Echoing Malkin's blog, Gibson and Napolitano lamented VA Tech ban on handguns
In the wake of a deadly shooting rampage that killed over 30 people on the campus of Virginia Tech, host John Gibson asked on the April 16 edition of Fox News' The Big Story: "So, theoretically, in this lecture hall where all 31 were killed, there could have been someone with a carry permit carrying their gun to shoot the shooter?" Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano replied: "No," adding, "Virginia lets you carry a gun at a gas station or a bank or a stadium, but not on a college campus, where you may protect kids."
Napolitano and Gibson's comments echo those of right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin, who, citing an op-ed written by a Virginia Tech spokesperson, noted on her weblog that the university prohibits handguns. She then quoted a weblog post from "Andrew's Dad," who wrote: "Just imagine if students were armed. We no longer need to imag[in]e what will happen when they are not armed." Malkin also quoted an email from "[r]eader Kevin" who claimed: "Imagine if sensible CCW [Concealed Carry Weapon] laws allowed people to defend themselves, this tragedy could have been avoided."
From the April 16 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:
GIBSON: Judge Napolitano is also here with us. Judge has been looking into the law. They're -- people in Virginia have carry permits.
NAPOLITANO: Virginia is one the easiest states in the Union for anyone without a felony conviction, who's over the age of 21, and was a permanent resident of the state, to get a license to own and carry a concealed weapon. Meaning, you have it under your jacket, under your garment -- no one knows you have it.
GIBSON: So, theoretically, in this lecture hall where all 31 were killed, there could have been someone with a carry permit carrying their gun to shoot the shooter?
NAPOLITANO: No, because the same people that just dropped the ball, as Bo just described, that allowed 32 additional people to die, also said: "Virginia lets you carry a gun at a gas station or a bank or a stadium, but not on a college campus, where you may protect kids." So nobody has guns there except the college campus police. The professors --
GIBSON: And the criminal.
NAPOLITANO: And the criminal. Professors don't have guns, and the students don't have guns, even though they could lawfully carry them as soon as they get off campus.
That's funny. I blame the administration for not being prepared. Looney's will always find a way to get a gun, suggesting I can bring a loaded weapon into work is stupid. "hey, you ain't building that computer fast enough!" "I'm tired, I need a break!" BANG! "Problem solved." That'll make you want to show up daily...
Certainly, carrying a gun is one way to defend yourself against an armed assailant.
Could it have helped avert this tragedy...don't know. I do know that this cowardly murderer marched in and mowed down innoncent people...who he knew were unarmed.
How can you be certain that he knew they were unarmed?
He heard a Bush speech touting their stockpiles of weapons. That's how he knew they were unarmed.
it's a win-lose situation when it comes to arming everyone. Does that have the potential to cause more accidents than it would prevent freak murder rampages? Yes. But could this crisis have been averted had there been one student/teacher who was armed and had good aim? Yes. I hate to say it but it really is best for no one to have a gun, but the criminals will still be able to get them even if you ban every type of gun in the country.
Hate to say it like this, but Michael Moore (regardless of POV) did point out how countries that ban weapons except for the police force have a statistically significant lower rate of gun crimes compared to the US. It is true that a crook will always find a way to get a gun, but it is equally true that with enough money technology can find that illegal bad boy. Is the real issue here that we ain't willing to pay for security? Hmmmm, how low does it go?
Well, that's all to do with supply. In those countries, there's just far fewer firearms in circulation, hence less access to them by criminals or those wishing to commit criminal acts. There is a definite correlation between the number of firearms per capita and the number of firearm-related crimes.
But Moore also pointed out that in Canada, where basically everyone has a weapon, fewer people by far get killed. I' not saying don't ban weapons (especially automatic), but there's also this aspect of America IMHO that's still "in the good old days". It' okay to execite people, you only need to parties, all who disagree are traitors, everyone should have a gun. That's not what most people think, but some do... It's just a different atmosphere.
But Moore also pointed out that in Canada, where basically everyone has a weapon, fewer people by far get killed.
Moore also pointed out that most of the weapons in Canada are hunting rifles or shotguns. We do have incidents similar to the one in Virginia yesterday (the last one in Montreal last year). What we don't have are scores of shootings occuring daily as in the US because we also don't have many people owning handguns and/or automatic weapons. These are very restricted and not necessary in a sane society except in the Armed Forces (including the police). And the assertion that "basically everyone has a weapon" is only true statistically because, in fact, a substantial number of Canadians don't own a gun of any kind. Despite the best efforts of lobbyists, our government has so far resisted most attempts to loosen gun-control laws here - that's because the majority of Canadians agree with and obey those laws.
Wrong! There are more then enough weapons to be got. Heck you can just drive across the border to a former east block country and buy one in the black market.
One big difference is that in these countries everyone agrees that no one should have weapons with a few strictly enforced exceptions.
And the weird thing is, crime rates are very low, even without people having guns.
Though the states with the highest gun-related crimes are the ones with the most liberal laws.
Heck you can just drive across the border to a former east block country and buy one in the black market.
That is hardly true. You cannot "just" drive across the border and "buy one in the black market". What kind of statement is that? I think the small thinking people may agree with you, but people who actually know what's happening in the world will not.
Oh sure, it is not like they sell them by the dozen at every corner, but the borders are very loosely guarded. If you ask around you will get them. You can only get weapons from outside most continental EU states or from weapons smugglers. From central europe, countries like poland, czech, hungary are about 3hrs and you can get to serbia in say 8-10 hrs.
much easier to go t a 'gun show' here and buy anything you wan including kits to convert guns to full auto, massive clips and 'cop killer' bullets all with no checks, no paperwork and no way to trace it. man, those poor spree-killers sure have it hard here in A-mur-ka
Michael Moore is a master at bending numbers to suit his point of view.
Michael Moore knows nothing about firearms, either, having made ridiculous comments about handguns being too powerful to hunt with. He's the last person who you should trust for an honest look at the gun issue.
"comments about handguns being too powerful to hunt with." --mthalo
What remarks are you referring to. Can you link to a credible site that quotes such remarks? I apologize for putting you through that, but so often here people make remarks that are entirely unsupported on closer evaluation of the evidence at hand. I just wanted to make sure you are not one of those types.
Thanks.
oh my!
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2006-11-14
Here's a link, with the text in question. It's obvious that either he has never hunted, fired a handgun, or he lying to promote an agenda.
A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives ...by Michael Moore
9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours.
I don't see it. Where does Moore say "comments about handguns being <i>too powerful</i> to hunt with."?
I think you are reading between the lines.
It appears that Moore would like automatic weapons and handguns banned and if you can't hunt without either of them, you aren't much of a hunter. I disagree about banning weapons, but it is reasonable that you aren't a very good hunter if you are only able to do it with automatic weapons and/or handguns.
Unfortunately, looking at crime rates in other, less gun-friendly countries requires the use of empirical evidence to aid in formulating policy. The U.S. believes that it's much better to formulate policy on hairbrained theory, like the warn-out "if-one-student-had-a-gun-this-wouldn't-have-happened-theory."
The whole Pro-gun logic is faulty to begin with:
1. They claim that we need guns to defend ourselves.
What's wrong with pepper spray or a stun-gun? Why does defending oneself naturally mean killing the other guy? I think we should all be allowed to carry non-lethal arms. That would do the trick. Let the police carry the real guns.
2. Only criminals kill people with guns.
That's like saying only rapists rape people. Every criminal was a non-criminal at some point in their life. The VT gunman wasn't a criminal. Well, not until he killed 32 people with his legally-purchased handgun.
3. Guns don't kill people....If someone wants to kill someone, they'll find a way, gun or otherwise.
Someone please tell me how this gunman at VT could have killed 32 classmates with a hunting knife or a slingshot? Something tells me that if he didn't have the ability and the precedent to blow away a lot of people with a gun for the spectacle of it, he wouldn't have killed anyone.
4. The 2nd amendment guarantees my right to bear arms.
Okay, so maybe the Family Guy interpretation is a stretch, but it is ambiguous and outdated. It was written in a time when there were regular militias, a young, unstable government, and a depleted regular army. It could certainly be interpreted to mean a number of things. We assume that it doesn't permit citizens to posess nuclear weapons, but why not? Where's the ACLU on that one. I want my nukes! "Arms" could mean a pocket knife or anything. BTW, the constitution has been amended before. I think they are called "amendments."
5. The "if-one-student-had-a-gun-this-wouldn't-have-happened-theory."
Study after study has shown that a gun in the home increases the liklihood of being involved in a gun-related accident, homicide, assault, and suicide. If one student or teacher in the class was packing, sure, maybe only 5 or 10 people would have died. But how many more incidents of gun violence would the presence of more guns create? We can't say for sure, but we know it would be more. And if this scenario had played out, would we be talking about the heroic, gun-toting student that saved the day? Hell no. We'd be talking about a slightly-less-horrific massacre.
What's wrong with pepper spray or a stun-gun? Why does defending oneself naturally mean killing the other guy? I think we should all be allowed to carry non-lethal arms. That would do the trick. Let the police carry the real guns.
