VT Shootings, Gun Control !

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

As to what might help such things, a very intriguing post by Randy Barnett:

pookie wrote:

Interesting. And of course, being able to defend oneself is always preferable to depending on others to do it.[/quote]

Agreed, I think many in favor of more liberal gun ownership look to the Swiss system of educating and arming everyone as a panacea.

I have never seen any police or military force in recent history send less than two armed individuals into a building to retrieve or kill anyone. This guy walked into two buildings and out of one before he ended up shooting himself. I’m not saying that I would’ve been the hero to leap out and take him down with a pair of scissors, but I certainly wouldn’t have been blogging.

22

[quote]beowolf wrote:

You do know the “slippery slope” is considered a fallacious argument in debate, right?[/quote]

Hey, beowolf.

I disagree with that assertion. Here is an extremely thoughtful and relevant discussion about the slippery slope in England. This discusses in detail the history of loss of the right to bear arms in England. If you can’t stomach the meat of the discussion, please scan down to the conclusions.

The Good Guys agree to a point.

Again, a positive step and example.

Why did you just include the White House?

You can’t seriously trust the democrats in Congress?

I think it’s fair to say that you are a bit more enlightened than bradley.

Again, if we had faith that unscrupulous politicians wouldn’t screw this up, I think you’d find many more allies.

JeffR

23

[quote]pookie wrote:

Cops seem to prefer camping out around the “security parameter” while dozens of people get executed in a nearby building. If the people hired and equipped to deal with dangerous situations can’t do it, who else can?
[/quote]

Forgive me, friend.

That assertion is false.

I guess you’ll just have to trust me: What you see on television is only a small piece of what’s happening.

In this case the SWAT team was in the building.

I’m not sure we know exactly what happened at the end.

JeffR

24

[quote]brushga wrote:
buffballswell wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
I wonder why many americans have this “holy” view on the words of long gone men… a constitution is just that, a constitution, it isn’t a religious bible of some kind… :slight_smile:

Because some of us still believe deeply in the sacrifices of those who came before us, so that we may have the freedoms they fought so passionately for. Because what was true then, is still true now. Our fathers, grandfathers, and great grandfathers fought, and many died to protect “the words of long gone men.” Personally I only hope that there are still men bread of the same character.

I agree with this sentiment, and more to the point I have a major problem with Euro citizens indulging the need to pass judgment on the American Constitution, considering it was the primary impetus for the creation of a nation that helped to keep the Norwegians from speaking German. In other words, we don’t care what the fuck you do in Norway, so shut the fuck up about what goes on here.[/quote]

You boys relly must practice reading comprehension. Both of you are just regurgitating what you have learned. You don’t have an own opinion yet.

25

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Agreed, I think many in favor of more liberal gun ownership look to the Swiss system of educating and arming everyone as a panacea. [/quote]

I’m not sure about arming everyone being a solution. You might have less of those mass killings, since the shooter would presumably be taken out earlier; but you might have more incidents of people shooting each other when drunk, or over neighborhood disagreements.

Hell, what were the cops outside waiting for? They’ve got body armor, guns, numbers, etc. What the hell are they waiting for? It must’ve been a great comfort to those inside to know that the police were there and had erected a security perimeter. Whoop-de-fucking-do. That’s super great to know when you’re inside, unarmed and the crazed killer is walking around.

26

From what I’ve read the local cops tried to get into the building but couldn’t get thru the doors which were chained shut from the inside. They had to retrieve bolt cutters from the station but by then it was too late.

When they came back, within minutes, with the cutters, it was all over.

I think most cops realize that with school shootings you have to act quick to break it up. Most cops I know would run into the building to stop the shooting without hesitation.

There is a certain percentage of the population who will always rise to defend others. Most people are sheep but some are sheepdogs. The sheepdogs will kill the wolf when he comes calling.

Let’s make sure the sheepdogs have a permitted weapon to do the job. They sheepdog never kill the sheep but they sure as hell will take care of the wolf. That scares the hell out of the sheep but I think they realize they are better off.

27

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Forgive me, friend.

That assertion is false.[/quote]

And you can back that up with…? Or must I take your word on it?

Like Reagan said: Trust, but verify.

And somehow that wasn’t reported anywhere?

The last school shooting we had here, at Dawson College in Montreal, the police did go in, post-haste, and the nut was shot and killed rather quickly. We still had one victim and multiple injured, but nothing like VT or our Polytechnique in December 1989.

Well, do you know what happened or not? Is that SWAT team made from the same dreamstuff as your Iraq victory?

