Virginia Tech : Hindsight 20/20

polaris

someone is actually suggesting that if every student was allowed to carry a gun - this wouldn't have happened?? ...

that's pure brilliance

farfromglorified

People here would be wise to realize that my right to own and carry a gun has absolutely nothing to do with this event, but that their decision to take my gun away from me will have everything to do with it.

Stop playing the gun control game until you're willing to own up to the machinations of enforcing your control.

Heineken Helen

polaris wrote:

someone is actually suggesting that if every student was allowed to carry a gun - this wouldn't have happened?? ...

that's pure brilliance

Yip this is what makes the gun argument so frustrating... cos you're dealing with ideas like that

Heineken Helen

farfromglorified wrote:

People here would be wise to realize that my right to own and carry a gun has absolutely nothing to do with this event, but that their decision to take my gun away from me will have everything to do with it.

Stop playing the gun control game until you're willing to own up to the machinations of enforcing your control.

What? So you're perfectly happy with random psychos being able to walk into a shop and simply buy a gun?

Right!

farfromglorified

Heineken Helen wrote:

What? So you're perfectly happy with random psychos being able to walk into a shop and simply buy a gun?

Right!

What I am happy with or unhappy with does not provide me a lease on the rights of others. I'm unhappy with your post above. Does that give me the right to shut you up?

dunkman

farfromglorified wrote:

What I am happy with or unhappy with does not provide me a lease on the rights of others. I'm unhappy with your post above. Does that give me the right to shut you up?

her posts wont kill anyone

farfromglorified

dunkman wrote:

her posts wont kill anyone

Neither will 99.9% of the guns in America. What's your point?

dunkman

farfromglorified wrote:

Neither will 99.9% of the guns in America. What's your point?

0.1% will.. and thats too many..and its this great fucking place to play in Dublin

99.9%... did you pull that from thin air?

redrock

farfromglorified wrote:

People here would be wise to realize that my right to own and carry a gun has absolutely nothing to do with this event, .

But the right of the person who carried out the shooting (and others like him) to own and carry a gun did have everything to do with this event..... So.. do we choose the right of one to use a gun against another or the right of another to live?

Byrnzie

chopitdown wrote:

As with most issues there are 2 sides...here's something that shows different conclusions on this issue...I haven't read them and don't have the time to, but really...if you were interested in some of this you can google it to find some information...like below there are articles in the stanford law review and you can google those articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry#Research_into_the_effects_of_concealed_carry_laws_on_crime
There have been many studies published in academic journals regarding the effects of various concealed carry laws on crime rate. Academics have also taken the debate outside of journals, writing books, blogs, and having debates on the subject.

The effect of various concealed carry laws are the subject of past and present research. In his book, More Guns, Less Crime, controversial pro-gun scholar John Lott's analysis of crime report data has shown some statistically significant effects of concealed carry laws. One major conclusion was that locations which enacted more permissive concealed carry laws had a decrease in violent crime, but an increase in property crime.

Don Kates summarizes the consensus reached by criminological research into gun control thus: "Unfortunately, an almost perfect inverse correlation exists between those who are affected by gun laws, particularly bans, and those whom enforcement should affect. Those easiest to disarm are the responsible and law abiding citizens whose guns represent no meaningful social problem. Irresponsible and criminal owners, whose gun possession creates or exacerbates so many social ills, are the ones most difficult to disarm."[7]

Regardless of the interpretation of statistics, the trend in the United States has been towards greater permissiveness of concealed carry. In Florida, which first introduced "shall-issue" concealed carry laws, crimes committed against residents dropped markedly upon the general issuance of concealed-carry licenses,[1] which had the unintended consequence of putting tourists in Florida driving marked rental cars at risk from criminals (since tourists may be readily presumed unarmed.) Florida responded by enacting laws prohibiting the obvious marking of rental cars. In 1991, the Luby's massacre prompted Texas lawmakers to pass a concealed carry law.

[edit] Related literature

* 1977 John Lott and David Mustard, “Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,” Journal of Legal Studies.
* 1998 Dan Black and Daniel Nagin, “Do Right-to-Carry Laws Deter Violent Crime?” Journal of Legal Studies.
* 1998 John Lott, “The Concealed-Handgun Debate.” Journal of Legal Studies.
* 2000 John Lott, More Guns, Less Crime (AEI).
* 2002 John Lott, More Guns, Less Crime, Second Edition (AEI).
* 2003 Ian Ayres and John Donohue, “Shooting Down the ‘More Guns, Less Crime’ Hypothesis, Stanford Law Review.
* 2003 Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley, “Confirming ‘More Guns, Less Crime,” Stanford Law Review.
* 2003 Ayres and Donohue, “The Latest Misfires in Support of the ‘More Guns, Less Crime’ Hypothesis,” Stanford Law Review.

