There's one problem with the "the answer is more guns" argument

NONE, or next to none of the people who have gone on these massacres have had prior criminal records. They would all have passed your "tests" to make sure they weren't "nuts", and then snapped.

The simple fact is, the Columbine kids wouldn't have had guns if the idiot gun salesmen hadn't sold them to their friend, and if the other idiot father of a friend didn't have them in the first place where he could then NOT lock them up. Incompetence.

If Andrew Golden's grandfather didn't have the guns to steal, the Jonesboro shooting wouldn't have happened.

If Kip Kinkel's parents didn't have a weapon in the house, they could very likely be alive today.

If Charles Andrew Williams' father hadn't had a gun "locked" in a cabinet, he wouldn't have had a weapon to use in Santee, CA.

The list goes on. And you want MORE guns out on the streets?

A total ban.

As it was, no one on that campus had a right to defend himself. This guy was crazy. Everyone who knew him knew it. No one did anything about it. Plus his extremely religious mother rejected him because he was not a devout Christian. Frankly, I blame the pathetic state of mental health care and religious zealotry.

he was able to stride right into a gun store and pick up a weapon and ammo because the mental health apparatus failed the gun store owner's honest and pure intents

further ridiculousness

The guy have a long history of antisocial behavior and often expressed violent intentions in his writing. His instructor referred him for counseling, but nothing came of it. As long as he was out of the way, no one cared that he was suffering. Frankly, your insulting tone smacks of irrational desperation.

bought whatever he could afford.

Desperation? Try one of these

And why shouldn't I be a bit worried. I never shoot or threaten anyone. Yet I and people like me are being painted as scape goats by reactionary little cusses who want an easy answer that is not an answer just to pat themselves on the back and say "I feel better now."

:evilgrin: Sorry to interject, but the discussions here are getting SO damned intense.

Those damn kids with their I-pods and their romantic period concertos!

Snarf...

There isn't one like you suggest.

Are you going to suggest we start FORCIBLY making people attend counseling? If they don't, are they arrested and jailed? Committed to a mental institution? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'm asking serious questions?

If you are then the ACLU would be all over that like flies on shit.

Does not compute! null.Pointer.Exception

If someone is horribly disturbed like the murderer, he has no place to go. His religious nut-job mother was no help to him and probably aggravated the problem. Just for shits and giggles, I flipped through the local phone book for psychiatrists. There are two in this whole county. I seem to recall one was for juveniles only.

and yet people still have a problem dealing with the truth, perhaps they are scared to, perhaps they simply don't care, perhaps they are repulsed by those ideas so are more eager to ignore what in my mind considering history repeating itself time and time again is much easier to do....

Punish everyone for the crimes of a few. I never noticed guns "on the streets" before. Usually people keep them at home or in holsters, but I guess sometimes they are just lying in the road.

Last time I checked, the NRA was pretty well-heeled and many of the new "majority makers" are pro-gun. You fucking deal with it.

:applause:

Violent crime is at a thirty year low. There are 300,000,000 people in this country. The only reason this VT thing is so bad is because the murders happened in one place on the same day.

And if you are complaining about the status quote, remember, these students were legally required to be victims as personal protection was not permitted on the campus. That invites crime.

If only. That shit's getting pricey.

I have a ccw. I carry mine where ever I go.

They must show proof of income, if they qualify as lower income, they get a license for ONE shot gun for hunting. Have a mandatory 1 year update on income. IF their financial situation changes...gun license is denied. As far as I can see, the ONLY reason people NEED a gun is to hunt for food if they can't afford to buy meat in a grocery store. As for protecting yourself from the government? Good luck with using your 9mm hand gun against an army tank. If the government turns against it's citizens, the military is bound by their OATH to protect and defend the CONSTITUTION...NOT the repuke government. One would think they would be obligated to protect the CITIZENS. I really doubt the military would turn on the citizens of this country....the military members have family too. Beisdes that, I'm not so sure the military like the psycho that much.

This country needs to love human LIFE more than it loves its guns. That's all there is to it. If no one had guns...no one would be killed by them.