28

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Well… isn’t the fact that a young man who had been declared unstable and paranoid by the courts could so easily buy two guns and ammunition in a single week a little fucked up?

I’m all for the second amendment (though saying it applies the same way today is a bite of BS, I still support the basic principal), but COME ON. If you’ve been to prison for a violent crime, been declared unstable, ect… you should NOT be able to buy a weapon that easily. I’m pro gun control. CONTROL, not banishment. People seem to think they’re synonymous. [/quote]

Felons can not buy guns. This guy WAS NOT a felon. He had not been to prison. He had been seen in a mental institution, but not declared “insane”.

We are talking about a Constitutional right to buy guns. It’s very difficult to legally deny someone their rights (can you say ACLU?). You can buy ammunition at WalMart, there is no screening process for buying ammo. It goes back to the idea that the THE GUN killed all those people, not the guy pulling the trigger.

I guarantee a law abiding student with a concealed-carry permit who happened to be packing that day could have ended this early and saved many people.

29

[quote]hedo wrote:
From what I’ve read the local cops tried to get into the building but couldn’t get thru the doors which were chained shut from the inside. They had to retrieve bolt cutters from the station but by then it was too late.

When they came back, within minutes, with the cutters, it was all over.

I think most cops realize that with school shootings you have to act quick to break it up. Most cops I know would run into the building to stop the shooting without hesitation.

There is a certain percentage of the population who will always rise to defend others. Most people are sheep but some are sheepdogs. The sheepdogs will kill the wolf when he comes calling.

Let’s make sure the sheepdogs have a permitted weapon to do the job. They sheepdog never kill the sheep but they sure as hell will take care of the wolf. That scares the hell out of the sheep but I think they realize they are better off.[/quote]

YES!

30

[quote]buffballswell wrote:
Because some of us still believe deeply in the sacrifices of those who came before us, so that we may have the freedoms they fought so passionately for. Because what was true then, is still true now. Our fathers, grandfathers, and great grandfathers fought, and many died to protect “the words of long gone men.” Personally I only hope that there are still men bread of the same character.
[/quote]

Yes, but what they were fighting for isn’t something written in stone. It is a piece of paper that can be amended. Number 2 has little life left in it.

When the revolution comes do you think you are going to be looking to a piece of paper to tell you how to behave? If I found the need to revolt against my government I would not need the second amendment to tell me it is ok. If the first amendment remains protected the second is not necessary.

Besides this, the whole “Our fathers, grandfathers, and great grandfathers fought, and many died to protect,” is nothing but rhetoric. Many of us do not want to be held to account for what ultimately is nothing more than words.

31

[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Forgive me, friend.

That assertion is false.

And you can back that up with…? Or must I take your word on it?[/quote]

You’ll just have to trust that I know about these things.

[quote]I guess you’ll just have to trust me:

Like Reagan said: Trust, but verify.

In this case the SWAT team was in the building.

And somehow that wasn’t reported anywhere?[/quote]

From USA today:

"Janis Terpenny, an associate engineering professor, said she was in the dean’s office on the third floor in Norris Hall when she heard gunshots. She tried to leave through a second-floor doorway but the doors were padlocked with chains, she said.

She went back to the engineering dean’s office, where a SWAT unit came in and took her downstairs to a below-ground classroom, she said. She left the building through an outside door and ran to nearby Randolph Hall, where she said police locked people inside."

Please tender your apology. Oh, you can find it reported in multiple other sources.

[quote]The last school shooting we had here, at Dawson College in Montreal, the police did go in, post-haste, and the nut was shot and killed rather quickly. We still had one victim and multiple injured, but nothing like VT or our Polytechnique in December 1989.

I’m not sure we know exactly what happened at the end.

Well, do you know what happened or not? Is that SWAT team made from the same dreamstuff as your Iraq victory?
[/quote]

Well, I guess this is what I get for giving you a compliment. It won’t happen again.

You don’t know what you are talking about. Plain and simple.

They were there and they did get into the building.

Again, the official report is the subject took his own life. This may very well be what happened.

However, I caution you, it isn’t always the case.

JeffR

32

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
buffballswell wrote:
Because some of us still believe deeply in the sacrifices of those who came before us, so that we may have the freedoms they fought so passionately for. Because what was true then, is still true now. Our fathers, grandfathers, and great grandfathers fought, and many died to protect “the words of long gone men.” Personally I only hope that there are still men bread of the same character.

