Home / Another Gun Tragedy – Repeal the Second Amendment

Another Gun Tragedy – Repeal the Second Amendment

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

“The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed” – Dana Perino, White House spokeswoman, about President Bush’s response to the slaughter of students by a gunman at Virginia Tech today.

The President is correct that Americans have a right to bear arms -– under the Second Amendment to our Constitution -– but that right should be repealed. And true, changing the Supreme Law of the Land provides no guarantee that the new laws will be followed, any more than the current laws, but anything that reduces the number of guns and rifles at large is a good thing.

It is also true that people, not guns, pull the trigger. But if the gunman at Virginia Tech had been armed with a knife, fewer people would have been killed.

Repealing the Second Amendment would not mean that all law-abiding citizens would have to turn over their weapons to the government. It would mean, however, that more stringent laws could be enacted to reduce the flow of guns, and these laws could be vigorously enforced without coming into conflict with the Constitution.

The gun from the moment of its invention was a revolutionary, unprecedented weapon. For more than three centuries, the Japanese samurai rejected as dishonorable the assaulting of someone from a distance.

Unlike knives, which can used to cut food as well as people, the gun and rifle have only one purpose: to wound or kill. True, this can be a good thing if we are using the gun to stop someone else with a gun, but wouldn’t we all be better off if there were fewer of these weapons around to begin with?

We have a long road ahead whatever we do. But I would like to see police guns replaced by non-fatal weapons such as tasers, hunters limited to guns they rent and use only in designated hunting areas, and guns on the street reduced in all ways possible. We don’t need to repeal the Second Amendment to do this, but repealing the Second Amendment would make it legal.

Powered by

About Paul Levinson

  • Igor

    IMO the purpose of the second amendment is to encourage the formation of citizen community militias to help the community in case of floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, rogue bears and redcoats. Rifle permission is thrown in as a sweetener.

  • Academy59

    Efforts to reduce gun violence in the United States are focusing on banning some weapons, limiting magazine size, increasing background checks for gun purchasers, and other marginal changes. These efforts will fail because they only address symptoms of the problem, not the underlying cause — which is the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

    A White House petition to repeal the Second Amendment has been started at http://wh.gov/EYVe Anyone willing to support this bold step should sign it.

  • Steve

    liberal assholes are ruining this country. If you take all the legal guns only the criminals will have them. Liberal morons…

  • cool

    i dont get it

  • Guest

    I heard of some people who were able to get their hands on high explosive just by going out and looking for it. Fortunately, they weren’t terrorists, only some kids who wanted to make something blow up BIG. Just about burned down half of the desert.

  • Jack

    Are you all crazy?

    England and Australia combined have two deaths by shootings a year! They have strict anti-gun policies. Most of their policemen don’t have guns. With those 2 people a year killed compared to our nation’s two people every half-hour killed, can you really argue with the statistics?

  • STM

    “Look at England and Australia after they banned firearms, granted, their government hasn’t gone totalitarian (probably won’t see that for many, many years)”

    Probably won’t see that ever. The US is more likely to go pear-shaped first.

    And they didn’t ban guns in Australia. They brought in some sensible control and licensing. You can’t have an auto semi-auto rifle anymore.

    But there are just as many gun owners as before … but there hasn’t been a mass shooting since the laws were introduced.

    Really, it’s no different to requiring someone possess a driver’s licence before they get in a car, and to have some controls on the kind of cars that are allowed to be driven on the road.

  • Chicago Matt

    Great article. We really need to repeal the 2nd, and take gun ownership out of the hands of ordinary citizens, like most advanced industrial countries have already done a long time ago. Too bad a repeal will never happen. Not against the almighty NRA. So much for democracy.

  • nk23

    if you want to talk about this with a real man contact me you gun hating bastards. Grow the F*ck up.
    [personal contact info deleted]

  • John

    I don’t believe in a constitutional right to bear arms. The Second Amendment outlines a civic duty of the population to be active in militias and that the people’s natural right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The fact that our militias have been disbanded has eroded our civic pride and sense of duty, and if you believe the words “necessary to the security of a free state” our security and freedom.

  • Sanitet

    I didn’t bother reading all the posts, but many good points, on both sides of this controversy. 2nd Amendment — ratified in 1789 along with the other nine — allowing for a militia to be created for the defense of our nation — also allowing for the right to keep and bear arms by its citizens. Well, many believe it to be in case the government gets a wild hair up its butt and creates a totalitarian government (which is what normally follows a democracy once it begins to corrupt within — the people voting themselves the money from the treasury (welfare)) (another topic, I digress). In 1789 there was a good reason why this was decided — one our government and its soldiers had the same technology as its citizens and the big one, in my opinion, would be Shay’s rebellion of 1786-87. All one has to do is look at history — something that most people in this world do not do. “It’s ancient history and has no bearing on our world today.” Thinking like that and we’re done. Yes, guns create some horrible trauma, both physically and psychologically, but so do drugs, knives, automobiles, a person could go on and on. Firearm technology is here to stay and allowing persons to keep and bear arms is tough to police, especially on the criminal side of the topic. Look at England and Australia after they banned firearms, granted, their government hasn’t gone totalitarian (probably won’t see that for many, many years), but violent criminal acts skyrocketed. The nice side effect of having citizens armed with the same technology as criminals is they have a means to negate the threat or if it comes to blows, fight back. Not all gun fights are “blast them away” fights, normally not a shot is fired. Watch V for Vendetta — people are corruptible and if we don’t keep an eye on our liberties, they will soon be gone. I apologize for being a bit disorganized in this post, just wanted to throw my two cents in. Remember, always question and always remember history. And yes, I carry concealed and have yet to “blow away” anyone and I pray to God that never happens, but if it comes down to it, its going to be them and not me.

  • Driveby

    Greg#435. Excellent comment.

  • Driveby

    Gregory, I was just being fecious. Have been a member of the NRA over fifteen years and the proud owner of various weapons including an AK 47.
    Have a great day Sir.

  • Gregory Eads

    Hey – Jack Burton I’d like to chat sometime. Uh-rah!
    Hey – Paul Levinson –_ and Chris Rose (Espana), we can chat too… sharpen yer “resources”, eh ?

    Gregory Eads
    Estados Unitos
    [Personal contact info deleted. And it’s Estados Unidos! Comments Editor]

  • Gregory Eads

    #434 ‘Driveby’ – Are you tongue in cheek ?

    Guns are no more evil than those who bear them.
    Almost all people have relative goodness in them, and are definitively NOT homicidally motivated.
    Therein is the need for the MANY GOOD people to properly defend against the FEW EVIL PEOPLE amongst us.

    Dialing 911 is fine – advised to all my civilian clients ASAP –

    But when the attack ensues, police are ALWAYS too many minutes from EFFECTIVE life-saving intervention.

    Too frequently, CYA (cover yer ass) SOP’s (Standard Operating Procedures) prevent police officers from intervening prior to the arrival of a SWAT team. That can take 1/2 hour for all of the Special Operators to assemble, reconointer and plan the Entry Assault.

    That’s way too long to save many lives.
    Sure, SOP’s and SWAT appease the public, media and the ambulance-chaser-lawyers, but there are too many deceased resultants to be fat-happy-and complacent.

    Incidentally – do any of you know about the the most recent and ALL TIME GREATEST NUMBER OF DECEASED VICTIMS – MASS MURDER – IN all of U.S. History ?????

    In 1988, in gun-ban NYC, at the “Happy Land Social Club”, a jilted male lover of a woman took One(1) Gallon of Gasoline, doused the only available stairwell access to the “H.L.S.C.” (the other doors were purposely made disfunctional by the crime-ridden owners) and touched it off …..

    Eighty-eight (88) persons were burned to death (or suffered fatal smoke inhalation) —- and the wildest part of all — ?????

    The intended female victim was not even injured – let alone killed…..

    A gallon of gasoline can go a long way.
    (I’m a fully trained (FF1) firefighter too.)

    Police are very good providers of body bags and investigative services.

    Rely, solely, on “911”, at your own extreme peril.

    Not on ‘my watch’, thanks…

    Additionally, and unfortunately (budget issues), a fair number of police are not at all well trained for heavy-duty armed combat. In a ridiculous sense, from MY perspective, some of them are merely temporary ‘bullet-stoppers’. You have to have yer stuff “wired” to do this stuff well.
    Trust me. I know. Fer sure. Alternately, with proper close quarters combat DISARM techniques I teach, I “joke” that “I don’t have to carry a gun”, “I’ll just – – B-O-R-R-O-W –the very gun that the ‘bad guy/girl’ brought to “the party””….

    Er, ah, what else do you need to know ?

    I specialize in hitting tennis balls at three football fields distance with way better than 90% hit probability, with a custom built 300 Win Mag, which, for practical effect, is similar to being hit by an 80,000 lb. Mack Truck going 70 MPH.

    I am a technician, a trainer, a TOTAL PACIFIST and hate the thought or ever having to employ/deploy such powers. It ain’t pretty or pleasant. But, on rare occasions, some SOB has to protect the innocent.

    Any more questions, Pilgrim ?

    Gregarious Gregory

  • Driveby

    Guns are evil. Cant we all just dial 911.

  • Gregory Eads

    Oh, yes, tasers work so well too. Yet kill the wrong people, and don’t stop the ‘amped up’ coke/crack/smack/speedball/drunk 6ft.4inch 245 lb. ‘Godzillas From The Ghettos” just out of supermax prison…who eat ‘black belts’ for breakfast….

    Oh yes, and POLICE don’t ever, never ‘slip the track’, become deranged or trigger happy, eh ??????

    Perhaps you’ve not seen any news lately ????

    What about grandma or grandpa or your sister who actually DO repel lethal attacks from teenage and 20-something punks WITH MODERN “GUNS”???????? Should they die instead ?

    Did ya all know that in 93 to 97% or all armed encounters wherein the victim(s) or police are armed with real modern functional hi-cap guns, NO SHOTS ARE FIRED ??????????? Hmmmmm…..
    Those chambered cartridges (bullets for the laity) seen to practically and instantly convey / confer a ‘college education’ to potential miscreants who instantly “get smart” and ‘break off the intended lethal assault’.

    If guns are so bad, why do the police and the military insist on having SOOOOO MANY of THEM ????
    Hey, all the well-connected ‘luminaries’, many of whom are avowedly “anti-gun”, like Sylvester Stallone, and so many more, have their OWN pistol permits – or armed bodyguards – in NYC, D.C., Chicago, San. Fran., L.A. etc. etc.

    Hypocrites !!!! All of them….
    And the politicos who have armed escorts…..

    Me thinks that a certain ‘science FICTION’ writer should stick to what he does best…and not venture into an abyss of which he has no knowledge, and the ‘chosen abyss’ has N-O bottom…..

    Reality, countless times, has shown that where former ‘citizens’ are barrred from bearing arms, complete tyrannical subjugation and genocide quickly follow.

    There are too many ‘Murphy’s Laws’ to cite herein,
    but, one may suffice: “Every man has an idea that will NOT work.” To which I added: “Every Day”.

    By the way, it’s not about ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ anymore either.

    You’re either a ‘statist/tyranicist/totalitarian’ or, like me, a L-I-B-E-R-T-A-R-I-A-N !!!!!

    Failure and genocide have always characterized the ‘former’. What fun !!!!

    And now back to our “regular programming” :the religious and, now, geo-political oil wars……
    Millions upon millions can die or freeze in the dark, sans modern transport….

    Have a REALLY NICE DAY….and life….under really BIG government guns !!!!

  • Gregory Eads

    Babble, babble, that’s all it is to the rabble..

    Aye, mate, guess you’re done and finished.
    No intellect need apply here. Statist Dogma wins; All rights summarily diminished.
    You look like CCCP to the average Fin…
    How eloquent and masterful, your prose-
    Aspersions, insults, and a rubber hose up your nose!

    Hey, bagladies like Rosie, Sarah B. and Dianne F., Carolyn McC. and that IANSA whore want a date with you…spongebobsquarepants…

    Have a nice life.

  • No, I was wrong, it’s a Babbling Loon!

  • Gregory Eads

    I thought personal attacks were not kosher here ?
    Loon ? Do you want to revile, recriminate or eliminate avian loons, or those you couldn’t possibly understand or agree with ?

    The vast majority of Americans never GET past “the First Amendment”. That’s all they know. There are Eight Amendments of Ten in the ‘Bill of Rights pertaining to INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN’S RIGHTS’.
    The First Amendment is the only one generally known by the news media and most ‘luminaries’.

    It’s not like jelly beans, where you pick the ones you like, or UNDERSTAND, and cast the others away.

    ‘The Bill of Rights; One(1) through Ten (10)’ is emphatically NOT open to renegotiation, revisionism or abolishment. It IS the pre-eminent ‘Law of the Land’. As such, suggesting, agitating or formenting it’s destruction, in whole or in part is QUITE seditious in nature and act.
    Those who pose as so-called “sophisticated” proponents for neo-European communitarianism/ communism, where the only God is omnipotent Government fit well into the shoes of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Che and Idi Amin, to name a few modern statist examples.

    No, it’s NOT ‘the Government’s Bill of Rights’.
    Nay, nay.

    And these loons (?) think the Government and it’s magic guns will protect them personally ? Why, then, does every legal jurisdiction in the United States BAR (not allow !) any and all actions, claims and suits relative to FAILURE to protect any and all individual citizens ?

    However, any argument contrary to the dogma of utopianism is summarily rejected, reviled and subject to hysterical, Pavlovian prose.
    Intellectual “potty-mouth”. Read: “B.S.”

    Fondly Yours-
    Gregory Eads

  • Gregory Eads – a sterling example of the case for limiting the availablility of weapons. What a loon!

  • STM

    Yeah, what a hoot. What about the provisions of the first amendment. The US Constitution exists precisely to allow people like Paul not only to hold these views, but to feel free to air them, publicly, along with the othetr millions of Americans who feel the same way he does.

    It ain’t seditious, it certainly ain’t a threat to freedom, and it certainly ain’t teasonous … and it ain’t a clear and present danger – Yessir!! – to the United States, or even to Joe Blow next door who doesn’t hold the same views.

    You are forgetting Gregory that you live in a democracy (semantics aside over it being a representational republic and all that, as most democracies are representational) in arguably the truest sense of the word.

    Paul can say what he likes about this stuff without fear or favour, becasue the law says he can – as can you.

  • Gregory Eads

    I am a professional combat weapons trainer. I live in the U.S… Repealing (or suggesting that) the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (should be repealed) is a clear and present extreme danger to free government AND the inalienable and MOST BASIC HUMAN RIGHT to self-defense (the Dead have few Rights), and would, I believe qualify, legally as SEDITION AND HIGH TREASON. I would also, in defense of the U.S. Constitution, from all enemies, domestic and foreign, see clear to provide the proper and unlimited persuasive action to deter, with every fiber of my living body, at virtually any and all costs and resources, any and all attempts to create authoritarianism, statism, fascism, communism, (aka ‘communitarianism’) or wild eyed, weak and defective minded, untenable and indefensible ‘pie-in-the-sky’ “utopianism”, or any idiotic ideas like that, so help me God.

    No one who knows ANYTHING about ANYTHING, let alone evolutionary human nature (not THAT far along!!!!) would suggest otherwise, unless thay are either: completely mis-informed, wildly and Pavlovianly utopianist, crazy, or with the MOST EVIL INTENTIONS, wishing that or seditiously abetting totalitarian (read:tyranny and mayhem) government.

    Make No Mistake. We, the People, shall not be useless guinea pigs for utopianists who have not read George Orwell, wherein “some animals become ‘MORE’ equal than others”. No frigging thanks.

    Live free, safe, happy !!!! Or die uselessly.
    Your choice, comrades !!!
    Take no life unless absolutely warranted.
    Muzzle in safe direction, Finger off trigger – FRONT SIGHT !!!

    Gregory Eads, Professional (LEGAL USE !), Nationally-Certified Close Quarters and Long Range Self Defensive Un-Armed and Armed Shooting Instructor, Coach, and Trainer for Select Civilians, Police and U.S. Military by appointment only.

    200+ Year Old Motto: “Don’t Tread on Me”.

  • STM

    Jack, thanks for the reasoned response, old boy … I think … but seriously, I appreciate seeing your ideas without feeling like each discourse means someone is verbally copping it up the blurter.

    Perhaps we should agree to disagree. As I’ve pointed out before (as have you), mine are opinions, and points for debate – and not likely to result in any laws changing in the US as I’m not a US citizen.

    I am simply using my own experience to present an alternative viewpoint. I am not an anti-gun nut, or an extremist, nor a wet “liberal” in the American sense. I’m also not anti-American.

    But I notice Nallie hasn’t answered here, though. Possibly he’s been holding out against the stray dogs that regularly terrorise the compound …

    I am interested in what he has to say.

  • This professor well understands and responds to Paul and his ilk.

    Los Angeles Times

  • I’m asking a serious question here. Why, as a citizen of a country that has its whole raison d’etre in centuries of the rule of law and the contract that gives government some control and the people some freedoms (and more specifically those of the past 200 years), would you think that its grand institutions in this regard would not protect its citizens.

    Perhaps it is precisely because a significant part of the “rule of law” is the right of the average citizen to protect his rights as a personal effort and not to depend upon others to do so for him.

    The grand institutions have a preference for survival, after all. Why give a polulace any reason for asserting in a more direct way that the “institutions” serve at the pleasure of the people and not the other way around.

    I do not see, given the wonderful institutions of law and democracy upon which the US is founded, that this situation could ever arise – even if the 2nd amendment is repealed (which it won’t be, in our lifetimes).

    I don’t see it either but that doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen. I take care to ensure that my house won’t burn down but I still have a fire extinguisher close by.

    Although I was revving up a few maddies on here in regard to the anglosphere, I have recently become a convert to that way of thinking – that our countries all share a similar regard for rule of law and democratic government (in slightly different forms) as a contract in what amounts to an exchange that prizes personal liberties above all.

    Compare and contrast with countries that were settled from Spain. Drives my hispanic friends crazy when I say that.

    And yes, the anglosphere shares some very important influences — amoung them the right of the citizen to address, and if necessary, bring the government to heel by force. That knowledge tends to keep governments reasonable which in turn keeps very reasonable citizens. Both reinforce the other in our cultures.

    When you look at how the countries of the anglosphere have prospered, it is our institutions that have stopped us all from becoming versions of South American republics or Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Russia or Saddam’s Iraq.

    No. It is the fact that the institutions answer to the citizens… not the institutions themselves.

    I don’t see the US ever going down that path, so I would be interested in your views.

    I can see the possiblity. But I don’t have time to expand on it here.

  • Jack* … I might be barking up the tree here but, just a question. Why do you see ANY criticism of America – constructive or otherwise – as an attack on America? Just wondering.

    That is a strawman argument Stan. Find where I have ever said that any criticism of America is an attack on America. I criticize the country, it’s leaders, and it’s policies quite often myself and I’m not “attacking” the country.

    But a criticism based on falsehood or misunderstanding is a bogus criticism and needs to be pointed out. Most of your statements about American and what you don’t like about it fall into one of those two categories.

    And why do you assume that because someone like me has an opinion on guns, that amounts to me agitating to have your precious guns taken away?

    Stan, Stan, Stan… have you not posted multiple times in multiple places that certain guns that you happen to not like should be banned and not available to the public? Is not not “agitating to have your precious guns taken away”?

    You can’t have it both ways. If you want some guns taken away then you want guns taken away. It’s really simple.

    Do you not see that the very freedoms you hold so dear also allow other people to hold these opinions.

    That’s a statement equivilent to styrofoam. You might as well post “ting tang, walla walla bing bang.” (props to Jonah Goldberg)

    Of course you have the freedom. And I have the freedom to point out that your freedom leads you to post stupid stuff. Shall we continue this dance down the road?

