Shooting at Virginia Tech

[SlickHolden]

I dont know if this has been covered already, but i did notice alot of you arguing about whether guns should be allowed or not

anyways my point was going to be that there are 110 million guns, not including military...just personally owned guns in America

so there is absolutely no way there is ever going to be no guns

I personally believe it's the person that kills...not the gun

That's more guns then the population of Australia that's 5 times more guns then the population of Australia. Doesn't that seem a bit much?..It's like 1 for every women man and child.
Of coruce people kill guns don't as there not living. But if you try and take a weapon away and make them harder to find at least it's a start, But now is to late as it should have been done a long time ago, People don't need guns to protect themselves if guns are not easy to buy as chips.

Well, this is the guy behind the massacre. Cho Seung-hui, a 23 year old English major from South Korea. It seems he left a note behind in his dorm room explaining some of his reasons, the nature of which has been described as "disturbing". Apparently he had also been referred to counselling after producing "troubled" work in his creative writing class.

It seems any possibility of there being a second gunman or an accomplice has been dismissed. Just one loner with a deeply disturbed mind who flipped out one day and went on a rampage.

This shows just how easy it really is for anyone to get a gun.

[crisis]

It's incredible relevant. If he bought the guns illegally out of some guy's trunk, all the laws in the world wouldn't have prevented this.

If the U.S. didn’t have so many guns available then there would also not be such easy access to illegal ones.

[crisis]

Ah, but as the UK is currently experiencing, they can stab - with a broken bottle, even - and you still have dead school children.

You may have a harder time stabbing 30 people. I will take the knife wielding assailant over the pistol one anyday.
One or two people is no more acceptable but far more desirable than 30.

There is a problem there, that isn't being experienced or replicated elsewhere in the world.

That problem needs to be identified and addressed, otherwise the matter is just being swept under the rug. "Our kids are turning into murderous nut-jobs, but as long as we can keep them away from guns: mission accomplished!"

The fact is that kids shouldn't be attempting to murder in the first place.

For sure. Social issues exist everywhere. The proliferation and widespread acceptance of firearms just adds one more dangerous element to what is a problem anyway.

Guns can be made illegal, but criminals don't follow the law anyway! The problem isn't guns, it's mentally unstable people.

The problem is a mentally unstable person with a weapon. If it is a gun it is a bigger problem.

Washington D.C. has the most strict gun control laws in the country, yet has the highest crime rate.

Maybe the crime rate has something to do with issues other than the fact it has the strictest gun laws. Gun control is not crime control. It just limits the guns in circulation which may make it harder to some like the guy who did this to get on eon the spur of the moment. There is a difference between a criminal in the sense of organised crime or recidivist who commits crime for money or out of some habit and someone psychologically disturbed who acts out a tragedy such as this.
The first one may well commit crimes whether he has a gun or not or may obtain a gun through whatever means. The latter may use the gun if he has it available in a fit of rage. Another day and the same mental state may not exist to such an extreme.

If guns were made illegal that means homeowner would have no way to defend themselves if a criminal broke into his house.

This is just gun nut crap. Every break in does not necessarily require the perpetrator to be shot. Simply handing over what they want may be enough. Introducing a gun into the equation may make the whole situation worse. There is no way to definitively say that you are safer with a gun in the house in the event of a break in. Most break ins here are drug related and therefore involve two criminals anyway.

And you can bet that the criminal would have some kind of gun. He would make one if he had to; banning guns doesn't mean criminals wouldn't have any. It just means the law-abiding citizens would be defenseless.

Gun laws are tougher in Australia and most crime do not involve them on either side. Mostly , again , guns are involved in organised crimes, bikies, drug related incidents or domestic disputes.

That's ridiculous. I'm a proud gun owner myself, and shooting guns at shooting ranges (or hunting) is a form of recreation just like anything else. I think screaming to ban guns is the same as screaming to ban cars, and to date, I'm quite sure that cars kill more people daily. In both cases, the fault lies at the people operating them; in the right hands, they're safe and fun.

Bringing cars into the argument is a salacious red herring. Banning guns is too simplistic. The restriction of the types and where they can be used and stored makes more sense. Restricting them to people who use them for work and organised clubs is fine in my opinion. But the U.S. has the problem where part of its legislation is cynically used by special interest groups to push the notion that it is a right. They have a very strong and determined group who will stop at nothing to ensure they can keep their toys. And there are still many people who believe and want to believe that who will continue the culture.