Yes, but what they were fighting for isn’t something written in stone. It is a piece of paper that can be amended. Number 2 has little life left in it.

When the revolution comes do you think you are going to be looking to a piece of paper to tell you how to behave? If I found the need to revolt against my government I would not need the second amendment to tell me it is ok. If the first amendment remains protected the second is not necessary.

Besides this, the whole “Our fathers, grandfathers, and great grandfathers fought, and many died to protect,” is nothing but rhetoric. Many of us do not want to be held to account for what ultimately is nothing more than words.[/quote]

“When the revolution comes”??!!! WTF?

There will never be a revolution for 2 reasons:

  1. The US military swears to upold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND domestic. So, the guys with the really big guns swear their allegiance to a piece of paper.

  2. If the Democrats have their way and criminalize gun ownership and take the guns away from law abiding citizens, how will there ever be a revolution?

You sorely miss the point if you consider the Constitution just a piece of paper. Would you prefer an inbred royal family or a dictator?

33

[quote]PGJ wrote:
There will never be a revolution for 2 reasons:

  1. The US military swears to upold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND domestic. So, the guys with the really big guns swear their allegiance to a piece of paper.
    [/quote]

Oathes mean nothing especially oathes made to a piece of paper.

The the second amendment isn’t supposed to protect you from lunatics. The point of a second amendment as worded by the constitution is to protect the state from the federal government.

I am not looking to Billy-Bob shotgun owner to protect me and my family from armed crimminals. That is solely the state militia’s responsibility.

The backwards interpretation that some redneck gives the second amendment is plain WRONG. It either needs to be reworded in 21 century English or abolished.

Criminalizing private gun ownership works. Felons get guns from law abiding citizens. Take them away and they cannot get them. Simple enough. The harder it is for criminals to get guns the harder it will be for innocent citizens to die from gunshot wounds.

Crimilaizing guns also ensures lunatic law abiding citizens don’t get all John Wayne and decide to start shooting up a McDonalds because he forgot to take his blue pill. I am not just afraid of criminals with guns.

I am more afraid of the undiagnosed lunatics with itchy trigger fingers–like my PTSD Vietnam Veteran father-in-law who thinks a bullet in the head is the solution to every one’s “problem”. This man should not be a gun owner.

34

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PGJ wrote:
There will never be a revolution for 2 reasons:

  1. The US military swears to upold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND domestic. So, the guys with the really big guns swear their allegiance to a piece of paper.

Oathes mean nothing especially oathes made to a piece of paper.

  1. If the Democrats have their way and criminalize gun ownership and take the guns away from law abiding citizens, how will there ever be a revolution?

You sorely miss the point if you consider the Constitution just a piece of paper. Would you prefer an inbred royal family or a dictator?

The the second amendment isn’t supposed to protect you from lunatics. The point of a second amendment as worded by the constitution is to protect the state from the federal government.

I am not looking to Billy-Bob shotgun owner to protect me and my family from armed crimminals. That is solely the state militia’s responsibility.

The backwards interpretation that some redneck gives the second amendment is plain WRONG. It either needs to be reworded in 21 century English or abolished.

Criminalizing private gun ownership works. Felons get guns from law abiding citizens. Take them away and they cannot get them. Simple enough. The harder it is for criminals to get guns the harder it will be for innocent citizens to die from gunshot wounds.

Crimilaizing guns also ensures lunatic law abiding citizens don’t get all John Wayne and decide to start shooting up a McDonalds because he forgot to take his blue pill. I am not just afraid of criminals with guns.

I am more afraid of the undiagnosed lunatics with itchy trigger fingers–like my PTSD Vietnam Veteran father-in-law who thinks a bullet in the head is the solution to every one’s “problem”. This man should not be a gun owner.[/quote]

What is tryly amazing with leftist socialists is that they fight to the death SUPPORTING “Constitutional rights” that do not exist such as abortion rights, homosexual marriage rights, and the right to burn an American flag (show me in the Constitution where the words “abortion” or “homosexuality” are specifically mentioned).

Then fight equally hard AGAINST a Constitutional right that is clearly spelled out (the right to keep and bear arms).

“Criminalizing private gun ownership works. Felons get guns from law abiding citizens. Take them away and they cannot get them. Simple enough. The harder it is for criminals to get guns the harder it will be for innocent citizens to die from gunshot wounds.”

Are you stupid??? Crack cocaine is illegal but somehow people get it. How the F do you think that taking guns away from lawful citizens is going to keep guns away from criminals? THAT’S WHAT MAKES THEM FUCKING CRIMINALS!

