Guns! What a nuisance to society. The kid walked right into a gun store and bought the thing.
Hope the NRA supporters feel good about this one.
Posted on 4/18 8:42 AM | IP: Logged
It's just too bad there weren't more guns on campus besides just the madman. I know, lets outlaw guns so only bad guys have them...
Posted on 4/18 8:50 AM | IP: Logged
I'm an NRA and second amendment supporter. Maybe we should also take a look at society's willingness to over medicate people with forms of depression. Thats the reason this guy snapped.
Posted on 4/18 10:08 AM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by portlandog: I'm an NRA and second amendment supporter. Maybe we should also take a look at society's willingness to over medicate people with forms of depression. Thats the reason this guy snapped.
Another person that doesn't know much about the second amendment. When the second amendment was adopted, we didn't have a military and it had nothing to do with the individuals rights to bear arms.
Posted on 4/18 11:57 AM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by portlandog: It's just too bad there weren't more guns on campus besides just the madman. I know, lets outlaw guns so only bad guys have them...
What do you think his chances of killing 32 people would have been with a knife?
Posted on 4/18 11:58 AM | IP: Logged
So whats your answer to the problem? Start removing all the guns from society?
Posted on 4/18 12:40 PM | IP: Logged
Don't forget to take away cars and anything that could lead to a fall. Those both kill more people a year then guns. And we should outlaw suicide, it kills 3 times as many people as guns do. Heck, you're more likely to die by accidental poisoning then you are by a gun.
As for his odds of killing 32 with a knife, that would be hard to do. But how hard would it be to kill 32 with a fertilizer bomb? (168 dead, over 800 injured in the Oklahoma City bombing) Still, it's easier to say that if we just got rid of guns, then we'd all be safer. After all, no one was ever killed by another human being before we had guns.
Posted on 4/18 1:21 PM | IP: Logged
I was waiting for you to start your crap V. This isn't about guns. It's about the failing of society once again. This person obviously had a lot of mental problems (stalking, suicide threats, bomb threats, and crazy writings, etc.) The question should be, why wasn't this guy dealt with before he could harm himself or others? The gun was just a convenient and effective weapon that he chose to use. It is a rarity that a "legally" obtained gun is used in crimes like this. If you remove legally obtained guns from the market do you think criminals will just go away and no more guns will be used?
Posted on 4/18 1:29 PM | IP: Logged
Guns are for killing. That is their intended purpose. When engineers design them, they don't have "striking fear into others" as part of the engineering strategy.
Like I have always said, if there is a gun present, don't be surprised when someone turns up dead.
You guys continue to amaze me. If we lived in a vacuum your excuses would be valid. However, this is the real world and crazy and disturbed people exist. Throw in a gun and look out.
Next you are going to tell me you don't go to the grocery store and you still hunt for your food.
Posted on 4/18 7:30 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by bakodogfan: If you remove legally obtained guns from the market do you think criminals will just go away and no more guns will be used?
Easy solution, ban bullets.
I can't remember the last time I read an article on how a gun saved someones life. In fact, I never have.
Posted on 4/18 7:33 PM | IP: Logged
Maybe you should read, MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME by John R. Lott, JR. I'm pretty certain that crime rates with deadly force are lower in cities that have more lax CCW permits than others. Criminals want the least amount of resistance possible. What a better way then banning the best method of self defense. I don't even own a gun and I don't plan on it but the right to own one and protect your home and family should not be taken away.
Posted on 4/18 9:01 PM | IP: Logged
BTW V, your only half right in regards to the 2nd amendment. We didn't have a military, the amendment was inacted for militia purposes, the same reasoning holds true today. Heaven forbid we are ever militarily invaded, I'm glad I'm armed as well as many of my neighbors...