    This is a US-based website after all, so perhaps you could agitate for the repeal of the 1st amendment whilst others in America are calling for the repeal of the 2nd. Here’s my bet too: I bet you’d love to see the 16th gone.

    As I posted much ealier, the shooting community loves the First Amendment because it allows us to spot the idiots amoung us.

    And what has the 16th got to do with anything. That is a complete non sequitor. Why not ask me how I feel about horsemeat for lunch. It is just as germane.

    Also, why do think many people around the world see some Americans as both arrogant and ignorant? Notice I used the word “some”.

    (Some) people always have problems with their much more successful younger brother who has the good job, the sports car, and the good looking girl. Somehow because the sluggard brother who wasted his life is upset that means the younger brother is at fault?

    I am not anonymous here, so I’m hiding nothing – you, however, have chosen to remain anonymous. Tell us who you are, and a bit about your background, so we can get to understand you a bit better.

    And you probably have not had very angry extremists show up at your doorstep (amazing how these people who say they are against violence can become violent when they get upset).

    I’m in my mid fifties, married to the same wonderful girl for 34 years. We met in, and spent 25 years together active and reserve military duty. Spent of lot of time overseas for them.

    I’ve got my MA in Communications and have worked around the country in the business. Worked in DC for a while where I got to know some pretty important and highly placed brand name people.

    Now I’m the Midwest Regional Dirctor for a large marketing company, running a sales force in five states.

    My health is good but the physical frame is breaking down faster than I’d like. As per your “story” of taking the knife away from two young hoods I have lost about half the strength in my hands and arms from a heriated neck disk. I just don’t do the chop socky anymore.

    That’s why I am probably going to have switch my guns from semiauto to wheelguns. I can’t hardly manage the chambering anymore.

  • STM

    Derek said: “smoking can damage the sperm and decreases fertility.”

    Possibly, but, fu.k it’s great taking that first big drag …

  • STM

    Nalle wrote: “Christopher, if there were a situation where the government became oppressive enough to require overthrow by force of arms”.

    Dave, I’m asking a serious question here. Why, as a citizen of a country that has its whole raison d’etre in centuries of the rule of law and the contract that gives government some control and the people some freedoms (and more specifically those of the past 200 years), would you think that its grand institutions in this regard would not protect its citizens.

    I do not see, given the wonderful institutions of law and democracy upon which the US is founded, that this situation could ever arise – even if the 2nd amendment is repealed (which it won’t be, in our lifetimes).

    I respect your views because they’re reasoned and not personal attacks, but I think you are making awfully big assumptions here.

    Although I was revving up a few maddies on here in regard to the anglosphere, I have recently become a convert to that way of thinking – that our countries all share a similar regard for rule of law and democratic government (in slightly different forms) as a contract in what amounts to an exchange that prizes personal liberties above all.

    When you look at how the countries of the anglosphere have prospered, it is our institutions that have stopped us all from becoming versions of South American republics or Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Russia or Saddam’s Iraq.

    I don’t see the US ever going down that path, so I would be interested in your views.

  • Derek

    smoking can damage the sperm and decreases fertility.

  • STM

    Lol. I am a mad Aussie Andy.

  • …but then again….

  • STM – maybe you’re not the crazy Aussie I thought you were….

  • Derek

    You say you dont want people to judge you four all having the same opinions it hard when you never disagree with one a other i want to here views that i will learn something from but so far i have not heard anything fresh starting from now let me here something new.

  • Derek

    And revy i was beeing sarcastic when i said you knew what happened to Caesar i hope you knew that.

  • Derek

    You want to check my comments on Caesar if you want anwsers i love to make people think its my purpose in life thankyou god four making me what everyone else wants to be sometimes its not easy being me you have to live up to a lot.

  • Derek

    It reminds me a little of the film carrie who do you feel sorry four the killer or the victims it was a wrong thing four him to do but i think he was treat like a outcast and sometimes it back fires on bullys im not saying he killed the bullys but the bullys also put them at risk even if they were not the ones doing the bullying he did not see it has wrong who ever he killed.

  • STM

    Jack* … I might be barking up the tree here but, just a question. Why do you see ANY criticism of America – constructive or otherwise – as an attack on America? Just wondering.

    And why do you assume that because someone like me has an opinion on guns, that amounts to me agitating to have your precious guns taken away? Do you not see that the very freedoms you hold so dear also allow other people to hold these opinions.

    This is a US-based website after all, so perhaps you could agitate for the repeal of the 1st amendment whilst others in America are calling for the repeal of the 2nd. Here’s my bet too: I bet you’d love to see the 16th gone.

    Also, why do think many people around the world see some Americans as both arrogant and ignorant? Notice I used the word “some”.

    And next time you use the word supposedly in relation to what I might have seen or haven’t seen, perhaps you should just take that on face value, as even you would probably be shocked by it. I am not anonymous here, so I’m hiding nothing – you, however, have chosen to remain anonymous. Tell us who you are, and a bit about your background, so we can get to understand you a bit better.

  • STM

    Dave Nalle wrote: “All of whom are prohibited from purchasing a firearm.”

    Dave, you yourself told me here recently that if you want to buy a second-hand gun in a private sale, in many states there are no background checks. You just go off and pay the money, and voila! you’re a gun owner.

    Stricter controls are a must.

  • STM

    Andy wrote: “STM – how do you feel when you hear our pols spew that we are in this fight alone…just curious…”

    Well, you obviously aren’t. The British have committed a fair number of troops to Iraq, and quite a few to Afghanistan. We have less than the British in Iraq, but the government announced recently here that its was sending ANOTHER 400 of our special forces soldiers to Afghanistan.

    Besides, “the war on terror” is not just shoot ’em up stuff. It’s really about police forces and law enforcement agencies combining worldwide to track these guys down, foil their plans, and arrest them before they can do their damge. Or failing, that afterwars. You probably don’t realise that Jemaah Islamiya, the Asian offshoot of al-Qeada, specifically targeted Australians in the 2002 Bali bombings (82 Aussies killed in Kuta) and that they blew up the Australian Embassy in Jakarta.

    So no, your’re not in it alone. The people who blew up up the trains and buses in London were al-Qaeda affiliates as well. I don’t like George Bush’s name “war on terror” applied to Iraq, because that’s been about somethinmg else, but there’s no doubt there’s a global terror network intent on getting ALL of us, not just you.

  • STM

    Charles wrote: “Paul, Is it your intention to take guns away from law abiding citizens so the only guns left are in the nads of those who break the law?”

    Lol. I realise it’s just a typo Charles but it’s hilarious for me … “nads” means something here … like “the bastard kicked me in the nads”. I hope there won’t be any guns in anyone’s nads. Could be painful …

  • Derek

    Im back i want to get back to the point about the mass murder in america what disturbs me the most about this is that his flatmate could not even talk to him once he just needed someone to talk to its ok saying it was wrong but that does not solve the problem if he was known to have mental health problems there should be someone there he can turn to before it got to that stage.

  • I’m wondering…what are we considering drugs here…because right now, I’m in a part of the country where you can literally get in more trouble for jaywalking than smoking a joint…and like they say…as goes california…so goes the country…eventually anyway!

  • Chris #352,

    A bit belated of me, but you obviously know very little about how drugs are smuggled into this country when you say this:

    Clavos, please try and detect alcohol or drugs with x-rays or radar – or stuffing weapons inside one of your body cavities. This may help you notice the difference! 😉

    The vast majority of the drugs brought up from LatAm countries never get anywhere near a Customs official or X-ray machine. They are brought in literally by the plane and ship load.

    By plane, they’re landed in remote areas, like the Florida Keys and Everglades, unloaded, and the planes are often abandoned right where they sit. There’s so much money in the business, that the smugglers can afford to buy (or sometimes steal) aircraft for one-way flights, and still amke money.

    They’re smuggling TONS of drugs, Chris. The puny amounts that the mules bring in by swallowing condoms or in luggage are infinitesimal in the big picture. And the government freely admits they’re nailing no more than 10% of it.

    By ship, the vessel comes up from South America, then cruises up the USA east coat, stopping periodically out on the high seas. Smugglers come out from shore in ultra high speed go-fast boats, take on a load, and sprint back in. Again, the boats are often abandoned once they reach shore and have been unloaded.

    It would be child’s play to smuggle guns into this country, my friend.

    You also say:

    I didn’t say anything about weapons being turned in so the rest of your remark doesn’t get us anywhere.

    True, you didn’t. But, with 300 million guns already here, what difference will outlawing (or restricting) them make?

  • zingzing

    this is the most fun i’ve had around here in a while… i gotta go smoke a cigarette… punctuate the satisfaction…

  • zingzing

    if your brain is a lot bigger than mine, it must be swollen. brains don’t really vary in size from human to human…

    why is “fact” in parentheses? do you know what a parenthetical thought is?

    do you think your english is okay? i’m not really here to question your intelligence… just your command of your mother tongue. (and no, i didn’t just insult your mother.) (i insulted you.)

    since all we have is our respective writing and your claims to a higher intelligence, and since those are currently unverifiable… and since we are going to have to consider the relative strengths of our writing as a test of intelligence, i would have to say that, based on the information at hand, I AM SMARTER THAN YOU. nyah.

  • Derek

    i dont think you can handle the (fact) that my brain is a lot bigger then yours people do say the truth hurts and looking at these comments i think they are right

  • Paul2

    You’re right.

    And Derek, I believe it’s time for you to get away from the computer straight to your bed.

  • zingzing

    paul, you’d have to be pretty drunk to forget the fundamentals of your own language. like black-out drunk. i did ask earlier if derek was asleep and typing at the same time. it’s possible that only part of his brain is currently functioning. shrug.

  • Derek

    dont wanna be a amrican idiot green day love that song should of gone to number 1

  • zingzing

    i don’t claim to know anything, but if you can pass it, i would bet more than 1.5% of american teenagers could pass it. maybe it would only be 5%… but still. come on.

    for three bucks, you can buy yourself a 40 oz pbr. delish.

  • Paul2

    I wasn’t being sarcastic.

    I really didn’t believe English is his first language, because the mistakes are so fundamental.

    Maybe he’s making all of this stuff up. Or he’s very drunk.

  • Derek

    what can 3 dollers buy me in america zing zing you no i would be write if you put my statement to the test. fact not fiction

  • zingzing

    paul2, i dunno if you are being sarcastic or not (don’t want to assume anything), but derek’s FIRST language is english. that’s why i’m bashing him so hard. if english was not his first language, it would be rather rude (not that it isn’t anyway) to attack him so.

    but when you write like derek does, then claim to have a 139 iq, make up things like a “sence of humer,” then claim that not even 1.5% of americans could pass the same english proficiency test he did… you deserve to have your pants taken off.

  • Paul2

    Derek,

    everybody makes mistakes-me too. I’m also no native speaker. Its good that your trying to learn another language. Some people never even attempt to do that. Calm down.

  • zingzing

    ahh, derek… you’re welcome. for what, i don’t know. but thank you for your kind words. i’m so sorry as well. what? yes. okay, we’ll agree to disagree.

    would you care to back up your claim with some facts, or did you pull that 1.5% out of your ass? you know you did…

    that said, i’d be willing to bet 1.5 of your british pounds that i’d do better than you on said english a level.

    vertroue– i’m sure that having kids does change your perspective. i don’t think (of course i’m not sure) that having kids will make me find having a gun around logical (it’s a strange step to take in my mind), but i could be very, very wrong.

    we shall see. if all that heroin hasn’t totally killed my sperm.

  • Paul2

    vertroue-

    thats why a nationwide ban would make sense, if you can buy guns a couple blocks away it doesn’t make any sense.

  • Derek

    In america it would take your best students like over here to get a english A level so your pass rates four this level i would say only 1.5% of (your) students would manage to pass at this level even that % could be to high four your students

  • vertroue

    vertroue, (and i copied and pasted that just to get it right,) i get the idea of criminals not knowing who is and isn’t packing. kind of like israel not saying whether or not they have the bomb. i just wonder if the idea (and that’s all it is) of personal safety is worth the reality of gun-related death in america.

    I believe it is because someone, somewhere always (whether its needed or not) feels the need to “build a better mousetrap”. I dont want to see what that might be in my lifetime. I know that humans have been killing one another for nearly all of recorded history, but taking one of the current tools away wont stop folks who want to murder someone. Truthfully, I’d say can all firearms in the world if and only if you could erase there history of existance. Eliminate the tech advantage across the board and you might (ready for this one?) have a fair “shot”.

    I’m bad, I know.

    And now for my selfish take on the situation:

    personaly saftey vs. gun deaths overall in america?

    Better them then me and mine. When I was younger and had very little to live for (I was immortal anyway right?), I wouldnt have cared. But with children in the mix, Personal safety becomes Familial safety. The world changes big time when you have kids…

    Thanks for the chat today zingzing, it was good talking to ya…

  • zingzing

    derek… “school ager” means you are at an age when you are still in school, presumably pre-undergraduate studies. if you take a look at the words within the phrase, it actually makes a lot of “sence.”

    i think vertroue is letting you off the hook because you are still (and this is an assumption) still in the british equivalent of american high school. you may have taken and passed the english a-level… but that doesn’t mean you have a firm grasp of the english language. in fact, i don’t believe i’ve ever seen a native english speaker with a shakier sense of the language.

  • vertroue

    Derek: what does school ager mean???? A level when your 16 in this country

    It means your in school.

    It speaks volumes.

  • vertroue

    I didn’t claim that a nationwide gun ban would mean that there would be no more weapons, but significantly less weapons and that means less homicides overall. Of course there are also other reasons for violent crimes, but gun proliferation is obviously a very big cause of homicides.

    PEOPLE are the biggest cause of homicides.

    Fact: 20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent of the population – New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. – and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns.

    So, 1 in 5 murders in this nation occur where you, a private citizen, have little to no chance of getting a firearm legally….

  • zingzing

    vertroue, (and i copied and pasted that just to get it right,) i get the idea of criminals not knowing who is and isn’t packing. kind of like israel not saying whether or not they have the bomb. i just wonder if the idea (and that’s all it is) of personal safety is worth the reality of gun-related death in america.

  • Derek

    what does school ager mean???? A level when your 16 in this country

  • zingzing

    man, i am doing an english test right now! that english test pussy is so fine.

    you have a “sence of humer?” i guess i don’t have one of those. is it because i’m american? truthfully, i’ve never heard of a “sence of humer.” is it a perfume? the best part of a vegetable? please inform me.

  • Derek

    listen i dont need a english lesson from a amateur i am not doing a english test so i can write it how i like you dont get my sence of humer because you are from america you dont have one.

  • vertroue

    “i have a A level in english “

    School-ager?

  • Paul2

    I didn’t claim that a nationwide gun ban would mean that there would be no more weapons, but significantly less weapons and that means less homicides overall. Of course there are also other reasons for violent crimes, but gun proliferation is obviously a very big cause of homicides.

    Your chance of getting shot in the US is 60 times as high as in the UK. And with less guns, this figure would decrease significantly. And that means more safety for all.

  • vertroue

    vertouse. i’m sorry i insulted your sex life. …it’s very hard not to be obnoxious sometimes, and i am obviously feeling that way today.

    No problemo… and its actually vertroue. 🙂

    anyway. do you really think that more than 1 in 10 adults who are outside of their homes right now are carrying guns? even the ones that work? last time i checked, most offices don’t really like it when you bring your gun to work. also, “guesstimating” is exactly what the “+/-” after “90%” would imply, yeah?

    The underlying idea is deterrent based on the thought that someone could be. Your right, alot of workplaces dont want firearms on the premises. Businesses also. But the penalties for carrying into a private place (non fed or school related) vary from state to state. In Minnesota for instance, You have to post a sign AND tell someone that you dont want firearms in your establishment. If someone persists, the cops get called and if you still wont leave its a $25 dollar fine. $25 bucks is a small price to pay for being safe. But I digress…..I have yet to see support that gun deaths are going down in no gun zones or that they are increasing in gun…ummm….happy zones? 🙂 Gun okeedokee zones? If the bad guys feel the need to leave me alone because they think I’m carrying, or if I am carrrying and happen to be part of the 1.5 million instances EACH YEAR where its used in self defense, I’d say its worth it. There may be more or less than 1 in 10 folks armed, and I’ll go out on a limb and say that there may be a significant difference between rural and urban areas, but again….. its the thought that counts.

  • zingzing

    also, i am not my country. if my country were talking to you, my country would have developed either a mouth or at least one finger, which would look grotesque on a country this size.

  • zingzing

    sense.

    an A level.

    end questions with question marks.

    “the american dream i think” is a totally random phrase in this context.

    you walked onto elm street? are you having a nightmare right now? are you asleep? that would explain some things.

    what truth are you talking about?

  • Derek

    I dont care what you have to say you lot dont make any sence at all i have a A level in english who is going to listen to your country when your leader is bush i think saddam was a better leader the american dream i think i have walked onto elm street truth is a wonderful thing.

  • zingzing

    vertouse. i’m sorry i insulted your sex life. …it’s very hard not to be obnoxious sometimes, and i am obviously feeling that way today.

    anyway. do you really think that more than 1 in 10 adults who are outside of their homes right now are carrying guns? even the ones that work? last time i checked, most offices don’t really like it when you bring your gun to work. also, “guesstimating” is exactly what the “+/-” after “90%” would imply, yeah?

  • vertroue

    in reference to comments 239 and 356…if you consider a country such as England…they may have less gun violence there, but if you look up numbers regarding stabbings…im sure that their figures would be comparable to ours


    Steve, while the physical number of bodies varies, the fact remains… violent crime is up in Britain.

    “There were 20 assaults per 1,000 households in England and Wales but only 8.8 in the U.S.”(London Sunday Times, Jan. 11, 1998)

  • zingzing

    derek, i am going to correct your english.

    “lisen both of you to its not my second language french is you americans think you no it all its you lot who is trying to ruin (our) language”

    this “sentence” should be:

    lis[t]en[comma] both of you t[w]o[comma] it[‘]s not my second language[comma] french is[period] you americans think you [k]no[w] it all[period] it[‘]s you lot who [are] trying to ruin (our) language[period]

    so that’s thirteen grammatical or spelling errors in just 30 or so words. but at least i figured out what you were saying this time. improvement!

  • vertroue

    zingzing: derek!

    what the f*** is wrong with you?

    do you talk like that? write how you talk. it’s simple: “hi, my name is derek. i can’t write down a coherant thought.”

    Derek: and zingzing i have a iq of 139 and 8 a levels so i no what i im talking about

    Well, there goes another myth destroyed. Just because you are from the UK it doesn’t mean your mastery of the english language is genetic. Now I’ll have to watch that Family Guy episode again…

    a happy medium between guns and sex? which would you rather have? um… it’s not really a question, is it?

    (Grandpa Simpson voice)”I had sex once!!!” (/Grandpa Simpson voice)

    It was an attempt to lighten the mood with humor…although it has been awhile….

    really? so everyone, including the 90% (+/-) of the population who DON’T carry weapons… is carrying a weapon? hmm. i don’t understand what you are saying here. and are we to be scared of those carrying weapons? should i be frightened of you? wait, don’t answer that. i AM frightened of you. not enough to want to shoot you. don’t worry about that. not gonna shoot you. go have some sex with something. is that what you mean by cleaning mausers?

    Very…..intelligent.

    If you live in one of the four states that does not allow concealed carry your chances of finding someone carrying legally are slim to none. If you dont, your chances greatly increase. Those are the types of chances I like. I WANT someone who wants to do me harm to have a moment of pause to think “is it worth dying for?” Also, your “90%” figure is a bit off. Guesstimating?

