Yeah, screw gun control!

God, another one? This is getting out of hand.

Or, for example, the fact that it's been illegal for people who have mental illness to buy weapons has been in place a long, long time. However, the State of Virginia failed to integrate mental health data into their instant check, which would have prevented the VT gunman's ability to purchase guns from a dealer.

So maybe it's not more laws we need, just implementation of our current laws and instant check system in an effective (not half-ass) way.

What?

Because shopping malls are known for their high degree of armed customers?

Is it a more recent development that the guy running amok also takes his own life?

Awesome.

When I first read this thread title, I thought someone had used the tool as a weapon. Which would have been awesome.

Guns Don't Kill People, Idiots Do!!!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18355953/

AWESOME. Now there can be shoot-outs everyday.

Idiots with guns kill people, idiots without guns are just a minor annoyance.

I believe that is the answer to most of the problems of our society.

Are college students known to carry guns around? I know before class we all like to gather 'round and compare weapons. Saying guns would have prevented any of these events is a pretty dubious claim.

Yeah!!!! Screw gun control!!!! If we had no legal guns then the idiots couldn't buy a perfectly legal sawed-off shotgun. Wait...

"It's not that I run around scared all day long, but if something happens to me, I do want to be prepared," said the 24-year-old business major, who has a concealed-weapons permit and takes the handgun everywhere but church.



That's very Highlander of him!

I was confused when I read the "blunt sized gun" line too. I think she's just trying to say that he was running around firing a gun that looked like a eighth of an ounce of marijauna encased in an el presidente cigar wrapper. I had assumed that he had a joint sized gun until she said that. At least he didn't have a bong sized gun because that would be really crazy. That's what the new legislation for gun control should cover, no more blunt or bong sized guns.

Watch how that won't happen.

From the article:

Is he the author of Real Ultimate Power?

That would explain what happened to that kid.

I never made the claim. Brenden just wanted to make a quip at gun nuts, and I don't think it fits the situation. Would have made more sense if the the people ducking into the store were ducking into a gun shop, or it was at a shooting range, or a gun show....

Told you everyone was packin', but did anyone listen? Nooo...

Depends greatly, I imagine, on which college one attends.

I was joking.

But that will be a good case study. See how often any incidents do happen, and if they do, how they will carry out.

And what better place to do such a study than Utah?

Irony is NOT a dead scene...

Rest here: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/04/nra....ap/index.html

Ugh.

I just have a hard time thinking people would be carrying guns around at college, but then there's that article about Utah. I guess the culture here about guns is much different, but if I saw people running to their cars to get guns I would think they are thugs and not hunters. Is that a North/South cultural difference or maybe just city vs. country? I am very uncomfortable with the idea that anyone around me is carrying a gun.

I don't know. Where I grew up, most everyone had guns, and we all carried one or two in the car and sometimes on our persons. It wasn't and isn't a big deal.

I've got no problem with that.

I guess you are a more trusting person than I.

Why?

The organization, or its members?

I don't trust other people to be smart or rational enough when it comes to using guns. To me the deaths caused by guns outweigh the novelty of owning them.

Most people don't own them for novelty and most people can't be trusted to drive.

People don't kill 31 people with cars.

I think one should have to go through an extensive psychiatric evaluation before being allowed to handle a firearm, without exception. One must be of fantastic mental health and stability, and then proceed through a thorough training course on the use, maintenance and potential dangers of firearm use. There should be a considerable waiting period before one can obtain their weapon, at least two weeks to a month. There must, obviously, be a limit on the number of firearms that can be possessed. At most, one rifle and one handgun per household, and the rifle must be legitimized, i.e. obtained after the acquisition of a hunting license.

Of course, I feel largely the same way about cars. I'd venture a good 80% of people on the road shouldn't be there.

Yes they do. Have you ever seen a bus crash?

I think more to the point would be have you ever seen someone run over 31 different people in a fit of road rage?

Belethedheliel, I am extremely pro-woman and pro-feminist, but even you're starting to freak me out with this gun fetish.