So why do the police carry real guns if stun guns and pepper spray are so effective? Stun guns and pepper spray often fail. Maybe they carry guns in case they happen to arrive at the crime scene too early? Where were the police at VA Tech?
2. Only criminals kill people with guns.
I've been involved in the gun control debate for over fifteen years, and have yet to hear this one.
Someone please tell me how this gunman at VT could have killed 32 classmates with a hunting knife or a slingshot?
The same way 100000 Rwandans died at the blade of a machete.
4. The 2nd amendment guarantees my right to bear arms.
The Founding Fathers made it perfectly clear what they meant. Also, do you really believe that "of the people" means a collective right in the Second Amendment, and an individual right in the other amendments? Given the DC gun ban was just ruled unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the second amendment, I believe both you, and the ACLU are wrong.
5. The "if-one-student-had-a-gun-this-wouldn't-have-happened-theory."
But how many more incidents of gun violence would the presence of more guns create? We can't say for sure, but we know it would be more. And if this scenario had played out, would we be talking about the heroic, gun-toting student that saved the day? Hell no. We'd be talking about a slightly-less-horrific massacre.
Looking at the statistics regarding crimes committed by CCW permit holders, I would say you have little to worry about. One thing I'm sure of, some of those victims were wishing they had a gun.
I personally would rather take responsiblity for my own safety, as the police have proven time and time again that they cannot (and it's not even their job to do so) protect me. Unfortunately, in our sick society, that requires a gun.
What's wrong with pepper spray or a stun-gun? Why does defending oneself naturally mean killing the other guy? I think we should all be allowed to carry non-lethal arms. That would do the trick. Let the police carry the real guns.
So why do the police carry real guns if stun guns and pepper spray are so effective? Stun guns and pepper spray often fail. Maybe they carry guns in case they happen to arrive at the crime scene too early? Where were the police at VA Tech?
2. Only criminals kill people with guns.
I've been involved in the gun control debate for over fifteen years, and have yet to hear this one.
Someone please tell me how this gunman at VT could have killed 32 classmates with a hunting knife or a slingshot?
The same way 100000 Rwandans died at the blade of a machete.
4. The 2nd amendment guarantees my right to bear arms.
The Founding Fathers made it perfectly clear what they meant. Also, do you really believe that "of the people" means a collective right in the Second Amendment, and an individual right in the other amendments? Given the DC gun ban was just ruled unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the second amendment, I believe both you, and the ACLU are wrong.
5. The "if-one-student-had-a-gun-this-wouldn't-have-happened-theory."
But how many more incidents of gun violence would the presence of more guns create? We can't say for sure, but we know it would be more. And if this scenario had played out, would we be talking about the heroic, gun-toting student that saved the day? Hell no. We'd be talking about a slightly-less-horrific massacre.
Looking at the statistics regarding crimes committed by CCW permit holders, I would say you have little to worry about. One thing I'm sure of, some of those victims were wishing they had a gun.
I personally would rather take responsiblity for my own safety, as the police have proven time and time again that they cannot (and it's not even their job to do so) protect me. Unfortunately, in our sick society, that requires a gun.
Your "facts" are just plain wrong. Stop being selective about which "facts" you choose to use, and which you choose to ignore.
Ever since Switzerland's founding in 1291, an armed citizenry has been a cornerstone of its defense. The Swiss Militia also inspired American revolutionaries from John Adams to Patrick Henry and served as the model for the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The tradition still lives in Switzerland today. All able-bodied males from 20 to 42 years of age are required to keep rifles or handguns at home. Yet, Swiss gun laws have already started to give up some of this freedom that they are so well known for. In January 1999, nationwide regulations greatly restricted people's ability to carry concealed handguns.
The irony is that to stop crime Switzerland is seeking to emulate the strict gun-control regulations of its neighbors, when the reverse should be the case. Neighboring Austria, France, Germany, and Italy, all with stricter gun-control laws, had murder rates during 2000 that were 21 to 112 percent higher than Switzerland's. With the exception of Austria, they all also have far higher robbery rates. Only Italy had fewer reported rapes. In England and Wales, where handguns are totally banned and few people are allowed to own rifles or shotguns, the murder rate was 68 percent higher, the rape rate 188 percent higher, and the robbery rate a staggering 493 percent higher.
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/swissgunlaws.html
I know about 30 people who wished they would have had guns.
I guess MMFA is trying to push gun control in the face of this horrible tragedy, but I suspect that public pressure will demand the gun ban to be lifted on the campus.
Many campuses don't even allow its police to carry guns.
doesnt this remind you of Demolition Man, when the cops cant stop snipes because the feminists tookover and they only could carry batons? They get **** beat out of them too.
That's one of my favorite movies (Sandra Bullock's best work).
There was no mention of feminism in the entire story however.
i was just equating the complete gun ban in the movie with a feminist utopia, since that is on their agenda:)
I find it horrible that the media is only reporting the bad things about this tragedy. How about some balance, what about the good things?
Lovely point, probably poor timing?
I feel the timing could not have been better. Leave it to a wingnut, whenever something truly dreadful happens, to pull out some favorite idea from an idiotic Sylvester Stallone or Patrick Swayze movie.
As bad as it is to refer to a movie at times like this, it's even worse to draw everyone's attention to some third rate crapfest.
Leatherhelmet, MMFA is not trying to push the issue. John Gibson and Co. are. They are the ones turning this tragedy into a political argument.
It has been an issue even before today's tragic events.
http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/xp-21770
It has been an ongoing debate at Virginia Tech and there is no easy answers because students also binge drink. But MMFA is pushing the Soros ban all guns agenda. Otherwise they wouldn't have published this article. There is no misinformation nor outrageous right wing comments. It is only common sense that this debate would be held since every campus in America will be trying to address the problem.
"Soros ban all guns agenda"
Never heard of it.
Read carefully: Straw Man
Gun Control
Directly and through his organization Open Society Institute (OSI), he has funded various gun control organizations, such as the Tides Foundation, the HELP Network and SAFE Colorado. He and seven friends founded their own political committee — Campaign for a Progressive Future — and spent $2 million on political activities in 2000, including providing the prime financial backing for the Million Mom March. OSI has supported UN efforts to create international gun control regulations and has singled out the United States for failing to go along with the international gun-prohibitionists
I remain unimpressed.
Thus my response is: So What?
What does MMFA have to do with Soros.
$$$$$$$$$$$$
Proof please ???????
Rush Limbaugh said so and like a good little zombie that is all the proof leather needs.
Your cute comments will be in stall mode (well, probably denial mode, mostly) when Leather presents the evidence to you.
Nonetheless, it seems like a good idea for you to unilaterally disarm yourself, just because you know it's the right thing to do, and you can't trust yourself anyway, and neither can we.
If you've made a lifetime commitment to not defending yourself under any conditions, it's perfectly understandable.
needsahelmet has NEVER presented ANY evidence of any kind on any subject here.
I disagree. LH consistently provides ample evidence of his own abject stupidity.
Sorry. Just couldn't pass up that one. ;)
I guess MMFA is trying to push gun control in the face of this horrible tragedy
Uhhh...
OR
Malkin and Gibson are trying to push for a loosening of gun control on college campuses.
Does anyone else find it appalling that it took the wingnuts less than 12 hours to start exploiting this tragedy?
Anyone read Debbie Schlussel today?
There's an agenda being pushed here alright. But it ain't MMFA that's pushin' it.
I have a hard enough time remembering to take my house keys, wallet, and cell phone with me when I venture out into this 21st century world. Now I should also have to carry a concealed handgun to protect myself? A lot of good that would do to protect me from some wacko shielded behind a column of concrete spraying the shopping mall (school, theater - choose your venue) with hundreds of rounds from an automatic weapon in a matter of seconds. Oh, I guess we should all just carry automatic weapons under our raincoats for protection? Hmmm, then what about the nut job who might walk into the mall and detonate the couple dozen pounds of explosives strapped to his or her chest? Even my automatic weapon won't protect me from that!
The problem isn't with gun control - it's people control - and a society that glamorizes violence - all while doing nothing to stop, or at least try to help prevent those most likely to be snared into the mindset of violence as the answer to their problems , from acquiring the type of mindset needed to execute such acts. Until we can actually read minds, there is little we can do to prevent these kinds of people from carrying out their evil plans.
To American society... Stop breeding the monsters and the monsters will go away!
The NY Times printed their first references to gun control yesterday afternoon.
The liberals could even wait for the bodies to cool off.
I'm sure many are pleased at the turn of events, it's now a little easier to push for gun control.
It would really be nice if you could provide links to let the rest of us verify your info or see what you are getting at.
Hey, Jerkweed!
A.) I doubt you knew ANY of the people who were killed;
B.) You have no idea how ANY of them thought about gun control;
C.) What about Conservative pinheads trying to use this tragedy FIRST as a springboard for more Conceal & Carry legislation?
Your opinion counts for less than nothing. Go post somewhere else.