The government could spend millions of $$$$$$ buying back guns or pass legislation that all gun, except those approved for hunting, are ILLEGAL. Instead of a tax cut, sell us your gun! Offer them BIG BUCKS. Make the offer too good to turn down and people will be turning over those guns they really don't NEED. Money talks. There IS a way to stop this crap. We just have to WANT to do it. We just have to want to make our country better than it is.

I could say the same thing about cars or booze or cigarettes.

We should start by enacting health care reform that includes coverage for mental health and by taking efforts to promote the use of a mental health care system.

The main issue IS...too many guns. SOMETHING needs to change.

They must show proof of income, if they qualify as lower income, they get a license for ONE shot gun for hunting. Have a mandatory 1 year update on income.

If only the poor could have guns, the rich wouldn't be rich much longer. They'd get robbed at gun point. SHEEESH.

What's wrong with that?;)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x682329

Why do we continue to IGNORE EUROPE like they dont fucking exist?!??!?!?!

MORE guns is NOT the answer!

The answer is in doing the hard job of addressing society's ills. Anything less, and we won't be doing a damn thing.

have guns, less shootings will occur on campus.

If every boat had its own pirate, there would be less pirating!

And, frankly, I can't imagine a worse scenario than college kids packing. Especially when you consider that a good number of them are skating towards graduation and either drunk or hungover half the time.

Well, at least I was at this point in my undergraduate career.

Although I do advocate the right to bear arms, I also advocate where they should and shouldn't be allowed.

It didn't affect me because I don't hunt, my family doesn't hunt and we didn't feel the need for any firearms.

After Columbine, something changed in me. I kept imagining being one of the parents who didn't get a call from their child because their child was lying dead in a pool of their own blood in the library.

Even though I know people like to hunt and I know there are responsible gun owners, I wish they were outlawed. Every last one.

I don't use my weapon for hunting, I use it for protection.

midst of using it for protection.

I have two dogs, locks on my doors and an alarm. I think I feel as safe as I ever will. I don't think I'd feel any safer with a gun.

Although, I do have pepper spray.

I will never say never, but I just don't see how a gun would make me feel safer. But, I do have pepper spray and a consumer version of taser/stun gun that Sharper Image used to sell. Much less "power" than the current police versions, but it would allow me to stop an intruder long enough to escape without killing anyone and from the same distance that a gun would allow.


I do not wish to live with killing anyone--especially an intentional bystander or my own precious doggie. A gun in the home makes that possibility too strong for me..

I did the whole "do you have a gun?" thing with the mom and she said "no".

Well, my son came home and started talking about how 'Noah' had shown him his dad's handgun which was in the nightstand drawer. :eyes:

I absolutely freaked out. I couldn't sleep thinking about what could have happened.

So, I ended up calling the mom and saying to her that even though she 'thought' her child didn't know about the gun, he did. She was very contrite and very grateful for the call, as you can imagine.

Needless to say, BoyMidlo never went back. I was such a wreck about that stuff when they were younger, I would always have the kids come here.

Now, I can't get them to leave. LOL.

I wish they were outlawed. Every last one.

OK, and what do you do about the fact that even if they were all outlawed, people would still have them, and point them at you?

I mean, cocaine is outlawed, and that sure fixed that problem, didn't it? :sarcasm:

Ninjas can defeat pirates, but only if they rolled a 16 for stamina and 18 for stupidity deflection

You may recall that in the Pirates of Penzance (must have seen it on TV since I spend so much time watching it) that the reason the pirates were always unsuccessful was that their own sense of ethics prevented them for attacking ships weaker than themselves. Consequently, they only attacked stronger ships and got their asses kicked.

Thieves, robbers, sex offenders etc. always look for the easy mark.

not have gone on a rampage or gotten guns.

They are suggesting that the little old lady walking her poodle, or the neighborhood vicar, would've busted out their AR-15 or street sweeper shotgun and killed the shooter before they'd reached their maximum body count.

That may or may not be true, but I suspect there'd simply be a lot more incidents if gun carrying was much more prevalent.

...without hyperbole. I was thinking that a little old lady would easily be able to handle a S&W "J" size 0.38. In states where many people conceal and carry, the violence is often lower than places with strict prohibition. So your unfounded supposition is wrong.

and there's yet another gun on the street.

