gun control?

[PollyCranopolis 10+ year member]

Why wasn't the entire campus locked down? Why didn't all students know that there was a shooter lose on the campus? Well just how are you going to accomplish that? I've heard a lot of talk about email. Do you think that every student on that campus was sitting at a computer at that time reading their email? Many were walking or driving to classes. Maybe they could have used text messages on cell phones. Would that work? And why would the administrators do this when they had no reason to believe that there was any further threat to the other students? Hindsight is perfect, isn't it. So why don't we fire the administrative staff of Virginia Tech for not possessing that wonderful quality.

Amazing, isn't it? Guess what? We don't live in a perfect world! The proper course of action here is to figure out how this tragedy might have been averted, not to go hunting for the scalps of college administrators who, in all likelihood, took every reasonable step they could think of to contain this situation after the first shooting. This "blame and fire" response is absurd. You have one psychopath with a gun who wanted to kill people. How in the world do you stop him on a college campus where the killer and a few security officers are the only ones with guns?

 

[iceteebone 5,000+ posts]

Why wasn't the entire campus locked down? Why didn't all students know that there was a shooter lose on the campus? Well just how are you going to accomplish that? I've heard a lot of talk about email. Do you think that every student on that campus was sitting at a computer at that time reading their email? Many were walking or driving to classes. Maybe they could have used text messages on cell phones. Would that work? And why would the administrators do this when they had no reason to believe that there was any further threat to the other students? Hindsight is perfect, isn't it. So why don't we fire the administrative staff of Virginia Tech for not possessing that wonderful quality.
Amazing, isn't it? Guess what? We don't live in a perfect world! The proper course of action here is to figure out how this tragedy might have been averted, not to go hunting for the scalps of college administrators who, in all likelihood, took every reasonable step they could think of to contain this situation after the first shooting. This "blame and fire" response is absurd. You have one psychopath with a gun who wanted to kill people. How in the world do you stop him on a college campus where the killer and a few security officers are the only ones with guns?

so the police are allowed to respond 2 hours later? if the police did their job, then 30 people wouldn't have died

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

there wouldn't be any shootings if there were no guns.

 

[iceteebone 5,000+ posts]

there wouldn't be any shootings if there were no guns.

what would your plot be to rid the country of guns?

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

i have no plot, it was jsut an observation of fact.

 

[chucku 10+ year member]

there wouldn't be any shootings if there were no guns.

No, but there would be stabbings, beatings and so on. There about ready to ban everything in the uk, and the crime rates soar. Getting rid of something that has been around for more than 100 years is illogical. There will always be bad people, problem is, there are more of them lately. These defectives need to be weeded out of the genepool. Cops cant be everywhere, so you have to be responsible for your own safety. I know I am.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

No, but there would be stabbings, beatings and so on. There about ready to ban everything in the uk, and the crime rates soar. Getting rid of something that has been around for more than 100 years is illogical. There will always be bad people, problem is, there are more of them lately. These defectives need to be weeded out of the genepool. Cops cant be everywhere, so you have to be responsible for your own safety. I know I am.

you can start with yourself.

There is no reason to have an armed population.

 

[JonMR2turbo 10+ year member]

so the police are allowed to respond 2 hours later? if the police did their job, then 30 people wouldn't have died

And that just goes to show you exactly how effective the police are.

Besides, it's been ruled numerous times that the police have no obligation to protect individuals.

 

[PollyCranopolis 10+ year member]

The point here is that you are never ever going to get the guns out of the hands of those who want to use them for carnage. Never. In all the years of press releases and statements from the Brady anti-gun organization there has never been one single gun control plan presented that would take the guns out of the hands of criminals. This is the oddity of gun control. Only law abiding people are going to abide by gun control laws. Criminals are not. The anti-gun lobby, and that includes much of the media, will never give any fair coverage at all to the people who use guns to save their own lives, or the lives of others.

 

[mattf 5,000+ posts]

there was a 2 hour gap between shootings. the police and campus security should've taken care of it then

so the police are allowed to respond 2 hours later? if the police did their job, then 30 people wouldn't have died

Those two lines are exactly why people should be able to carry a weapon.

You can't depend on police to babysit you to make sure nothing happens. You have to be able to protect yourself when the police can't.

 

[ravendarat 10+ year member]

I have a question that no one has seemed to bring up yet. Many of you have said that this might have been avoided if there was more armed citizens such as teachers or students. Would this also not increase the chance of inocent people being killed in crossfire? I mean isnt it possible we would still have 30 people dead, just in a shorter time frame? Of course this subject can be "what if" to death with no real answers, but it just seemed to be an angle that no one brought up yet. As some one said, most people are taught to fire under calm situations, obviously this was not. There have been times where TRAINED POLICE OFFICERS have emptied clips in close range situations and not hit their target, and in a crowded room its likely they would have hit innocent people in this case, and thats someone who is trained.