Posted on 4/18 9:20 PM | IP: Logged
Gosh I can't seem to remember what kind of gun was used in the Oklahoma City bombing V.Based on your stupid analogy of banning guns, ammonia nitrate (ag fertilizer) should be banned and nitromethane( motor racing fuel) also should be banned. Well there goes nascar and farming. Your reasoning is that of a Dip Wad government regulated liberal. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. People have found ways to kill people long before guns were around. What a moron.
This post was edited on 4/20 8:57 AM by FSRoadDog
Posted on 4/20 8:50 AM | IP: Logged
Try taking the gun from this lady.
Armed Miss America 1944 Stops Intruder By Associated Press
Fri Apr 20, 8:01 PM
WAYNESBURG, Ky. - Miss America 1944 has a talent that likely has never appeared on a beauty pageant stage: She fired a handgun to shoot out a vehicle's tires and stop an intruder. Venus Ramey, 82, confronted a man on her farm in south-central Kentucky last week after she saw her dog run into a storage building where thieves had previously made off with old farm equipment.
Ramey said the man told her he would leave. "I said, 'Oh, no you won't,' and I shot their tires so they couldn't leave," Ramey said.
She had to balance on her walker as she pulled out a snub-nosed .38-caliber handgun.
"I didn't even think twice. I just went and did it," she said. "If they'd even dared come close to me, they'd be 6 feet under by now."
Ramey then flagged down a passing motorist, who called 911.
Curtis Parrish of Ohio was charged with misdemeanor trespassing, Deputy Dan Gilliam said. The man's hometown wasn't immediately available. Three other people were questioned but were not arrested.
After winning the pageant with her singing, dancing and comedic talents, Ramey sold war bonds and her picture was adorned on a B-17 that made missions over Germany in World War II, according to the Miss America Web site.
Ramey lived in Cincinnati for several years and was instrumental in helping rejuvenate Over-the-Rhine historic buildings. She returned to Kentucky in 1990 to live on her farm.
"I'm trying to live a quiet, peaceful life and stay out of trouble, and all it is, is one thing after another," she said.
Posted on 4/21 1:42 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by FSRoadDog: Gosh I can't seem to remember what kind of gun was used in the Oklahoma City bombing V.Based on your stupid analogy of banning guns, ammonia nitrate (ag fertilizer) should be banned and nitromethane( motor racing fuel) also should be banned. Well there goes nascar and farming. Your reasoning is that of a Dip Wad government regulated liberal. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. People have found ways to kill people long before guns were around. What a moron.
This post was edited on 4/20 8:57 AM by FSRoadDog (Revisions)
We aren't talking about fuel or fertilizer, we are talking about guns. Try giving your spin to the parents of the 32 that are dead as a result.
Once again, you guys always seem to give good points, provided we were living in a perfect world. But this isn't a perfect world and we don't live in a vacuum. This is the real world, and that kid walked right into a gun shop and bought his piece.
Like my dad always told me, if there is a gun around, don't be surprised when someone turns up dead.
Posted on 4/25 9:23 AM | IP: Logged
"Like my dad always told me, if there is a gun around, don't be surprised when someone turns up dead."
No wonder you are an anti-gun Liberal.
If the 32 parents had given each of the their 32 kids a gun to take to school, there wouldn't be 32 kids dead today. An armed society is a polite society.
Posted on 4/25 10:06 AM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by V for Valley:
We aren't talking about fuel or fertilizer, we are talking about guns. Try giving your spin to the parents of the 32 that are dead as a result.
Once again, you guys always seem to give good points, provided we were living in a perfect world. But this isn't a perfect world and we don't live in a vacuum. This is the real world, and that kid walked right into a gun shop and bought his piece.
Like my dad always told me, if there is a gun around, don't be surprised when someone turns up dead.
...and if just one person in the first room that the gunman opened fire on was armed, what do you suppose the chances are that there would have been fewer casualties?
If somebody wants to kill another person, or a large group of people, all they need is a motive and a little creativity. As for your question about the knife, all he would have had to do is wait until classes were let out, walk down a very crowded hallway and start stabbing. He could have had a dozen down before anybody knew what was happening.