(Your response to this post will in all likelyhood be humorless, and explain to me exactly where I am mistaken in my belief in an educational fashion.)

(insert GTA plug here)

Oh, yes, I've got a gun fetish alright. A long, steely shaft. Hard wood. Can't get off without 'em.

Was that humorous enough for you?

I think more to the point would be, should there be a waiting period for vests, PVC pipe and fertilizer, amongst other things, to prevent bombings?

Seriously, the VT guy was incredibly insane. Do you think if he couldn't get a gun he'd have just gotten therapy? Don't you think he'd more likely have looked up on the internet how to make a bomb and killed at least as many people that way? Or possibly driven his car over 30 people? Or otherwise been as freakishly violent as he could be?

I mean, we already had Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber, when will you learn that guns are neither the most efficient and effective way to kill people nor the only way crazy people have of acting out on their crazy. Hell, we've had mothers drown their own children. Don't you think they'd have killed those kids using ANY method they had? (And obviously we can't outlaw lakes and bathtubs.) Crazy people will do all kinds of things because they are crazy.

I think that the idea of banning guns might be lovely if we didn't already have millions of them. But do you plan to do house-to-house searches of the entire country and block the borders to get rid of the ones we have and prevent us from getting more? We're not a small, already relatively gun-free island.

Isn't it unrealistic to think that if you ask people to turn in their guns, only some of the non-scary owners are going to do it, and all the criminals and crazies and gun nuts aren't?

I think more objective research looking at crime rates and methods in countries with varying degrees of gun possession should be performed. Much of what little research is currently out there is greatly flawed. (One study in the USA listed "accidental shootings of children" as a category, but as I recall it included all deaths under the age of about 20, including at least one death that occured when the police had a gun battle with a convicted felon in parole violation who happened to be 19 at the time... yeah, that was an accidental death of a child.) Until we actually have a better grip on how gun crimes work, any theoretical fix is not likely to work. Have you seen the crime rate in DC?

I understand the "one death is one death too many" sentiment many people have. But guns are not the reason behind the massacre. Yes, he would not have killed as many people if he was using a pocketknife. But we can't predict what he would have done without a gun - he might have decided to be a suicide bomber. Ask an Israeli, an Iraqi or a soldier about how fun it is to live life at risk of having a suicide bomber attack you.

If Virginia had implemented the instant check system the way it was meant to be - so that people who were committed to mental institutions showed up in the system - he wouldn't have gotten a gun.

I still say that our current laws aren't that flawed; the enforcement of them is.

Fuck, why even bother?

You must be a redneck gun lovin' gap toothed racist fucking hillbilly, right? Everybody knows that they're the only people who see any value in guns, besides psychopathic shooters, of course. Come on, if it saves just one life, isn't it worth it? Think of the fucking children.


I swear my fucking straw men come up with better arguments than this shit.

No, because it wasn't funny and you replaced education with condesention. You're like Cosmoline, but with better grammar.

Who's Cosmoline?

Sorry, I'm not a very funny person much of the time, and, not that you care to know or that it excuses inappropriate behavior, but my personal life is currently rather stressful (father had heart surgery 5 days ago, etc, etc) and thus is reducing my sense of humor further.

In any case, you're accusing me of being too dignified, humorless and erudite and not treating the discussion at hand as an insignificant and humorous one. So, by definition, you're telling me to get off my high horse and condescend to join the ranks of the other Chewers. So, I was trying to oblige by playing that role for you. And, while we're considering me too stuffy anyway, it's spelled condescension.

I love you. That's not a surprise, though, Marines have always been my favorites. (Don't tell my Navy and Air Force friends, that, though.)

Those things have non-violent primary uses.

Maybe, maybe not. Bombing may be a more efficient way to produce bodies, but the impulse that makes someone want to go room-to-room shooting people before they check out. Would not be satisified by a bomb. It lacks the immediacy and personal connection. A car has a non-violent primary use, and it would be much harder to kill 30 people with one than with guns. And nobody said gun restrictions would've made the kid sane.

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

Retroactive enforcement of any kind of ban is going to be difficult. Doesn't have anything to do with whether it's the right thing to do or not.