    If your hopolophobic and scared of weapons, that’s one thing, but I want any and all felons to have to think twice. I want would-be sexual predators to move on and find something else to do. I want criminals guessing and scared. In this, I wont need to be a victim.

    And if you dont know the name Mauser, you can look it up. Facinating historical information about the Mauser brothers.

  • Derek

    lisen both of you to its not my second language french is you americans think you no it all its you lot who is trying to ruin (our) language

  • steve

    I agree with Zingzing…That sentence makes absolutely no sense…Is English your second language? If it is, I apologize.

  • zingzing

    derek… no you don’t. you “no what i im talking about?”

    i don’t mean to bash you. really, i don’t. i probably agree with you. not really sure. you aren’t getting your point across because your writing is terrible. if english isn’t your first language, please accept my apologies.

  • steve

    in reference to comments 239 and 356…if you consider a country such as England…they may have less gun violence there, but if you look up numbers regarding stabbings…im sure that their figures would be comparable to ours

  • Derek

    and zingzing i have a iq of 139 and 8 a levels so i no what i im talking about

  • zingzing

    derek!

    what the fuck is wrong with you?

    do you talk like that? write how you talk. it’s simple: “hi, my name is derek. i can’t write down a coherant thought.”

  • steve

    There is no reason to ammend the constitution removing the right to bare arms. This whole shooting incident at VA Tech has me wondering how an alien can purchase a gun in such a short time…How could this be? I think that gun ownership should be allowed only by naturalized citizens.

  • Derek

    And a other thing i cant believe you are having debate on should you ban guns how many more lives will it take these mad people are killing your furture the students who make a bright country

  • zingzing

    derek–commas or punctuation. understanding.

  • Derek

    I think everyone needs to face facts the uk has the best record on gun crime it will also help the uk if america changes its gun law the thugs only carry a gun in this country because they are copying the gang culture in america.

  • zingzing

    charles: “Paul, Is it your intention to take guns away from law abiding citizens so the only guns left are in the nads of those who break the law?”

    man, that’s tasty. couldn’t let it pass. “in the nads of those who break the law.” fucking great stuff.

    c. rose: “Clavos, please try and detect alcohol or drugs with x-rays or radar – or stuffing weapons inside one of your body cavities. This may help you notice the difference! ;-)”

    man, i took this big old pistol yesterday. fucking fucked me up. i was all torn up for a couple hours. pooping blood and stuff. i swore i was gonna die. quite a rush though.

    vertouse: “The rest of the world seems to be alot more opinionated about gun control, but alot of european countries are a hell of alot looser on the topic of sex. There must be a happy medium!”

    a happy medium between guns and sex? which would you rather have? um… it’s not really a question, is it? jesus christ… get your priorities straight. i think i’ve found out why people go gun-nuts…

    vertouse, again: “There’s a pretty good chance that unless you live in one of the four states that doesnt allow concealed carry (assuming you live in the US), everyone already is armed…”

    really? so everyone, including the 90% (+/-) of the population who DON’T carry weapons… is carrying a weapon? hmm. i don’t understand what you are saying here. and are we to be scared of those carrying weapons? should i be frightened of you? wait, don’t answer that. i AM frightened of you. not enough to want to shoot you. don’t worry about that. not gonna shoot you. go have some sex with something. is that what you mean by cleaning mausers?

    dave nalle: “As usually happens in these situations some elements of the military – probably at least the national guard and reserves – would go over to the resistence…”

    wow. next time america revolts, we’ll test your theories.

  • Dave, I was comparing people with people. You place a far higher amount of faith in politics than I do. I place a far higher faith in human nature. That’s why you are a self-professed elitist twice over, full of political theory, whilst I try to deal with the full reality of human nature. It’s not all pretty, but it is all we’ve got.

  • I didn’t say it was universal, Christopher, but it’s quite common and a realistic scenario. And you’re wrong about Iraq. Plenty of those fighting the current government and the US are Ba’athists from the old military who have access to caches of arms from before the war. Saddam even set up special military units whose purpose was to fight back if he was ever overthrown.

    Your other examples are also countries which don’t have a federal system of divided powers and don’t have legitimate local militias or national guards which answer primarily to an authority other than the central government.

    Look at revolutions in larger and more developed countries for your comparisons. Comparing Burma or Zimbabwe with the US is ridiculous. Look at the Russian revolution or the Chinese. In both cases elements of the military went over to the rebels.

    Dave

  • There you go with the implausible assumptions, Dave. It didn’t happen that way in Iraq, it hasn’t happened in Burma or Zimbabwe or Saudi Arabia, to name but three, so why would the USA be any different in that regard?

  • Christopher, if there were a situation where the government became oppressive enough to require overthrow by force of arms I think we could assume that it wouldn’t just be people with their small arms resisting it. As usually happens in these situations some elements of the military – probably at least the national guard and reserves – would go over to the resistence, thus evening out the distribution of military-quality hardware.

    Dave

  • Vertroue: So are you suggesting that there is a real risk that the US government is goig to turn against its people?

    Or that the weapons currently available in the USA are sufficient to prevent that happening?

    Both seem equally unlikely to me. But then I’m in Spain, so what do I know?

  • ghostmaker2

    239# these are the real #’s

    By The Associated Press
    Number of deaths from firearms for every 1,000,000 people in the following countries in 2003:
    • Brazil: 213
    • South Africa: 126
    • United States: 41
    • Canada: 5.1
    • England and Wales: 0.3
    • Japan: 0.3
    ___
    Source: The International Action Network on Small Arms using information from various government sources. 2003 was the most recent year that complete data from all countries was available.

  • vertroue

    Guns shoould be banned nationwide. This would be a political decision. It would probably take a while, but it is feasible.

    The reason for the right to keep and bear arms in this country is to stop a government that is supposed to serve the people from trying to rule the people. Ban all guns and no matter where you live, you live at the mercy of those who have the guns when the smoke clears and the dust settles.

    Fewer guns mean that less people will be killed nationwide. As you can see in #216 it works in every other industrialized country. That is the only rational approach to approach the outrageous homicide figures in the US.

    You seem to be missing the fact that even if you exclude all gun deaths in the US, we still kill more people than England, Canada or Japan. In other words, Americans kill each other more often with weapons other than guns — such as with knives, fists and feet.

    Remove guns from the picture and we (not meaning me of course but the overall pop of the US) will still keep killing and we’ll still do it at a rate that the rest of the world cant compete with unless there currently commiting some kind of genocide.

    Not necessarily the best thing in the world to be known for, but like I said earlier, We’ve got both good and bad in our chaos here….

    And on that note, I have a few 100 year old Mausers to clean up from my last trip to the farm….. Have a good day everybody!

  • vertroue

    Having everybody armed didn’t work in the Wild West and it won’t work today.

    Whereabouts (Country, State) do you live? There’s a pretty good chance that unless you live in one of the four states that doesnt allow concealed carry (assuming you live in the US), everyone already is armed…

    Springer style antics optional. 🙂

  • vertroue

    Paul2,

    Those numbers quoted represent density of people in units of # of people per km^2 (kilometers squared) not overall population.

    I’m jealous! I’ve always wanted to visit Southeast Asia. It would appear that I’m going to have to wait until my son gets older before I can think of going…

    the countries have to have a similar political, social and economic situation.

    No ill will intended here to any of our foreign friends, but you may be setting the bar a bit to high on this one. I can find countries with similar political bends, and certainly ones with close economic stats, But where else in the world will you find the similar social strata of the nearly uncontrolled chaos which is the USA? And by this again, I’m not bragging. There’s both good and bad to our social situation. The rest of the world seems to be alot more opinionated about gun control, but alot of european countries are a hell of alot looser on the topic of sex.

    There must be a happy medium. lol

  • Clavos, please try and detect alcohol or drugs with x-rays or radar – or stuffing weapons inside one of your body cavities. This may help you notice the difference! 😉

    I didn’t say anything about weapons being turned in so the rest of your remark doesn’t get us anywhere.

    Got more?

  • Chris,

    I don’t agree with your point here:

    Weapons and psycho-active substances are not similar things, so the comparison doesn’t stand.

    What difference does that make? What I’m talking about, as I’m sure you understand, is the impossibility of successfully prohibiting anything in this country.

    There are 300 million guns already in people’s hands. Do you seriously think that they will all be docilely turned in if they’re outlawed tomorrow? I doubt that any criminals will turn theirs in. More than a few “law abiding” citizens won’t, either.

    For the sake of argument, let’s say they are. If we can’t keep foreign drugs out of this country, how we will keep foreign guns out?

    As we’re prone to say in Mexico, the only way los gringos will stop the flow of drugs is to eliminate the demand. Won’t happen with drugs; not gonna happen with guns.

  • Clavos, sorry mate, but it is simply daft to try and compare banning guns nationwide, not that I would support such an extreme measure, to Prohibition or the ban on illegal drugs. Weapons and psycho-active substances are not similar things, so the comparison doesn’t stand.

    Having everybody armed didn’t work in the Wild West and it won’t work today. If people are going to argue that everybody should or could be armed, I’d hate to see what’s going to happen on the Jerry Springer show or amongst other such lovely people like that… 😉

  • Guns shoould be banned nationwide. This would be a political decision. It would probably take a while, but it is feasible.

    Feasible, huh?

    Like Prohibition?

    Or the ban on illegal drugs?

  • Paul2

    Guns shoould be banned nationwide. This would be a political decision. It would probably take a while, but it is feasible. Fewer guns mean that less people will be killed nationwide. As you can see in #216 it works in every other industrialized country. That is the only rational approach to approach the outrageous homicide figures in the US.

  • Paul, Is it your intention to take guns away from law abiding citizens so the only guns left are in the nads of those who break the law?

  • Paul2

    Vertroue

    about Laos: are you sure the numbers are correct ? I went there 2 years ago and there weren’t that many people around. Aren’t they like only 6 million ?

    seriously – the countries have to have a similar political, social and economic situation. Thats whats the basis of such comparisions.

    Have a nice day.

  • vertroue

    Derek, I’d love to answer that question in person in the UK for you, but I’m to afraid that I’ll be stabbed since your violent crime commited with knives and blades has gone up every year since your latest ban.

    Dave/ Dr. Dreadful

    “The Check” was made and Cho passed simply because once he was unvoluntarily commited, he was cleared as not being a harm to himself or others.

    Now the bad part.

    Even if he HADN’T, If he HAD been judged a threat to himself or others, the records of that commital are only kept locally. The Feds NICS checks federal records and “only states that voluntarily submit mental health records”.

    If a state doesnt submit records, or isnt compelled to, theres no way of telling either way.

    Mental health is a VERY iffy part of the NICS check system.

    Sadly, it all boils down to money. It costs states money to submit records to the feds, and it costs the feds to upkeep and organize that database…..

    Hard to do with no moolah….

  • vertroue

    That is obviously false. You have to compare similar countries, not countries with similar homicide rates.

    I’m sorry you dont agree but your not going to find another country to compare stats to thats “similar” to the US by merely comparing whats on hand. Canada’s population is neither anywhere near the US’s nor is its Pop density.
    (In people per km^2)
    Canada = 3
    US = 31
    And for humor’s sake
    Mali = 10.9
    Laos = 25

    Aside from the fact that the US has more homicides per year than Canada, I think you might actually have more failed homicides in Canada due to the fact that you can’t find the people your looking to gun down. Just kiddin.

    I would be glad to compare cars, unemployment levels, or anything else for that matter between countries that have some underlying constant to use as a basis of comparison.

    Wendy writes a mean bunch of stats, but….like all stats….. Well, stats lie.

    The phones for you, the alumni of the National University of Laos and Sisavangvong University want to discuss resume clean-up…

    Next you’ll tell me that Mexico cant compare because its to backwards like Mali…

  • Derek

    why did he do it? how can anybody get to a stage in they mind to do something like that was he realated to ed gein i only feel sorry four the familys i bet he only did it to get on the news did he study there?

  • Dr. D., it’s now coming out that he’s been institutionalized, so I have no idea how he passed the background check. Stores are pretty diligent about doing the checks, so something went awry.

    Dave

  • Derek

    Why does america not change its law about guns in the uk we only had 69 deaths to your 10000 it is a lot higher i have always wanted to go to new york but i feel i cant because i feel i will get shot and dave are gun laws do work look at the numbers.

  • Servant

    When will people accept that gun control cannot happen? Not that it should or should not, but it cannot happen! Ever! Any attempt at curbing so-called technological “progress” (be it embryonic stem cells or military grade handguns) will always fail, and it is not anyone’s fault, so please stop tossing around this garbage!

  • Dr Dreadful

    So either the gun store didn’t run the background check, or Cho passed it (even though by all accounts the second to last criterion on the list was iffy to say the least). Either way, a long hard look needs to be taken.

  • As I understand it, all Mr Cho in Virginia had to do was show ID and proof of good credit and legal residence, and refrain from giggling long enough to get the guns in his hands and leave the store.

    Well, that shows a basic ignorance of federal gun law if nothing else. He would also have to pass an instant background check carried out through a the FBI’s NCIS database which includes:

    * Convicted felons
    * People convicted of domestic assault or abuse
    * Dishonorably discharged veterans from the military
    * Illegal immigrants
    * People under indictment for felony charges
    * The mentally ill or insane
    * People with outstanding misdemeanor or felony warrants

    All of whom are prohibited from purchasing a firearm.

    Dave

  • Paul2

    “In order for the stats in #216 to be comparative, you need to compare countries with similar homicide rates before you start touting 1’s and zeroes.”

    That is obviously false. You have to compare similar countries, not countries with similar homicide rates. It is also explained in the link “Firearms Regulation: Canada in the International Context-Wendy Cukier”.

    No sane person would compare car ownership in the USA with that of Mali. An no one would compare unemployment levels of university graduates in France with the one in Laos.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Jack Burton wrote: Far too many people post and then desert the field, unwilling (or unable) to answer the arguments against them.

    I’m well aware of the troll tactic of hopping onto a blog, making some outrageous and/or unfounded comment and then disappearing. This is behavior reminiscent of little kids yelling to each other “Your Mommy has a fat bottom! Nyah-nyah-nyah!” and then running away.

    But please don’t assume that because you don’t get a response to one of your comments it necessarily means your opponent can’t or won’t answer. Sometimes an argument just gets “done to death”, as the (somewhat tasteless, in this case) saying goes, and people just give up because no-one is getting anywhere. Or (more likely) it could just mean that they have a job to go to, an errand to run or a sack to hit. (In my case, I had to go to class.) Clearly you care deeply about this subject and kudos to you for having the stamina to argue your position at such length. Just understand that not everyone can keep up!

    I think the particular charge against me was that I didn’t know anything about the conceal and carry laws in this country. Well, let’s see. I’m aware that the gun laws vary widely from state to state, ranging from the don’t-even-think-about-owning-anything-more-lethal-than-a-water-pistol variety to the liberal (in this sense) tote-pretty-much-anything-you-like-and-we’ll-come-and-help-you-polish-it kind of setup. Since I have no plans to acquire a gun, I haven’t needed to familiarize myself with the law in my home state of California. (Which, I strenuously argue, does not disqualify me from expressing an opinion on the subject.)

    As I understand it, all Mr Cho in Virginia had to do was show ID and proof of good credit and legal residence, and refrain from giggling long enough to get the guns in his hands and leave the store.

    I’ll be traveling for the next few days, so don’t be surprised if I don’t respond to any comeback you may care to make to this comment. It doesn’t mean I don’t have an answer to you. I’m sorry that you feel I’m unqualified to pontificate on gun control. As I’ve said previously, I’m not anti-gun per se, I just wouldn’t want to have one in my house or pocket. Perhaps because I’m from a country with no “gun culture”, my gut feeling is that the proliferation of firearms in the hands of non-professional firearms users isn’t that great an idea.

    That said, I’ll be happy to look over the “Gun Facts” download that you referenced in an earlier post, along with a balanced range of additional sources, and perhaps lock horns with you again on the subject sometime.

    Cheers.

  • Maybe old…but never up zing!

  • vertroue

    hunny/funny

    d’oh!

  • vertroue

    And, although it wont help any, I will say the following because I think it was hunny to see…

    Mexican Cops in Tijuana are nuts! Twice we almost got ran over by two different cops on motorcycles who were riding on the sidwalks to avoid traffic.

    Muy macho. 😀 They were neat looking older motorcylces too.

    Ok, back to the show…

  • vertroue

    Sure. How’s this:

    Lookie HERE in case I cant post up a pic

    The United Mexican States or Mexico (Spanish: Estados Unidos Mexicanos or México) has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. It is in many ways similar to the United Kingdom, except with much more severe prison terms for even the smallest gun law violations.

    They dont appear to be stopping people.

  • Carl S

    How about instead we rewrite the first amendment so idiots like you can’t say anything?

  • zingzing

    “In order for the stats in #216 to be comparative, you need to compare countries with similar homicide rates before you start touting 1’s and zeroes.”

    name a country with similar homicide rates. then take a look at that country. do we really want to compare ourselves to that? can we avoid it? how?

  • Dr Dreadful

    Dave #321:

    We went over this yesterday.

  • vertroue

    what is it in the statistics in #216 that you aren’t seeing?

    He’s not seeing the whole picture as noted in #301. Removal of the tool will simply change the methods. It wont slow a person with murderous intent.

    In order for the stats in #216 to be comparative, you need to compare countries with similar homicide rates before you start touting 1’s and zeroes.

  • zingzing

    please do that someday.

    and thank you for noting my perfection. i must say that you are correct.

  • Sorry I’m not the grammatical wizard you are there zing…I have dyslexic figners…what can I say!

    Must be nice to be like you and never make mistakes…maybe when I grow up!

  • zingzing

    oh, we knew what you meant. that said, go back and plug some of your comments into a spell checker. it’s like hooked-on-phonics some of the time.

  • Damn…I didn’t even see that until just now…but it’s not a spelling problem…it’s more like a grammar usage problem…I spelled right right…I just used it wrong! But you knew what I meant!

  • zingzing

    arch: “You seem liek a fairly intelligeint guy paul so I am perplexed as to why you would believe the idioitic assertion that if we tighten gun control laws there will be less gun violence in this nation.
    There is absolutely no evidence to support this. In fact there is an overwelming amount of evidence to support the opposing view.”

    what is it in the statistics in #216 that you aren’t seeing? where is the overwhelming evidence supporting the opposite view? i just don’t see any evidence that suggests that more guns in america leads to less bullets in americans.

  • zingzing

    andy: “Sorry…should I have called it something else?”

    andy. you have a serious spelling problem. it’s hilarious.

  • In my research for the article I recently posted on this same subject, I discovered that two of the worst mass shootings of the last 20 years have been in the UK where they have very strict gun control. What does that tell us about how well it works?

    Dave

  • Not sure of the page number…not on the front cover…but maybe a page or two in…left the paper in the hotel. Sorry…can’t be to hard to find…it is USA today after all!

    Sorry…should I have called it something else?

  • Arch Conservative

    “Evem Thomas Hobbes acknowledged that the fundamental purpose of government – the only purpose on which everyone should agree – is to protect the lives of its citizens.”

    Paul…you would rather rely on the governemtn to protect you than yourself?

    You seem liek a fairly intelligeint guy paul so I am perplexed as to why you would believe the idioitic assertion that if we tighten gun control laws there will be less gun violence in this nation.

    There is absolutely no evidence to support this. In fact there is an overwelming amount of evidence to support the opposing view.

    I can only conclude that you must be a left wing reactionary. the type that will bitch about anything the current administration does in an effort ot fight terrorism as an “infringement upon our rights,” and then in the same breath call for the repeal of the 2nd amendment because you’re leftists sensibilities tell you “guns are bad, no one should have the right to have them.”