Im not gonna sit here and say that I know the answer, becuase I dont. I do think that people hide behind the 2nd to much. I know thats gonna be a heat seeker and Im more than ok to deal with that, but the right to bear arms is something that I think needs to be revisited and revised. I am not for banning all guns, because that is not the answer. I do however feel that things like assult rifles in residential homes is rediculous. If you are a hunter and want a gun to hunt ducks, deer or whatever than fine. Can that be turned on people, sure but there has to be some line. Last time I went hunting no one in my hunting party was carrying a AK or a semi auto hand gun. I feel fully automatic wepons are also not something that needs to be permited.

Now of course the next question someone is going to ask me is "Well how do you eliminate all these guns from 300 million americans" cause that is the popular question in this thread. Well its not something thats going to be easy, most things worth while never all. Unfortunatly the only way I see to do this is in a way that is going to over work the already exhausted prison system. You want to eliminate these guns, than vilolation of a law involving these wepons is ten years, no parole. Real Harsh and to the point. You are still gonna have gangs and what not that are gonna run the chance of being nailed, and thats gonna be their choice, but the guy who is gonna rob the 7-11 may think twice if its gonna cost him 10 in the pen as bubba's love *****.

Someone brought up house hold chemicals that can be used to make guns, and asked if they should be outlawed. No they shouldnt, but there is a very big difference between a bottle of draino and a Berretta. A gun is INTENNDED to kill. Plain and simple it only has one purpose. Draino is used to unclog the friggin toilet. If it is used as a poison than thats in a manner other than intended and would be in far more issolated cases. Guns serve one purpose and do their jobs very well. They Kill, or mabye more accuratly, in the hands of a human being with bad intentions they kill.

After reading through this entire thread I am sure that I am on the minority side here and am more than willing to accept being flamed and ripped on, thats fine. Im also not an American, and hence dont have the same sence of pride in your constitution as you do, which is mabye why I feel that the 2nd is outdated and used far to often as an excuse. I have said my piece and am willing to defend what I say but Im not gonna get involved in a childish fight either

 

[mattf 5,000+ posts]

I have a question that no one has seemed to bring up yet. Many of you have said that this might have been avoided if there was more armed citizens such as teachers or students. Would this also not increase the chance of inocent people being killed in crossfire? I mean isnt it possible we would still have 30 people dead, just in a shorter time frame? Of course this subject can be "what if" to death with no real answers, but it just seemed to be an angle that no one brought up yet. As some one said, most people are taught to fire under calm situations, obviously this was not. There have been times where TRAINED POLICE OFFICERS have emptied clips in close range situations and not hit their target, and in a crowded room its likely they would have hit innocent people in this case, and thats someone who is trained.
Im not gonna sit here and say that I know the answer, becuase I dont. I do think that people hide behind the 2nd to much. I know thats gonna be a heat seeker and Im more than ok to deal with that, but the right to bear arms is something that I think needs to be revisited and revised. I am not for banning all guns, because that is not the answer. I do however feel that things like assult rifles in residential homes is rediculous. Why? They are no different than any other semi auto guns. If you are a hunter and want a gun to hunt ducks, deer or whatever than fine.The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Can that be turned on people, sure but there has to be some line. Last time I went hunting no one in my hunting party was carrying a AK or a semi auto hand gun. Some people do. I have used a semi auto for deer hunting my whole life.I feel fully automatic wepons are also not something that needs to be permited. I feel it is something that needs to be, and is, permitted.

Now of course the next question someone is going to ask me is "Well how do you eliminate all these guns from 300 million americans" cause that is the popular question in this thread. Well its not something thats going to be easy, most things worth while never all. Unfortunatly the only way I see to do this is in a way that is going to over work the already exhausted prison system. You want to eliminate these guns, than vilolation of a law involving these wepons is ten years, no parole. Real Harsh and to the point. You are still gonna have gangs and what not that are gonna run the chance of being nailed, and thats gonna be their choice, but the guy who is gonna rob the 7-11 may think twice if its gonna cost him 10 in the pen as bubba's love *****.

Someone brought up house hold chemicals that can be used to make guns, and asked if they should be outlawed. No they shouldnt, but there is a very big difference between a bottle of draino and a Berretta. A gun is INTENNDED to kill. Plain and simple it only has one purpose. That's so far from the truth its not even funny. Not one my my guns has ever killed a single person, and I seem to use them all the time. Draino is used to unclog the friggin toilet. If it is used as a poison than thats in a manner other than intended and would be in far more issolated cases. Guns serve one purpose and do their jobs very well. They Kill, or mabye more accuratly, in the hands of a human being with bad intentions they kill.