Hey Weedbrain--there are an astounding number of concealed carry permits in many states, and crimes committed by those permittees are an insignificant number.
However, please DO disarm YOURSELF if you haven't already, because you are one who can't handle the responsibility of looking out for yourself.
Are crimes the only consideration here? What about accidental shootings? Shouldn't they also warrant some consideration?
Shouldn't it also be considered that many gun crimes consist of the mere threat of violence and that having another gun present may increase the likelihood that violence will be carried out?
Guns can be a blessing in some fairly obvious situations, but they can greatly increase the danger needlessly elsewhere.
It is a very complicated issue.
Another fine example of that great liberal "tolerance" for different opinions.
As I stated directly above, it took the NY Times only about five hours to bring up gun control.
Once again, you completely missed the point here Leather. This article is a RESPONSE to the idiotic ramblings of Gibson who was the one saying that we should allow firearms in school.
Do you have any experience using a pistol? What would happen if 30 people who were armed with pistols, took aim at someone who was going to open fire?
The shooter would probably be dead, but there would still be far too many bodies lying around afterwards, most of them dead at the hands of those trying to prevent the carnage.
Just for the sake of discussion--would there be more than 30?
Depends on the number of people in the room, obviously.
Well, our fearless leader was the first to bring up the topic of gun control in the wake of this tragedy. See the Huffington Post for link to speech from yesterday afternoon. Wouldn't want to waste a minute in reassuring the NRA that they have the complete support of the Republican Party.
there is no 'gun ban' in VA, maybe if you had worn a helemt you could comprehend;
•Secondary Sales: Are background checks required on 'private' gun sales? No• Assault Weapons Are there limitations on assault weapons and magazines? No
• Registration Are all guns registered with law enforcement? No
• Safety Training Is safety training required for handgun buyers? No
• Waiting Period Is there a waiting period on gun sales? No
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
The argument that their are not enough guns on campus must mean they have not been on a campus in a while! I can't remember a name university that did not have a substancially well armed "campus police" department, as well as a substation in some large metropolitan areas right on campus with a campus police department!
The truth is if a person is disturbed enough, capable with firearms, and willing to see their carnage to it's finality, their are no police procedures that will protect anyone! A man/woman may arm themselves to the teeth with any number of light munitions needed to arm a small effective militia, or individual!
These people have been so wrong for so long! Why do they have a forum in the public airways?? They are simple minded in their opinons, and interpretation of reality to the extent that when they or their kind get their hands on power they disolve into disaster as fast as they are empowered!
I for one would prefer to protect, defend and preserve the constitution, bill of rights, and country from all those foreign and specifically domestic, namely those blow hards that have lead this nation into the gutter with their gutter values!
Archie Bunker was a character on TV, not meant to be a political movement! Somebody should call Edit!! Where is the Meathead when ya need him???
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Guns are the problem, not the solution. More guns make us less safe, not more safe. This "arm yourslef or become a victim" mentality is dangerous.
Not necessarily. Stats show that strict gun laws dont really reduce the crime rate. You can't just make blanket statements like that because its the same as what Malkin does when she says, "well if everyone had a gun we'd have stopped this."
Owning a gun is an inalienable right and I love to see libs squirm when they can't get around that fact or do anything about it.
As a gun owner, and a Lib (and hunter too, not like Mitt!) I must be a conundrum to you. I love hunting, and regret that in Texas it costs way more than I am willing to pay to go enjoy my sport of choice. Any support of gun control on my part has been about making sure the buyer deserves the right. You may or may not believe how many stupid people go hunting. I've had way to many instances of a moron not knowing the basics of how to cross a stream with a loaded weapon. Conservatives are way too focused on just registering who owns a weapon. How come the ol' if you got nothing to hide rule apply?
I would agree. I'm a hunter as well and recognize the need for some form of safety education for anyone toting a firearm. Perhaps licenscing is the answer. Just like with driving a car. To purchase a fire-arm, one needs to produce a licensce showing that they have passed a certified safety course. It doesn't infringe the right of ownership, just shows a level of responsibility.
Right now, anyone can walk into a gun shop and buy a pistol. Just fill out the forms and that's it. They may have no idea of what a "safety" even means, but they can buy all the firepower they want. I would argue for licensing.
We license drivers, make them pass a safety test and still, thousands die on America's roads.
Why do you think licensing gun owners would be any different? I agree with you and Snoopy that there's a lot of unsafe gun owners out there, but I can't see how licensing would help much.
Besides, while most states don't require any sort of license to own a gun, most require a license to carry one.
"We license drivers, make them pass a safety test and still, thousands die on America's roads." --mthalo
Probably the most il-conceived argument of the day. By that reasoning, we would be just as well off not to license drivers or make them pass a safety test, so why bother? Thousands will die any on America's roads anyway. Right?
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Owning a gun is an inalienable right and I love to see libs squirm when they can't get around that fact or do anything about it.// Lt. J.G. Pliskin
The Second Amendment is not a "inalienable right," and its a priveledge allowed from the early need for a ready, regulated, and disciplined militia to protect the nation from it's enemies!
I admit that having an overly armed population is a deterant from intrusive government and foriegn invasion, but I think it's value has become far more expensive in a cost benefit analysis, blood vs rights, in the information age!
I would like to know if your handle is a video gamer name, or where you an actual Lt. Junior Grade in the USN, Coast Guard? I did'nt think Marines had Junior Grade?
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
I was thinking "Snake" Pliskin. Love that movie, BTW!
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Wow, Snake Pliskin!! A real Neo-Con vision of utopia, the New York City of the future in "Escape from New York!" Maybe that has some insight into the mind of a Neo-Con that thinks of fictional pyschopath's as role models, example of American Heroics
Dick Cheney's idea of an American Democracy!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
The Supreme Court has ruled that laws regulating the possession of fireharms are constitutional: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZS.html
DanG, you are soooo right, we don't need any more guns. Hell, we kill about 40,000 Americans each year with vehicles (which, BTW, are not even mentioned in the Constitution, we don't need more guns to add to that total. I even read somewhere, there are more drowning deaths in the US each year than gun deaths (NRA propaganda probably). Maybe we need to outlaw bathtubs, swimming pools, boats, etc.
There are far more deaths caused by firearms than there are caused by drowning: http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html
And in the US, there are far more deaths caused by vehicles than by guns.
The number of deaths by automobile was never in dispute. But you admit your previous remark about the number of drownings was wrong, right?
Is that supposed to be a point? First you are equating something that causes deaths ONLY when there is an accident with a tool whose very PURPOSE is to cause death, in fact it basically has no other purpose. Vehicles are also highly regulated by traffic laws licencing of both the vehicle AND the driver, mandatory insurance, and a test before you can get a license if guns were HALF as regulated we wouldnt be having this conversation
Please see below. The "perp" was in voilation of VT laws among his/her many illegal acts of the day. I'm sure that he/she purchased the firearms and ammo legally (not!). How would more regulation have prevented this? And your point of going through a long process of getting a driver's license doesn't change the fact that 50%+ more people are killed almost every year by someone who has gone through the rigourous testing, etc to prove their "ability" to operate a motor vehicle in a safe manner.
My mentally ill wife was able to buy a gun to commit suicide. More regulation might have prevented THAT. My points stand. I am not saying take all the guns away just do what can be done to emeliorate the price we are paying those who pretend we dont pay a high price for our gun freedom are not being intellectually honest. Also that vehicles are MUCH more regulated than guns AND that guns are made ONLY to kill and cars only kill by accident. For these reasons your point comparing guns to cars falls flat.
Solon, I grieve for your loss, honestly. In my younger years, my father committed suicide, on Xmas day no less! Therefore, I can truly empathize with you. However, you stated that more regulations may have prevented your wife's purchase of the gun that she used to end her life. I am somewhat familiar with purchasing firearms. If the weapon was purchased from a licensed dealer, the buyer must fill out a form stating that they have never been institutionalized for mental/emotional problems and are not currently suffering from a mental defect( my phraseology IS NOT exact, but to that effect ), as well as other questions such as being an alcoholic or drug addict. My question for you is what type of regulations would you like to see instituted for the perspective purchasers of firearms? How can we stop the wrong people, including your late wife, from purchasing weapons that they clearly should not be allowed to buy? I am not trying to be confrontational with my questions. I am a second amendment supporter but am in favor of draconian penalties for the people who violate firearm laws.
would like to see backround checks for all handgun sales including gun shows. Waiting periods. I am not looking to prevent gun ownership handguns included. I only want some common sense guidelines, that might help limit the tragedies to a minimum. Let people have guns for as long as they really want them. I in no way took your question as confrontational. This is not one of those either or arguments rather where do we draw the line. Its exactly this kind of dialogue that needs to be had to decide where that line should be. I dont know a lot about guns and I cant really give an informed opinion about many of the specific details. It would help however if whenever someone talks about regulation the other side didnt immediatly jump to you want to take everyones guns. As I said before most of my liberal friends love their guns and only a pretty small minority of liberals want a gun ban.