  • MCH

    “Actually Clavos, there was a pretty decent right up about the professor in todays USA Today.”
    – Andy Marsh

    Hey Andy, what page was that “right up” on?

  • Clavos

    I’m glad to hear that, Andy.

    I hadn’t seen that account; I usually don’t see USA Today unless, like you, I’m on the road.

  • Actually Clavos, there was a pretty decent right up about the professor in todays USA Today.

    Hey what can I say…they throw it in front of my hotel room door every morning!

  • Clavos

    The action by Professor Librescu was indeed one of great heroism and personal sacrifice.

    It bothers me that it is given very little exposure in the US MSM; it’s an ideal opportunity to present a very inspirational lesson to the students at VT, and to the nation at large.

    May Professor Librescu rest in peace.

  • Hey Paul, how come you’re not a member of the International Communication Association?

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Chris,

    If my own political views bother you, that is your problem, not mine.

    I don’t really have a dog in this race. I could give a tinkers damn if the Americans ban all guns tomorrow or pass visible carrying laws. America is just a far off country to me with a terrible history of violence, of even genocidal violence. it is my past, not my future. But I did live there for 50 years and do know whereof I speak.

    Anyone could have posted that column from the New York Post (a paper I read daily for years). I happened to get the article in my e-mail box and could not resist the relevance to this article…

    My concern is more for the family of the brave professor who threw himself in the doorway to protect his students, Professor Liviu Librescu, z”l, a citizen of this country, who died in the shooting two days ago. According to eyewitness accounts, Librescu ran to the door of his classroom and blocked it with his body – preventing the gunman from entering but getting shot to death himself as a result. Read the full account at
    Arutz Sheva
    .

    May G-d comfort all the mourners in Israel.

  • I’d be inclined to take the words or folk like Jack Burton and Ruvy in Jerusalem if they weren’t so gun (sic) ho all the time.

    Well, Chris, I have a take it or leave it attitude towards guns. If you don’t want to buy a gun, don’t buy one. If you don’t want to have a gun, don’t have one. It’s a matter of choice.

    However, both the Good Prof and some others here on the board take the exact opposite view. If they don’t like a certain gun (which is most of all of the ever made) not only do they not want to buy or own it but they don’t want anyone else in the world to also buy or own one. They offer society no choice.

    Which of the two sides is more “gung ho”?

    JB is either from or simply linking to pro-gun sites

    I don’t need to be from a “site” to defend my freedoms from those who would take them away. It is the natural duty of all Americans.

    And would you expect a person defending internal combustions automobiles to link to Al Gore’s site for persuasive information [snicker]?

  • I’d be inclined to take the words of folk like Jack Burton and Ruvy in Jerusalem if they weren’t so gun (sic) ho all the time.

    JB is either from or simply linking to pro-gun sites and Ruvy is simply carrying murderous hatred and a weapon in his heart.

    Both seem like fruit of the poisoned tree to me.

  • Paul… I must give you kudos for being willing to stay on and defend your piece and your beliefs. Far too many people post and then desert the field, unwilling (or unable) to answer the arguments against them.

    However, I do wish you would answer some of the specific “Paul” questions I raised in 255. If you are going to do so later in the day then forgive me for jumping the gun (no pun intended, I assure you).

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    These comments from THE MISSING GUN, by By John Lott, Jr. at the New York Post about an attack on a law school five years ago seem most apt here.

    From the article:

    Mikael and Tracy did something quite different: Both immediately ran to
    their cars and got their guns. Mikael had to run about 100 yards to get
    to his car. Along with Ted Besen (who was unarmed), they approached
    Peter from different sides.

    As Tracy explained it, “I aimed my gun at him, and Peter tossed his gun
    down. Ted approached Peter, and Peter hit Ted in the jaw. Ted pushed
    him back and we all jumped on.”

    What is so remarkable is that out of 280 separate news stories (from a
    computerized Nexis-Lexis search) in the week after the event, just four
    stories mentioned that the students who stopped the attack had guns.

    Only two local newspapers (the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the Charlotte
    Observer) mentioned that the students actually pointed their guns at the
    attacker.

    “Gun free zones” leave the law abiding people within them unarmed and unable to defend themselves from law breakers, who do not give a damn about whether a given area is a gun free zone or not. But the American news media does not want its citizens to know this. They want complacent cud chewing cows who will obey like sheeple, and empty their wallets on demand.

    A sick culture for a sick country headed for a terrible fall…

  • only ever seems to be able to find information on pro-gun websites. He just wants to argue, methinks, and shout down anyone who doesn’t believe what he believes…

    No… I just want to point out the flaws in the logic of people like Prof. Paul and his ilk before he goes a step too far.

  • No, not “didn’t like the book” – try, didn’t allow the book to sold, threatened booksellers with arrrest …

    ya know … that sort of thing …

    That doesn’t equate to “government censorship” for you “except in most twisted mind”? …

    Again… which of these books can you not find on Borders bookshelves? Amazon? The local bookstore?

    Seen anyone arrested lately for selling any of them? Heard about it?

    Back in the 1830’s or so it used to be illegal to have a beard. In my town it used to be illegal to drive a car without someone walking ahead of you with a light.

    These two laws combined makes America a very bad place to grow up today, eh?

  • Really? His posts here read like a paragon of reason to me.

    He’s for banning guns because of what he “felt” after supposedly seeing children shot. What part of “emotional decisionmaking” don’t you understand?

  • Here are two books that were banned for decades in the 20th century, just to get you started: Lady Chatterly’s Lover, The Tropic of Cancer…

    Can you walk into a bookstore now and buy either book? Have you been able to for decades?

    No one has ever said that the U.S. is a perfect country but to take two books amoung the millions that were printed and available to everyone and use this to defend ST’s claim that America is a place that practicies “censorship” is a reason that I thought your professorship was presumed.

    We make mistakes but we’re also a self-correcting society. You focus on the mistakes to the exclusion of everything else.

  • And Vertruoe, keep in mind that the largest mass murders in the US were committed with weapons other than firearms. A firearm just isn’t as efficient for killing a lot of people as a plane, a few buckets of gas or a homemade bomb.

    Dave

  • STM – how do you feel when you hear our pols spew that we are in this fight alone…just curious…

    …I can at least understand an aussie…now that irishman I met! Not really sure what kinda english he was speaking….reminded me of an old Robin Williams thing i heard…

  • STM

    There is no easy answer to this Vertroue … that is the tragedy of it all in reality. What to do?

    Who knows? Not me, ultimately. I can offer my thoughts here on ways that might keep certain types of weapons away from people like that, or at least make them harder to get, but in the end it’s a tough one.

    The proliferation of guns in US society certainly has a role to play in all of this, but obviously it’s not the only issue. Perhaps it’s the casual acceptance of violence inherent in some sections of American society that plays as much of a role as the proliferation of firearms.

    So a combination of the two: the same effect as pouring petrol on a fire.

    Sad for all those who lost their lives yesterday, though ….

  • vertroue

    Hey, I can put the censorship thing to rest right here I think….

    STM, when we discussed it earlier (damn the thread is gettin long) I was referring to the current level of freedoms from censorship in the US. I know there has been censoship in the past, to deny that would be like trying to deny any *ahem* forced labor issues this country had 200 years or so ago… 😉

    After careful consideration of posts like #216 and the related information from the referenced reports, I offer the field this opinion:

    United States’ NON-GUN murder rate is higher than the TOTAL murder rates in England, Canada or Japan. Erik Eckholm, “A Basic Issue: Whose Hands Should Guns Be Kept Out of?” The New York Times, 3 April 1992; and Kates, Guns, Murders, and the Constitution, at 42. In other words, Americans kill each other more often with weapons other than guns — such as with knives, fists and feet.

    If one were to “magically” make every gun disappear in the U.S., the hard fact is that Americans would still kill each other-without guns-more often than the citizens of England, Canada or Japan kill each other will ALL types of weapons.

    The problem is not the type of weapons used, but rather, the failure in America to keep violent criminals off the street. Or perhaps, keeping some sort of societal funding to educate those who feel that violence and crime are there only alternative?

    I doubt it would help those who are simply psychotic or predispositioned to violence….but hey, its just a thought that I throw out there.

    Personally, if there were a “magic bullet” (sorry, couldnt resist that one) that could make all firearms disappear, I’d be very afraid of what folks would come up with to fill the void. As humans, were all so deathly clever in that regard.

  • STM

    My mate Richie from LA says he loves Texas and thinks it’s a great place … adding that the only problem is that it’s full of Texans.

  • Clavos

    Texans, my friend, are a species unto themselves.

    I lived in Texas for a little more than five years, back in the nineties; that was the first lesson I learned upon moving there.

  • STM

    “By definition, those in the Anglosphere speak English, mate. You Aussies talk too funny to be considered part of the Anglosphere…”

    Lol. True, I don’t suppose double-dutch really qualifies. Does that mean Texans are banned too??

  • Clavos

    Whoa, hold on there, mate:

    being as we are part of the so-called “anglosphere’

    By definition, those in the Anglosphere speak English, mate. You Aussies talk too funny to be considered part of the Anglosphere…

  • STM

    Andy wrote: “and you shouldn’t ever talk about trying to take something away from ME that is really none of your business…why can’t you understand that”.

    Because it’d be a boring old world Andy if no one raised a few alternate viewpoints – which is really what they are. Also, like I say, I live in a free country too and the US figures very strongly in our consciousness, being as we are part of the so-called “anglosphere’, so my views and feelings on it are very relevent. Criticism of America is this form also doesn’t amount to dislike of America. It’s just a valid point of view (as valid as yours).

    I wonder how you’d feel if people like me in this country, next time someone like George Bush asked (as he did), “We’ve just been attacked by terrorists … are you with us?” … and we all said no, sorry, bugger ’em, it’s America’s problem, and nothing to do with us? None of our business, tell the bastards to piss off …

    Just bear that stuff in mind and contemplate those kinds of issues next time you are making those kinds of criticisms.

  • that was funny…I don’t care who you are!

  • Clavos

    you know what…the censorship thing is another thread…keep it there…this is the thread about the blatant disregard for our second amendment rights as citizens of the United States of America…let’s keep the story straight!

    As a citizen of the United States of America, I can say what I want, where I want, when I want.

    On this site, only the owners and Chris Rose can stop me.

  • STM – I don’t carry one either…I really think the world is a better place because I don’t carry one most of the time…

    But I understand the rights that my country is founded on and this is one I very strongly agree with…and I think it’s like messing with religion…

    I read much earlier in this thread…about understanding freedom….we were raised…I take that back…I was raised to understand where the freedom I have came from and what it means to keep it…

    …and I’ve earned it…and you shouldn’t ever talk about trying to take something away from ME that is really none of your business…why can’t you understand that?

  • I never saw an apology…not that one was necessary…I never said we were better..I said we took the high road…sort of like someone living at home under mum’s roof so to speak…or going it alone…we went it alone…i don’t begrudge your country for staying put…but like I said…sorry mate…I am the ugly american…

    and I’m not shouting…not tonight.

  • STM

    No, I’m not that spry anymore. I’m probably about the same age as Jack, I suspect.

    I think I was lucky that night Andy, to tell you the truth. I should have seen them coming from a mile off, but I just kept walking towards them … and then of course, they stepped out and collared me. I must say, I was pretty frightened when I saw the knife blade held up against my ribs. It really is scary, because anything can happen – and they were pretty desperate characters.

    I still don’t want to carry a gun a round town though …

  • you know what…the censorship thing is another thread…keep it there…this is the thread about the blatant disregard for our second amendment rights as citizens of the United States of America…let’s keep the story straight!

  • STM

    Andy wrote: “Stay home Aussie…I love your country but you got your own issues…and we got ours…this is ours…stay the fuck out of it! We pretty much came from the same kinda circumstances…your country and mine…and we took the high road…you’re still under the queen if I’m not not mistaken…sorry ole’ bean…but like I said…you don’t get a say!”

    Lol! Another piece of highly reasoned thought, based on the third-grade history-class notion that America is best at everything. I take back the apology. Everything I said yesterday still applies.

    You are, truly, a prize (what I said before):)

    And Andy, stop bloody shouting.

  • and in 7 months they might come looking for you…revenge kinda thing…but you’re a badass…you whipped there ass before…you’ll do it again…

    I get the impression that Jack…ain’t as spry…pardon the pun…as you!

    and personally, if I put two scumbags away like you describe I’d want justa little more backing than my pocket knife…but that’s just me…you guys do after all drink your beer out of oil cans…you must be badass’!

  • STM

    Clav wrote: “Most of the remaining books weren’t even published yet when I was in college, but they’ve been widely available everywhere since they were first published.”

    Clav, the ban on Ulysses was well known (despite being hailed elsewhere as ground-breaking work, from 1918 to 1933, and subject to seizure by the US postal service), as was the Harper Lee book in some states. These are books that have been banned at some time or another. I am trying to prove a point: that censorship exists, and has existed, in the US, just like anywhere else.

    Some of those books were banned here too, at some stage, but are available now – just like in the US. Like I say, I am just trying to answer Jack Burton, before there’s any more big trouble in little Indiana.

  • STM

    Yeah, thanks for your support Paul… Jack’s one of those guys who, despite being able to reach coolly and calmly for his gun, possibly whilst spitting on the ground and staring down the two crims with those flinty eyes, only ever seems to be able to find information on pro-gun websites. He just wants to argue, methinks, and shout down anyone who doesn’t believe what he believes…

    He’s got a point though, with the potential hold up stuff. Last time I got held up in the inner-city – at knifepoint – all I could do was smack the two blokes in the head a few times after taking their knife. How I would have loved to have been able to scare them by simply putting my hand in my jacket, and of course, it would have saved a few bucks on the dry cleaning bill as well and saved both a trip to the police cells 🙂

    One a serious note: the law can sometimes be an ass – they had records as long as your arm, and the one with the knife only got 7 months after pleading guilty. The judge said he wanted it on record that the blade was only three inches! What’s that supposed to mean? What… that’s not a knife, this is a knife… Isn’t that size blade enough to kill ya? And his defence lawyer kept looking over at me and giving me the evil eye – and I was the poor bastard who was held up. There you go…

  • Mark Townsend

    Paul Levinson wrote;“Mark T wrote: with regard to the 2000 election, the popular vote does NOT determine the election results. The electoral college does. If you don’t like that then change the constitution.
    So many people believe the U.S. is a democracy.
    It’s not.
    It’s a representative republic.

    Yes, it is. And if you read my comment, you’ll see that I was talking about The Supreme Court stopping the recount in Florida – or interfering with the Electoral College process.”

    Are you saying SCOTUS shouldn’t have stopped the florida court from re-writing the law right in the middle of the election? If so, then you don’t do that, any more than you change the laws of a baseball game right in the middle because your team is losing points.
    That’s what was happening in Florida. And when that sort of thing happens, it’s a GOOD thing to interfere with it!!

  • Clavos

    Um, Stan,

    I’ll just do the books Jack, as any full censorship list would be really long. These are at various stages, but many are still banned.

    I don’t know who “Adlerbooks” is, or where they get their information on censorship, but I will tell you this:

    I was an English Literature major in college, with a minor in writing, and more than half of that list (including, especially, Ulysses) was required reading in my lit classes.

    Most of the remaining books weren’t even published yet when I was in college, but they’ve been widely available everywhere since they were first published.

    Don’t believe it? Check Amazon.

  • thank you Clavos…

  • How about something relevant… maybe close to 7 and a half years into the 21st century?

  • again…the argument I heard early…this ain’t the 2oth century!

  • I had to read Catcher in the rye in HS! Where do you get your info???

  • Those books ain’t sensored…nice try…

    and Dave…I asked…where’s the due dillegence?

    I can buy any one of those books on amazon.com…or any other place…probably get more than half off the shelf at Borders…nice try!

    Stay home Aussie…I love your country but you got your own issues…and we got ours…this is ours…stay the fuck out of it! We pretty much came from the same kinda circumstances…your country and mine…and we took the high road…you’re still under the queen if I’m not not mistaken…sorry ole’ bean…but like I said…you don’t get a say!

  • many are still banned

    That’s nonsense. I can walk down to the public library and almost all these books are on the shelves. The local Boarders bookstore has any of them you want and I’d bet that if you look on Amazon each one is available.

    Some “banned.”

    Just because some one, some where, at some time, didn’t like a book that in no way equates to “goverment censorship” except in the most twisted mind.

  • STM

    Jack wrote: “Then you should not have any troubles naming several dozen to back up your claims. We’re waiting …”

    I’ll just do the books Jack, as any full censorship list would be really long. These are at various stages, but many are still banned. From Adlerbooks, and as they point out, the list is nowhere near comprehensive: Most have either been subject to US Government, or State Government bans (some in curricula). The most obvious one not on this list James Joyce’s Ulysses, which at one time was banned mainly for its sexual content.

    A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
    A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L’Engle
    Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden
    As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
    Blubber by Judy Blume
    Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
    Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson
    Canterbury Tales by Chaucer
    Carrie by Stephen King
    Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
    Christine by Stephen King
    Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
    Cujo by Stephen King
    Curses, Hexes, and Spells by Daniel Cohen
    Daddy’s Roommate by Michael Willhoite
    Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Peck
    Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
    Decameron by Boccaccio
    East of Eden by John Steinbeck
    Fallen Angels by Walter Myers
    Fanny Hill (Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure) by John Cleland
    Flowers For Algernon by Daniel Keyes
    Forever by Judy Blume
    Grendel by John Champlin Gardner
    Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam
    Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone by J.K. Rowling
    Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K. Rowling
    Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling
    Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling
    Have to Go by Robert Munsch
    Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
    How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
    Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
    I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
    Impressions edited by Jack Booth
    In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
    It’s Okay if You Don’t Love Me by Norma Klein
    James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
    Lady Chatterley’s Lover by D.H. Lawrence
    Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman
    Little Red Riding Hood by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm
    Lord of the Flies by William Golding
    Love is One of the Choices by Norma Klein
    Lysistrata by Aristophanes
    More Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
    My Brother Sam Is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
    My House by Nikki Giovanni
    My Friend Flicka by Mary O’Hara
    Night Chills by Dean Koontz
    Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
    On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer
    One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
    One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest by Ken Kesey
    One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
    Ordinary People by Judith Guest
    Our Bodies, Ourselves by Boston Women’s Health Collective
    Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy
    Revolting Rhymes by Roald Dahl
    Scary Stories 3: More Tales to Chill Your Bones by Alvin Schwartz
    Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
    Separate Peace by John Knowles
    Silas Marner by George Eliot
    Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
    Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs
    The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
    The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
    The Bastard by John Jakes
    The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
    The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
    The Color Purple by Alice Walker
    The Devil’s Alternative by Frederick Forsyth
    The Figure in the Shadows by John Bellairs
    The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
    The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson
    The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood
    The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Snyder
    The Learning Tree by Gordon Parks
    The Living Bible by William C. Bower
    The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare
    The New Teenage Body Book by Kathy McCoy and Charles Wibbelsman
    The Pigman by Paul Zindel
    The Seduction of Peter S. by Lawrence Sanders
    The Shining by Stephen King
    The Witches by Roald Dahl
    The Witches of Worm by Zilpha Snyder
    Then Again, Maybe I Won’t by Judy Blume
    To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
    Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare
    Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary by the Merriam-Webster Editorial Staff
    Witches, Pumpkins, and Grinning Ghosts: The Story of the Halloween Symbols by Edna Barth

  • Andy, you mention the violent plays. You must have missed the stalking complaints from his former girlfriend and his previous attempt to burn down his dorm.

    The problem here isn’t the guns, it’s the failure of the school administration to exercise appropriate caution in dealing with someone who was clearly dangerous.

