Shooting at Virginia Tech university

[Mr. Neign]

gun control is a touchy issue.. both sides have solid arguments and explode at each other on how right they are and how wrong the other is..

the reason the US still has private ownership of guns is that the 'right to bear arms' is in the bill of rights (first 10 amendments of the constitution) and those are considered as guaranteed rights for US citizens.. and removing just one of those rights.. what does that say about the rest of them?

once again, this is just my two cents, you can support/tear it apart at your leisure

[Richard K Niner]

The reason the US still has private ownership of guns is that the 'right to bear arms' is in the bill of rights (first 10 amendments of the constitution), and those are considered as guaranteed rights for US citizens. Removing just one of those rights, what does that say about the rest of them?

Except the right only applies to well-regulated militias...
(At least, that's what a literal interpretation leads me to believe.)

[Comrade K]

The problem with US I think is the fact that it is the RIGHT of a person to own a gun, not a privilege.

I don't think gun control has as much to do with it as the mentality of the population. Here, where I live, probably around 80% of households contain at least one gun, usually between 3 and 6. However, here we also respect guns, and know they're not to be trifled with or taken lightly.

[Bocaj Claw]

I was talking to my RHD and apparently, the campus security didn't even report the first round of shootings until right before the second batch.

Read today in the paper that my RHD was roughly right. In fact, the email warning came out 10-15 minutes after the second round of shootings. Bad reaction time, that.

[Angstwolf]

There's also an argument that the incident wouldn't have been nearly as bad if the other students were allowed to carry guns in school so they could shoot the one maniac.

My argument against that argument is that you don't know how many of the other students are psychos as well who are refraining from going on a killing spree only because it'd be difficult to get a gun on campus. There are a lot of good people in the world, but there are also a lot of bad people. Regardless, I think a gunman would go for the people who were pulling out their guns first, and it's likely that other students having guns wouldn't have made a huge difference, if any at all.

Apologies if that didn't make sense. It's late. :\

[Mr. Neign]

Except the right only applies to well-regulated militias...
(At least, that's what a literal interpretation leads me to believe.)

I believe if they tried to put it that way organizations like the NRA (National Rifle Association) would consider themselves as militias

I'm not sure about why they couldn't just do that and take guns away from people who arent registered in some sort of firearms association under those conditions, but hey

oh more information on the pistols:
he was using a 9mm and a .22

There's also an argument that the incident wouldn't have been nearly as bad if the other students were allowed to carry guns in school so they could shoot the one maniac.

well for other students having weapons in the classroom,there are several problems/questions that would have to be addressed
#1: does Virginia allow concealed weapons?
#2: if yes to #1, does the school allow students to have weapons on campus(most likely no)
#3:If these students had weapons on campus, how trained are they in the use of these firearms? (if they are not trained or not well trained, they are merely making the situation more dangerous)
#4: Once again, if these students had weapons on campus, how responsible are they about the danger posed by firearms?(ie: treating the weapon seriously and not messing around with it prior to this, which could cause accidents long before the shooting occured)

generally it seems people just purchase a weapon and never bother to train in its use, which does absolutely nothing but get them shot

[Rooster]

There is NO logical reason for a private citizen of any country to own a handgun. Handguns are designed to be easily carried, concealed, and managed...ie, used TO kill PEOPLE, not animals.

I have nothing against rifles (bolt action, not assault...they're just retarded unless you're in the army or something) or shotguns for use by hunters or farmers...

It seems to me that anyone that WANTS to own a handgun should instantly be banned from ever owning one.

There's also an argument that the incident wouldn't have been nearly as bad if the other students were allowed to carry guns in school so they could shoot the one maniac.

That's right kiddies! Put out those flames with GASOLINE! After all, when everyone else is dead you'll have no-one to fear!

[Tom Flapwell]

Actually, I may have misrepresented the argument. They think that people would be less likely to open fire at all if guns were allowed, because of the risk of returned fire. But that wouldn't help in the case of a suicidal killer like this one.

[jent]

There is NO logical reason for a private citizen of any country to own a handgun. Handguns are designed to be easily carried, concealed, and managed...ie, used TO kill PEOPLE, not animals.