I agree. Apparently, the shooter was on psychopharmaceuticals and had been undergoing some form of psychiatric treatment or counseling. The gun shop owner did not subject him to a background check, saying he thought he was just a normal college student. If they would have had to check his background and found that he was undergoing treatment with anti-depressants, then they should have refused to sell him a weapon.
There's also the anti-depressant link again. They have found that link in several of the school shooting involving children as the perp. THe little happy pills that the pharmacorps are pumping out are proven to actually cause even more severe depression and suicides in some people, especially in teens, and to cause very graphic and violent dreams. We could be looking at another case of Prozac-gone-bad.
"I'm sure that he/she purchased the firearms and ammo legally (not!)."Not? Quite on the contrary. People that go on rampages are often the ones who have legally owned weapons. Usually the now crazed mass murderer was a 'law abiding citizen' who only had his weapon for 'sporting' and to 'defend his family from ciminals'"And your point of going through a long process of getting a driver's license doesn't change the fact that 50%+ more people are killed almost every year by someone who has gone through the rigourous testing, etc to prove their "ability" to operate a motor vehicle in a safe manner."You cannot equate the auto mobile deaths to those of firearms. The possibilities of getting killed in an accident with a vehicle are highly varied.
Guns also defend lives.
You make it sound like firearms are completely unregulated.
All retail purchases of firearms are subject to a criminal background check, and most states require a license and some training for someone to carry a gun. Of course, anyone carrying a gun is then of course, subject to laws regarding their usage (meaning, carrying, displaying, storing, and using one in self defense).
Do you own a gun, carry one, or have any hands on experience with them?
In Pennsylvania, there is NO safety testing required for ownership or purchase, only for hunting. And even then, the regulations are not enforced.
You are correct, in totatl deaths. I dug out my information, shows accidental deaths only. Thanks for the correction, However, there are a lot of dangers out there beyond firearms, including ways in which we "abuse" ourselves. Outlawing firearms will not drop that number to zero. And it looks like the "perp" violated laws by carrying firearms onto the campus. This goes much deeper than removing firearms from the 98+% of citizens that use them in a responsible manner.
Well I didnt see anyone advocating gun confiscation and if that is your fear, I, for one, dont support it.
Me niether. Boogeyman argument as far as I am concerned.
First, no one is saying that banning guns will reduce the death rate to zero. And only a small percentage are promoting a total ban on handguns. However, it is unproductive to compare, say, handguns, which are designed to kill people, with automobiles, which are primarily used for transportation, and especially with water, which is a necessary part of life. You might as well equate cigarettes with sleeping pills, since sleeping pill can kill you if you take enough of them.
I have no problems with firearms. I do have a problem with people who have firearms. I do not trust the people. So why should I give them out such a powerful weapon and have to fear they might use it against me because they feel threatened?
And I do not think restricting firearms is the one-shot-solve-all but it is one piece of the puzzle. Firearms make killing a LOT easier and until we have some kind of brain scanner that can tell us if the guy who wants to buy a gun will use it to commit a murder, we need to find a solution. What we do not need is more people (and possible postal candidates) carrying guns because of other possible postal candidates. This is a spiral of hell we are already in and cannot break out of.
And before anyone mentions it, forget about your constitutional rights. Our beloved leader already has shown his contempt for it and if they wanted to take away our rights, they would and we could not stop them. All he has to do is call us terrorists and the populace will flock behind him and cheer as the military flies the survivors down to Guantanamo in dog cages.
Oscar, you do realize that "guns" aren't mentioned in the Constitution either, right? The Second Amendment quite specifically says "arms"; it makes NO mention of "guns".
If you're going to take this gun nut viewpoint, then I also have the right to own my very own nuclear bomb (the "arms race" wasn't limited to guns, after all).
If you have the means to purchase one legally, I see no problem wih you have a bomb.
"If you have the means to purchase one legally, I see no problem wih you have a bomb."
Me neither... but it's that guy in the next block with the Confederate flag on his house and David Duke stickers on his Harley, and who shoots neighborhood cats for fun, that worries me.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!
Oscar is reading meanings, and comments I have not written! I have never implied that we should outlaw firearms, I only pointed out that it is a privelege that should be responsibly regulated!
Common Sense is not unpatriotic, but I wonder where you were when you butt buddies past the Patriot Act! Maybe goose stepping to the Draft-Dodgers toon to Iraq??
Take your meds, and consider standing up for all your civil liberties, not just the "right" to buy military hardware that has no business on the streets of a civil society!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
your wway wrong rwad the 56 or so post and learn something
Got it! So if EVERYONE carried a gun, there would be less shootings. Right?
Lt., read the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd amendment says that "anyone within a well-regulated militia" can own a gun. It does not say "any law-abiding citizen of the United States." I don't think demented teens fit the category of a "well regulated militia." Nor drug dealers, or rappers, etc.
Read again "........, the right of the People............" We can interpret that any way that suits us individually. The problem that I see in this case, the "perp' violated existing laws, what law could be added to have prevented this?
The 2nd is all about them "well-regulated militias". It's about the States having the power to organize their citizenry for defense against outside agression...Indians, the British, other States. It's not about personal ownership. That issue is a state matter.
Ah the sweeping generalization. I am liberal, I dont like guns, I dont own one. I am not an advocate of gun control in the way conservatives think about it. Americans see it as a freedom issue as long as they do they ought to be able to have guns. I do believe in common sense meaures to diminish the price we pay for that freedom. We lose about 85 people a day to guns. I have no problem with waiting periods, with backround checks. With positive identification so EVERY time a gun is shot at someone we can tell exactly what gun it came from. I dont know enough about guns to directly advocate trigger locks but at first glance they sound like a good idea. I support peoples right to have guns including handguns. I also support a cities right to ban them in their city limits if done in a democratic manner. I have a lot of liberal friends and MOST of them have guns and like them. Your knee jerk reaction really isnt accurate in my experience.
Yet you provide no link of proof to back up your opinion. Please provide, I'm in full debunk mode, waiting, waiting. . .
So it was also the murderers right to own the weapon he used to slaughter those people?
So it could also be said that pro-gun laws helped those murderers commit their crimes.
Had they not had the weapons, would the crimes have been committed?
Fact is, I can walk into a weapons store, get me a weapon (after the waiting period) walk outside again and go on a rampage.
Why not tell your story to the citizens, government and police department of the City of Philadelphia?
I do not hunt or own any guns, but have no problem with those that do - and I'm about as left as you can get.
I do have a problem with a bunch of teenage college kids getting all juiced up on a Saturday night while packing heat. Based on my own experiences in college, that could be bad.
And I'd bet a lot of mney that 99.99% of the kids wouldn't carry anyway.
Read the second amendment all the way though, Not just the part the NRA displays. Gun ownership is a priviledge. Unless of course you are part of a well regulated miltia. There's been at least 3 supreme court decisions on the matter that supported gun control. Sorry I don't have exact places and names here, they should be findable. Ask the NRA.
Guns and booze on campus / that sounds like a great idea
I don't have any problem with gun ownership, as many have posted criminals will always get guns.
I just think (contrary to the poster who said the gun control people would jump on this) that those who believe this whole thing would have been avoided with C&C permits have been swayed by too many old Western flicks.Actually, the pro-gun people were the ones to start exploiting this, as early as this morning.
It's pretty rare , in real life, that the wacko gunman stands around contemplating long enough for the sheriff to squeeze off that perfect shot to the hand that knocks the gun to the ground and saves the day.
The real question is why is this such a common occurance and why do they do it? It happens occassionally in foreign countries, but not as often as in the USA. Something about our culture that leads people to do this.
Perhaps it is a gun culture gone mad, where the hero must kill to be the hero and get the girl, where the firearm is a phallic substitute. Old westerns and bad tv dramas are rife with that simple plot. The good guy must shoot bad guy to sleep with girl. A constant reinforcement of "you can't be a man unless you pull that trigger". Firing the gun becomes the sexual act itself.
I really don't know why. I may have to look into this. Is it psycho-sexual at core? Rape by bullet? Perhaps we do have too much violent media selling the message that killing people is "sexy". I'll have to research this a bit, my curiosity is up.
One of the biggest hypocrisies of our culture is how the MPAA will give an 'R' rating to films that are chock full of graphic violence while only one or two monogamous, consensual sex scenes that feature nudity will warrant an 'NC-17' rating.
I believe the religious, gun-toting right has instilled this "guns good, sex bad" mantra so deeply into our society that it's spilled over into our standards for entertainment. Thanks to them, we have become desensitized to violence while forbidding any celebration of human sexuality whatsoever.
While we cheer Denzel Washington slicing off the fingers and inserting explosives into the colons of kidnappers, we are mysteriously aghast when Uma Thurman hops into bed and starts kissing Maria de Madeiros.
Please keep in mind that the shooter in question was not originally from this culture, so I'm not sure anyone can point to any aspect of American culture (aside from the ability to purchase guns readily) and say, "Aha! It's the ________ that's at fault." The guy who went nuts yesterday was a resident alien from S Korea, and a student at the school in his Senior year.