BTW, I can see you are not familiar with the proper way to protect your home. You don't run out into the street waving a gun. That only happens in the movies. When the intruder enters your house, you stay behind a wall and point the gun in his direction. You then announce that you are armed; if you feel your life is threatened, you fire a warning shot. Many times, the criminal will run out of the house, saving your life and possibly his.

You live in Hollywood. That is a perfectly constructed scenario that will work.
Let’s just imagine that the intruder has not announced his presence. Perhaps he thinks that if he is quiet and sneaks in he may not arouse your attention. Cause that’s how I would do it. Perhaps I may even try to break in at night. If I were an intruder I would be ready for the confrontation because I had planned it on my terms, not in a way that may allow the victim time or room to manoeuvre.

There will always be case where armed people have defended themselves and there will always be cases where it fails, sometimes with unnecessary carnage.
We don’t have scores of bodies here who have been killed by housebreakers. FACT.

[Fleet 500]

This is just gun nut crap.

It most certainly is not. And I'm not a gun nut; if anything I'm a nut about keeping myself alive.

Every break in does not necessarily require the perpetrator to be shot. Simply handing over what they want may be enough. Introducing a gun into the equation may make the whole situation worse.

"May be enough." I'd rather not gamble my life on the hopes that the criminal is rational .

There is no way to definitively say that you are safer with a gun in the house in the event of a break in.

Tell that to those who are alive today because they had a gun in the house.

Most break ins here are drug related and therefore involve two criminals anyway.

That's another point to make. Many criminals are on drugs and are more likely to be violent. Just another reason why I keep a gun in my house.

[clutch-monkey]

Bringing cars into the argument is a salacious red herring. Banning guns is too simplistic. The restriction of the types and where they can be used and stored makes more sense.

see my post on the virginia gun laws, then compare them with Australia's
plus, the whole gun culture here is a LOT different
waiting for TT and ACA to jump on the ban guns bandwagon.

[nota]

There will always be case where armed people have defended themselves and there will always be cases where it fails, sometimes with unnecessary carnage.
We don’t have scores of bodies here who have been killed by housebreakers. FACT.

By vast majority, weren't these home owner's so-called 'household defence' guns never fired against burglars or 'home invaders'. The most common applcation for them was to facillitate a home member's suicide (eg teenage son or male parent) or for a domestic murder-suicide

[Cyco]

Tell that to those who are alive today because they had a gun in the house.

What about all those who are dead/injured due to having a gun, either injured by their own firearm, or buy someone who panics when confronted?

Many criminals are on drugs and are more likely to be violent.

Just because a crime is drug related does not indicate the person is intoxicated at the time - generally they are not.

Just another reason why I keep a gun in my house.

If you are not trained in response to a break-in while you are sleeping and have the gun within 2 seconds of where you are at anytime then you stand little to no chance against anyone armed if they intend to hurt you. If you are then when you are not home then the gun can be stolen very easily and you then have the issue of more readily available guns that would not be available to the criminals if you had not owned it.

[Blue Supra]

It most certainly is not. And I'm not a gun nut; if anything I'm a nut about keeping myself alive.


"May be enough." I'd rather not gamble my life on the hopes that the criminal is rational .


Tell that to those who are alive today because they had a gun in the house.

That's another point to make. Many criminals are on drugs and are more likely to be violent. Just another reason why I keep a gun in my house.

FFS no wonder America has the most gun related deaths in the world by more then like 90% of other countries. "if i have a gun im safe" seems to be the attitude... Right... and i have a bullbar on my car im safe, and if i wear pads playing sport im safe and so on. Are you all so horrifically brainwashed into this way of thinking that you will all eventually carry guns on your hips and wear kevlar? What then?

[clutch-monkey]

you know what's wierd? Canada has more guns (per person i think) than America, and the difference in firearm related homicides, robberies or incidents is way, way less than america. In one place they interviwed a policeman who couldn't remember the last homicide in his town, and across the border several miles away the homicide rate was ~300 per year

[crisis]

"May be enough." I'd rather not gamble my life on the hopes that the criminal is rational .

You are gambling with your life every day and you are definitely playing with high stakes if you introduce a gun to a situation

Tell that to those who are alive today because they had a gun in the house.

Simplistic to a tee.

If you are not trained in response to a break-in while you are sleeping and have the gun within 2 seconds of where you are at anytime then you stand little to no chance against anyone armed if they intend to hurt you. If you are then when you are not home then the gun can be stolen very easily and you then have the issue of more readily available guns that would not be available to the criminals if you had not owned it.