    Dave

  • STM

    Jack wrote: “Actually, yes. ST suggests it quite often in his posts. Because he’s emotionally driven and his emotions override any logic that might rattle around in his head.”

    Morning’ Jack 🙂 No old chap, I don’t want to take your rights away from you. I’m not a US citizen, so I can’t. I’m just exercising my democractic right to present an alternative viewpoint. I’m smart enough to realise that the 2nd amendment will never be overturned. And as you know, my views on guns stem simply from a knowledge of them and what they can do. I am not a rabid liberal in the American sense, however. If I lived in the bush here like I used to I would have a gun.

    Morning to you too Andy … sorry for calling you names yesterday BTW. I just arc up because I hate it when Americans feel the need to tell me how they are protecting me. Nevertheless, I’m sure you are a good bloke, and so I’m sorry for giving you a prize gobful.

  • Servant

    Concerning #168 (thereby ignoring all the other strawman arguements and arguements from emotion)

    Paul, the Japanese bans did not work. The commoners simply a differently developed way to kill people. Karate, kobudo (style using staff, nunchucku, sai, kama, and tonfa, among others), and varients on kung fu were all developed during this period. People did still kill people, they just did it with awesome action-movie style violence.

    Any other examples?

  • steve_naive

    “Each chapter lists common gun control myths, then lists a number of documented and cited facts that directly dispute the gun control claim. Thus when a neighbor, editor, or politician repeats some slogan propagated by gun control advocacy groups, you can quickly find that myth, then rebuke.”

    This would be facts such as:

    Fact: “All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn’t happen… I think it’s worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I’m a convert.”

    And…

    Fact: The average citizen doesn’t need a Sport Utility Vehicle, but driving one is arguably safer than other vehicles. Similarly, carrying a concealable gun makes the owner (and his/her community) safer as well, providing protection not otherwise available.

    And…

    Fact: “I… [felt] that such legislation present[ed] a clear and present danger to law-abiding citizens by placing more handguns on our streets. Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County, and indeed statewide, has proven my fears absolutely groundless”.22
    Fact: Explain this to the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Second Amendment Police Department, and Law Enforcement for the Preservation of the Second Amendment, all of whom support shall-issue concealed carry laws.

    There are many more. I’m not suggesting that there aren’t many facts to back up both sides, but to loftily offer up this publication as the definitive, and by implication impartial, oracle on the debate is, as always, only half the story…

  • just about the same as bashing everyone who disagrees with you as “ignorant.”

    Zing, old chap, if you’re referring to me I’d welcome you to post any reference that where I told someone they were “ignorant” where they really were not “ignorant.” (The traditional meaning, not knowing the first thing about the subject that they were posting info on.)

    Your adoring public is waiting for your response.

  • jack would not be twitching. he would be standing tall and mighty. with his dick (gun, i mean gun,) in his hand.

    I have been shooting over 30 years with thousands of friends and fellow firearm enthusisasts. Hundreds of ranges and backyard plinking with groups of two and of two hundred.

    And I have never, ever, once, heard one of the shooters reference male genetalia.

    But on a topic with visiting anti-gun folk it only takes a matter of a few posts before at least one of them bring up the subject.

    It helps those who set on the fence know that there’s something fundalmentally “icky” about those who would take their freedoms away from them.

    Thanks

  • Clavos

    You’re welcome, zing. As one of those “fuckers”, I wanted to be sure you remembered we’re everywhere…

  • zingzing

    go back and read what was written clavos. 260 refers to something else, which refers to something else. i’m not saying that it’s jack burton and andy marsh vs the world. but thanks for pointing out the nra. bunch of fuckers.

  • Clavos

    Oh, and literally MILLIONS of dues paying NRA members.

  • Clavos

    @#260:

    And Nalle, and Clavos, and vertroue, and GunShowOnTheNet, etc., etc…

  • A legitimate assessment of the issue does require statistical data, as most issues do.

    Thank you for giving me the opportunity to point out the free GunFacts download.

    Gun Facts is a free e-book that debunks common myths about gun control. It is intended as a reference guide for journalist, activists, politicians, and other people interested in restoring honesty to the debate about guns, crime, and the 2nd Amendment.

    Gun Facts has 84 pages of information. Divided into chapters based on gun control topics (assault weapons, ballistic finger printing, firearm availability, etc.), finding information is quick and easy.

    Each chapter lists common gun control myths, then lists a number of documented and cited facts that directly dispute the gun control claim. Thus when a neighbor, editor, or politician repeats some slogan propagated by gun control advocacy groups, you can quickly find that myth, then rebuke.

    GunFacts 4.1

    You said that “not many people are getting killed here.”
    That IS wrong.

    You’re going to have to help me out here ’cause I have no idea whatsoever about what you are posting. If this is something I posted then please give me the post number. I may be having a senior moment but I have no clue.

  • zingzing

    jb: “I think there’s more but you’re just ignoring them…”

    yes, you have andy marsh on your side. very reasonable man, andy “you’ll never take my guns away from me… [Edited]” marsh.

    and “ignoring” is just about the same as bashing everyone who disagrees with you as “ignorant.”

  • zingzing

    jb: “nebulous… statistics… did you read #216?

    I read it… but did you relate it in any way to my post. No. Just because you think you see something there doesn’t mean anyone else sees it besides you.”

    i didn’t do anything. i think it was paul. i just pointed out that statistics aren’t nebulous. especially statistics that show that our gun-related death tolls are out of control.

  • because you’re just about the only one left

    I think there’s more but you’re just ignoring them…

  • Paul Levinson is right… He says we need better laws…

    …maybe a law that says krazy fucking Koreans can’t go to tech schools as english majors in the U.S.!

    From ABC news web site… “He also wrote at least two violent plays for an English course that worried his professor and several classmates.”

    Where’s the fucking due diligence on a college campus???

    More from the abc news website… “Lucinda Roy, a co-director of the creative writing program at Virginia Tech, taught Cho in a poetry class in fall of 2005 and later worked with him one-on-one after she became concerned about his behavior and themes in his writings.”

    Why was this crazy mother fucker even in this country?

    And it get’s worse!!!!! More from abcnews.com!

    “…She said she notified authorities about Cho, but said she was told that there would be too many legal hurdles to intervene. She said she asked him to go to counseling, but he never did.”

    So now… reading the last line from abc… we can blame bush for all this… I mean… the authorities were contacted… so… well… you do the math!

    But seriously… authorities knew this guy was looney tunes… but hey… you know the leanings on this country’s college campuses as well as I do… pretend it doesn’t work that way… but if they tried to send this shithead home… some people would be screaming about his “rights”… the one’s you shouldn’t necessarily just get because you’re in this country.

    And I’ll tell you this you crazy fucking gun control advocates… You’ll never take my gun rights away from me based on a case of a foreignor coming into my my country and shooting the place up! [Edited]

    And have a nice day too!

  • nebulous… statistics… did you read #216?

    I read it… but did you relate it in any way to my post. No. Just because you think you see something there doesn’t mean anyone else sees it besides you.

  • Same answer as about cars, swimming pools, and pillows: rockets to the Moon and beyond – any things that lift us off this planet – have enormously beneficial consequences.

    What are the equivalent benefits of firearms?

    Let’s ask the Jews my dad help rescue from Auscwitz. Or the slaves my Great-Great Grandad help free during the Civil War.

    Or… I can just tell you my personal story.

    As you may be aware, Indiana is one of the almost 40 states where citizens can exercise their right to bear arms on a daily basis. I am one of the 350,000 Hoosiers who chose to do so.

    A little while back, my work took me into Gary, which has been the murder capitol of the U.S. for several of the past ten years.

    I parked my van in the church parking lot where my business was, and having locked the door behind me, went to meet the pastor. After the meeting I headed back to the van.

    When I was about 100 feet from the van, I noticed two young, urban youths coming down the other side of the street. They saw me at the same time. They immediately wheeled in my direction and, after diagonally crossing the street, started walking towards me. Any instructor of self-defense techniques will tell you that is a clear and present danger signal.

    I managed to make it back to the van, while listening to them the whole time trash-talking about how they were the baddest ones in the ‘hood and they didn’t take no crap from no one. They were catching up to me pretty fast.

    The driver door was on the other side of the van, away from the street, and I understood that I would have to have my back turned to them as I was trying to unlock the door. Not only would any action they took be blocked from any passerby, but it put me in a highly vulnerable position.

    Now, it’s easy to say that I should not have put myself in that position in the first place by going to Gary, but that only holds true if one is willing to redline the entire city.

    I must admit, I was quite concerned for my safety. I’m past middle-aged, slow, fat, and with a bum leg. Facing down two urban youths was not what I wanted to do when I woke up that morning, ready to greet the day. However, that was exactly what I had to do, because no more than a second or two after I reached the driver’s door the two came around the back side of my van and began approaching me.

    Because I have a mature understanding about guns I am able to finish the story. As I rounded the back of the van myself, I put my hand into my front pocket and wrapped it around my legally carried handgun. When I reached the locked driver’s door, I turned and put my back to the door, and faced outward, keeping my hand in the pocket. I had the confidence that if needed, I was going to be able to defend myself, and quite possibly, my life.

    This must have showed on my face. The youths came around the back of the van and saw me calmly standing there waiting for them. I didn’t say anything, and I didn’t pull the gun – but my attitude certainly said they needed to reconsider any very-near future actions they were contemplating.

    They were predators, and they understood this very well. Weak targets of opportunity are eaten quickly, but those who give strong indications that they’ll bite back are left alone. They backed away, turned, and headed across the lot to places unknown.

    According to the desires of gun control advocates I should have been forced to somehow run instead of facing down these two thugs. Got that? If I am minding my own business and am assaulted or threatened by a violent criminal the gun control crowd wants the onus to be on me to flee, retreat, submit, or even die — anything EXCEPT stand my ground with a firearm.

    How morally and intellectually backwards can these folks be to adopt such an indefensible position? The duty and perfect right of a law-abiding citizen is to defend themselves with deadly force if need be against criminals. That is the essence of the disagreement between the opposing sides on gun control.

    And look, I understand what you’re saying. You use guns in a law-abiding way. Why should you and people who use their guns in this way be deprived of their pleasure – any more than someone should be deprived of the pleasure of swimming in their pool, driving their car, etc.

    I hardly think that saving my life is just a matter of “pleasure.” But let me tell you another story…

    When two escaped, very hardcore criminals from Mississippi were roaming Lake County a few years back we had to suddenly go get our then 13 year old from an overnight trip to a church camp in the same neighborhood where the badguys were spotted. These were two nasty guys who had already been in several running gun battles with the police and who had vowed not to be taken alive.

    My wife and I both strapped on our guns and drove directly to the camp. We were amoung the first to arrive, and with several other of the men who were armed established both an inner and perimeter guard until all the kids had been picked up. We gathered up some strays who’s parents couldn’t be found and took them and our daughter home with us.

    When we got home our daughter hugged the me and the wife and told us that she was comforted (her word) by the knowledge that we both had our guns with us and could protect her if necessary.

    Tell me, Paul… in a similar situation how “comforting” would your presence be to a young daughter, and what logical process would she use to get there.

    If you had taken your wife to eat lunch in the local cafeteria and a madman came in like yesterday, picking targets and firing at them, who would your wife rather have sitting at the table with her as he approached… someone just like you (who at the best is going to defend her with a fork) or someone just like me… trained in the ways of using a gun and actually able to do so.

    I understand that. And that’s why I’m not advocating an outright ban on all weapons.

    Interesting choice of weasel words, “outright ban” and “all weapons.” That leaves you pretty much open to destroying virtually every opportunity to own and use a gun.

    All that I and others are saying here is we need better control of weapons than we have now, so we can reduce in whatever possible way the chances of tragedies like Virginia Tech’s.

    Okay… put up or shut up, if I can be blunt.

    No amount of waiting periods would have helped.
    No amount of background checks would have helped.
    No amount of one gun per month would have helped.

    So, specifically what “better control” are you suggesting. Specifics, now. Not some nebulous vague thoughts about how we “ought to do better.”

    Name me just ONE control that would have reduced in any way the chances of the shooter doing exactly what he did.

    You going to pass a law making it illegal to carry a gun on campus?

    There’s really no reason to think that these limitations, if they were enacted, would even affect your use of guns.

    Well, since you have not listed a single “limitation” you can’t really say that with any authority, can you?

    And if you drag out limitation of “guns on the street reduced in all ways possible” then I would certainly consider that fact that you would rather see me dead at the hands of those two thugs pretty much evidence that your limitations would affect me, pretty seriously too.

    But we need better laws. Bush at al let one of the tougher provisions of the gun laws lapse, and that contributed to the lunatic in Virginia getting in so many rounds.

    You really don’t know what you’re talking about do you?

    You don’t know that magazines with that large of capacity were available all through the supposed AW ban? They could be legally bought and sold at any gun shop anytime in the past ten years.

    You really, really are ignorant of that, aren’t you?

    And you really don’t know much about guns, do you?

    If I am in a room of 20 kids and shooting them one by one, what difference does it make to the kids if I have one magazine of 17 rounds that takes 12 seconds to fire, or two magazines of ten rounds each that takes me a total of 15 seconds to fire, reload, and fire till empty again.

    I don’t mind debating about guns and gun control, but that all pervasive ignorance about the subject that people like you bring to the table gets depressing about the 50th time I have to explain these most basic things about guns and how they are used.

  • steve_naive

    I’ve read all these comments and I’d venture we all have one thing in common: each of us came on with a certain view about guns and haven’t changed our minds one little bit since reading all other views! I’ll just offer these observations:

    1. Having the right to bear arms as one of the amendments is a shame. Not because it is necessarily ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ but because the view many have that this means it is untouchable muddies the waters as to its relevance to today’s society. There are many other historical ‘laws’ that are no longer appropriate and have changed; I suspect that had any of them been so part of an untouchable view of the structure of American society they may still be around too. We should at the very least deal with the discussion on gun ownership and civil liberties without introducing the historical gravitas behind them.

    2. Given that all this impassioned arguing about the rights and wrongs of the above is making everyone (including me) even more committed to their own stance, this kind of debate makes us even LESS likely to solve it, not more! We need a new way of looking at the situation? Such as firstly COLLECTIVELY agreeing a definition of the problem we all want to solve (this sounds obvious but will take a long time). The day I see a prominent figure take this approach rather than jump straight into a passionate but stubborn and cliched defence of his/her own view is the day I will believe we’re getting somewhere!

  • zingzing

    dr. dreadful– jack would not be twitching. he would be standing tall and mighty. with his dick (gun, i mean gun,) in his hand.

  • “Pro-gun people love the First Amendment. [Personal attack deleted]”

    As they say…quoted for truth!

  • Dr Dreadful

    zingzing #248: You left out the twitching.

  • MBD

    Sociopaths should be identified and incarcerated.

  • vertroue

    well if you must talk about gun deaths using the stats in #216, please also include other violent crime stats and other methods of deaths/homicides.

  • zingzing

    jack meant, “not that many people are getting killed here, COMPARED TO THE BLOODBATH TO COME SHOULD WE DEFENDERS OF YOUR BLOOD BE STRICKEN OF OUR GAWD-GIVEN REICH, i mean right, TO PULL OUT HEAVY METAL AND DESTROY THE EVIL-DOERS IN THIS LAND– calmly and with perfect aim we will terminate with exxxtreeemmme prejudice the evil-doers, yes, yes–BECAUSE WE ARE WELL-TRAINED AND EXPERT MARKSMEN WITH THE WILL AND THE DESTINY TO KILL!”

  • Paul2

    Jack,

    A legitimate assessment of the issue does require statistical data, as most issues do.

    Its only that you have no data and no sources and therefore you go on and on –paragraph after paragraph– telling us about your beliefs and your assumptions, in fact floating around without any reference avoiding relevant facts.

    You said that “not many people are getting killed here.”
    That IS wrong.
    And that is very specific.
    It is not a question of belief.
    And therefore it is not an argument for your position.

  • zingzing

    “That’s okay, son, but now you shouldn’t wonder why posters who actually do know what they are commenting on don’t take you seriously.”

    just say “poster,” jack, because you’re just about the only one left. and you do have quite a know-it-all attitude. if you could debate without insulting (and i know what i just did), it would be nice, thank you.

    and don’t call people “son,” it just makes you look like an old bitch. lalala.

  • zingzing

    “Don’t just say that there’s something nebulous floating the atomsphere that may (or may not) be of interest but I’m not going to tell you about it.”

    nebulous… statistics… did you read #216?

  • zingzing

    jack burton: “Well, since I am responsible for a number of stories making it to the website over the past few years I can answer that with authority”

    and if that’s the truth, then that’s the truth. thank you for answering the question without any name-calling.

    i guess that lets the site off the hook, although in this day and age, blar blar, fast-moving, blar, gotta keep up…

    i looked at some stats for the amount of guns being used in crimes. 1993 seems to be a popular year. lots of info on that. seems that over a million guns were used in just over 4 million “violent” crimes… and 70% of the murders that year were committed with guns… and there were over 40 million “criminal victimizations.” i don’t know if a “criminal victimization” can be “non-violent” without a gun… but it would seem that the number of guns in criminal hands (since most guns used in crimes are bought, not stolen, and there were at least 2 million stolen guns out there) is far greater that 150,000. or whatever. so i’m not sure about your 1% claim. (my source is the u.s. dept of justice. it was a pdf.)

    but if 99% of guns are in “trustworthy” hands, i suppose that’s a good thing. how about we ask everyone to hand in the guns, then go around and get all the other guns, then wait a bit for the rest of the guns to work their way out into the open, then disarm the police and the military, melt down the guns, shoot them into space and fuck some women and do some light drugs and have a nice day? sigh. i suppose you believe that what happened on the simpsons would happen here. maybe it would.

  • don’t think “Nine Fingers” cares how they work.

    Thought so… but you comment away anyway about the gun laws. That’s okay, son, but now you shouldn’t wonder why posters who actually do know what they are commenting on don’t take you seriously.

  • And #216 clearly proves you wrong, Jack.

    Got to do better than that Paul. If you have something of specific value to add… then say it. Don’t just say that there’s something nebulous floating the atomsphere that may (or may not) be of interest but I’m not going to tell you about it.

  • vertroue

    Dr Dreadful said: vertroue, your humor detection equipment seems to be on the blink. Stop by Radio Shack and have it looked at.

    I miss the “zenith” brand do it yourself kits at Radio Shack. My nerdiness is made sad.

  • keepandbeararms.com puts almost any gun-related story onto their page, be it pro-gun or “from the enemy camp,” yet they ignored this story for an entire day. why?

    Well, since I am responsible for a number of stories making it to the website over the past few years I can answer that with authority.

    keepandbeararms.com publishes about 11:00 pm CST for the next day. What it will publish tonight at about 11 will show up with a Wednesday headline date on them.

    Sometimes it posts as early as 8:00 PM CST and sometimes not until about 2:00 AM CST. Those are the far edges, though.

    They didn’t “ignore” those stories anymore than my newspaper did. They just published when they are scheduled to be published and that was last night some time.

  • Paul2

    stare #234

    “the numbers of citizens murdered in armed home invasions will increase to the point they match ours.”

    The number of gun homicides (per million) in the UK is 1.3. The number for the US is 62.4. You have no basis for such an absurd assumption.

    How about a source ?

  • Dr Dreadful

    I’m also saying you need to stop making assumptions about my media news habits.

    vertroue, your humor detection equipment seems to be on the blink. Stop by Radio Shack and have it looked at.

  • Zedd

    Dave

    Dogs are a greater deterrent than guns. Perhaps you should stop shooting down those dogs and adopt them to patrol the compound.

  • Clavos

    There’s really no reason to think that these limitations, if they were enacted, would even affect your use of guns

    Or the criminals’ or nutcases’ either.