I was going to avoid this topic....but I think I am going to go ahead and give my 2 cents (or maybe 2 dollars worth rather).

We were talking about this on IRC last night and IMO there is a huge reason to own guns beyond hunting and sport. There are reasons beyond self protection in a sense too. Just the fact of having an armed public is important. Keep in mind as you read my next few lines that this is not currently realistic. But, it could happen...and just the fact that it could happen should be reason enough IMO.

It is important to have an armed public because IMO you don't want the only body in a country with killing force to be the military. It is important to give citizens the power to also be able to kill in case one day the military or government does try to take control over its citizens. You may laugh but it has happened before, and one of the first steps always is trying to disarm the citizens. The reason is because if you have an unarmed public it is very easy to gain control over the citizens. SO...even if you don't ever shoot, or even load a gun....it is important to own a gun just as a statement that you are armed. And that may be enough to slow or at least think twice before entering a group of citizens that are being forced into a situation they don't agree with. I am willing to further expand this thought if anyone has any counter arguments or is unclear on my point.

Second....Guns are only tools...no different than a car, or a computer. It is just a tool to help you reach a desired end. Trying to control tools is sort of like treating the symptoms for the disease and not the disease itself. We need to look at the harder social implications and figure out why people feel the need to use guns in this manner. If you outlaw guns and someone wants one bad enough they will find a way. Just like drugs it is a market that will be impossible to eliminate so it is better to just focus our efforts on treating the reason that it is a problem instead of the tools people use. To make another analogy trying to outlaw guns is to me the same as trying to outlaw the electric chair (granted the electric chair is moving out...but work with me here). If you want to end capital punishment you don't take the tools away (they will just find a new tool). Instead you take away the social aspects and remove it from the legal system. Same here if you want to end school shootings you don't take the tools away you fix the real problem at hand (even though it may be harder). If you take away guns the new tool that people start using may even be worse. For example pipe bombs will be a lot easier to obtain and make than guns and that may be what people will resort to when guns become too difficult to find. That is why you must treat the disease and not the symptom.

I hope that makes my position clear, I am sure not all of you agree with me. But that is how I see the issue.

There's also an argument that the incident wouldn't have been nearly as bad if the other students were allowed to carry guns in school so they could shoot the one maniac.

Also I highly disagree with this statment because of the sheer fact of the matter is students are not mature enough to cary guns. They don't understand the implications and the power behind guns and this is IMO a disaster waiting to happen. Now allowing teachers to posses guns....that is a solution that I think is somewhat logical (so long as you can assure the students can't gain access to them, as well as ensure the teachers are competent in there shooting ability).

also...as always I welcome all counter arguments because in many cases it is those arguments which challange my ideas and values which help me better understand the issue.

[Rooster]

It is important to have an armed public because IMO you don't want the only body in a country with killing force to be the military.

Well IMO the military are the only ones with the training to use them (speaking as an ex-military man)

Also, I don't know of any army in any western nation that would actually ever rise up against it's people, even IF their government asked it too...unless it was a serious crisis, in which case me not having a gun would be the least of my concerns.

Guns are indeed tools, but they aren't like cars...cars are contstuctive tools, guns are DEstructive. I don't like the idea of the general public being allowed to own instruments of destruction when the general public prooves over and over again that it is too retarded to even tie it's own shoelaces (that's why they invented velcro, but that's another issue)

For example, I wouldn't want my nextdoor neighbour to own a wrecking ball, unless he was a builder. I equally don't want my next door neighbour to own a gun unless he's a soldier or a trained lawman.

it is important to own a gun just as a statement that you are armed.

A statement that you're armed? If someone stated to me that they were armed, personally I would instantly think they were a pantsless loonatic.

pipe bombs will be a lot easier to obtain and make than guns and that may be what people will resort to when guns become too difficult to find. That is why you must treat the disease and not the symptom.

Yes, but it requires a lot of planning to build a pipebomb, it doesn't take a lot of planning to decided to fire a gun at people. And as they are EVERYWHERE in the states, it seems easier than getting mortgage. My point is that you can easily (if you're a bit derranged or depressed) go on a killing spree with a handgun in the spur of the moment, you can't build and explode a pipebomb in the spur of the moment. It takes planning, and of course, if you were really desperate to kill people you'd find a way...

after all, murder happens every day. No matter how well people "respect" their own firearms, there's still going to be someone somewhere that's going to use that firearm to kill.

I agree that there's no way now for the USA to just ban handguns as theres too many illigal guns rolling around in the hands of absolute pikachus...but my argument to that point is that no civilised country on earth should have allowed itself to get to that stage.

[nickspoon]

The argument that we need guns to protect ourselves from an oppressive government is no longer relevant. Strong international relations, organisations such as the UN, democratic elections (although I do understand that these could be overhauled), etc. prevent a government from suddenly attempting to take control of a country - potentially threatening trade with other countries.

As for guns being tools, you are correct. They are tools. However, beyond trying to hammer a nail in with a gun, they have no other use but harming people. None. It's what they're designed for, and it's what they're used for. On the contrary, killing someone with a computer would be difficult, just as word-processing with a gun would be.

Fact is (I use 'fact is' loosely), nobody outside of where their occupation requires it need carry a gun in public. And if you're selling handguns, what else will you use them for?

[jent]

good replies roo and nick.....

I agree with you that the idea of a government oppressing its people like that is highly unrealistic. But I think it is in part unrealistic because of the fact that the citizens wont stand by quietly. Nick, you bring up a great point about globalization is good but the fact of the matter is that even with globalization each nation is sovern. And if bush (yes there is a bill currently in effect that would allow him to do this) wanted to declare martial law over the entire united states and sever international connections there is nothing anyone could do about it except go to war. And do you honestly think the UK or any other nation would fight the US army for its citizens? They may....but personally I rather have a bit of power to protect myself at the same time instead of hoping that the other nations will do the dirty work for me. Needless to say your arguments are valid, and it has swayed me a bit but not completely.

I would like to respond to some of your tool arguments one by one.

roo's arguments:

Yes, but it requires a lot of planning to build a pipebomb, it doesn't take a lot of planning to decided to fire a gun at people.

I would argue that in massive school shootings like we have seen in the past and more recently that there is just as much pre-mediation as there would be if they built a pipe bomb. In these incidences people don't just wake up, grab a gun and say "I think I am going to shoot up 32 people today in a suicide run". They think and plan out things carefully and they might as well be building bombs during this planning phase.

if you were really desperate to kill people you'd find a way...

Which is my point...these people are really desperate and they will find a way, remove one tool and they will just find another way. So why do anything with no effect?

nickspoon's arguments:

As for guns being tools, you are correct. They are tools. However, beyond trying to hammer a nail in with a gun, they have no other use but harming people. None.

This is true that a gun is very single purpose. My point is if you want to reach a goal your going to use a tool to get there. You use the right tool for the right job, and if you remove this tool they will just find another tool to reach that end. Don't blame the tool blame the person/people. By taking guns away you will just be hiding a much more serious problem. It is time to quit treating the symptoms and start treating the real problem before it gets worse and even more out of hand. Gun control laws are just a way to scape goat and distract people from the real problems.

And if you're selling handguns, what else will you use them for?

Well I can think of at least a dozen people off the top of my head that don't use guns in there profession and still posses several. Yet none of these people have or ever will kill anyone. Just because you own a hand gun does not mean you will kill someone because that is its intended purpose. Some of these people love the technology in the guns and are pure collectors. Some like the joy of firing them and perfecting there marksmanship. Just because you own a gun does not mean your going to shoot up a school.

[Rooster]

Jent, we've had handguns banned over here for years, and no-one's blown up our highschools, and our army hasn't taken over...same with all other countries I can think of where handguns have been banned.

Then again, the USA is a completly different place. I read somewhere that of the five cities with the highest guncrime-to-populace statistics, three were American (New York, LA, and Detroit I think). The other two were Johannesburg, South Africa, and Mogadishu, Somalia.

Now I'm not saying that the UK has no guns, and everyone gets on well. We have guns...we have absolute scum that make/steal/import handguns. But it's BECAUSE we've banned them that they rarely use them except on each other as it's too risky to have them out in public. If someone robs a bank or a shop with a gun here, it's a national manhunt more-or-less.

Last year Police Constable Sharron Beshnefski was killed with a gun, and it was national news for months. That probably wouldn't make it onto regional news in the states...unless the killer did something interesting with the head or something.

Also Jent, my point is that just because everyone around you is tooling up with guns, don't mean you have to be a sheep and get one too*

Sure, why ban handguns if people will just bring in crossbows? Why ban heroin if people are just going to sniff glue? Why make it illigal to drive on the wrong side of the road if people are just going to speed in the right lanes?

My point is that the line has to be drawn somewhere between ideals and society. In an ideal world, there would be no need for anything to be banned. However in reality, people need to know what is right and what is wrong for a person to own.

Some of these people love the technology in the guns and are pure collectors. Some like the joy of firing them and perfecting there marksmanship. Just because you own a gun does not mean your going to shoot up a school

Then allow them to be owned, but make them be kept in gunclubs like we do over here. My uncle owns a WW2 38. Special, but it's never left his gunclub as that would violate his liscense. Seems logical to me, that way people can get their jollies with their instruments in high security firing ranges.

*that was meant generally, not implying that you're a sheep dude cuz I know you ain't

[jent]

Jent, we've had handguns banned over here for years, and no-one's blown up our highschools, and our army hasn't taken over...same with all other countries I can think of where handguns have been banned.

I agree and I am not trying to argue that what your doing is wrong....clearly you have something working for you. I just don't think at this point it will work here. In addition I would argue that lower school shooting numbers is due to social factors not gun numbers. People in the US are scared, they are not scared of people with guns but rather the fear our government grips us in. Our government is constantly trying to scare us due to terrorist, and other factors...why? Because a scared population will basically do anything you tell them to. But I believe that this method of controlling the people has caused social ramifications that we see in things like school shootings. In other nations you don't see people as gripped by fear, constantly reading the news to see if a new bomb has gone off. Granted I have never lived in other nations but that is how it appears looking from the inside out. There are possibly other social issues as well, although I am sure each person has there own ideas about what the issues are. These are the problems I see, not guns.

If someone robs a bank or a shop with a gun here, it's a national manhunt more-or-less.

Not really a counter argument....just interesting enough that if someone robs a bank with a gun here there is no national man hunt. They are dead....police are trained to shoot to kill, I can not recall any specific incident of an armed bank robbery where shots were fired in the US where the suspect was apprehended alive.

Also Jent, my point is that just because everyone around you is tooling up with guns, don't mean you have to be a sheep and get one too*

I agree 100%. I don't own guns because I think someone else with a gun is going to shoot me. In fact all my guns are unloaded with locks on the triggers. If someone broke into my house it would take me too long to even unlock the gun to protect myself. Gun ownership for me was never because I am worried about other people having guns. Owning guns is obviously a personal decision that you have to make, I am not trying to encourage everyone to go get a hand gun.

My point is that the line has to be drawn somewhere between ideals and society. In an ideal world, there would be no need for anything to be banned. However in reality, people need to know what is right and what is wrong for a person to own.

I would agree with you if I thought it would actually make a difference. But just like drug laws...just because you make it illegal does not mean the problem will go away. Interesting enough it is a lot easier for me to get illegal things like drugs than it is for me to purchase a gun.

*that was meant generally, not implying that you're a sheep dude cuz I know you ain't

no worries man, I love a good debate and I can take it all in good sport. Were all friends here ^.^

[The Donmeister]

Ahh, I love a good debate.

My point is that the line has to be drawn somewhere between ideals and society. In an ideal world, there would be no need for anything to be banned. However in reality, people need to know what is right and what is wrong for a person to own.

I would agree with you if I thought it would actually make a difference. But just like drug laws...just because you make it illegal does not mean the problem will go away. Interesting enough it is a lot easier for me to get illegal things like drugs than it is for me to purchase a gun.

While it's true that even if you banned guns, people would find other lethal weapons, I cannot think of any weapon more dangerous than a gun. Pipe bombs are difficult to make, single-use, rarely lethal, and slow to detonate. Guns, however, are fast, accurate, and capable of killing more than one group of people. So even though banning handguns won't stop the killings, it'll greatly reduce them.