You live in a fantasy world, and watch too much TV

...and know that gun assaults are rare and and that armed victims are a contradiction in terms.

You live in a utopian delusion where everyone can be safe and people are all sitting around singing kum-by-yah. Humanity doesn't work that way.

How are the police supposed to sort out a swat situation that has gone from a lone gunner to a mass of victims turned "well intentioned" vigilantes firing away-- undoubtedly hitting several innocent bystanders as they go?

...when the assailant was immobilized. Also the cops would know the "good guys" by their compliance and the fact that they are not shooting. Now granted, I can't answer for the conduct of some of the beer-gut yokels I saw pouring out of that SWAT van.

our own Columbine debacle (just miles from my workplace being one good example), this is just unrealistic.

Swat teams have no way of knowing how many assailants are on scene as they arrive-- Nor, necessarily will all the "good guys" who are trying to "shoot their way out" of a horrendous situation..

In the VT incident (as in Columbine) the killer (s) were going classroom to classroom. How one could imagine in a multiple "armed victim " situation, there could be any assurance that the "bad guys" would be taken out, rather than many bystanders or police, is beyond me.

The cops will know who the good guys are and not shoot, unless they're SWAT

In all the years concealed carry has been liberalized in many states.

Everyone wants to make it seem like there's simply one thing that could've prevented this tragedy, whether that is more guns or no guns or better campus security, whatever. But it isn't that simple. There are a whole bunch of factors that create situations like this, and until we're honest about this we'll never prevent them.

Bad guys have medium power guns, everybody get medium size guns. Bad guys need to get high power guns to make a living. It's not like there is a shortage of black-market weapons. And so on. It's a stupid solution.

There are so many with so strongly entrenched views that they won't discuss with each other, only scream back and forth...Facts are so twisted in the guise of "talking points" that I just throw up my hands. Truth be damned...

I believe in rational gun policy, which yes, includes some restrictions. I believe in the right to choose, but wish for family planning and school educational programs(and other sources of assistance)to be so widely available that the need for legal abortion becomes very rare.

Unfortunately, this moderate ground is rarely discussed because the entrenched few adopt such an all or nothing attitude... There are no seeming rules to arguing (for some)so that demonstrably wrong assertions continue to be argued with a passion that often makes me feel relief that this is a cyber argument, rather than a face to face opportunity for unfortunate outcomes...

I am weary... It makes me feel as hopeless as trying to argue with RWers on Free Republic some times. :shrug:

:bounce:

don't give (some) any more ideas! LOL

YEAH! That's the ticket!

When the Republicans in Congress refused to renew the Federal "Assault Weapons" law, they also made it legal to again sell high capacity magazines for firearms. That includes magazines of 19 or more rounds for the 9mm that was used at Va. Tech.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/lapse_of_federa.html

Let's make guns illegal. There are over 200 million guns in the US. How many of them will be turned in? Will the criminals turn theirs in? Will the nutcases contemplating shooting sprees turn theirs in? Contrary to what cop shows would have us believe the vast majority of guns are untraceable since most jurisdictions do not require specific registration. Assuming the Feds are lying about destroying form 4473 data (and I suspect that's the case), they will think I have 6 guns. Of that six I have sold - legally but untraceably - four of them and bought - legally and untraceably - two more. Of the 6 4473 forms I have completed only two of those guns remain in my possession. If they confiscate those I'll have two left.

Now *I* might - might - comply with a confiscation and give up them all but that's a "might" even from a moderate left guy with no paranoid delusions about cold dead hands and taking down the gub'mint. I can pretty much guarantee a huge percentage of gun owners would not even consider complying. Criminals and loonies by definition would not. Guns are easy to hide.

Even if by magic we could get all those 200,000,000 guns back, a well equipped machine shop can make a gun from scratch. The best gun I own is made exactly like that - in one shop. There are hundreds of competent gunsmiths already and thousands of skilled machinists who could become gunsmiths. Millions of people reload ammunition and there are billions of rounds out there. Even easier to hide than guns obviously.

Marijuana is illegal. Anybody here think they could NOT get their hands on some? When there are so many guns out there, and with so many people capable of making more, what makes you think illegal guns would be any harder to find?