    How is it that so much faith is placed in the government’s ability to control guns with legislation, when we can all plainly see what a miserable failure the “war on drugs” is?

  • Dr Dreadful

    Jack said: Dred… you’re watching way too much TV.

    Actually I watch very little TV. I am, however, blessed with a good imagination… and a tendency to break into satire without warning.

    Also: Do you even know how America’s gun buying laws work?

    I don’t think “Nine Fingers” cares how they work.

  • Would like to say that the artivle from 8/2006 referenced by Dave Nalle is, in my opinion, one of the most intelligent, cogent pieces I’ve read about guns and the American culture. Wish I had half as many brains as he.

    Also, though I didn’t read all of the posts — by any means — I did get far enough to read the one where the magnitude of the number of guns in the US was pointed out to Levinson.

    Thinking that some amorphous law passage would somehow result in all the handguns, or other firearms in the country being turned in is fatuous foolhardiness, in my opinion. I recently read that one of the true experts in such matters in England states that however many guns the criminal subculture wants/needs, that is exactly how many weapons — in their case all illegal — will be located by those criminals.

    Granted, the Brits don’t seem to be quite as murderous a group as we are, but an extremely important figure to take account of — please forgive one of my many short-term memory brain farts — is that armed home invaders in England number between double and treble their American counterparts. There is something about the way criminals seem to hate their victims that persuades me that slowly and surely, the numbers of citizens murdered in armed home invasions will increase to the point they match ours.

  • Has anyone suggested “forcing” your rights to be taken from you?

    Actually, yes. ST suggests it quite often in his posts. Because he’s emotionally driven and his emotions override any logic that might rattle around in his head.

  • vertroue

    Paul Levinson said: All that I and others are saying here is we need better control of weapons than we have now, so we can reduce in whatever possible way the chances of tragedies like Virginia Tech’s.

    Forgive me, I cant resist….

    If theres a new way,
    Ill be the first in line.
    But, it better work this time.

    I honestly think that if somebody can come up with a better way or a reccomendation for change, I’ll listen. Just dont involve the ATF.

  • Paul2

    “not even the gun-haters living in the biggest fantasy argue that there are that many gun crimes here”

    And #216 clearly proves you wrong, Jack.

  • vertroue

    Dr Dreadful said: So let me get this straight. Every person inside the Superdome only went there after burgling, robbing and looting until they couldn’t carry any more?

    Y’gotta switch off Fox News once in a while, I’m telling you. It’ll mess with your head.

    No, I’m saying when the Guard and/or law enforcement went home to home and told people that they had to move, like it or not, those who didnt posses the ability to tell them no thanks were taken to “refugee shelters”. There they got to languilsh waiting for a gigantic cluster F to bring aid to them.

    I’m also saying you need to stop making assumptions about my media news habits. Step away from all of the leaning media (left and right) and try dry, wry text. Its refreshing.

    Again, Dr Dreadful says: The Washington Post is asking a very good question which I haven’t seen much discussion of: why do these shooters seem to target educational campuses so often?

    Any thoughts?

    Easy. No one shoots back.

  • Jack – I don’t think the yea or nay of that has been established yet. But chances are that either he did or his weapons came from someone else who did. Unless he was a goodfella and was in with Tony “Nine Fingers” del Vecchio, who offered him a nice deal on a pair of untraceable handguns, no questions asked.

    Dred… you’re watching way too much TV.

    Do you even know how America’s gun buying laws work?

  • Jack Burton wrote: And the first real rockets, iirc, were used to attempt to blow London off the map. Perhaps that in itself is enough to discredit our entire space program?

    Same answer as about cars, swimming pools, and pillows: rockets to the Moon and beyond – any things that lift us off this planet – have enormously beneficial consequences.

    What are the equivalent benefits of firearms?

    And look, I understand what you’re saying. You use guns in a law-abiding way. Why should you and people who use their guns in this way be deprived of their pleasure – any more than someone should be deprived of the pleasure of swimming in their pool, driving their car, etc.

    I understand that. And that’s why I’m not advocating an outright ban on all weapons.

    All that I and others are saying here is we need better control of weapons than we have now, so we can reduce in whatever possible way the chances of tragedies like Virginia Tech’s.

    There’s really no reason to think that these limitations, if they were enacted, would even affect your use of guns.

    But we need better laws. Bush at al let one of the tougher provisions of the gun laws lapse, and that contributed to the lunatic in Virginia getting in so many rounds.

  • zingzing

    “What’s up with that? It said it was a Monday paper.”

    it’s not a paper, it’s a website. a lot of other websites had the news plastered all over the place by the time i got to work monday morning. keepandbeararms.com puts almost any gun-related story onto their page, be it pro-gun or “from the enemy camp,” yet they ignored this story for an entire day. why?

  • really? i don’t believe that for a second.

    That’s okay. No one cares.

    But think it thru for a moment. No one knows the exact amount but there are about 150 million gun owners in the States, give or take.

    Ten percent would be 15 million and no one, not even the gun-haters living in the biggest fantasy, argue that there are that many gun crimes here. One percent would be 150,000 and that is still much, much higher than anyone is willing to forecast as criminals who use guns.

  • Clavos

    #223 was for #119.

  • that comment #76 musta been a good one! Damn shame I missed it!

  • Clavos

    Large numbers of people in close proximity to each other, with minimal police protection and unlikely to be armed themselves. Easy targets.

    Also, in more than one of the incidents, the shooters have been students themselves.

  • if you see a dozen news stories coming out of virginia on monday, i think you need to remember that “monday” is not spelled t-u-e-s-d-a-y.

    I get my Monday paper delivered on Monday morning. Guess what? It didn’t have a single thing about the shootings in the paper.

    What’s up with that? It said it was a Monday paper. But fortunately I was able to figure out that if I wanted to see the stories in the paper I’d have to look at Tuesdays edition.

    Fancy that…

  • Zedd: Paul

    Tell your wife that I cant really take the credit for my acumen.

    It comes with the X chromosome.

    So told …:)

  • Jack Burton wrote: Let me misquote the Good Professor:

    “The problem is what to do about the fact that guns are every once in a while greatly needed, and with such horrible consequences if they’re not available.”

    Ta da! Jack’s promoted me from “supposed” professor to “Good Professor” – progress!

  • Dr Dreadful

    The Washington Post is asking a very good question which I haven’t seen much discussion of: why do these shooters seem to target educational campuses so often?

    Any thoughts?

  • Jack Burton wrote: And that’s exactly why we do have a Constitution. So that emotionally driven people who carry a grudge can’t force other’s rights to be taken from them.

    Has anyone suggested “forcing” your rights to be taken from you?

  • Dr Dreadful

    Jack – I don’t think the yea or nay of that has been established yet. But chances are that either he did or his weapons came from someone else who did. Unless he was a goodfella and was in with Tony “Nine Fingers” del Vecchio, who offered him a nice deal on a pair of untraceable handguns, no questions asked.

  • Paul2

    It remains absolutely irrational why people here assume that gun control makes “no difference” to the number of people killed in the United States, some actually say it would “increase” the number of deaths others just resort to illegitimate comparisons in the past or just claim that it is just a matter of “belief”.

    Look at the facts.

    Every academic comparison of industrialized countries shows, that the US is the most violent country of all and the country with the highest number of homicides and the highest number of gun-related homicides (per capita). Anyone who actually claims that restrictive national gun-control laws would make no difference to the number of homicides must be able to present the reasons why the numbers between the different countries and regions -and all other countries have more restrictive gun laws or ban them entirely- are so apparent:

    HOMICIDES 1999-2001 per 100,000 people

    USA………… 5,6
    New Zealand…. 2,5
    Australia…… 1,9
    Canada……… 1,8
    European Union. 1,6

    Source: Barclay, G. and Tavares C.: International Comparisons of Criminal Justice Statistics 2000, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 05, London 2002.

    Killias, M.: European Sourcebook of Crime Criminal Justice Statistics, The Hague, 2003.

    International firearms regulations: Access and deaths

    Country…Households with firearms…Gun homicide
    ……………………………………………per million

    Japan…..0.6%………………….0.3
    UK……..4.0%…………………1.3
    Australia.16.0%…………………5.6
    France….22.6%…………………5.5
    Canada….26.0%…………………6.0
    Switzerl..27.2%…………………4.6
    Germany…8.9%………………….2.1
    USA…….41.0%…………………62.4 < -- Source: Public Health Agency of Canada, 2000

    It is clearly not a matter of belief or assumptions.

  • zingzing

    jack burton: “99 percent of all guns are in the hands of lawabiding citizens from whom the general population has nothing to fear.”

    really? i don’t believe that for a second.

    and then… you say i didn’t look at the website (the url beside your name… refers to keepandbeararms.com)… if you see a dozen news stories coming out of virginia on monday, i think you need to remember that “monday” is not spelled t-u-e-s-d-a-y.

    and as for your assertion about america and australia and telling each other what to do… don’t americans (including you) make a bit of a specialty out of telling other countries how to go about their business?

  • Dr Dreadful

    vertroue wrote: When it comes down to brass tacks and something like Katrina does happen again, those with the ability to defend themselves who refuse to be disarmed will be allowed to keep their lives and their property. Those who don’t have that ability? Please step into this football stadium and I’m sure someone will be with you shortly.

    So let me get this straight. Every person inside the Superdome only went there after burgling, robbing and looting until they couldn’t carry any more?

    Y’gotta switch off Fox News once in a while, I’m telling you. It’ll mess with your head.

  • How ’bout yesterday?

    You have evidence that the shooter was a licensed CCW holder?

    Please present for all to see. I must have overlooked that in all the media coverage.

  • Dr Dreadful

    From vertroue’s post # 210: “Paul Levinson said: You imagine wrong. From what I’ve seen and read, people who want better gun control are horrified and sickened about what happened.

    Unfortunately the brady folks immediately changed their website to lure folks into donating towards an anti gun cause due to the tragedy. Its kind of repulsive…”

    Why is that repulsive? Seems to me like a perfectly natural, if knee-jerk, reaction from people who were horrified at yesterday’s tragedy and wanted to do something about it.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Jack Burton: What’s your evidence that this is a bad idea?

    Any?

    How ’bout yesterday?

  • vertroue

    STM: Mmmmmm……hog hunting….. I have always wanted to travel to our warmer climbs here and bring home some pork for the winter….something different from the venison all the time anyway!

    moondog said: I imagine champagne corks are poppin’ with the gun control croud.

    Paul Levinson said: You imagine wrong. From what I’ve seen and read, people who want better gun control are horrified and sickened about what happened.

    Unfortunately the brady folks immediately changed their website to lure folks into donating towards an anti gun cause due to the tragedy. Its kind of repulsive…

    Zedd said: Based on FBI data, 300,000 guns are stolen from home burglaries annually and only 40% of those were recovered.

    Is your TV really worth all of that.

    Most home intrusion is not to murder the inhabitants, its to steal.

    My TV might not be, but I’m not willing to put the life of my five year old son into the hand of a faceless person on the internet who assures me that the guy who just kicked in the door is “mostly” there for robbery.

    Paul Levinson said: No, we shouldn’t ban doctors, because they do some good, in addition to making mistakes. What good do guns do?

    Other than the previously mentioned site, not only do guns stop many crimes from occuring but (pre her leaving) I fed my family for three years using firearms. Not that it wasnt nice to be able to go and get a steak from the store once we were a little more financially stable, but without that meat…..we’d have been in big trouble.

    The ownership of firearms is a responsibility. People who abuse their resposibilities should suffer consequences. But should we remove responsibilities out of fear that someone might abuse them? I think not. Underlying all of this is the stone cold fact that the firearm is the last line, the final arbiter and the final control. Removing our last best chance at policing the govt makes as much sense as trusting the executive branch of government by removing that whole nasty checks and balances thing. 🙂 Need I remind anyone here what kind of lunacy had been spread around in the past few years with the checks and balances in place?

    Y’all can argue about this till your blue in the face. It will only change one thing: were all now guilty of adding to global warming by contributing CO2 and greenhouse gasses (among other gasses) by stating our opinions….

    When it comes down to brass tacks and something like Katrina does happen again, those with the ability to defend themselves who refuse to be disarmed will be allowed to keep their lives and their property. Those who dont have that ability? Please step into this football staduim and I’m sure someone will be with you shortly.

    Hope your all havin a good day!

  • hey jack, where’s monday’s news from virginia on that url beside your name?

    Well, I counted a dozen articles or so about the shooting… including this one here.

    I guess you didn’t look at it, eh?

  • And exactly how many such incidents were there after Katrina?

    Let me misquote the Good Professor:

    “The problem is what to do about the fact that guns are every once in a while greatly needed, and with such horrible consequences if they’re not available.”

    Do you want to play God and tell us that there will never, ever be an occasion for someone to have such a gun?

  • i’m an american, and i agree with the assertion that heavy restrictions on gun ownership is a fucking great idea.

    Am I somehow supposed to debate this? Good for you. Vote accordingly as it your right as an American. Voice your opinion too.

    And while you’re at it, go over to Australia and tell them that they are doing it all wrong and you know much better than they. See how well they recieve your advice.

  • RobC

    OK. Let’s get down to brass tacks, as the saying goes. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but most people here who say that they are in favor of “gun control”, or the outright ban of guns, except for in the hands of the military and the police do so because they say that people are not to be trusted with them. If I’m wrong in this assumption, I am more than happy to be educated. Now, since people are not to be trusted with firearms, why would the police and military be trusted? Last time I checked, they were both composed of people also. That being the case, what make the people in the military or police worthy to be armed, but we peasant folk can’t be trusted? Please explain this to me, as I don’t understand. Thank you. RobC

  • What gives you the impression I’m a “supposed” not a real professor – because you disagree with my argument?

    Most profs I know and hang out with are a bit keener in the thinking-things-through stage, if you know what I mean.

    But bell curves do have two ends. 🙂

  • Misses the point, Jack. Of course most guns are not misused.

    I think it was right on point since it got you to acknowledge a bit of the truth… that 99 percent of all guns are in the hands of lawabiding citizens from whom the general population has nothing to fear.

    The problem is what to do about the fact that guns are every once in a while misused, and with such horrible consequences.

    Are you really willing to base social policy of such importance that it is the Second of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights upon the actions of less than 1 percent of all those who touch a gun?

    Do the names Jayson Blair and Janet Cooke mean anything to you? They misused the press with some pretty horrible consequences yet I don’t see you calling for “doing something” about the freedom of the press.

  • Those who say “it can’t happen here” are totally oblivious to historical FACT;

    In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    1932-33 Soviet Dictator Joseph Stalin’s ‘government’ sponsered famine, causing the deaths of 7 to 10 million in the Ukraine.

    1937-38 Japanese soldiers ‘Rape’ Nanking province of China, causing the deaths of 300,000.

    Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 6 million Jews and countless others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. (Some estimates bring the total closer to 13 million!).

    “Thus, for the time being, I have sent to the East only my ‘Death’s Head Units’ with the orders to kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of Polish race or language. Only in such a way will we win the vital space, (‘liebenstrum’), that we need. Who still talks nowadays about the Armenians?”

    – German ‘Fuhrer’ Adolf Hitler, to Nazi Army leaders, Aug. 22, 1939

    Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, as excerpted from ‘The Goebbels Diaries’, (Doubleday & Company, New York, 1948).

    February 5, 1942 –

    “The Jewish question is again giving us a headache; this time, however, not because we have gone to far, but because we are not going far enough.”

    February 14, 1942 –

    “The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.”

    March 6, 1942 –

    “I am of the opinion that the greater the number of Jews liquidated, the more consolidated will the situation in Europe be after this war.”

    March 16, 1942 –

    “It has therefore proven necessary once again to shoot more Jews.”

    April 29, 1942 –

    “Tens of thousands of them are liquidated.”

    December 14, 1942 –

    “Jewry must pay for its crime just as our Führer prophesied in his speech in the Reichstag; namely, by the wiping out of the Jewish race in Europe and possibly in the entire world.”

    May 13, 1943 –

    “There is therefore no other recourse left for modern nations except to exterminate the Jews.”

    Didn’t happen, eh? No prior knowledge, right?

    China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Pol Pot’s Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, over 2,000,000 people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated by the Khmer Rouge.

    1992-95 Bosnia-Herzegovina conflict; 200,000 dead.

    1994 Rwanda, Hutu militia kill 800,000 Tutsis.

    Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of ‘gun control’ or from the lack of being able to defend themselves: about

    64,700,000

    Spelled out, that is;

    SIXTY-FOUR MILLION,

    SEVEN-HUNDRED

    THOUSAND PEOPLE!

    There are some reports, that the total number Murdered,
    is actuallly MUCH HIGHER!

    See: ‘Innocents Betrayed’ on the J.P.F.O. website….

    (170,000,000)

  • “No, surely, No! they meant to drive us into what they termed rebellion, that they might be furnished with a pretext to disarm and then strip us of the rights and privileges of Englishmen and Citizens.”

    – George Washington, Valley forge, March 1, 1778.

    “Agreed to found our Rights upon the Laws of Nature…”

  • Paotie

    Jack ..

    Semper Fi!

    I don’t like guns. I’ve been shot at plenty of times. I’ve had friends killed by people with guns. I’ve had friends killed by police with guns.

    I’m neutral on the issue of gun control, but dude, if someone’s breaking into my house, I’m gonna be calling you – I’ll be hiding in the basement, so c’mon in, guns blazing.

    :o)

    Paotie

  • The US government has banned plenty of movies, ads, art, books, ideas (remember McCarthyism) you name it. Like I say, please know your subject before you get on here and write your thoughts.

    Then you should not have any troubles naming several dozen to back up your claims.

    We’re waiting…

  • The invention of the gun took off precisely because it was a very good way of killing people. The other uses came later.

    Don’t know much about the history and technology of guns, eh? But that doesn’t matter… emotion trumps reason and logic anyway.

    The first couple of hundred of years of guns they were lousy at killing people. Pitifully bad.

    But they were popular. A contradiction? No. Just an acknowledgment that even the most primitive gun could be taught and used in a matter of hours instead of the years and years of training to make a competant soldier.

    And the first real rockets, iirc, were used to attempt to blow London off the map. Perhaps that in itself is enough to discredit our entire space program?

  • But I’d rather have a world in which I can use my knife or non-gun to defend myself against an attacker with a knife or non-gun, then a world in which we shoot it out.

    Why do you hate women so? What have they ever done to you to wish them such harm?

    Are you really demanding that a 100 lb woman have nothing, (nothing!!) to defend herself with that actually works against a 240 lb rapist?

    I just want to see the number of guns reduced, guns become more difficult to attain, etc.

    Like coke and heroin is difficult for the criminal society to obtain, eh?

    And, right, that will fall more, first, on law-abiding citizens. But, eventually, it will affect the number of guns available to lunatics, too.

    So how many of your fellow “law-abiding citizens” are you willing to sacrifice to test your failed-everywhere-else idea? A couple of hundred thousand? A million left undefended? The city of New Orleans?

  • I just think guns belong on the range, not in people’s pockets.

    We’ve got millions upon millions of citizens walking around every day with legally carried guns in their pockets (and holsters). In my town almost 20 percent of the adults have a license to carry a gun.

    What’s your evidence that this is a bad idea?

    Any?

  • I don’t know a single soldier here who thinks it’s OK for every second person to have a gun, especially when they haven’t been trained to use them.

    Having spent 25 years in the military I know a couple of thousand who do. And now, Stan, you know me and I do so you can no longer make that statement.

    I’m allowed to have an opinion and express it even if you don’t like it. And while we’re on amendments, since it’s a US-based website, your first one allows anyone to say whatever they like as long as they’re not breaking the law.