After reading through this entire thread I am sure that I am on the minority side here and am more than willing to accept being flamed and ripped on, thats fine. Im also not an American, and hence dont have the same sence of pride in your constitution as you do, which is mabye why I feel that the 2nd is outdated and used far to often as an excuse. I have said my piece and am willing to defend what I say but Im not gonna get involved in a childish fight either

See the red.

 

[ravendarat 10+ year member]

See the red.

OK, First thing is I will adress the last one first. I never said to kill people, I said to kill. However after thinking about it, I guess guns are used for target shooting and some sports like Biathalon so there can be an arguement there.

I dont think assult rifles have any place in a residential home because I dont think they serve any practical purpose.

I didnt say hunting had to do with the second ammendment. I have no problem with people having guns for hunting.

Maybe I should have reinterated my stance on assult rifles. I done feel that AUTOMATIC assult rifles have any place in an average persons hands. If you have a semi automatic, while I dont see the NEED for it, I wouldnt limit your right to own it as, like you said, its not really any different from a hunting rifle.

 

[ravendarat 10+ year member]

I am interested to know, why do you feel that fully automatic wepons should be permited to the public?

 

[JonMR2turbo 10+ year member]

I have a question that no one has seemed to bring up yet. Many of you have said that this might have been avoided if there was more armed citizens such as teachers or students. Would this also not increase the chance of inocent people being killed in crossfire? I mean isnt it possible we would still have 30 people dead, just in a shorter time frame? Of course this subject can be "what if" to death with no real answers, but it just seemed to be an angle that no one brought up yet. As some one said, most people are taught to fire under calm situations, obviously this was not. There have been times where TRAINED POLICE OFFICERS have emptied clips in close range situations and not hit their target, and in a crowded room its likely they would have hit innocent people in this case, and thats someone who is trained.
Im not gonna sit here and say that I know the answer, becuase I dont. I do think that people hide behind the 2nd to much. I know thats gonna be a heat seeker and Im more than ok to deal with that, but the right to bear arms is something that I think needs to be revisited and revised. I am not for banning all guns, because that is not the answer. I do however feel that things like assult rifles in residential homes is rediculous. If you are a hunter and want a gun to hunt ducks, deer or whatever than fine. Can that be turned on people, sure but there has to be some line. Last time I went hunting no one in my hunting party was carrying a AK or a semi auto hand gun. I feel fully automatic wepons are also not something that needs to be permited.

Now of course the next question someone is going to ask me is "Well how do you eliminate all these guns from 300 million americans" cause that is the popular question in this thread. Well its not something thats going to be easy, most things worth while never all. Unfortunatly the only way I see to do this is in a way that is going to over work the already exhausted prison system. You want to eliminate these guns, than vilolation of a law involving these wepons is ten years, no parole. Real Harsh and to the point. You are still gonna have gangs and what not that are gonna run the chance of being nailed, and thats gonna be their choice, but the guy who is gonna rob the 7-11 may think twice if its gonna cost him 10 in the pen as bubba's love *****.

Someone brought up house hold chemicals that can be used to make guns, and asked if they should be outlawed. No they shouldnt, but there is a very big difference between a bottle of draino and a Berretta. A gun is INTENNDED to kill. Plain and simple it only has one purpose. Draino is used to unclog the friggin toilet. If it is used as a poison than thats in a manner other than intended and would be in far more issolated cases. Guns serve one purpose and do their jobs very well. They Kill, or mabye more accuratly, in the hands of a human being with bad intentions they kill.

After reading through this entire thread I am sure that I am on the minority side here and am more than willing to accept being flamed and ripped on, thats fine. Im also not an American, and hence dont have the same sence of pride in your constitution as you do, which is mabye why I feel that the 2nd is outdated and used far to often as an excuse. I have said my piece and am willing to defend what I say but Im not gonna get involved in a childish fight either

That's easy to say when the people of your country have never had to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. That's like a spoiled kid asking why anyone needs a work ethic.

And the second amendment IS NOT ABOUT HUNTING!!!!!

And those hunting rifles your friends use are most likely more powerful than assault rifles. Speaking of "assault rifles", the name of them is just a stupid term made to scare stupid people who don't know any better. They are simply semi-automatic rifles. If they were automatic it would make no difference. You can bump fire a semi-auto rifle just as fast as you can shoot a full auto one, plus firing in full auto mode is much less accurate than in semi-auto. I am also 99% sure a legally owned full auto rifle has never been used in a crime.

And while we are on the topic, type 'Jim Zumbo' into google and see what happened to him recently.