Heck even as a gun owner if I could magically wave a wand and remove all firearms from civilians for evermore then call me Tinkerbell. Absent that wand, it ain't happening here. Even countries with very strict gun control and a TINY fraction of the guns we have as a nation to begin with have been unable to stop criminals getting them. I grew up in England and even pre-Dunblane I knew nobody - not one person - who had a gun. I never saw a gun shop anywhere. Never saw a shooting range outside military facilities. Farmers had shotguns I suppose, but a minuscule ratio of the population compared to ours. Handguns especially were almost unheard of. They instituted some of the toughest gun control laws in the world. They still have armed criminals. What earthly chance would we have starting with thousands of times the gun inventory, a culture where knowledge of and passion for guns is far more prevalent, a history in which civilian gun ownership was vital, and a constitution that protects that? It may be a nice idea, but significant gun control in the US is a fairy tale.

I ended up talking to a policeman in the gunstore (they also have a shooting range). He told me that the average gunfight lasts about 3.5 seconds. So I thought, the only time I will become competent enough to win in such a fight is when I am up against somebody who is not armed or who is even more incompetent than me.

It seemed easier to try and stay out of trouble than to learn how to shoot well enough to shoot bad guys without shooting innocent bystanders.

The problem in society is obviously that idiots and mentally ill can get hold of guns.

I've always felt that the NRA could have done more to make gun safety a priority instead of gun sales. The NRA could have stepped in as a buffer between the government (those who want to know who owns guns) and gun owners. Would-be buyers would take a course and be certified first by the NRA who would also be the custodian of the records. To most gun owners such requirements would not be onerous as they are competent safety-wise and not crazy.

But it will never happen because in the US, when we talk about principles, we are really talking about money. Pornographers support the First Amendment and Gun Sellers support the Second.

turned gun ownership policy on it's head. The handgun crackdown, followed by a gun buyback program netted over 600,000 handguns, and Australia's violent crime rate plummeted.

American politicians don't have the guts to do what Howard did.

Gun issues are the "fourth rail" in politics.

:kick:

:argh:

the "If students were allowed to all carry guns..." argument is alive and well.

:eyes:

It's the same guns being allowed in places where they are not presently allowed.

Consider it a nit at your own risk.

BTW - I think it would be foolish for students to carry weapons in most cases. They are young and immature, and student housing is not secure for storing a firearm. It would make sense for professors or staffers who are permitted and qualified, to be allowed to carry on campus.

thank you for the police state :eyes:

thank you for the police state :eyes:

As they do in airports and courthouses.

seems to me 'grenade free zones' are working quite well. or am I missing something?

Ban and confiscate every single gun in the country, or put airport-style security in every public place where you want no guns?

seems to me 'grenade free zones' are working quite well. or am I missing something?

Yes, the laws and regulations controlling explosives are quite effective.

Applying them to ordinary firearms would be quite a bit more difficult, to say nothing of its political implications.

"ordinary firearms"...

no such fucking thing

NOTHING "ordinary" about firearms. lame excuse.

Title II weapons include machineguns, sound suppressors, short-barrelled shotguns, etc. Those are strictly regulated (and have been since 1934).

Those are small in number, therefore not difficult to regulate. Manufacturers of explosives are tightly controlled and limited in number. The distribution channels for them are licensed and controlled, also small in scope.

Title I firearms, for which I'm very sorry if I offended you with the word "ordinary", number in the hundreds of millions.

How about your home, your neighborhood?

don't suppose there are many gun owners on my block. if any.

I happen to like it that way. Funny. My take is that if there aren't any guns in the neighborhood, there are likely to be fewer shootings.

My thoughts are OBVIOUSLY flawed however. I realize that :eyes:

With the degree of IMO baseless animosity you've shown me here today, I wouldn't be surprised.

'animosity'?

:rofl:

you and I disagree apparently. thin-skinned much?

DON'T SHOOT!

:rofl:

Not your usual good-natured banter.

You state that the control of hand grenades is doing a kick-ass job of keeping hand-grenades off the streets, but in the same post state that gun control is doomed to failure.

I find it ironic that matcom accused ME of pushing for a police state sitation, when HE is proposing (lacking a lot of detail) a system that would require taking personal property from tens of millions of people without due process.