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?

• Police typically do try to exercise non-lethal force whenever possible. But since police are trained to use deadly force appropriately, I have no problem letting the cops have guns. Vigilantes I have a problem with. I do agree that campus police are vitrually inept. A bicycle and some pepper spray only go so far. Police need to be not only a means of ending a conflict, but a deterrant. 

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.

• Are you sure you haven't heard this one? You used it yourself later in your own post: "Looking at the statistics regarding crimes committed by CCW permit holders, I would say you have little to worry about."

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.

• This is a ridiculous comparison, so riduculous as to be offensive. Comparing one gunman killing 32 people in a matter of minutes to tens of thousands of Rwandans killing 1,000,000 people over the course of many years isn't even apples and oranges. It's apples and coffee grounds.

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.

• Since you were unable to address my desire to arm myself with nuclear weapons, you proved my contention of ambiguity for me. Thanks. And the constitution can always be amended, although it is not an easy process. Technically, the 17th, 18th, and 20th Amendments are "unconstitutional" in that they directly conflict with language of the founding fathers or subsequent amendments.

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. 

• You can't make an arguement based on a hypothetical student that wished he had a gun. Of course he did. But 15 minutes earlier, if you asked the same student if he wished that the entire class was packing heat, he would undoubtedly say no. You can't make policy out of hysteria and hypothetical scenarios. You can look at gun violence data from other countries as well as our own, and discover very unequivocal trends. Even if allowing the students to have guns is deemed the most effective deterrant, where do you draw the line? Do you think the Columbine kids should have been able to bring guns to school to protect themselves? I hope not.

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;

• 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?