I don't know if anyone will know WHY he snapped.
According to the article I just read, the perp left us with a lot of insight into his mind. He had written several short plays for a drama class that were very violent. From what I can gather, he was probably sexually abused by a stepfather or a teacher. He was on anti-depressants, which have been proven to cause suicidal thoughts and very violent dreams in youth. And he did leave a suicide note railing against "rich kids", which shows alienation. He was very withdrawn, spoke to noone, had no outlet for his problems. His classmates even expected him to go on a shooting spree eventually....and he did.
Personally, I'd like to talk to the psychiatrist that had him on the meds. Was he really treating him for depression and his internal demons, or was he just another of these that just pushes Prozac for a living?
This thread is another reason why Drudge and others call mmfa a "Soros operation".
Soros is against gun ownership and spends big bucks to support that cause.
Yep, mmfa gets Soros money...and espouses his views.
No, MMFA does not receive money DIRECTLY from Soros.
Even though Soros founded the Center for American Progress which wrote the check for $2 million, technically the check was mailed and delivered by a postman from the United States post office. So technically, the money came DIRECTLY from the United States Postal Service.
I don't know how you rightwing nutjobs could possibly accuse MMFA of promoting the Soros agenda. It is just a coincidence that he has spent millions upon millions promoting an anti-gun agenda.
Wrong. We don't know how large the check was. You are making things up, as usual. We only know that Soros helped raise 2 million, not that he wrote a check for that amount.
"...he has spent millions upon millions promoting an anti-gun agenda."
What exactly is considered an "anti-gun agenda"? Am I "anti-gun" if I'd like to see assault weapons taken off the streets... or favor background checks?
I don't think so. But I'm not in the NRA.
http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/about
You are off topic.
And an idiot.
Another example of the if I just repeat it enough it will magically become true delusion.
Nice work, Sherlock Wesley ( Maj. Flaw).
Soros (according to you) wants to ban guns.
This thread involves guns.
Therefore, Soros runs this web site.
Did you go to Pat Robertson's law school?
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Yep, mmfa gets Soros money...and espouses his views.
Why must a truth be held up by a lie? Because it not the truth!
Wesley, when your good senses return, it will be a delight to discuss issues in the reality the rest of us live in, not the one you rationalize, and pervert to hold up the Neo-Con insanity!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
and? if the idea that some of the money way back when came from a source that is connected with Mr. Soro's, then so what? are you whining and moaning constantly like this on FAUX boards or in the LTE section of the papers Scaife owns that are pushing his agenda of lies and treason? Nah, you come here and lie every day. how sad it must be to be you.
Yes, yes. Let's be sure to go ahead and arm a bunch of semi-literate college boys a year removed from adolescence. Talked to a 19 -year-old lately?? Yikes! I can't think of a better recipe for disaster and carnage. And leave it to Faux News to politicize the whole thing before next of kin has even been notified.
Yep... and then add add alcohol and drugs to the mix and see what happens.
They become president of the USA?
Exactly Leatherhelmet! Everyone knows that gun control is a rare and extreme lefty viewpoint shared by very few people. The fact that Soros is pro gun control and MMFA posted this article is your.......smoking gun.
Coincidence?
Gun Control
Directly and through his organization Open Society Institute (OSI), he has funded various gun control organizations, such as the Tides Foundation, the HELP Network and SAFE Colorado. He and seven friends founded their own political committee — Campaign for a Progressive Future — and spent $2 million on political activities in 2000, including providing the prime financial backing for the Million Mom March. OSI has supported UN efforts to create international gun control regulations and has singled out the United States for failing to go along with the international gun-prohibitionists
You jokers have Soros on the brain.
The funny thing is, even if it were true that Soros pulled the strings of all lefty sites (which, of course, it is not), you all have yet to explain to any of us why that's a bad thing...
Give it up.
I personally love it when people start out their arguments with "Everyone knows...[yada, yada, yada]".
Um, didn't anyone (especially the brain-dead gun nuts) happen to read Napolitano's comment about the "over 21" requirement in Virginia? Most colleges tend to have a largely "under 21" population among the students. Napolitano also mentioned a "permanent resident" requirement. Now, I don't know about Va Tech's actual student population, but the school DOES attract some out-of-state (i.e., NON-PERMANENT RESIDENT) students. Now, combine both of these facts and there's a very good chance that not a single student killed in this rampage could have qualified to carry a concealed weapon.
As to "Lt JG Pliskin"s absurd notion about gun ownership being an "inalienable right", um, wrong answer, but thank you for playing. You DO have an "inalienable right" to defend yourself (all animals do that--in fact, it's the primary reason why so many people get bitten or stung by snakes, spiders, bees and ants). But the "right" as defined in the Constitution applies ONLY to a "well-regulated militia". (Funny how "original intent" supporters tend to overlook, if not omit outright, that very important phrase.) An "inalienable right" (which is mentioned as "unalienable" in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, by the by) is one which is understood to be a person's "natural" right, one that is not given/granted by a government nor can it be taken away by a government but is PROTECTED by the government.
Terrible tragedy down there in Blacksburg, no surprise the vultures are right there.
About gun control, all I can think is that if the reports I've seen are true, and I guess I'll find out tomorrow about that, because right now it's all conjecture and rumor over and over again. My experience tells me either this guy had training, whether he served in China or practiced all together too much here in the states, or the classrooms at Tech are really small and it was just real easy for him to shoot people in the barrel.
I don't think making guns illegal is an answer, but I want people who have guns to be well-educated in their use and counseled regularly about the seriousness of the trust people put in them as gun users. A plain old nut is a lot more dangerous than a gun-nut.
it is funny how everyone seems to miss the point when it comes to gun ownership and the second ammendment. The Bil of Rights is designed to limit the governments power. they are our basic rights. Thomas Jefferson wrote the second amendment, so to know the true intent, read his writings. His words" The reason we have the right to keep and bear arms, is as a last resort to protect our rights from tyranny in governemnt" Now have our rights been eroding? and do you really trust our government? Why is the registering of guns a bad Idea? history shows that when a power takes over, one of the first thing they do is, go door to door and get your registered guns. maybe Im paranoid, or maybe the governemnt has given me reason not to trust them. at least now you know why you have the right.
If you think your .45 is going to allow you to stand up to the Governments A1 tanks, F-16s and Apache helicopters you have lost all touch with reality. The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy by definition. If you want to argue against confiscation fine. I am with you, arguing against registration because you THINK, it MIGHT lead to confiscation is a weak argument. What happened in Nazi Germany isnt a prescription for what WILL happen in America.
People think it was only germany who had those laws and that they were invoked by the nazis. This is wrong. In the early 1900' many european countries introduced strong weapons laws, which often grew stronger after ww1.
Both the UK and germany had such laws before 1930.
The nazis simply used the registration data to disarm the unwanted and arm the people they liked.
Wiki has a great article on the 'national weapons law' and how the 'liberal' bill the nazis introduced.
Just a point:
"If you think your .45 is going to allow you to stand up to the Governments A1 tanks, F-16s and Apache helicopters you have lost all touch with reality."
compare this with:
"If you think your neighborhood militias are going to allow you to stand up to the might of the British Army, you have lost all touch with reality."
Well the gulf between the technologies used by the militias and what King Georges army were not anywhere near the differences in the gulf we are talking about today. Both the British army and the militias were using muzzle loaded rifles. Today we are talking about Glocks and Apache helicopters. I think that is a mismatch.
A day at the Idiot Races...
Yeah, guys, just what we need in this country - everyone packing - you know, like in Eyerack.
BTW, it was a photo finish that showed a 3-way dead heat.
Why is it everytime gun issues come up, liberals assume that conservatitives want EVERYONE to have a gun. When I vote for more guns to be availible I assume CURRENT LAWS wil regulate how many and to whom they go to. The argument that more guns to be legal to have and carry doesnt mean EVERY SINGLE PERSON WILL!
Put things in perspective people. If you were a bully wanting to take advantage of someone, would you go after the captian of the football team or the captain of the chess club. Thats my idea of behind guns preventing crime; make every possible victim into a possible threat to criminals and they just may think twice
http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/stories/20070128/localnews/152830.shtml
Guns in homes are 22 times more likely to cause harm to the residents than to be used in defense of those homes, Ragbourn said.
I hear every day the same tired arguments for and against continuing the occupation of Iraq, based on the same terrible reports of carnage caused by people driven to madness shooting other people. Today we have a slight variation: the same tired arguments for and against gun ownership based on the terrible report of a person driven to madness shooting other people.
In the midst of all these compelling arguments, pause from your political posturing for a moment and pay homage to the dead. Pray for the soul of the killer. Recheck your arguments. Repeat if necessary.
Someone please help me. I've been away from MM for a few months. In my absence, the neocons who post here have taken to naming progressive Americans as feminists and communists and hippies. I don't know whether to be amused or embarrassed for those who employ such descriptors, but I'm wondering who told them to say such things? It's systemic. Is it Limbaugh? Has Limbaugh been using such words and his dittoheads repeat them because that's what dittoheads do?