    Pro-gun people love the First Amendment. [Personal attack deleted]

  • Zedd

    Paul

    Tell your wife that I cant really take the credit for my acumen.

    It comes with the X chromosome.

  • Zedd

    Jack

    You missed what STM was saying.

    Slow motion version.

    At the time of the founding fathers, a fire arm was something different than what it is today. The level of carnage and devastation that our current fire arms can make is different. One unstable individual can cause a great deal of devastation. When they wrote the constitution they had no idea that fire arm would EVER become what they are today.

    Know that in our future, weaponry will become even more precise and devastatingly lethal. Are you fine with the notion that any 21+ year old who hasn’t demonstrated his nutty side to any officials, will be able get one of those thingies and go to your kid’s school or college and do what the voices tell him to do?

  • Sorry mate, but I just don’t understand how anyone can condone the keeping of “military-style” weapons in a civilised society in this day and age. Really, if people have a desperate need to fart around with guns, they should join the armed forces or the police – where they can also learn why you don’t fart around with guns.

    In other words… we should live in a “police state.”

    And as far as “military style” weapons ol’ Stan just refuses, and refuses, and refuses to accept reality.

    “Assault rifles” are being demonized by many politicians, media-types, and anti-gun folk who actually have no idea what it is they are demonizing. Most people who hear the truth are quite surprised to find out just how off-base and factually wrong these nay-sayers like Stan are.

    Actually, the gun banners know they are lying to the public. Josh Sugarmann, author of the 1988 book “Assault Weapons and Accessories in America” laid out the strategy for all to see.

    “Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

    True assault rifles such as the Sturmgewehr 44 were first developed by the Germans in WWII, and further refined by the Russians immediately post-war as defined by the AK-47. America’s version, the M-4, wasn’t too bad either.

    They tried to meet the needs of the soldiers who were actually fighting so the weapons tended to be:

    –lightweight
    –of a smaller caliber
    –easy to maintain
    –rugged
    –Shot from the hip if necessary
    –fairly accurate out to a reasonable distance.
    –Could be fired in three different modes, single, 3-shot, and full automatic.

    Any extra metal or wood was left off the gun, and if the part wasn’t needed it wasn’t on the gun. This meant that often the stock (the part that goes against the shooter’s cheek) was just a bare outline of metal. This “look” is often consider bizarre by those who never thought about the “why” of it.

    Now, being lightweight created it’s own set of problems.

    The foremost problem is that the barrel was a skinny, short little thing, which meant that it got pretty hot quickly. This is not good. Even a little .22 rabbit-rifle heats up with enough shots fired just at the firing range, and a soldier didn’t want to be worrying about a hot barrel. That can cause many bad things to happen including ammo accidentally firing at random. To minimize that a “shroud” was used over the barrel, with ventilating holes to carry away the heat and protect the soldiers hands. It didn’t add anything to the gun except to keep the barrel cooler when firing multiple rounds in a short time.

    Often a flash-suppressor was added, not to keep the enemy from knowing where the fire is coming from, but to keep the soldier’s nighttime eyesight protected. The enemy would have plenty of notice about where the fire is coming from since the bullets would be coming directly towards him.

    Soldiers don’t like humping heavy things; they have enough to carry anyway so the smaller the rounds (bullets) the more the soldier could pack. One can never have too much ammo, but it doesn’t do any good if you’ve left it all back at the barracks.

    This meant the majority of the assault riffles were chambered for the .223 round. That means the width of the bullet is only .223 of a full inch. The significance of this?

    Well, the most popular round in the world, and the one that is used to take more rabbits and squirrels than any other (because that’s about all it’s powerful enough for) is the .22 Long Rifle.

    The .22 LR bullet is a little thing. Itty bitty. Imagine something less than a quarter inch in diameter. And the dreaded assault riffle bullet is three one thousandth of an inch bigger in diameter. Think of it like this – you have to drive 220 miles to get to your friends house. But he’s moving three miles further away in a month. Will now driving 223 miles make much of a difference overall?

    The actual .223 bullet really isn’t that much larger than a fat grain of rice.

    So how does such a small bullet help the soldier? Because the .223 is put into a larger cartridge with more powder it comes out of the barrel much faster than a normal .22. That creates more energy when it hits someone, but the small size of the bullet has always kept it from being considered a sure mankiller. In Vietnam a Marine coined the term “poodle killer” for the .223 and that name has stuck even to today. That was okay with the soldiers because in reality a wounded soldier on the other side was better than a dead soldier. A dead soldier was forgotten about but a wounded one needed on average four other soldiers to take care of him.

    Because of the way the gun was normally carried on patrol it was good to have a way to immediately bring it into play… thus the stock and grip were designed to fire, if necessary, from the hip. Couldn’t hit a darn thing with it that way but when in combat the enemy doesn’t necessarily stick their head up to check your accuracy. So it worked in a fashion. Kept the enemies heads down until a soldier could get into a better position behind cover.

    The rifle didn’t have to be super accurate and it wasn’t. Especially at a distance. Combat between individual soldiers is just not that far apart. If you can barely see the guy it’s a job for artillery, not rifles.

    The main distinguishing feature, though, was it’s ability to “select” fire. The shooter could choose between, with one pull of the trigger, to shoot one shot, three shots, or full automatic which meant the gun would fire all the rounds attached to it. Some magazines held five rounds, some ten, twenty, thirty, and even a hundred.

    The truth is though, very few of the assault rifles are ever fired full auto by trained troops. The reason is because they just can’t hit anything. Inside a barn they would have trouble hitting the sides of the barn. The barrel wants to rise with every bullet fired, and unless one is a super-sized Rambo the barrel WILL rise into the air while it’s firing.

    Virtually every company commander in Vietnam had a standing rule: an automatic $50.00 fine for any troop who shot his gun at full auto without an express order from the commander. This was the days when $50 was almost a months pay for these guys.

    There were some extremely limited times when full auto was helpful, and then one was glad they had it.

    Our guys in Iraq are under similar orders about firing full auto. It’s just not a productive way to fight a war or kill people.

    Why is the full auto bit stressed. Because these guns are NOT what is being sold today, but yet it is what every one screams about when they say “assault weapons.”

    The guns sold to the civilian market that “look like” the military weapons all fire ONE SHOT at a time, just like virtually every other gun on the market. It’s nothing special, and it’s the way civilian rifles have been made for almost 140 years.

    Buying a newly-manufactured full-fledged automatic assault weapon has been illegal since 1986, and unless one has jumped through sufficient federal government hoops it is also highly illegal to buy one that was made before 1986.

    The process to obtain an older automatic weapon is complicated and expensive, and includes fingerprints by the Feds and an exorbitant federal transfer tax on each full auto weapon.

    “Machine guns” and “automatic weapons” are simply not bought down at Walmart. Complaining about someone waking into a store and legally buying fully automatic weapons is akin to complaining about how circuses mistreat unicorns.

    Those who talk about “machine guns” blasting away at rabbits or deer are either highly ignorant of the subject or just doing it to demagogue the discussion.

    What the anti-gunners mean when they say “assault weapons” are guns that are made to “look like” the real ones. And that’s it. There are a number of variations in manufacturers, and model names, but not a single one of them would be found on a battlefield. The real soldiers would laugh at them.

    One can take a little .22 rifle which looks like a harmless little plinking rifle that wouldn’t do any great damage to a armadillo and for a couple of hundred dollars buy all kinds of replacement parts and add-ons such as the barrel-shroud and flash-suppressor that would make it indistinguishable (from the outside) to an “assault rifle.” Yet, internally it would be the same little ol’ .22.

    What many in the anti-gun movement are trying to do is to get one to believe that if you put racing stripes and decals on your dad’s Oldsmobile you can take it out to the NASCAR track and compete equally.

    Yes, many of the look-alikes fire the same .223 round as the military ones do, but this is considered an underpowered round by the civilian world. It’s certainly less powerful than what Uncle Bob’s deer hunting rifle fires.

    And, by the way, it does make a perfectly fine hunting gun if used on the right game. Many people think rifles chambered for the .223 cartridge are the absolute best for hunting varmints such as coyotes, small feral hogs, and other destructive pests, and it’s even popular for some small types of deer in parts of the country where the forest is thick and sight is only fifty yards or so.

    Would they be used to take elk or mule deer out west where the animals are big and the shooting distance is measured by hundreds of yards? No, that takes a much bigger gun and caliber bullet. But just because you don’t use a hammer in place of a screwdriver doesn’t mean that both hammers and screwdrivers have their proper uses.

    These types of rifles are lightweight, rugged, and easy to maintain because many people, including tens of thousands of ranchers, farmers, and backpackers need this type of rifle while out in the fields. They shoot a common and inexpensive cartridge. They’re customizable, easy to find parts for, and don’t have a lot of recoil.

    Many police departments in both big and little cities across the nation are converting to these guns for these same reasons.

    A farmer friend of mine in northwest Arkansas carries one on the back of his tractor out in the fields. His bane is armadillos, which tear up his crops faster than anything else. When he sees one he shoots it. He needs something that can stand up to the abuse of being shaken for hours on the tractor, is lightweight and short enough not to get in his way, and is powerful enough to pierce the ‘dillo hide. His AR-15, the semi-auto civilian model of the M-4, is perfect for his use.

    These rifles can use magazines that hold up to 30 rounds, but if one can shoot three 10 round mags in 30 seconds or one 30 round mag in 24 seconds it is not really any more dangerous. When the King riots were happening in L.A. there were many Koreans on their rooftops with their AR-15s and multiple round mags. They kept their neighborhood from burning down. That’s a pretty impressive reason for wanting any weapon.

    The civilian models have been made more accurate than the military models because the majority of the guns sold are simply used as target rifles. It’s a huge sport and tens of thousands compete across the country to see who can maintain the most accurate rifle. Go to most outdoor ranges and you’ll see all kinds of guys with their AR-15s and others at the line. These guys are just average, everyday guys (and some women) who like to put little holes in paper with things that go bang.

    Many of these folk are former military who hold fond memories of those days. Others just want to look cool, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that. A lot of them consider the military as “heroes” and want to emulate them.

    Again, these guns may “look” like a military weapon but they are the farthest thing from one… they fire just one bullet at a time the way every other civilian rifle is sold. There is fundamentally no difference between them and Uncle Bob’s hunting rifle except in they way they look, and a smaller type bullet.

    An excellent ten minute video about this subject can be found here:

    Assualt Weapons Truth

    You’ll get to see a normal, everyday hunting rifle change to an “evil black rifle” right before your very eyes. And when you realize that it is fundamentally no different from you going from suit and tie with combed hair to bluejeans and a tee shirt with unkempt hair then you’ll understand the lies the gun banners have been trying to foist off on the public.

    Now that you know the truth of the matter you can spot when someone is ignorant about assault weapons and yet are still willing to give their opinion about something they know nothing about.

  • zingzing

    hey jack, where’s monday’s news from virginia on that url beside your name?

  • people outside the US do think it’s bizarre and even laughable that Americans continue with this blind-belief in the absolute infallibility of the constitution nonsense around the 2nd amendment

    What “people” would these be? The Ukaraine peasants of the 30s? The European Jews of 1936-1944? The Africans in anyone of a couple dozen supposed countries? The Christians in Sudan?

    I’m sure they all laughed at the silly Americans and their right to defend themselves against a tyranical government.

    But I have also seen first hand on quite a few occasions what high-powered weapons can do to the human body and it ain’t pretty (especially on kids) and it’s what turned me around to the idea that the average person has no business owning one.

    And that’s exactly why we do have a Constitution. So that emotionally driven people who carry a grudge can’t force other’s rights to be taken from them.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Jack Burton wrote: Remember New Orleans? Here’s a little quiz, dear Readers.

    You’re trapped in your home by flood waters. Fortunately you had enough foresight to stock up on essential water and food for your family so you’re doing pretty good compared to the community.

    Some people in the community don’t like that. They think that what is yours should be theirs, and they are more than willing to enforce it by coming into your home and taking it.

    So which would you rather have in your home. Stan’s “low-calibre, single-shot bolt action” which will allow you and your family to be overrun and destroyed (ever see a five year old girl raped in front of you?)

    And exactly how many such incidents were there after Katrina? Outside, that is, of the wacky virtual world of Fox news.

  • zingzing

    jack burton: “I love the way that outsiders, who have no real clue as to how America works no matter how much he claims otherwise, can tell from afar just what does and does not “infringe” upon our Constitution.”

    that’s anyone’s right. how does america work then? with 100% agreement? oh? no? so then…

    i’m an american, and i agree with the assertion that heavy restrictions on gun ownership is a fucking great idea.

    so there.

  • zingzing

    jack, how does “The printing presses of 200 years ago don’t quite measure up to the high speed presses of today, do they. So we ban modern presses… and radio… and tv… and the ‘net…” follow “That’s over 200 years ago, where the weapon of choice was a slow-loading flintlock pistol or musket?”

    there is an obvious logic to the second part, but your contribution doesn’t really seem to find it.

  • Zedd

    Dave

    The guns make the gangs significant. They get their guns from the 300,000 that are stolen from “our” homes.

    However only 40% of households have guns. Of those only 23% have only one gun for protection; 12% of those have hand guns and 11% have long guns.

    I guess the rest go into the kook department? YIKES!

  • A gun can kill 30 or more people in a few minutes, and can’t be used for anything other than killing.

    You know… my neighbor the cop comes home almost everday and complains to me over the fence that he has to carry around that heavy gun and yet it never gets to kill anyone. Fair is fair, he says. If he has to carry it at least let him use it for it’s sole, natural purpose. Otherwise, why should he have it?

  • zingzing

    dave nalle: “While most of them are resold almost immediately, a fair number of them are kept and find their ways into the hands of gang members and other criminals.”

    so… legal guns are stolen from their legal owners and put on the black market and used to kill? and overwhelmingly in black-on-black crime?

    i don’t get it dave… why would you offer up that truth to a black woman? if we got rid of the legal guns… which are stolen and used illegally… wouldn’t a lot of innocent lives then be saved… if there wasn’t a legal gun out their putting an end to them… ?

    also, i wrote a very long, very, very funny response to jack burton’s penis analogy. i have no clue what happened to it, but if someone could find it, that would be very helpful. you could add “shooting heroin into it” to the list of alternate uses of the penis. put it right between “getting sucked” and “just sittin’ back and admiring from time to time.”

    thanks.

  • That’s over 200 years ago, where the weapon of choice was a slow-loading flintlock pistol or musket,

    Our favorite Aussie still can not get it quite right. The printing presses of 200 years ago don’t quite measure up to the high speed presses of today, do they. So we ban modern presses… and radio… and tv… and the ‘net?

    but restrictions both on gun ownership, through licensing etc, and the types of guns able to be kept, in no way infringes Americans’ 2nd amendment rights. It still gives citizens the right to bear arms.

    I love the way that outsiders, who have no real clue as to how America works no matter how much he claims otherwise, can tell from afar just what does and does not “infringe” upon our Constitution. Especially when his “rights” can and have been snuffed in in a single vote of parliment.

    In the city, and in most rural areas, can anyone tell me why you’d need anything more than a low-calibre, single-shot bolt action or repeat loader rimfire weapon?

    Remember New Orleans? Here’s a little quiz, dear Readers.

    You’re trapped in your home by flood waters. Fortunately you had enough foresight to stock up on essential water and food for your family so you’re doing pretty good compared to the community.

    Some people in the community don’t like that. They think that what is yours should be theirs, and they are more than willing to enforce it by coming into your home and taking it.

    So which would you rather have in your home. Stan’s “low-calibre, single-shot bolt action” which will allow you and your family to be overrun and destroyed (ever see a five year old girl raped in front of you?)

    Or… a modern day, easy to handle moderate caliber, semi-automatic rifle with several 30 rounds magazines backing you up?

    And BTW… it is the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of What Some Wanker in Australia Thinks You Need.

    The restriction should be on auto and semi-auto large calibre or .223 centrefire weapons.

    There go many of the hunting and sporting guns. And they always say they are in favor of hunting.

    And handguns, of course …

    Of course… just because handguns are the most effective tool that a woman can use to protect herself doesn’t mean that she should be allowed to have one.

    I always wonder why S forever takes the same side as the mugger, the rapist, the murderer. Must be from standing on his head all his life.

    Just doesn’t make sense to ban cigarette smoking almost everywhere and then let every second idiot walk around with a gun. It’s absolute madness in this day and age in a modern, civilised society.

    My state alone has almost 300,000 CCW holders and Stan can’t find a single case of “absolute madness” to back him and his silly assertations up.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Dave wrote: one of the largest targets of burglary is guns.

    In America maybe.

    We’re arguing in circles here. You need guns to protect your home from burglars, but burglars break into homes looking for guns. Somebody needs to start thinking at a tangent or we’ll be here forever.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Jack Burton wrote: Dang… in over 30 years none of my guns have wounded or killed anyone or anything. Is it too late to get my money back for obviously defective weapons?

    No, but I think I see where you’re going wrong. You have to put ammunition in them for one thing. Then, depending on the type of firearm, make sure the safety catch is off. Then you point it where you want the bullet to go, crook your index finger round that little sticky-out bit of metal on the bottom, and pull. If all goes to plan, you should hear a loud “bang” sound and off in the distance, something stops moving and falls down.

    If you’ve got the maximum benefit out of your weapon, the thing that fell down has antlers and you’re all set for a few tasty dinners.

    (Hopefully a little levity at this point is not too obscenely out of place…? 🙂 )

  • Based on FBI data, 300,000 guns are stolen from home burglaries annually and only 40% of those were recovered.

    Is your TV really worth all of that.

    Most home intrusion is not to murder the inhabitants, its to steal.

    Zedd, one of the largest targets of burglary is guns. If you’re concenrned you keep them locked up. And any burglary has the potentiall to turn violent if there are people home. You ought to know that.

    You might want to consider what happens to those stolen guns. While most of them are resold almost immediately, a fair number of them are kept and find their ways into the hands of gang members and other criminals. Those are then overwhelmingly used in black-on-black crime in the inner cities, something which you, with your ethnic background, ought to be concerned about.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    jack, even if you are a raving gun-nut, even if this logic is faulty, and even if you do yourself no favors (well, maybe because you do yourself no favors) with the 5 min/week comment (come on man), this is the best argument you have put forth against gun control.

    it makes sense until you realize that male genetalia can be used for things other than raping and penetration such as:
    -procreation (as in the act of creating and dispensing sperm)
    -letting off steam
    -peeing
    -getting sucked
    -swordfights
    -indecent exposure
    -ballplay
    -teabagging
    -anal sex
    -judging one’s manhood
    -sticking into furniture and baked goods
    -showing sexual attraction
    -to just sit back and admire now and again

    guns really have no use other than killing (or conveying the ability to).

  • Jack, I just checked out the link you provided in #173. Did you realize that ALL of those defensive uses of guns took place in just 1 month? I didn’t count to see if there were actually 1000, but there were a hell of a lot of them. Certainly a couple of hundred. If that’s typical of one month periods throughout the year, then we’re looking at likely tens of thousands of lives saved every year because of the defensive use of handguns. I never realized the numbers were so high. Someone ought to (I probably just can’t find it) compile exact figures.

    Dave

  • If a right guaranteed in the Constitution does more harm than good in that fundamental purpose, isn’t it wise to consider if we might be better off without it?

    A lot of well-learned and thoughful folk think that the New York Times has significantly hurt the ability of the U.S. to protect its people by carelessly and willfully printing secret material that would have been better left secret.

    Can we repeal the First Amendment?

  • STM – “Please take note of the last bit.”

    Yes LET’S! That quote was BEFORE implementation of the U.S. Constitution. LET’S TAKE A LOOK AT AFTER, SHALL WE? To Wit;

    “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without ANY qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government….”

