police (like @ Waco, and Ruby Ridge to an extent). That's a few incidents less like those where a person who should be arrested decides to repel borders and basically shoot at anything.
This is one of the reasons I know most cops prefer at least knowing who has weapons, and if you could at least know who had what (like joe schmuck has a SPAS-12 and distemper due to syphilis... just for a goof
). While police know that criminals don't usually take the time to register their weapons, when you're on a domestic call, there's no such thing as too little information.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
The video games thing was an aside; didn't mean for it to come off like you implied anything.
Do note that a 5.56 round fired from an M16 (AR-15) or a 7.62 fired from an AK-47 carries less energy, penetration power, and moves slower and is thus inherently less lethal (or lethally effective, ballistics-wise) than the common hunting calibers like 300 win mag or .308 winchester. The only round significantly more capable (ballistics wise) than the more common hunting rounds is the 50 BMG. The 50 BMG is the only instance where a "military-only" caliber outperforms a civilian hunting round. The 300 win mag and 308 winchester are totally common, high-powered, are fired from rifles that are found in varieties of configurations including autoloading, and semi-automatic/lever/bolt action. These rounds are rarely used to commit a gun crime. Yet all these calibers are used (including the 50 BMG) for hunting game ranging from armadillos to elk to bears. The civilian versions of the AR-15 are commonly used as "varmint guns" due to their effective range, manageable firing system, and vast array of soldier of fortune customizations. All to shoot gophers who keep digging up the grapevines in a friend's back yard. (With a 2,000 night vision Starlight scope).
I can agree with you about pretty much everything you said there; however only for lawful search and seizure and official police interaction. Not for gun control however. Luby's Massacre could have been prevented (or minimized; depending on if you're an optimist or pessimist) had Suzanna Hupp been allowed to carry her handgun legally (at least concealed). On the same note, VT could have been minimized had (in January 2006) VT acknowledged concealed weapons permits as valid on their campus. Columbine; that's a trick question, because as minors (as well as more prone to irresponsibility), high school students shouldn't own handguns. Parallel this to the Pearl, Mississippi high school shooting where the Asst Principal retrieved his personal firearm from his vehicle, however, and we see that the situation was minimized as the shooter confessed to planning to shoot up the nearby Junior High school after leaving the high school...that is until the Asst Principal cornered him, locked and drawn, and stopped it until police arrived.
Gun control assumes that the general public is irresponsible and unstable. This is grossly inaccurate. Gun control promotes unarmed victims, and ensures that law-abiding citizens are restricted while extra-legal individuals have access to any sort of firearm they want and can wantonly utilize them against the unarmed. Every day, millions of American citizens go about their daily routine with nary an incident. A generous amount of those people own and keep firearms; and those who use them offensively (so to speak) represent a vast minority. If law enforcement and the government want to assume that all citizens are criminals for their own safety, the citizen must assume that all officials are in violation of their oath of office to serve the people...for our own protection, and be ready to defend ourselves from tyranny and oppression (the reason for RTKBA being in the USC in the first place). The first (or 2nd) ruling by the US Supreme Court on the 2nd amendment was that RTKBA existed before the constitution, and that the amendment was only there to protect the states (i.e. the people) from being disarmed by the federal government in case of the above.
Furthermore; no police agency is obligated to protect you 24/7. It's just not possible. Sure, they'll help you if they can, but for the most part you're on your own. So, if you can't defend yourself immediately or long enough for the police to show up, you're robbed, raped, or dead. Period.
While we're on the topic though, let's do a quick case study...
I live in Maryland, one of the most restrictive states in the country when it comes to concealed carry permits. So we're going to do a comparison between the process for me to acquire and carry a firearm and someone that we'll call John Q. Public.
For me to get and carry a gun in Maryland, I would have to first pass a mandatory background check. That's not unusual anywhere anymore, though Maryland's process is (I think) a little more thorough than Virginia's. So I pass my background check and now I'm the proud owner of a brand new gun and a truckload of ammunition. Now I decide that people like the psychopath at VT worry me, so I want to carry my gun with me. So I apply for a concealed carry permit. Unfortunately, since I don't work in an occupation that requires me to carry large amounts of cash and I haven't been "directly and recently threatened with harm" I don't qualify. I am allowed to "transport" my weapon only under very specific conditions, including hunting, target shooting and going to and from a dog show (WTF? That one I don't get). Even if I did somehow qualify for a CCP, It would still be impossible for me to assist anyone if some nutjob decided to shoot up Towson University, since it's illegal to carry a weapon on the grounds of any public school. Seems to be the same case at Virginia Tech, but I digress.