Your program will only make it harder for good people to defend themselves. But then, I bet you believe that your personal protection is someone elses responsibility.

Do you realize your “redneck” comment is every bit as biggoted and intolerant as Imus’ “ho” comment? Do you believe only “rednecks” own guns? Because in your elitist liberal mind the Constitution is “old fashioned” you think it should be abolished? Your ignorance and intolerance is staggering.

35

[quote]PGJ wrote:

You can buy ammunition at WalMart, there is no screening process for buying ammo.[/quote]

In Georgia.

36

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

The the second amendment isn’t supposed to protect you from lunatics. The point of a second amendment as worded by the constitution is to protect the state from the federal government.

I am not looking to Billy-Bob shotgun owner to protect me and my family from armed crimminals. That is solely the state militia’s responsibility.[/quote]

Huh? I thought it was the militia’s job to protect state from federation? How is it supposed to do both unless you have a prolific number of armed militiamen relative to the total population?

Freedom of speech at its finest.

Amazingly enough, even in countries where law abiding citizens aren’t allowed to carry guns.

Because stab wounds are so much better.

It ensures that they have to have enough knowledge of basic chemistry/biology to blow people up or poison them with anthrax.

What about his Ka-Bar? I’m more afraid of the undiagnosed lunatic than the weapon he happens to kill me with.

37

[quote]pookie wrote:
Hell, what were the cops outside waiting for? They’ve got body armor, guns, numbers, etc. What the hell are they waiting for? It must’ve been a great comfort to those inside to know that the police were there and had erected a security perimeter. Whoop-de-fucking-do. That’s super great to know when you’re inside, unarmed and the crazed killer is walking around.
[/quote]

Do you know how long the entire event took? The shooter had much more time to prepare than the cops did to react. And no, cops shouldn’t just rush in. Ever hear of cross fire? Or shooting innocent people? A perimeter is ALWAYS the first thing done in situations like this, even in Canada.

I know you lean way left Pook, but to blame the cops for this is even beyond your norm.

38

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
…IE: People used to say allowing interracial marriages would lead to polygamy, homosexual marriages, and marriages to animals being legal. Obviously, this hasn’t happened.
…
[/quote]

Seems the slippery slope is accurate with regards to the homosexual marriage point. That is happening.

The slippery slope certainly applies to gun control. Just a look at US history shows that.

39

[quote]MaloVerde wrote:
pookie wrote:
Hell, what were the cops outside waiting for? They’ve got body armor, guns, numbers, etc. What the hell are they waiting for? It must’ve been a great comfort to those inside to know that the police were there and had erected a security perimeter. Whoop-de-fucking-do. That’s super great to know when you’re inside, unarmed and the crazed killer is walking around.

Do you know how long the entire event took? The shooter had much more time to prepare than the cops did to react. And no, cops shouldn’t just rush in. Ever hear of cross fire? Or shooting innocent people? A perimeter is ALWAYS the first thing done in situations like this, even in Canada.

I know you lean way left Pook, but to blame the cops for this is even beyond your norm.

[/quote]

Good point.
Pookie is another example of how people are looking to blame others for a completely random act of violence. This isn’t “Miami Vice” where you throw a grenade in and magically kill only the bad guys.

To rush in guns-a-blazin’ is foolish. And if they decided to do that and accidentally shot a student…can you read the headlines? “VT Police kill innocent student”. What a shit-storm that would be.

My advice to the armchair SWAT team guys…let the pros do their job. You only know a small fraction of the whole story.

40

The arguments a lot of you propose for the right to bear arms are very compelling and extremely well written but in no way does it persuade me in the slightest that the ability to buy a gun to ‘protect’ oneself makes for a safer environment to live in.

Where I come from we have our fair share of lunatics that are quite willing to stab the shit out of you for just looking at them crooked but I guarantee to you that if these stupid fucks were allowed to buy guns this place would be an absolute disaster. It doesn’t even bear thinking about.

It scares me to think that you guys believe this right to bear arms shit will ever solve anything especially the fact that it pertains to a time when your country was involved in a struggle to rid yourselves of the English way back in 1770’s.
Back when people hunted for food and the threat of mortal danger was always at the forefront of people’s minds.

Times have changed and although danger is still apparent it’s a far cry from those bygone days when George Washington was strutting his stuff and when the frontier still existed. Human beings are thick fucks’ we love the opportunity to hate and removing the ability to kill one another by simply pulling a trigger is a very very good idea.