As far as VA Tech, here is my primary opinion: the man who killed those kids is a coward and his name should never be uttered, for some other coward will hear his name again and again through the media and think, "One day, I too can be infamous."
As far as Gibson saying what he said, he should get down on his knees and pray that there is no God, for if there is, there might be a Hell and trying to exploit this tragedy for political effect is Hellworthy.
Holly, I think when Imus made the news, somebody pointed the way to this site, and there was a big surge in incoherent talking points spewing senior citizens.
Now it seems the Oxymoron went on a little crying jag about MM picking on him , so there's a second wave of stoopidity. It's sort of like in those Dawn of the Dead movies, when somebody opens a door and the brain-dead zombies find their way in.It's entertaining to a point, but the bad part is the more rational conservative posters fade away out of embarrassment, so it kills decent discussion for a bit.
You're probably right, HBLefty. It's strange to see "commie" and "hippy," as if such descriptors were still germane and such positions still apropos.
I said jokingly to my wife, only about an hour ago, that I wouldn't be surprised if one of the idiots on FOX NEWS would assert that if all the students at Viginia Tech. were allowed to carry guns, this tragedy would not have reached the proportions it has because the students could then have "defended" themselves. And sure enough the biggest moron of them al, John Gibson, asserted essentially that very thing. Imus was ejected for racial slurs and misogyny . Why don't they boot a moron anchor for collosal stupidy ?
VPI was once a military school and now forbids guns. Kind of ironic.
Beautiful campus if you ever get to it.
Do these bastards have no shame? The victums were someone's son, daughter, etc. There should be some respect for their families.
Yeah Demolition Man - I remember that and wasnt it the power hungry corporate nut job who unleashed the Snipes on this feminist uptopia? I mean if it wasnt for that lone guy they might still be living in peace now. but no. This idiot, who thought he'd like to rule the world, this monkey brained individual, who couldnt even see that his own actions would lead to his inevitable down fall, this guy who had no plan for peace, no wait, who we talking about again?
The gun monkeys' obsession with concealed weapons as a deterent makes no sense to me.
If a gun is going to deter a violent crime, wouldn't such a weapon actually have to be seen to be an effective deterent.
Concealing the deterent seems to fly in the face of why one would have it in the first place.
Hmmmm, so if there were more people with guns then the guy with a gun would've been blown away!? Brilliant logic. Also, knowing how drunk and stupid college kids can be, plus with the history of students and guns not being the shiniest record, having a gun on campus period is a bad idea. You're going to get a lot of extra heat of the moment killings and accidental shootings by people carrying guns around campuses. Plus, how unregulated do you have to be when an alien with a visa can get 2 glocks with no apparent problem? Maybe if there were better regulation you wouldn't have to worry about some gun dealer selling his wares to whoever may want them.
Anyway, I'm not some regulation nut, if I got to qualify with an M-16 every 6 months in the U.S. Army, then AT LEAST proper background checks should be made for any guy on the street who wants a handgun.
The ultra right wingers would want everyone to walk around with a firearm. It boggles the mind to think of what these guys think up in their fantasies.
For one I would not want any 18 to 21 year old with a gun in public. The maturity is not here. Hunting ? Sure. Armed services ? Of course. Police? Obviously. Going to a lecture on art history ? I don't think so.
Someone has probably already mentioned this, but Archie Bunker once proposed arming all airline passengers to prevent hijackings. In those days, Archie was considered a clownish character. Now, thanks to the idiotic ramblings of people like Rush Limbaugh, Archie is a role model for many concervatives.
If we armed everyone on campus, would the total loss of life due to accidents and "crimes of passion" surpass that of the still-rare mass killing like this one? Something to think about.
Nerzog, I will agree and disagree with you. I think more examples of the first shooting incident, where an ex and an RA were killed, could very well occur if more people on campus are armed. I would consider the first shooting to be a crime of passion, and I understand this could happen more often if someone had easer access.
The second incident that wiped out 32 people I believe is something completely different. That was an intentional, planned and focused massacre. Having a gun permit and carrying a handgun does not mean you constantly wear a vest filled with bullet clips and have chains to lock doors in your pocket. This guy is a bomber, a gasser or some other kind of mass killer if he's not a shooter. We might even be lucky he had guns on the mind instead of something worse.
Also, everyone should keep in mind that you get 5 years w/o no recourse if you're convicted of possessing an illegal gun in Virginia (that includes concealing a weapon without a permit that you lawfully own). 25 years to life with no parole if you use the gun against another outside of self-defense.
I have no problem with the introduction of armed security on campus. Arming all the college age nimrods with overactive labidos, mind altering substances and basic lack of impulse control most of us have at that age seems like a prescription for disaster to me.
Awesome. How can any of you have posted on the Imus threads with a straight face, and then use derogatory language like that?
I didn't realize the term "nimrod" is generally used to refer to any particular group, aside from those that can be described as nimrods.
Is this your newest tactic? Feign offense at everything to avoid entering into an actual exchange of ideas and positions?
"Arming all the college age nimrods with overactive labidos, mind altering substances and basic lack of impulse control"
Do tell how this falls under the category of healthy discourse and debate.
Do you think it's wise to allow a person with an overactive libido who uses mind-altering substances like drugs and alcohol and who has little self-control to have free access to deadly weapons? Perhaps that's where we're finding disagreement. Many people think that would be a bad idea. You, however, are pretending to be offended by the notion that it's a bad idea.
I'm offended by the mischaracterization of college students by expounding on a few bad apples. I'm certainly not disagreeing with a particular point...see the post where I agreed with Nerzog about more crimes of passion taking place.
The point is, even if arming students prevented the occasional nutcase massacre, would the possible increase in crimes of passion on campus be worth it?
In other words, they lost 32 people yesterday; this type of incident is still very rare. If you armed all the students on every campus, how many would die each year as a direct result of having an armed student population?
I think MMfA IS trying to push the gun-control issue. There's no story of misinformation here...they just published an opinion by Gibson.
I will say this - being in NC, our local talk shows received quite a few phone calls from people in VA yesterday. One Virginian who called in works security on college and school campuses, and they, too, are not allowed to carry weapons on campus - only the police can do that.
This, I think, is a mistake. Don't arm the students, but security and campus cops certainly should be able to be prepared for the worst.
Campus cops always carry weapons. I'm sure that they do at VT. Security folks (rent-a-cops in other parlance) probably do not, nor do normaly security folks at other places. But, I'm pretty sure that the VT police carry weapons.
According to the person who called in and said they work campus security, security are not allowed to carry guns. Weapons? Perhaps, but not guns.
You are correct - the police can carry guns onto a campus. Campus police are sometimes moderated under different types of regulations that city police are not, however. In Cincinnati, I can tell you the campus "police" never carried any visible weapons when patrolling the campus.
Were the campus "police" actually police officers?
I know that on the campuses around my home (Duke, UNC, NC State, UNCG, and a few others) that the actual campus police carry guns just like the normal cops do, because they are normal police officers.
I think we're getting hung up here on who is a security employee, and who is a police officer. I would be very surprised if the VT police department didn't carry guns as per normal police departments. Especially with a campus that size. Now, security people, they probably don't equip them with guns. Their police department, for certain.
And where in this posting are they arguing for gun control? Umm, that would be NOWHERE. Please go back to school and take reading comprehension 101.
It is amazing to me how united the right wing talk show hosts can be when talking points are passed down. Just driving to lunch today, I heard Boortz, Limbaugh, and Hannity all talking about how if conceal carry permits were easier to get, there is a good chance that none of this would have happened. And how gun control is just a bunch of hooey and all. And how all liberals want to take your guns away. Which is probably the furthest thing from the truth that I can think of. Example. I am a proud liberal. Most of my friends are also proud liberals. Gun ownership amongst my proud liberal friends? 100%. Get this you guys. Liberals like guns too. I don't think allowing people to carry guns 24/7 Wild West style is ever going to stop something like this from happening again. Oh, and on the Boortz show, I actually heard him questioning as to why the students didn't fight back against the shooter. Why did the students just let this guy get away with shooting their classmates? Well, that's good old right wing talk radio for you. Trying to make political hay out of a tragic event, and also demonizing "liberals" at the same time because allegedly "liberals" don't want everyone carrying guns around. Weak, super weak.
I'm sure it's only a matter of time before somehow Bill Clinton gets blamed for this as well.
Or Bush. Anyway, I don't think you can argue at all the guns are allowed wild-west style in any state, including VA.
And, YOU take some reading comprehension. This site's purpose is to expose "conservative misinformation" in the media. By posting Gibson's comments, MMfA is IMPLYING that it was misinformation...otherwise, why would it be included on this site?
It most certainly is misinformation. Gibson and his guests are hinting that if conceal/carry were not banned on campus, yesterday would have been at least moderately preventable. It has been demonstrated here that you must be 21 to even be eligible for such a permit, and the majority of students are under that age. The likelihood that anyone in that building would have been carrying at the time of the attack is spectacularly low.