I hate how some people feel the need to blame SOMETHING and can't accept that people are people and this crap is going to happen regardless of whether or not guns, or knives, or cars, or any other object that can be used to harm others exist.
V, you talk about a other posters living in a perfect world; a vacuum. If you take guns away from the masses, those who want to get thier hands on one will. Period. In a perfect world, by getting rid of guns, yes, there would be no more shootings, but as you love to point out, we don't live in such a world.
Posted on 4/25 10:07 AM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by Fangdog: "Like my dad always told me, if there is a gun around, don't be surprised when someone turns up dead."
No wonder you are an anti-gun Liberal.
If the 32 parents had given each of the their 32 kids a gun to take to school, there wouldn't be 32 kids dead today. An armed society is a polite society.
Good point. I live in Carson City now, which because of it's relatively small area, has gang problems all over. At the end of last year and into the beginning of this year, there were 5 gang related shootings within a 1 mile radius of my house, one shooting down the street from where I live, another that happened outside of a grocery store 30 minutes after my wife and I had finished our shopping. My wife and I have decided to take a few gun safety courses and will be applying for our permit to carry license and will have a firearm on ourselves at all times. We refuse to become a victim. As long as these arseholes are going to have guns and use, you can bet we're going to do everything we can to even the odds.
Posted on 4/25 10:14 AM | IP: Logged
You guys couldn't be more wrong. An armed society is dangerous society. Check out this tutorial and look closely at the two graphs. You will see a strong correlation between guns and people killed with guns.
The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders may well be misrepresented. Of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998).
Posted on 4/25 10:41 AM | IP: Logged
I disagree with you, and this study. An armed, UNEDUCATED society is a dangerous society. Basically, people are dumb. I grew up with a pistol and a shotgun UNLOCKED in my house. As soon as my dad felt my brother and I were old enough to fire the guns, he took us out, taught us how to hold, load, fire, and clean the guns. We were taught how dangerous guns could be and taught to respect them. We never once played with them when our dad wasn't home or there to supervise us, even though we had easy access to them. We never once pointed them at eachother. We never once put ourselves in a situation where any serious damage could have happened. That's the difference between responsible gun owners and these stats you're showing. Like I said, if we eliminated guns, yes, shooting would obviously go down. However, like I said, those who wanted guns would find ways to get them. Those that aren't that creative would find another way to harm others. Guns are a tool, not a cause.
Posted on 4/25 11:14 AM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by FSpoopypants: I disagree with you, and this study. An armed, UNEDUCATED society is a dangerous society. Basically, people are dumb.
Once again, your opening statement sounds good on paper but it is a weak argument in favor of guns. The logic that if people were smarter there would be less accidents isn't based in the real world.
It would be like saying, if I were 7-feet tall I would be a great center for the Miami Heat, when in reality I'm a 5-foot-10 fat guy.
We can only live in the world we live in , not in fantasy land.
My argument is based on facts, yours on fiction.
This post was edited on 4/25 11:31 AM by V for Valley
Posted on 4/25 11:29 AM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by V for Valley:
Originally posted by FSpoopypants: I disagree with you, and this study. An armed, UNEDUCATED society is a dangerous society. Basically, people are dumb.
Once again, your opening statement sounds good on paper but it is a weak argument in favor of guns. The logic that if people were smarter there would be less accidents isn't based in the real world.
It would be like saying, if I were 7-feet tall I would be a great center for the Miami Heat, when in reality I'm a 5-foot-10 fat guy.
We can only live in the world we live in , not in fantasy land.
My argument is based on facts, yours on fiction.
This post was edited on 4/25 11:31 AM by V for Valley
Not necessarily 'smarter', just educated. Regulate guns and force those who want to own them legally to be educated. Educate the families as well. I don't think that's asking too much.