Exactly. If the gun is so accessible to you then it accessible to others, perhaps children or some who may fire it accidentally.

[crisis]

you know what's wierd? Canada has more guns (per person i think) than America, and the difference in firearm related homicides, robberies or incidents is way, way less than america. In one place they interviwed a policeman who couldn't remember the last homicide in his town, and across the border several miles away the homicide rate was ~300 per year

You need to be careful where you get the statistics for that stuff. The gun lobby post no end of nefarious pseudo facts and the gun nuts eagerly swallow them up and refer to them without question to support their case.
Just waiting for a reference to John Lott ( gun nut pin up boy).

Footnote - I user the term gun nut to describe gun nuts, not those who have an interest in them (as I do to an extent) or use them for legitimate purposes.
My definition of a gun nut is one who tries to defend the proliferation of them by bleating about how they will be victims of hoards of armed criminals (convenient generic generalisation) , of their own evil rogue government etc etc.

[clutch-monkey]

You need to be careful where you get the statistics for that stuff. The gun lobby post no end of nefarious pseudo facts and the gun nuts eagerly swallow them up and refer to them without question to support their case.
Just waiting for a reference to John Lott ( gun nut pin up boy).

i got it off an international current events board, info seems legit (and makes sense)

Footnote - I user the term gun nut to describe gun nuts, not those who have an interest in them (as I do to an extent) or use them for legitimate purposes.
My definition of a gun nut is one who tries to defend the proliferation of them by bleating about how they will be victims of hoards of armed criminals (convenient generic generalisation)

remember some gun control board saying 1 in 4 households in australia still has a firearm - they reached this conclusion by taking the number of houses in Australia and dividing by the number of guns in Australia...
most of the info i look up when curious comes from the criminolgy institute

jack Thompson jumping on the video game bandwagon :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weG7A4lTGtg

also :

He didn't have a girlfriend.

I just saw an interview with his roomates. Apparently this guy had an IMAGINARY girlfriend that called him "spanky". I forget what he called her. Apparently this kid was a loner (obviously) and never really talked to either of his roomates.

wow

[nota]

What about all those who are dead/injured due to having a gun, either injured by their own firearm, or buy someone who panics when confronted?

In 2005 I read this quote in my local newspaper

"More than 30,000 people a year die by firearms in the US. About 12,000 are homicides, 1000 are accidents, and 17,000 are suicides

Australia has averaged about 500 firearms deaths - less than one fifth of the US rate"

This led me to research some comparitive stats for myself a few years ago. Here's what I found ..

An estimated 16,204 murders took place in 2002. The Supplamentary Homicide Reports where weapon type was provided showed that 71.1 percent of murder incidents involved a firearm. Among the homicides in which firearms were the weapon, 76.6 percent involved handguns; 5.1 percent, rifles; 5.1 percent, shotguns; and 13.2 percent, other type or unknown firearms. During 2002, the murder rate was estimated at 5.6 crimes per 100,000 inhabitants. The rate remained virtually unchanged from the rate for 2001

(nb: excludes the more than 200,000 non-fatal USA gun injuries)

Australia recorded 381 victims of homicide, and a homicide victimisation rate of 1.9 per 100,000 population. During 2001-2002, firearms were used on only 14% of homicides in Australia.

Put another way, of the 16,204 total homicides in America 2002, approximately 11,504 were from firearms

Of the 381 murder total in Australia 2001-2002, about 27 were from firearms

Per capita, Americans in 2002 were over twenty eight times more likely to be murdered by a firearm than Australians


The greater USA total murder rate is a tragedy in itself but the linkage between total guns/total murder seems pretty bloody obvious (at least to me) and if the USA could remove its guns from society then its murder rate would plummet

[clutch-monkey]

Per capita, Americans in 2002 were over twenty eight times more likely to be murdered by a firearm than Australians

also i posted a few pges back - stolen firearms present a percentage of 0.06% of all registered firearms in Australia; i suspect the average in the US would be much higher, especially after seeing Virginia's laws in particular (conversely, it may be lower as there's little need to steal one..just buy one)

[clutch-monkey]

The greater USA total murder rate is a tragedy in itself but the linkage between total guns/total murder seems pretty bloody obvious (at least to me) and if the USA could remove its guns from society then its murder rate would plummet

how? a buyback only works with registered weapons, you don't need to register a firearm in the USA.