Even with permission to conceal and carry on campus, how many would have taken a firearm with them into class on Friday? Far less than would take one with them today, I guarantee.
Magnolia would disagree with you.
At what point did Magnolia give you the ability to speak for her?
By the way, I'm a him not a her (screen name is in reference to a silly movie).
Consider us even. I'm a her and not a him. :D I still think we listen to the same radio station during our work commute, though. 101.1?
Yes indeed. I tend to switch between the good old 101.1 and NPR a lot.
Magnolia would disagree with you. And,
Magnolia would disagree with you. And, you
Magnolia would disagree with you. And, you "guarunteeing"
Magnolia would disagree with you. And, you "guaranteeing" that
Magnolia would disagree with you. And, you "guaranteeing" that no
Magnolia would disagree with you. And, you "guaranteeing"
Don't know what you're trying to say here, but I pretty much do agree with what BLR is saying in the post he put up.
You said MMfA was not trying to take an anti-gun stance. I'm saying that, since they posted the comment but didnt' refute any of Gibson's claims, they're taking that stance.
Somebody flag all those duplicates. Somehow hitting my spacebar was posting the duplicates.
They're not taking an anti gun stance. They do what they do. Post misinformation from the talking heads and or journalists who spout it off. They took no stance in their posting about whether or not they believe that there should be more gun control. They have pointed out that the common right wing talking point today is that more guns equals less violence, which is not true.
"Gun ownership amongst my proud liberal friends? 100%. Get this you guys. Liberals like guns too."
I have to echo this. There is not a conservative in my household of three liberal adults, and between us, we own three handguns, two rifles, and two shotguns. We have too many non-firearm weapons in the house to count. The idea of the peaceful, timid, meek and arms-fearful liberal is a lie propogated by conservatives who, per usual, need to make up things about their political opponents rather than address issues directly like adults.
It strikes me that allowing concealed weapons on a college campus is just a bad idea. I've seen enough drunken fights over something really stupid to know that tossing weapons into that mix is just asking for a problems.
Moreover, Malkin et. al. seem to assume that the people who carry these weapons would be well-trained and cool under fire. It's one thing to shoot at a paper silhouette, but shooting at a real person who is killing your friends around you is entirely different. It isn't nearly as obvious as some folks suggest that arming the students would have prevented the death of any students.
It strikes me that allowing concealed weapons on a college campus is just a bad idea. I've seen enough drunken fights over something really stupid to know that tossing weapons into that mix is just asking for a problems.
Replacing a few words:
It strikes me that allowing concealed weapons in "the hood" is just a bad idea. I've seen enough gangbangs, robberies and drunken fights over something really stupid to know that tossing weapons into that mix is just asking for a problems.
As someone only 2 years out of college, I found your original comment offensive and biased, not unlike a member of some particular racial groups would be offended at my modified comment. Since offense is something most people here take seriously, I would appreciate you being more prudent with your words.
Well, being just 2 years out of college, have you ever seen stupid drunken fights over nothing at all? I know that myself, being 12 years out of college, I still remember stupid drunken fights over nothing at all. As in, hey someone just made me spill my beer, I think I should go and beat him up.
Are you saying that in your "2 years out of college" world that the entire 7 years you probably spent there getting a bachelor's degree that you didn't see one stupid fight at a party? Unless you went to some highly religious school where there were no parties, no alcohol, then I'd have to think the answer to the question would be yes indeed, you probably did see some fights that happened for little or no reason at all.
Add guns what do you get? Dead people instead of bruised eyes and egos.
Thanks for the insult, Magnolia. Have you seen Obama lately? He's so clean and well-spoken.
Anyway, in the 7 semesters it took me to graduate with my bachelors, I did see needless violence. I see it on the news every day as well, involving all kinds of people in different locations. My point was never that it was a good idea to allow or disallow gun carrying by college students...my point is that you and many others are justifying your stance by labeling all college students as if they were the worst offenders at the top 5 party schools in the US.
Nah, I'm just saying that there were a lot of stupid things done on college campuses when I was there (I perpetrated some of those stupid things), and there are still stupid things going on on college campuses. This is what happens when kids are let loose from the reign of parents for the first time, and I think that it is part of growing up and part of the college experience itself.
I, and others like me are saying that you take the silly little episodes that happen almost every single weekend at just about any college campus in the US, and add some guns to the equation and what do you get? More dead kids from things that could have been "settled" with maybe a few drunken punches and then a bunch of people break up the fight. How many people are going to step into a fight and try to break it up if there is a gun involved?
You're right, I probably should have been more prudent. I'm sorry that you took offense here, and perhaps it would have been worth it to point out that the statistics have showed an increase in the rate of alcohol related violence on college campuses in general since 1980. That doesn't imply that every college student is an alcoholic or violent. It's worth asking whether there is anything intrinsic to college campuses that makes them more prone to alcoholic violence than any other American sub-culture. And whether there is any difference between my claims about campuses and the claimed analog about 'the hood' turns on that answer. I didn't make an claims about the intrinsic nature of college students. On the other hand, folks who like to talk about the violence that takes place in 'the hood' do generally make claims about the intrinsic nature of the people who live there. That's the difference.
Thanks Gris.
Theoretically, in this lecture hall where all 31 were killed, there could have been someone with a carry permit carrying their gun to shoot the shooter?
Gibsons "theory" is not "misinformation" in the most literal sense and narrowest defintion. But it IS misleading and the worst kind of monday morning quarterbacking i've ever seen in my life. Based on that logic, we can say that the Columbine high school shootings could have been prevented by a teacher carrying a concealed weapon. IN THE CLASSROOM. You know, where a kid might accidently find it and shoot himself or others playing with it or (even worse but NOT impossible) intentionally shoot someone. How about this? how do you know that the shooter didn;t have a concealed weapon permit himself?
Lets play devil's advocate here, ok so college kids should have the right to bring concealed weapons ONTO college campuses if they have a permit. Ok, are you allowed to carry a concealed weapon to your job and bring it IN? Permit or No Permit? Wonder why? Maybe you should marinate on that.
Personally, I think if your ok with college kids carrying concealed weapons ONTO college campuses as a possible "deterent" or "savior" of a shooting incident on campus then you should come right out and say so. MAKE A POST, stating that I *insert name/username here* think college kids should carry concealed weapons ONTO college campuses. Make a stand.
No, because the same people that just dropped the ball, as Bo just described, that allowed 32 additional people to die, also said: "Virginia lets you carry a gun at a gas station or a bank or a stadium, but not on a college campus, where you may protect kids."
Napolitano's comment IS misinformation because he is parading his opinion and paraphrasing as fact. As such, MMFA included BOTH comments to maintain the context of the discussion outlined in this article.
Concise and not insulting. Thank you Dtrain. As for your request,
I, dexteritas, believe that a Virginia citizen's status as a "college student" should not prohibit them from exercising rights given to those of the exact same age and non-criminal background. Further, I do not believe that public universities should be subject to different regulations (notwithstanding intensified security measures) in regards to gun control than any other public area in the Commonwealth.
Welcome to the good old Wild Wild West then.
Except for the institutional law enforcement structure and legal disincentives that come along with shooting people.
And as far as we can tell, this kid who did the shooting yesterday was probably a law abiding citizen right up and until the point he pulled the trigger killing the first 2 people. So, technically, according to the law you want, this guy still could have had a gun on his person on campus, and potentially the same thing would have happened. Right? Oh, except the fact that maybe someone else would have had a gun and killed the shooter. So instead of having what? 33 kids dead, we probably would have had, 30 dead.
"Further, I do not believe that public universities should be subject to different regulations (notwithstanding intensified security measures)"
Finally we have a position out of you!
Ok... NOW what about "public" courthouses or maybe even public high schools? I'll give you a hint, You can be 18 in high school or in college.
Ok, I think the very nature of the business in a courthouse makes it sensible for the law to prohibit carrying of firearms there. I thought I covered that in my opinion though...no one can have a firearm in there except law enforcment, college student or not.
Public High schools, while you can be 18, have the vast majority of students underage during the school year, so it seems much more reasonable for 18 year olds to be restricted. However, I think you need to be 21 for a concealed weapon permit.
In Va, I think it's a mandatory 2 years for a minor having a gun on school property. Kids in more rural areas get locked up all the time for leaving hunting shotguns in their pickup trucks and then driving to school, leaving the gun in their truck (but it's still on the premesis). Every time a kid gets locked up in a situation like that, a Repub introduces a bill to allow it, and it gets killed immediately, LOL.
Why is the standard for a court of law, different for a public school or university? Of course it is understood that you can't bring weapons to court house, but people who go to court houses are generally over 18 or even 21 (some states the conceal-carry law is 18 some are 21, its not just 21). Families go to courts sometimes..? They bring children. But what about college campuses? What makes them have less of a standard than a courthouse? Its still a public-funded school even if its not a high school.
And lets be specific here. The perp lived ON CAMPUS. So your arguing that he should have had the right to carry a concealed weapon INTO the dormitory he stayed at (based on the information out, he was a student -foreign yes- but not illegal and has a clean record as in no VIOLENT-OR DRUG arrests/convictions)? Your sure that this is your position?