Your argument is based on the fact that, yes, if guns were gone, there would be fewer shootings. However, it conveniently leaves out the potential increase in stabbings, automobile related violence, bombings, ect.
IF PEOPLE WANT TO HARM OTHERS, THE LACK OF A GUN WILL NOT KEEP THAT PERSON FROM HARMING THOSE PEOPLE. Can you understand this concept?
Posted on 4/25 11:42 AM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by FSpoopypants:
Originally posted by V for Valley:
Originally posted by FSpoopypants: I disagree with you, and this study. An armed, UNEDUCATED society is a dangerous society. Basically, people are dumb.
Once again, your opening statement sounds good on paper but it is a weak argument in favor of guns. The logic that if people were smarter there would be less accidents isn't based in the real world.
It would be like saying, if I were 7-feet tall I would be a great center for the Miami Heat, when in reality I'm a 5-foot-10 fat guy.
We can only live in the world we live in , not in fantasy land.
My argument is based on facts, yours on fiction.
This post was edited on 4/25 11:31 AM by V for Valley (Revisions)
Not necessarily 'smarter', just educated. Regulate guns and force those who want to own them legally to be educated. Educate the families as well. I don't think that's asking too much.
Your argument is based on the fact that, yes, if guns were gone, there would be fewer shootings. However, it conveniently leaves out the potential increase in stabbings, automobile related violence, bombings, ect.
IF PEOPLE WANT TO HARM OTHERS, THE LACK OF A GUN WILL NOT KEEP THAT PERSON FROM HARMING THOSE PEOPLE. Can you understand this concept?
First of all, let me say that I appreciate your form of argument. No name-calling is rare on here and appreciated.
However, the argument isn't about what people will do, it is about what guns do. There is no data to support your argument that people would find another means to harm people.
Guns, IMO, make it convenient for those with bad intentions to carry out those intentions. It is quick and nearly indefensible.
Posted on 4/25 11:54 AM | IP: Logged
On a side note, the Virginia Tech shootings were the exception, not the rule. Chances are if every person in the class was armed, the guy still would have killed 5 to 10 people before someone capped his ass. In the real world, most shootings aren't done that way.
Posted on 4/25 11:59 AM | IP: Logged
LOL. No problem.
Too much in society people blame things for their lack of understanding or effort. People blame television, music and videogames for their childrens' behavior. I'm just sick of hearing people complain about inanimate objects. Yes, I'll admit that guns are convenient and effective. However, I think (and it's just my opinion) that people would think twice about attacks like this if they knew there was a good chance that they would be attacking an armed group. I do not agree with unarming the innocent and leaving the bad guys as the only ones holding guns. No matter how much you ban something, if people want it, they will get it.
There's no data for my opinion because guns haven't been banned. However, guns do not cause people to have ill will. As you pointed out, they make it convenient to carry out the intentions. But, again IMO, if there are no guns, it will not stop somebody from trying to hurt others. If somebody is driven to the point of using a gun to cause harm, chances are the lack of a gun will not deter those thoughts.
Guns do not cause crime. Guns do not kill people. People commit crimes. People kill people. Right now, guns are an effective method to harm, as well as to protect. Take guns away, and people will come up with the next effective way to kill.
Edit:typo
This post was edited on 4/25 1:35 PM by FSpoopypants
Posted on 4/25 1:33 PM | IP: Logged
Thank God (in my case), it is the exception. Also, there might have been been 5-10 shot, but not 32. I certainly don't have an answer, but it certainly not more gun-control.
Switzerland requires all able bodied and mind bodied males to maintain a functional firearm. Also, they have a low crime rate, of course they don't have every Tom, Dick, and Harry immigrant running around loose.
As for me, I always feel safer in a resturant knowing the proprietor has "heat" in a ready location in case some "crazy" decides to waste a bunch of people in his joint.
Latest Team Rankings
Yahoo! Sports