Right, well, seeing as you haven't read the piece that you posted, let me sum it up for you. It's saying that criminals, or those otherwise irresponsible owners, are those who are less likely to give up their weapons when the law dictates that they do.
O.k, so we can assume then that any imposition of a ban on guns following a change in the law would take some time to fully enforce, and may in fact never succeed in being fully enforced.
Well, the same situation exists in pretty much every country in the world at the present time. The only difference is that gun crime isn't rampant in other countries in the way it is in America at the present time.

farfromglorified

dunkman wrote:

0.1% will.. and thats too many

Too many what? A small percentage of "posts", meaning words, will lead to violent situations wherein people will die. A larger percentage of cars will lead to violent situations wherein people will die. Is your standard for determining what people have a right to do simply a question of whether or not they can contribute to murder????

99.9%... did you pull that from thin air?

No -- I rounded down. There are roughly 250,000,000 guns in America. About 10,000 people are killed a year using firearms, roughly.

farfromglorified

redrock wrote:

But the right of the person who carried out the shooting (and others like him) to own and carry a gun did have everything to do with this event.....

Precisely, yes.

So.. do we choose the right of one to use a gun against another or the right of another to live?

It's not your choice to make, outside of the context of your guns or your life. Otherwise, "right" becomes meaningless.

soulsinging

Staceb10 wrote:

Do you guys really think that not being able to legally own a gun would stop things like this? Legally owning a gun doesn't make people lose their mind and go on a killing spree. And making it illegal isn't going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and psychopaths either.

this kid wasn't a hardened criminal. he was a crazy citizen who snapped. if he had not been able to go to walmart and buy a gun, 30 people would not have died. he would have had to suck it up like a big boy, or try this with a knife and gotten the shit kicked out of him. but a gun is instant power, with absolutely no training or responsibility involved. we make people get licenses for cars, to practice law or medicine, for most public service positions, and all of these licenses require training and testing. but any yahoo with a few bucks can go buy a piece of equipment capable of killing many with absolutely no training or learned responsibility. if that is not the very definition of unreasonable, i dont know what is. rather than having an unstable person who might try to kill somebody with his bare hands or a knife, you have an unstable person who can easily kill dozens with the twitch of a finger.

yes, criminals will still get guns. but the criminal trade in guns DEPENDS upon legal gun sales. we're not importing small arsenals of handguns from russia. the weapons here come from law-abiding citizens. ones who are careless and have it stolen, or strapped for cash and sell it, or just haven't committed a crime YET and buy a bunch of them. cut that supply off, and yes criminals will have the edge... for a short while. but as weapons deteriorate or are lost or confiscated, you're going to have a substantial loss in the supply. this is going to raise the black market value on them and mean that the only people who can afford to buy them are people who have the business sense not to use them... joe crackhead could not afford a gun and is back to trying to jump people, and joe fucked-up-schoolkid can't kill 33 people with his bare hands before he is stopped. unless he is a ninja.

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

Too many what? A small percentage of "posts", meaning words, will lead to violent situations wherein people will die. A larger percentage of cars will lead to violent situations wherein people will die. Is your standard for determining what people have a right to do simply a question of whether or not they can contribute to murder????



No -- I rounded down. There are roughly 250,000,000 guns in America. About 10,000 people are killed a year using firearms, roughly.

but how many gun owners?

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

It's not your choice to make, outside of the context of your guns or your life. Otherwise, "right" becomes meaningless.

it is in a country that is ruled by a government based on democratic majorities

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

but how many gun owners?

Roughly 100,000,000. Depends on whose stats you use. NRA would say about 125,000,000+, I've seen others as low as 75,000,000.

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

it is in a country that is ruled by a government based on democratic majorities

No. Democracy would be an inappropriate word there, unless you believe a lynch mob is a democracy. Rights precede democracy.

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

Roughly 100,000,000. Depends on whose stats you use. NRA would say about 125,000,000+, I've seen others as low as 75,000,000.

that's a lot of gun owners. im actually surprised we only have 10,000 gun deaths a year.

baraka

soulsinging wrote:

this kid wasn't a hardened criminal. he was a crazy citizen who snapped. if he had not been able to go to walmart and buy a gun, 30 people would not have died. he would have had to suck it up like a big boy, or try this with a knife and gotten the shit kicked out of him. but a gun is instant power, with absolutely no training or responsibility involved. we make people get licenses for cars, to practice law or medicine, for most public service positions, and all of these licenses require training and testing. but any yahoo with a few bucks can go buy a piece of equipment capable of killing many with absolutely no training or learned responsibility. if that is not the very definition of unreasonable, i dont know what is. rather than having an unstable person who might try to kill somebody with his bare hands or a knife, you have an unstable person who can easily kill dozens with the twitch of a finger.

I'll admit, I've never owned a gun (nor my parents) which is odd, because I am form the south and it seems to be a rite of passage here. What are the requirements to obtain a firearm? Can I own as many as I want and is there a limit to what I can possess? Is there any training required before one can own a gun? What laws are already on 'the books' and are they enforced?

Heineken Helen

farfromglorified wrote:

Precisely, yes.



It's not your choice to make, outside of the context of your guns or your life. Otherwise, "right" becomes meaningless.

Try telling that to the families... that they shouldn't have the choice to make it harder for potential psychos to get their hands on guns :rolleyes:

125million guns in the USS?? :eek: