Last year Va Assembly rejected all gun-carry permits for VaTech

[Bern80]

Well i assumed you were all chrisitians, but why did I not realize that you gun crazed maniac's are not. I should have known. Well at least your not brainwashed by the bible.

What has lead you to believe I am a gun crazed maniac? Your post above is the exact reason that people can't even carry on a reasoable conversation with the likes of you and Edward. I have responded directly to the substance of every single one of your posts and at this point you have remained reather silent. I even cited sources when you asked me to again which have remained silent on.

 

[Shogun]

Vintij.. thats not necessary, dude...



I vote dem, own guns AND AM AN ATHIEST..


if you can stereotype than you can be stereotyped..


break the mold, my friend.

 

[Vintij]

Look I have nothing against gun owners, I have made that clear. Infact I would like to buy a gun someday when I am ready. I have nothing against the NRA. Ofcourse, when it comes to something that I do have interest in, (like allowing all students to carry concealed weapons) that is when I must step in and speak out about my opposition to this. Clearly something must be done, would you all agree? The argument here is, should we allow more guns, or should we be tougher on gun laws. We cant just walk around this like nothing happend, a change must be made because there are literally thousands of troubled youth out there who are just waiting to strike. I believe making it easy for this troubled youth to have a gun, will not solve the problem.

I respect both of your opinions on this matter and I assume you are safe gun owners. But not everyone is like you, especially not every teenager or college student who has yet to mature. The age limit should not ever go down, nor should it be easier to get a gun. That is my stance. Why? Because you will make it easier for disturbed young men to get a weapon and use it whenever he feels the need to lash out.

If and when I ever buy a gun, I want it to be a pain in the ass, I want my background fully checked, my medical records checked, my ass examined, my intelligence tested and I dont care how long it takes. If I want a legal gun, why would I care if its a pain in the ass to get one? As long as I eventually get one the safe way. Would you guys make it easy to get on an airplane? No metal detectors, no military, no pat downs, no searches? Would you allow live weapons for civilians on an airplane? How about in a court room? What about a bank? This is my point.

What do you guys think?

 

[Annie]

I think there are plenty of college students, (including many in late 20's, 30's, 40's and older), that are pleny mature for conceal carry).

Living close to where the Laurie Dann shootings occured in the 80's, I would not be against teachers having guns in a secure location. Obviously they would be unable to reach them if they are the point of first contact, but if they hear shooting, they can access and possibly prevent more widespread carnage.

 

[Vintij]

I think there are plenty of college students, (including many in late 20's, 30's, 40's and older), that are pleny mature for conceal carry).

Living close to where the Laurie Dann shootings occured in the 80's, I would not be against teachers having guns in a secure location. Obviously they would be unable to reach them if they are the point of first contact, but if they hear shooting, they can access and possibly prevent more widespread carnage.

I agree with you on guns in a classroom that only a teacher can get to.

But im afraid this article sums everything up for me

http://fe26.news.sp1.yahoo.com/s/nm/usa_crime_shooting_world_dc

The rest of the world recognizes our obsession with guns, John Howard (president bush's longtime friend) has spoke out about gun controll and has acted before it got to the point where 30,000 people a year are shot in civilian type violence. Read the last part about the phillipines. The guy got shot for singing a bad version of a frank sinatra song!

The powerful gun lobby does not run this country, but right now we act as though they do. Why? They are simply the majority, people love there guns! I dont see why we need 250 million guns in America, only 150 million are accounted for! There is only 300 million people in this country! How many more people have to die for the gun lobbyist's to compromise on gun controll? We should take the advice of, basically the entire world.

The least we could do is make harsher punishments for people who carry unregisterd guns. In some states its not even a felony!

 

[Annie]

I agree with you on guns in a classroom that only a teacher can get to.

But im afraid this article sums everything up for me

http://fe26.news.sp1.yahoo.com/s/nm/usa_crime_shooting_world_dc

The rest of the world recognizes our obsession with guns, John Howard (president bush's longtime friend) has spoke out about gun controll and has acted before it got to the point where 30,000 people a year are shot in civilian type violence. Read the last part about the phillipines. The guy got shot for singing a bad version of a frank sinatra song!

The powerful gun lobby does not run this country, but right now we act as though they do. Why? They are simply the majority, people love there guns! I dont see why we need 250 million guns in America, only 150 million are accounted for! There is only 300 million people in this country! How many more people have to die for the gun lobbyist's to compromise on gun controll? We should take the advice of, basically the entire world.

The least we could do is make harsher punishments for people who carry unregisterd guns. In some states its not even a felony!

I've been looking at trends after conceal carry laws are passed, which has been done now in 39 out of 50 states. While it seems difficult to find info on gun related, not so on crime states, they go down. Includes everything from robbery to rape.

 

[Bern80]

Look I have nothing against gun owners, I have made that clear. Infact I would like to buy a gun someday when I am ready. I have nothing against the NRA. Ofcourse, when it comes to something that I do have interest in, (like allowing all students to carry concealed weapons) that is when I must step in and speak out about my opposition to this. Clearly something must be done, would you all agree? The argument here is, should we allow more guns, or should we be tougher on gun laws. We cant just walk around this like nothing happend, a change must be made because there are literally thousands of troubled youth out there who are just waiting to strike. I believe making it easy for this troubled youth to have a gun, will not solve the problem.

So then why resort to calling me/us gun raving lunatics?

Yes clearly something must be done to keep out schools (elementary, high school, colleges) safe. One way to look at this is that colleges are a business like any other. And like any business they have the right to allow or not allow certain things on their premises, like guns. But if there going to do that then the burden falls upon the school to show me that they can keep me safe because if such an incident occurrs again quite clearly since I'm not allowed to carry gun I am less able to keep myself safe.

So to keep people safe there are basically two options. Allow students to arm themselves whenever and wherever they want or have enough armed campus employees to do the job. I vote for the later. In all fairness to the former though, even if allowed I don't think it is realistic to think you will suddenly a major rise in the number of students packing heat.

I respect both of your opinions on this matter and I assume you are safe gun owners. But not everyone is like you, especially not every teenager or college student who has yet to mature. The age limit should not ever go down, nor should it be easier to get a gun. That is my stance. Why? Because you will make it easier for disturbed young men to get a weapon and use it whenever he feels the need to lash out.

I think you can find plenty of deranged people at any age. As I stated earlier in most states the age limit is mid teens for someone to legally carry a firearm provided they complete firearm saftey. If they don't I believe it is 18.
This isn't an age issue or young impressionable teens are more likely to shoot people issue. Every school shooting in history perpetuated by a student is a truly a tragic thing. But I think your age proposal is one those blanket policies that effects 99% innocent people in the hopes that you maybe stop the 1%

If and when I ever buy a gun, I want it to be a pain in the ass, I want my background fully checked, my medical records checked, my ass examined, my intelligence tested and I dont care how long it takes. If I want a legal gun, why would I care if its a pain in the ass to get one? As long as I eventually get one the safe way. Would you guys make it easy to get on an airplane? No metal detectors, no military, no pat downs, no searches? Would you allow live weapons for civilians on an airplane? How about in a court room? What about a bank? This is my point.

I agree with the background checks and all of that. But specifically on your last line of questions isn't the real reason your asking those is because you are worried about the people that will use them irresponsibly in those environments? That's not a bait question. I just want to know what your rationale is before we go on.

 

[Bern80]

I agree with you on guns in a classroom that only a teacher can get to.

But im afraid this article sums everything up for me

http://fe26.news.sp1.yahoo.com/s/nm/usa_crime_shooting_world_dc

The rest of the world recognizes our obsession with guns, John Howard (president bush's longtime friend) has spoke out about gun controll and has acted before it got to the point where 30,000 people a year are shot in civilian type violence. Read the last part about the phillipines. The guy got shot for singing a bad version of a frank sinatra song!

The powerful gun lobby does not run this country, but right now we act as though they do. Why? They are simply the majority, people love there guns! I dont see why we need 250 million guns in America, only 150 million are accounted for! There is only 300 million people in this country! How many more people have to die for the gun lobbyist's to compromise on gun controll? We should take the advice of, basically the entire world.

The least we could do is make harsher punishments for people who carry unregisterd guns. In some states its not even a felony!

And that is another misconception. We are not a gun obsessed society. The only reason other countries have that impression of us is because we allow our citizens to have them and they don't. As you noted I am gun owner, but i'm not in love with them. I just have guns and that is the extent of my emotional attachment to them. I am not an exception in this case. But the obsessed stereotype comes from people who think we must be because we won't just give them up.

The gun lobby and NRA are what they are because they know there are elected official that believe everything from guns are the devil and have only evil purposes to those that think we would just be better off w/o them. This comes from what they ahve been exposed to as far as guns are concerned. they see wars and crime in the streets and immediatly see the gun is the problem, not the people using them. The gun lobby fights tooth and nail for everything it can get because they know the slippery slope that we will head down as little freedom here and a little freedom there is taken away.

 

[Vintij]

And that is another misconception. We are not a gun obsessed society. The only reason other countries have that impression of us is because we allow our citizens to have them and they don't. As you noted I am gun owner, but i'm not in love with them. I just have guns and that is the extent of my emotional attachment to them. I am not an exception in this case. But the obsessed stereotype comes from people who think we must be because we won't just give them up.

The gun lobby and NRA are what they are because they know there are elected official that believe everything from guns are the devil and have only evil purposes to those that think we would just be better off w/o them. This comes from what they ahve been exposed to as far as guns are concerned. they see wars and crime in the streets and immediatly see the gun is the problem, not the people using them. The gun lobby fights tooth and nail for everything it can get because they know the slippery slope that we will head down as little freedom here and a little freedom there is taken away.

Maybe this is not a gun crazed nation, but with the strong argument, the non backing down of the NRA and other gun lobbys on gun control. They sure make it seem like that. The rest of the nation looks at the numbers, and the numbers dont lie. The majority always wins, and the majority of this country owns a gun. Therefore the gun lobby is far stronger than any other lobby on this planet. It also does not help there case by opposing harsher punishment for unregisterd gun users, and opposing strict gun control laws. Who is it really hurting? Is it going to hurt america to make it hard to get a gun? Why? What is the logic behind that? Why not pay your dues and get a gun the safe way rather than make it easy for everyone to get a gun and be happy? I would think it would be more rewarding to earn a gun, rather than have a gun handed to anybody with no training, no age limit, no background check ....etc The virginia tech incident is not a good issue for the NRA, its an issue that opens eyes and exposes gun laws. I have had thousands of arguments about "well if a student had a gun, this wouldnt happen" but you see that is not a good argument because if gun laws where strict, this maniac would have never had a gun in the first place.

 

[Bern80]

Maybe this is not a gun crazed nation, but with the strong argument, the non backing down of the NRA and other gun lobbys on gun control. They sure make it seem like that. The rest of the nation looks at the numbers, and the numbers dont lie. The majority always wins, and the majority of this country owns a gun. Therefore the gun lobby is far stronger than any other lobby on this planet. It also does not help there case by opposing harsher punishment for unregisterd gun users, and opposing strict gun control laws. Who is it really hurting? Is it going to hurt america to make it hard to get a gun? Why? What is the logic behind that? Why not pay your dues and get a gun the safe way rather than make it easy for everyone to get a gun and be happy? I would think it would be more rewarding to earn a gun, rather than have a gun handed to anybody with no training, no age limit, no background check ....etc The virginia tech incident is not a good issue for the NRA, its an issue that opens eyes and exposes gun laws. I have had thousands of arguments about "well if a student had a gun, this wouldnt happen" but you see that is not a good argument because if gun laws where strict, this maniac would have never had a gun in the first place.

Well in a nutshell the current reason behind all that is the NRA is defending the constitution. Owning a gun currently is a right, not something the government is suppossed to bestow on someone as a privilege.

 

[Vintij]

Well in a nutshell the current reason behind all that is the NRA is defending the constitution. Owning a gun currently is a right, not something the government is suppossed to bestow on someone as a privilege.

And that is why I beileve, nothing will change. The consitution is something we all hold close and it gave us all freedom, but this was a time when you really did have to worry about groups taking over your farm.

Answer me this, would you all agree to allow anyone to carry a NON lethal weapon at all times, like a special gun the will cause alot of pain but will not kill anyone? Why not that? Would you agree to leave your guns untouched until hunting season, and use this special gun instead? My assumption is no, because for some reason people want lethal protection rather than non lethal protection. I dont see why though. I would even agree to allowing non lethal weapons on campus! But what compromise has come from the gun community?

 

[Bern80]

And that is why I beileve, nothing will change. The consitution is something we all hold close and it gave us all freedom, but this was a time when you really did have to worry about groups taking over your farm.

Not really, one of the intents in that ammendment is for people to have protection againsts a tyranical government. To safegaurd that from happening in the future the framers wrote into the consitution that it is not legal for government to restrict that right. So that the very entity that you may have to arm yourself against someday does not have the legal authority to prevent from defending yourself against it.

Answer me this, would you all agree to allow anyone to carry a NON lethal weapon at all times, like a special gun the will cause alot of pain but will not kill anyone? Why not that? Would you agree to leave your guns untouched until hunting season, and use this special gun instead? My assumption is no, because for some reason people want lethal protection rather than non lethal protection. I dont see why though. I would even agree to allowing non lethal weapons on campus! But what compromise has come from the gun community?

You will never get a compromise out of the 'gun community' because it is simply flawed logic. Because again a gun is an inanimate object. your argument is similar to arguing that we should just have one big mass transportation system instead of letting people drive cars, because some people drive them poorly.

What you are arguing is essentially the price of freedom. Most people don't understand how high that price is. It boils down to are you willing to take the good with the bad, because the bad is the price of freedom.

 

[Vintij]

Yea but how much bad does there have to be to change policy? 30,000 people a year shot or killed in civlian related gun violence. Thats alot of bad, with not alot of good. I dont know the number of people who have been saved or who have saved themselves using guns. Can someone post that if found?

 

[Bern80]

Yea but how much bad does there have to be to change policy? 30,000 people a year shot or killed in civlian related gun violence. Thats alot of bad, with not alot of good. I dont know the number of people who have been saved or who have saved themselves using guns. Can someone post that if found?

I have seen a couple different estimates on number of guns in the country ranging from 192 mil to 223 mil. So your number as percentage of the number of guns in the country is roughly .01%

The good they have done is really not the point. The point is if I am a law abiding citizen and i'm not using a gun to hurt anyone else why should the government or anyone get to tell me whether or not I can have one?

 

[Vintij]

Why should the government spend tax dollars on the war that so many people oppose, yet only 3,000 soldiers have died as oppose to 30,000 civilians. More people should oppose laxed gun laws, or at least keep better track of the illegal gun marketing going on. 40% of all guns are sold ilegally.

This article best describes my stance on virginia tech administration.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1612492,00.html

 

[Bern80]

Why should the government spend tax dollars on the war that so many people oppose, yet only 3,000 soldiers have died as oppose to 30,000 civilians.

I'm not sure I see your point as it relates to the topic and again you didn't answer my question.

 

[Annie]

Why should the government spend tax dollars on the war that so many people oppose, yet only 3,000 soldiers have died as oppose to 30,000 civilians. More people should oppose laxed gun laws, or at least keep better track of the illegal gun marketing going on. 40% of all guns are sold ilegally.

This article best describes my stance on virginia tech administration.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1612492,00.html

You've been very nice and all, yet I have to agree with Bern, what does this have to do with soldiers and civilians?

 

[Paul Revere]

Where does it say in the Bible that we should have computers and post on the internets?

Maybe in one of these:

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (God forces people to believe in lies and then condemns them for it.)

Matthew 23:33
"You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to cyber hell with RED STATES RULES?"

Exodus 23:19 "You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk."
(maybe not but it seems reasonable advice)

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. ( http://www.foxnews.com/ )

 

[Annie]

I've been looking at trends after conceal carry laws are passed, which has been done now in 39 out of 50 states. While it seems difficult to find info on gun related, not so on crime states, they go down. Includes everything from robbery to rape.

As I said above, I've been looking and seems others have been too. Here's more info than I found, but as for gun related, seems they are hidden. Links at site:

http://reason.com/blog/show/119756.html

Do It for the Kids, Especially the Drug-Dealing, Homicidal, Adult Kids

Jacob Sullum | April 19, 2007, 3:06pm

A commenter in the thread about Cho Seung-Hui's psychiatric evaluation points to this statement from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence:

It shouldn't take a school shooting or an inner-city neighborhood shooting to make us realize that American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States.

For the U.S. figure, the Brady Campaign cites "Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, unpublished data from the Vital Statistics System, 1997." According to the CDC, however, the number of children and adolescents under age 20 killed by firearms in 1997 was 4,223, down from a high of 5,833 in 1994. The Brady Center figure presumably is for one of those years in between, so I'm not sure what the "1997" signifies, unless it's the date when the data were unpublished.

In any case, note that the "children" killed by firearms include older teenagers, among them 18-year-olds and 19-year-olds, a.k.a. "adults." Judging from the breakdown in 1998 (I can't find comparable data for 1997), more than 80 percent of gun deaths for the under-20 group involve teenagers 15 or older. About 58 percent of the gun deaths that year were homicides, and these included drug dealers shot by other drug dealers, violent criminals shot by police, and other noninnocent nonchildren. About 33 percent of the gun deaths were suicides; 7 percent were accidents.

For the international comparison, the data should be expressed as rates (i.e., taking population into account) rather than absolute numbers. And they should cover all suicides and homicides, rather than just those committed with guns. If it turns out that people in Japan kill themselves just as often as people in the U.S. but use different methods, the availabilty of guns seems less significant. Likewise if the murder rate in the U.K. is just as high as the murder rate in the U.S. In fact, the Japanese suicide rate is twice the U.S. rate, while the U.S. homicide rate is several times the U.K. rate. Deadly violence is more common in the U.S. than in the U.K. across the board, with and without guns. The extent to which gun control laws, as opposed to other differences between countries, can account for such differences in rates of deadly violence remains a matter of controversy, to put it mildly.

Dave Kopel analyzed gun controllers' "do it for the kids" strategy in a 1993 Reason article that, with a few details updated, could easily be published today.