I think the purposes, and the intentions and possible motives for the people present at each location are very likely different. I think if YOU are taking the position that a courthouse and campus are not different enough to differentiate between them in terms of gun control, your stance is most likely that NO public place is different. That's a different issue entirely.
Your right, they are different NO doubt. The level of security in a small sized courthouse is far more elaborate than VT and most universities. Most universities have a police force and some form of rent-a-cop security with no guns. There is definitely area for improvement there. You see thats exactly my point, the standard for a courthouse is pretty high, the standard for a public school should not be any LESS, but I believe it should be MORE. Thousands of students go to university campuses each day and the campuses are much wider in area, which means there is more of a chance a wacko will come onto the scene with a gun and wreak havoc. Thats not an excuse to have a STATE LAW that allows for students that fit only 2 criterion (of age, carry permit) to carry a concealed weapon onto campus grounds. Its too complicated of an issue, because you never know what good honest, LEGALLY qualified people are capable of. Mr. Cho was legally qualified, which is the irony of this whole push for more guns. If some other student had broke the law and brought in a gun and saved the day then I would call them a hero. Legally, they would be in trouble, but sometimes you gotta break laws to make something right. Look at what the Bounty Hunter did crossing the border into Mexico to bring in a serial rapist.
I'm sure if your read further through some of my other posts you will see that I am not advocating "take all guns out of public venues", even if I did want it would be impossible unless a state of marshall law was declared and there were checkpoints around every corner. You really think I want that?
I think this whole hang up on bringing guns to campus is about people who want to be heros. I can feel it. They wanted to be the one shooting that perp with his/her "legally packed heat" to save VT from the maniac with a gun. You people stop trying to be Rambo heros and leave the law enforcement to police and hopefully much improved and overhauled campus security.
It might be his position.
But then again, someone else in this maniac's dorm might have had a gun as well, and hence would have been the hero in taking down the shooter. I think that is the point that he's trying to make in allowing guns to be carried. But couldn't the same rationale then be used for courthouses? High schools? And other places where shootings have taken place before? Or is this just a tragic incident that seldom happens in the US as a whole and should be looked at as just that? A tragic shooting that caused the loss of life at a college campus.
The noisy advocates of freely carried guns for good people always focus on nice tidy scenarios where a single bad guy is the clearly visible threat, and if only a good person in the crowd had been able to pull his or her trusty sidearm and use it heroically, evil would be vanquished (for the moment). But what if it's not such an obligingly black and white situation? This notion of either teachers being armed or anyone in a school having the right to pack a pistol paves the way for emotions possibly getting heated enough so that angry words lead to gunfire.
The whole argument of guns being as legal to carry as a pack of gum presupposes that good people will never be otherwise and never err in their judgement. It's a pretty flimsy safety net in a society where a family can be obliterated by one of their own for no other reason but that a gun was available.
"The whole argument of guns being as legal to carry as a pack of gum presupposes that good people will never be otherwise and never err in their judgement. It's a pretty flimsy safety net in a society where a family can be obliterated by one of their own for no other reason but that a gun was available."
Who is arguing that a gun should be as available as a pack of gum? Who has found a gun and said "This is more than enough reason to kill someone?"
What's so idiotic about Gibson's statements is that it: a) stupidly assumes that no innocent people might be caught in the crossfire of such a confined space as a classroom, and; 2) that the heroic gun-owner can shoot worth a damn, or simply won't fire wildly on the assailant in a panic.
In other words, we need to air on the side safety when it comes to public institutions.
Well, but what does that mean?
Look, if there was some referendum in the Commonwealth or all our legislators voted to ban firearms on college campuses, I wouldn't lose any sleep, but I would question the basis for the decision. If we did it across the board for all state institutions, ook, but then...all large gatherings as well? All business buildings with more than 10 people? Subways? Trains? Where does it stop? It seems like these mass killings are happening in schools, in places of work, in malls, etc. If you can't have your firearm there with you, you can't use it in defense. I think the heightened tensions in the courtroom make it seem more prudent to ban firearms there, but I understand your point about some contradiction there.
Really, everyone here is taking one extreme side or the other, which sadly is what is dominating the politics of our day. Either the students could've carried self-defense weapons and saved the day, or they would've shot wildly in fear for their lives, causing even more deaths. No one has a middle ground or the RIGHT ANSWER: "I have no idea what would've happened."
And how about we blame the failure of security in general - as in VT POLICE force not rent-a-wannabe_cops - althought the rent-a-cop security could have at least called the cops faster. Lets not blame the state for not allowing "legally packed heat" ONTO college campuses for christs sake. Do you understand the implications of that? You know... maybe lawsuits?
Here is *my* theory ON Gibson's theory (and those who support it) which is definitely not misinformation:
If Virginia state law allowed for the the perp (Cho) a legal foreign student to bring a legally concealed weapon onto campus grounds and then he used it to kill 32 people, the families of the victims would-you know- sue the state! And then get the law repealed! There's the end of your law just like that... OHHHH SOOOOOOOO Ironic!
The sad reality is, despite Virginia's current gun laws and VT'S "best" security in place, a legal US resident foreign student was able to not only BUY guns legally, but also bring them onto the campus and use them. Nobody could have saw that coming. Or did they? Why do you think the law is the way it is? Thats all the more reason to maintain the law as it is. Airing on the side of safety and security while having the side benefit of no lawsuits if it "fails" which is in the eye of the beholder of course.
Again, I don't believe Virginia State law failed, I believe that VT police and security failed. They are in reality the student's only real defense in incidents such as these.
"all large gatherings as well? All business buildings with more than 10 people? Subways? Trains? Where does it stop?"
I'm not talking about public gatherings, subways, or trains those seem logical as to the possible risk. You CAN legally carry the gun but the event/gathering organizers, mall owners, subways, and private train companies have a right to NOT ALLOW you onboard or into any event/gathering if your carrying a weapon. In fact, thats usually what they do.
As far as Business buildings are concerned, find me one that would actually have a written policy (regardless of state law) that would allow you to bring a concealed gun INTO work. Dont say a police station. I am in fact allowed to bring a KNIFE to my job, but you know the saying, you shouldn't bring a knife to a gun fight. I work in a nuclear power plant by the way.
"It seems like these mass killings are happening in schools, in places of work, in malls. If you can't have your firearm there with you, you can't use it in defense.".
Exactly, so you want to bring even more guns into the mix? Thus increasing the risk of even more innocent killings? That is why I said are on the side of safety and security, in public *institutions* - read schools, universities, and courts.
"I think the heightened tensions in the courtroom make it seem more prudent to ban firearms there, but I understand your point about some contradiction there"
Thank you for your honesty.
Really, everyone here is taking one extreme side or the other, which sadly is what is dominating the politics of our day. Either the students could've carried self-defense weapons and saved the day, or they would've shot wildly in fear for their lives, causing even more deaths. No one has a middle ground or the RIGHT ANSWER: "I have no idea what would've happened."
I don't think MMFA or most posters want the extreme that you are referring too. They said it in their posts. The students could have saved the day, they could have also shot wildly in fear, but those are not the only options. They could have also NOT done anything at all, because they weren't there in the first place. Or maybe they tried but didn't make it in time. Some laws are created without "middle ground" for a reason. Its too complicated but more importantly too risky to consider otherwise. If you allow one, you must allow all who fit the criterion. The criterion in this case is that your of legal age and carry a permit. Common sense would (hopefully) tell you that those within itself are not enough to justify a law allowing a person to carry a concealed weapon onto public school grounds be it high school or university.
Just like the other provisions in the Bill of Rights, that pesky Second Amendment is such an irritant to the Jacobins. Cho would probably not made it past the poor girl he was "stalking" if only she had and equalizer. As everyone focuses on the shooter's mental pathology and complains about the police arriving just in time to draw chalky outlines around the dead, we'd be better to abandon the feminine approach of squeezing teddy bears. Why is it that everyone assumes we are no longer responsible for our own personal defense? When attacked, remain calm, take a deep breath, and squeeze the trigger slowly, never taking eyes off target. That strategy could have kept Cho's victims in the single digits.
How the hell do you know that for sure? Tell me o great phsycic... quit monday morning quarterbacking the incident and stop trying to push the NRAs agenda on everyone else.
If people like Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter are the voices of the Republican Party, then they are in real trouble.
Malkin is obviously full of self-loathing and self-hate to turn her back on other minorities to climb into bed with the right-wing spin machine. If the beliefs of people like Malkin are realized, it would turn civil rights on its head and set the movement back fifty years.
This level of hate-speak is common among the less enlightened among us. But when people of African-American or Asian decent repeat the same things that white supremecists have been saying for years, and give credence to it, I think that we as a society should be very concerned. Especially those who fought for civil rights.
I think guns per say are not the problem. We live in a culture that celebrates violence and that worships individual rights over communal responsibilities. Our culture breeds a sense of self-centered righteousness that results in everything from school shootings to ENRON to road rage.