So now let's look at John Q. Public. He might be a little down on his luck, lives in poor housing in the city and decides that he wants to take advantage of one of the hardworking citizens he's heard about out in the suburbs. JQP calls up one of his friends and tells him he's looking to carry and his friend tells him who to get in touch with. A few hours later, JQP is packing. The guy that sold it to him had no idea who he was. He didn't do any background check. He didn't know that JQP is a habitual alcoholic and does drugs. He also didn't care, because JQP showed up with cash. So he leaves with a gun, carrying it concealed. He hops on the light rail train out of town, bound for the suburbs. While in the suburbs, he comes across someone like me who just found out he's not allowed to carry his legal firearm with him for any reason. Since now JQP has drawn his gun on me, maybe I should re-submit my CCP permit to let them know I've been directly threatened. Better, maybe I should ask JQP to wait a minute while I call 911. I might not bleed to death before the police get there to "protect me".
So let's review...
I am a law abiding citizen who would follow all the appropriate procedures to buy and carry a gun. Unfortunately I would find out that I can own a gun but not carry it.
JQP is a criminal. Criminals, by definition, are people that don't follow the law. JQP bypassed the application process and background checks. He carried a concealed & unlicensed firearm. As a "habitual drunkard" (actual MD law language) he's not even allowed to POSSESS a weapon, let alone carry it. It is a crime in Maryland to carry a weapon in a MTA station or on any MTA vehicle, so his ride on the light rail train could garner 3 individual charges. Add to that armed robbery and (god forbid) any violent offenses and you've got a pretty impressive rap sheet for one day's work.
FACT: More, or stricter, gun laws and licensing requirements have no effect whatsoever on those who didn't follow the law to get their weapons to begin with. That's why they're called "criminals", because they "commit crimes".
"If you outlaw gun ownership, only outlaws will own guns". <<< Words to live by.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Monday, April 23, 2007 10:26 AM
09:f9:11:02:9d:74:e3:5b:d8:41:56:c5:63
P&T come at things from an extremely Libertarian POV, so I'm not entirely surprised you're orgasming over it Jimmy
To address your point about only criminals having weapons: If you can take the weapons away from them (ie, increased search powers ) and, make it harder for them to get legally, you'll have less guns on the street. Assuming a well armed populace is polite populace is a fantasy. If you're not fast on the draw you're dead anyhow, why not make it harder for a criminal to arm themself?
And for the local Gun shop owner, I don't know what to say. I believe in gun control, but at the expense of a person's reputation and livelihood... damn. Making copies = teh very good idea.
Kevin: I understand what you're saying, but that's one of the back-asswardest things I've ever heard about police, and I know it's completely true in the US, Canada's different though. When you summon help, police are obligated to respond in timely fashion. If they don't and you're harmed or whatnot, you or your estate can file wrongful death and Police can be censured or fired for dereliction of duty.
What I've seen as far as people getting shot in self-defence here, it happens very rarely, and when it does, it's kept quiet.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Oh Jimmy, one other thing: At least Moore makes you think and talk, as opposed to Conservative assh
ole radio and tv that only makes you roll your eyes and change the channel.
Moore's made a lot of money turning a documentary into entertainment, but if you at least think about what he's saying, you're doing more than you do with 90% of the crap on TV and Radio (and conservative Documentaries that make next to nothing and get screened at conservative self-flagellation fests).
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Quote:
2. Every American believes its a good way of protection but doesn't realize that in the heat of the moment without further thought people will not hesitate to shoot someone without thinking it through.
Every american? Not even every American likes guns. How do you know people would pull a trigger in the heat of the moment? I disagree 100% and completely reserve my opinion - most Americans would be too scared to shoot a house invader or robber.
How come no one ever mentions the crazed gunmen who were stopped by civilians with guns?
Also, drugs are illegal but that doesn't stop them from killing people every day.