Assuming you meant "realistic" here, and increased gun control measures required guns purchased legally before the ban to be surrendered (which is not a given), then yes, the "crazies" would probably hang onto them. And from then on they could be prosecuted just for having them, and not only when they went nuts with them.
I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that the way gun crimes work is tied to actually having guns. Any law is going to be ineffective if improperly enforced, but that doesn't speak to the soundness of the law.

We can't predict what he would've done without a gun....but he probably would've been a suicide bomber? I think we're better off worrying about the multiple incidents of homicidal gun rampages in this country than hypothetical suicide bombings that you think may occur if access to guns is cut off. I've heard some backwards-ass defenses of the 2nd Amendment before, but "giving crazy people guns keeps them from getting bombs" takes the cake.
Proper enforcement is the most important step. And, as I've said before, I like guns and don't want them outlawed. But the arguments against stricter gun control are pretty spurious. Individuals with firearms aren't going to be able to defend themselves from government tyanny anymore. And personal protection only goes so far. Hell, when and if I have a family or some property that's worth defending, I'll probably want one. But a single pistol is all that is required to defend oneself in the really unlikely event of a home invasion or highway robbery; anything more and you're just courting trouble. There's absolutely no need for hollow point bullets, submachine guns, assault weapons or the like. Hell, unless you live in Alaska or something where there's a real possibility of bear or moose attack, I don't think there's even need for buckshot.

So anyway, you want a gun for personal protection, then fine. But if you can't fight or scare off an intruder with a single pistol, then I don't think any of the nifty gadgets the NRA pushes for will be any help either.

1. I think you'd be surprised.
2. Which is why, IMHO, the 2nd amendment, based on intent, should allow people to have F-16s and Abrams if they want 'em.

Personal protection isn't in the constitution.

This is a joke, right? I'm interpreting it as a joke.

Constitution needs to get with the times, maybe bare arms would offend the founding fathers' more victorian sensabilities but these days, who would care? (Oh, and I know "they" understand that quite well, actually. Hell, going by your stereotype, they're the ones stockpiling weapons just in case the gummint tries to pull a fast one, right?)

Single pistol? What if you want one for your wife too? C'mon, that's just stupid. What's the difference between having one gun or twenty? And if you think home invasion is an "unlikely event" (okay, I'll give it to you that statistically, more people don't have their homes invaded than people who do, but then, more people don't get shot by psycho fucks than people who do. That's probably some bizarre sentence structure there but I'm sure you can make it out.) than I want to live in whatever fantasy land you live in, I'm sure my life would be much happier if at least I could FEEL safe, regardless of whether I am or not.

Wrong. Hollow points are safer, they're much less likely to overpenetrate, go through a wall or whatever and hit something they weren't meant to it. Submachine guns and assault rifles are already illegal. And don't get me started on the whole "need" bullshit.

Who gives a shit about nifty gadgets? Like laser pointers and flashlights and shit? If somebody wants to dress up their AR-15 like a fucking barbie doll, why do you care? Besides your desire to control other people's lives for no damn reason, that is.

No they aren't, you just don't pay attention. And you find it much easier to use stereotypes, assumptions, and emotion as your main arguments.

I've never shot anybody with my guns, so I'd say their primary uses extend to killing empty beer bottles and paper targets, which strikes me as pretty damned non-violent. And for people who buy their guns at gun stores (read: NOT FUCKING CRIMINALS), their guns have "non-violent primary uses" as well.

Fuck no, a better argument would be to say that they're too stupid or lazy to make a bomb. A bomb produces a badass explosion and sends all parts of people flying all over the place. THAT would be pretty fucking satisfying to a rotcunt psycho nut, wouldn't you think?

Holy shit, you're right! I admit defeat, there's no way I could argue with what in debate must be the equivalent to a mathematical proof. .9 recurring equals 1! Gun owners have small cocks and are therefore wrong! Brilliant work, Skolem.

Well I've got a joke for you: I'm gonna tear you a new asshole! (sorry, couldn't resist).