    “….This may be considered as the TRUE palladium of liberty….The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under ANY color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

    “…In America we may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty…”

    – St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries, (1803).

    BIG DIFFERENCE, ISN’T THERE?

    Shall NOT be Infringed means PRECISELY that which was written. We are having all of these problems BECAUSE of infringements.

    If the historical data is examined. It will be shown that all that ‘gun control’ does is MAKE MATTERS WORSE – NOT better. I contend this is because man is messing with “the TRANCENDENT Laws of Nature and of Natures God”. (See Federalist #43 – James Madison).

    The FACT is, that an armed student or teacher at Virginia Tech could very well have stopped the horror from EVER HAPPENING. AS WAS THE CLEAR INTENTIONS OF THE MEN THAT FRAMED OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT.

  • But I don’t think it’s about complete or perfect solutions, or anything remotely close to that.

    It’s about doing whatever we can to improve the odds, even just a little bit.

    In other words, gun control doesn’t really have to do anything good just as long as it makes us feel good about it.

  • No, we shouldn’t ban doctors, because they do some good, in addition to making mistakes. What good do guns do?

    That’s a pretty pitiful question coming from a supposed professor.

    Here are thousands of answers from around the country

  • Zedd

    Dave

    Based on FBI data, 300,000 guns are stolen from home burglaries annually and only 40% of those were recovered.

    Is your TV really worth all of that.

    Most home intrusion is not to murder the inhabitants, its to steal.

  • Would you care to compare our number of violent crimes in large cities to those nations’?

    How about we send every member of M-13, the Crips, the Bloods and the Latin Kings to those cities and then compare the crime rates?

    Dave

  • The problem with an armed citizenry along the lines you describe is that one of them could just as easily turn into a lunatic and start shooting at innocent people. Human nature, is, alas, not very predictable.

    The problem with having so many men walk along with complete set of gonads and genetalia is that one of them could just as easily turn into a lunatic and start raping innocent people. Human nature, is, alas, not very predictable.

    Look at all the women each week who could be saved that pain and shame just by chemically castrating every male who turns 14. Never again would we face the tragedy of knowing that our sisters, wifes, mothers, and daughters are vunerable to some unpredictable dick.

    It doesn’t matter if 99.9 percent of the male are blameless. Anyone who selfishlessly demands his right to five minutes of fleeting pleasure each week is as guilty as the man who actually rapes the woman. There are no innocents in this case, since the whole man obviously empowers the rapist with the idea that using his penis is somehow “okay.”

    After all, the penis is created just for the sole fact of penetrating a woman.

  • Unlike knives, which can used to cut food as well as people, the gun and rifle have only one purpose: to wound or kill.

    Dang… in over 30 years none of my guns have wounded or killed anyone or anything. Is it too late to get my money back for obviously defective weapons.

  • Zedd

    My wife says I have male-pattern blindness

    My stolen phrase of the year!!! Hug your wife!!!!!!!

    Oh my goodness this is almost better than Mandela’s release!!!

    Lets put her in Wikipedia. She deserves some recognition. Genius!!!!

  • Zedd

    Aron

    Would you care to compare our number of violent crimes in large cities to those nations’?

  • Odiedog

    I agree that additional gun control is not the answer to solving a problem created by people with bad intents.

    One only needs to look at one of the mini-utopian societies that we currently can observe, where weapons of all types are banned, individual behavior is closely monitored 24 hours a day and law enforcement personal are always located only seconds to minutes away.

    Somehow, despite all this, murders occur in prisons everyday because bad people, intent on doing harm, will always find a way.

  • Aaron

    Considering nations that actually do ban guns experience drastic increases in violent crimes, your argument is flawed.

  • Servant

    Well, it looks like no one read my post in the middle of their emotional arguements so I’ll repeat myself. Gun control can’t happen. Not that it shouldn’t, not that it’s good or bad. It just cannot physically happen. Look at history, people. Since when has any effort to control weapons ever worked. Ever? Anywhere? At all?

    We grieve for the dead and their families and friends, and move on. Life may not be fair, but I’d rather be alive than dead.

  • Odiedog

    I have been reading a couple of forums and blog sites today in response to this incident. The retoric from both sides was predictable. I think the most unfortunate thing is that when I first heard of this, my reaction wasn’t to pray for the victims and their families but rather, “Great, another incident for the anti-gun crowd to jump on to push for more gun laws.”

    They didn’t fail me. I don’t think Sarah Bardy and Schumer were high fiving about the incident but it didn’t take long for them to come out with a well coordinated attack on gun ownership and proposals for gun restrictions that have nothing to do with what happened. We don’t even know the detals of what happened or why. Is the issue a school shooting or a mass murder that took place at a school with a gun?

    Folks from other countries can take pot shots at our laws and our beliefs all they want. Given all of our faults, there isn’t another place I would rather live. Many of the posts I have read are opinions based on emotional responses to an terrible event. That is the problem with all of these discussions. Folks cling to the facts that support their positions. The truth is always somewhere in between.

    A very sad day for all involved. As a firefighter/paramedic who has worked with SWAT responses in the past, I especially feel for the responders who will be second guessed and ciritcized regardless of what happened. The decisons they had to make with little or no credible information were enormous.

    I have seen the direct result of violence of many kinds over the years. The evidence I see doesn’t lead me to belive that banning weapons will have any effect on these types of situations. In a free society, an individual determined to kill a large number of persons without due regard for themselves will always have that ability. For me, the price for preventing that type of action is worse.

  • Mark Townsend

    Dr. Dreadful wrote;“Every single time something like today happens, you can guarantee that some pro-gun person will whine, “But in Britain they banned guns and gun crime went up!” Let’s get one thing clear. Private gun ownership is not now, and never has been, widespread in Britain. If violent crime has increased, it probably has a lot more to do with underlying social problems than with criminals suddenly not having to worry about whether their victim is going to fill them full of holes.”

    It is my understanding that during the 2oth century, the murder rate in the UK increased roughly 150%. After the Dunblane incident, handguns were nearly totally banned, but even that didn’t stop the upsurge in statistics. Other violent crimes in the UK are going up too.
    Now, maybe gun control is not causing this. I am sure there are other reasons the crime rate changes. But I will say one thing; gun control certainly does not seem to cause the “statistics” to go down.
    By which I mean: Gun control does not work.
    It only disarms the law-abiding.
    I’m glad to hear that gun ownership has never been widespread in Britain. I’m glad you like it that way.
    I like America the way it is, too. Warts and all.

    Oh. And BTW, I have never heard of a gun big enough to stop a whale at a hundred yards.
    I hoipe I never see one.
    The recoild would be …. fun. 😉

  • Mark Townsend

    Paul Levinson wrote;“Mark T wrote: In an age of ever-diminishing rights, is it possible the ONLY reason why we have ANY left is BECAUSE of the 2nd amendment???

    No, it’s not.

    You think – what? That the government respects our rights because we have guns?

    We have rights because most Americans still respect the rule of law. Not as much as we should. Not all the time. But we do.

    So, when the Supreme Court stepped in and stopped the recount in Fla in 2000, the 50%+ Americans who voted for Gore respected that, even though they hated that.

    That’s why we have rights in the country.”

    Well, I’m glad you’re sure of that!!! I wish I could be so sure. I asked if it was possible,, not whether it WAS the case, or not.
    But I guess you have it all figured out.
    BTW… with regard to the 2000 election, the popular vote does NOT determine the election results. The electoral college does. If you don’t like that then change the constitution.
    So many people believe the U.S. is a democracy.
    It’s not.
    It’s a representative republic.

  • Josh

    Dr Dreadful Wrote: Yeah, my cat does that all the time when he’s cold, wet and hungry. Doesn’t occur to him to look for food or blankets.

    I’m talking about survival, not opportunism.

    In the case of Katrina, and in other tragedies, insurrections, etc. survival is often defending yourself from opportunists. It works best if you have a gun.

    My point is that the second amendment allows people to be real citizens with their destiny in their own hands. I know that is too much for some. With firearms around, tragedies will happen sometimes because you can’t legislate responsibility and intelligence. Hundreds could die in tragedies like this in a year, because we have a right to bear arms.

    MILLIONS of disarmed subjects died in the last century. History doesn’t show that disarmament is always followed by mass murder, but mass murder is almost always preceded by disarmament.

  • Zedd

    Interesting that Virginia is the home of the NRA.

  • Zedd

    Dave

    I’m certain that we have more gang members per capita than Australia.

    STM will have to respond to this but I suspect that it is the glorification of thug culture that is permeating the entire planet that is contributing to the gang phenomena in OZ.

    Paotie:

    Be certain that something else will take the place of guns but it wont be as devastating. One man cant kill 30 people in a short time with a knife or a baseball bat.

  • #105, 108, & 115
    “Tim” is completely wrong about the identity of the shooter!

  • Dr Dreadful

    Right, Paul. Some conservatives consistently portray liberals as pushing idealism at the expense of the common good. It doesn’t seem to occur to them that liberals hold those ideals because they believe they are for the common good.

    (And to pre-empt the inevitable reactions of “Just because I’m a _________ doesn’t mean I support _________ “, I’m aware that pro- and anti-gun people do not necessarily align politically. I’m generalizing in order to make a point.)

  • Dr Dreadful

    Josh wrote: Like breaking into peoples homes to steal TVs.

    Yeah, my cat does that all the time when he’s cold, wet and hungry. Doesn’t occur to him to look for food or blankets.

    I’m talking about survival, not opportunism.

  • Paotie

    I don’t know. Seems to me if we remove guns, people will find another way.

    Fertilizer apparently does more than nourish seedlings.

    :o)

    Paotie

  • Josh

    Like breaking into peoples homes to steal TVs.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Josh:

    Humans are animals. We do not “degenerate” into them. In situations of extreme stress, like Katrina, we will do exactly what any animal would to preserve our own life, i.e. whatever it takes.

  • Josh

    Over 75 million disarmed citizens were killed by their governments in the 20th century. Hundreds of millions were killed by people that their governments could not protect them from. Guns saved lives and property during the King riots, Hurricane Katrina disaster, etc.

    I enjoy and exercise my right to be a citizen (rather than a subject)and control my own destiny. Some would like to believe that we are educated beyond the possibility of any kind of travesty requiring an armed citizenry in this country. History has shown time and again that certain triggers (no pun intended) cause humans to degenerate into animals.

    We all have the right to refuse to have the capability to defend ourselves in these situations. Feel free. Don’t tell me that I would have to be a victim, too.

  • Dr Dreadful

    vertroue wrote (comment #124): Unless there is currently a security situation On/near the White House grounds you could do exactly what you suggest…

    Why don’t we send you along to try it out then? Purely out of scientific curiosity.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Not surprisingly, a prevalent reaction from commenters on this post has been a cry to “wake up and smell the bacon”. Unfortunately, there’s no agreement on what good bacon should smell like.

    On one side you have the gun control advocates saying, “Don’t you gun freaks get it yet? Guns in private hands KILL people!” One the other, you have the pro-gun lobby saying, “Don’t you gun control freaks get it yet? Armed students coulda STOPPED this!”

    No, they DON’T get it. Opinions change through thought and experience, not overnight. Epiphanies only happen to Jewish religious enforcers on business trips to Damascus. No-one’s going to suddenly stop ranting and say, “Oh, how silly of me. Now that this has happened, of course I’m going to mosey straight on over to the local blacksmith and have him melt my entire arsenal down.”

    What everyone SHOULD get from this, and soon, is the need for some kind of drastic action to stop this kind of thing from happening again. Whatever it is (and I don’t pretend to know) it’s going to make some people very unhappy. It needs some serious thought and debate. The experience of other countries needs to be looked at and measured against America’s deeply ingrained gun culture. And by that, I do NOT mean someone trumpeting, “In country X, after A happened, they did B which resulted in C, so we’re going to do D instead!”

    Being from a country where nobody (even the police) walks around carrying guns, my personal feeling is that the way to go is probably NOT to arm each and every citizen with enough firepower to bring down the government of a small Central American country. That’s my opinion. I’m not going to change it just like that. You’ll have to convince me… but no yelling.

  • moondog

    AND ANOTHER THING…

    LUBY’S CAFETERIA, COLUMBINE AND NOW VIRGINIA TECH ARE PERFECT EXAPMLES OF GUN CONTROL. THE ONLY FLAW BEING, IS THAT, ONLY THE BAD GUY HAD THE GUN.

  • Dennis

    Rather frightening how fast Mr. Levinson reacted with this political view. It appears he likely formulated this idea for a long time – no doubt with the help of the numerous misleading press releases from gun control groups.
    It’s very sad that he instantly uses a tragedy like this to propose his idea.
    It’s also sad that he never used any critical thinking to question the statistics from lying gun-control nuts, or the scary realities of such a useless proposal.

  • Patriot

    In January 2006, a bunch of congressmen with as twisted views as yourself rejected House Bill 1572 which would have allowed students with legitimate concealed carry permits to carry guns on campus. The bill died and so did all those innocent people. They could have fought back. Under your ideas, these people just have to sit there and die. THere is no way to stop all gun flow with laws. People can and will get guns if they want them. If need be they can make their own or steal them. They’re not concerned about breaking the law so that won’t be a problem. You are part of the problem.

  • S.T.M

    Dave wrote: “there has actually been a significant rise in overall gun crime”.

    Mainly due to a gangland war in Melbourne (old-style crims, not punks) engaged in a fierce battle for organised crime turf. No one’s been killed in the crossfire though, as far as I know, and the only attempt at a mass shooting was partly thwarted with two dead when a student at Monash University jumped up and tackled the guy as he was switching handguns.

    There have been no mass-carnage shootings of the type that used to happen here regularly since Port Arthur, I suspect because the types of guns favoured for these acts are hard to get.

    As I keep pointing out to you Dave, that’s the bottom line in my argument. That’s all I’m saying Dave. And really, if you don’t want this terrible stuff to keep happening, someone’s got to do something.

    The scope of this latest shooting is hard to fathom, really.

  • moondog

    THE WORST CAMPUS VICTIM DISARMAMENT TRAGEDY IN US HISTORY

    You will never see those as headlines !!!!

    How big does tragedy have to get to wake up the Anti’s???

    Of course lawful self defense with a firearm is not permitted on school grounds. Basically the rule on campus is… “We will not be able to protect you, and now you live and learn in a VICTIM DISARMAMENT ZONE, so you won’t be able to protect your self either.”

    I imagine champagne corks are poppin’ with the gun control croud.

    The truthful fact of the matter is –

    “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria

    “You won’t get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There’s only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up, and if you don’t actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time… It’s a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience.” —Ronald Reagan, 1983

    Somebody else said:

    “Several millions who have died because they had no arms to defend themselves. Men today are just as evil as they have ever been. And can always be counted on to rule with a rod of iron (read rifle in modern times) those who have no rod.”

    Will this horrible event finally wake up anti 2A sheeple???

    moondog

  • Zedd, illegal guns are also brought into the US in large numbers from outside the country, and that’s even more so in countries where guns are more restricted than they are in the US.

    A couple of additional points on this. Apparently since they put new restrictions on gun ownership in Australia – which STM keeps touting – there has actually been a significant rise in overall gun crime, especially gang related.

    Dave

  • John Oldani

    Repeal the 1st amendment and do away with blogs

  • Zedd

    The argument about the military potentially attacking the citizenry is odd at best. If they were to do so today, with the guns that we currently have, we wouldn’t be able to withstand them.

    Dave

    You forget (always) that gang members get their guns from ordinary law abiding citizens. Illegal guns are stolen guns.

  • STM

    MP: I beg to differ … I thought that too, until an American set me right. I’ve checked the evidence, you should too.

  • mpjones

    Paul: Rights do not derive from the Constitution, Declaration, or any other document.

    STM: “Hard” censorship (ie, full-on bans, not just voluntary restrictions) does not exist in the US.

  • STM

    Vertroue wrote: “And whether we agree or disagree, I would LOVE to hear those tales…. I just finished “The Man Eaters of Tsavo” .. ”

    … fascinating story that one, eh? Nothing that exotic here though I’m afraid mate, just a couple of snakes and a wild pig or two. Snakes are OK if you keep your eyes open, because they aren’t interested in you – mostly. Like I say, you have to keep your eyes open. They don’t like being trodden on …

    The pigs can be buggers though. They come charging out of the bush, and can rip your calf or thigh away in a flash. You don’t have to be after them for them to come for you, either. Even so, not shooting one would be the preferred option if possible – unlike some of my mates, who used to go on “pig shootun” expeditions.

    Heaven help us. It’s a miracle any of them (or any of the continent’s wildlife) survived, given the amount of beer drunk, the number of V8s revved to near self-destruction and the sheer firepower involved.

  • It takes less than a unanimous vote of the people or the states to repeal an amendment, and one of the key things about the Bill of Rights is that it is supposed to guarantee the rights of minorities against tyrrany of the majority. Guns do that too.

    Dave

  • You’re not calling for a ban on guns, just a repeal of the 2nd amendment which would open the way for such a ban.

    The 2nd amendment doesn’t outright prevent things like gun registration. It might not even interfere with a possible requirement for a certain amount of mandatory training. Gun owners largely oppose these things, but they might be a more realistic routes to pursue than a ban or repeal of the second amendment.

    Of course, the best protection we have now, and likely the best and most reasonable we could ever have, is the process of instant background checks which is currently in place. When worrying about guns, remember that every gun that’s sold legally is sold by a licensed firearms dealer who checks the background of the purchaser with the FBI database. There are a few exceptions for completely private gun sales and individual sales at gun shows, but they’re a tiny minority.

    Dave

  • vertroue

    Also on the first amendment question, given the world situation at the moment, get out on the street in front of the White House wearing Arab headress and a T-shirt that says “Osama was right” or something like it whilst shouting “Bush should die” or some other nonsense and see what happens.

    Being from outside the US I’ll assume you havent heard of Cindy Sheehan (snicker).

    Unless there is currently a security situation On/near the White House grounds you could do exactly what you suggest… sans the death threat. I wouldnt reccomend climbing the fence though…..there *REALLY* picky about that….

  • vertroue

    By the way, I think I said somewhere up in early commentdom that I’m not calling for a ban on guns.

    Ok.

  • vertroue

    and I have had to use them in the country a couple of times as protection from dangerous animals.

    And whether we agree or disagree, I would LOVE to hear those tales…. I just finished “The Man Eaters of Tsavo” recently and really dig outdoor stories.

    I do support serious controls and a crackdown on illegal weapons.

    So do I! The problem is that the current agency in the US to go after the criminals who market guns, or the folks who posess illegal firearms Is largely inneffective. Its a damn shame too, because with some funding they could be very good at what they need to do. But I wouldnt vote to give them another dime, because currently they are the most feared branch of our government.

    There also the only branch of our government that can write its own laws with no congressional or public oversight. If they decide tomorrow that any of the items they oversee are illegal, they kick down the door the day after.

    Warning: the folks that run this site are passionate (arent we all?) but they do have news tidbits http://www.atfabuse.com/

    Also, jpfo.org has a wonderful article or two outlining how this agency arrested and attempted to charge a man by ruling that a shoestring was an illegal machine gun.

    Seriously, truth is stranger than fiction.

    We have plenty to fear over here STM, some rational, some not…..

  • STM

    Oh dear, I’m talking to myself … the time warp and the international dateline kicks in again. Good night, America ….

  • STM

    Vertroue … plenty of movies, art, and books have been banned in the US, just do a search on google. I’m not posting dirty links, as you can do it if you’re interested. But McCarthyism is a classic example of censorship and an attempt to ban an idea in the US.

    Also on the first amendment question, given the world situation at the moment, get out on the street in front of the White House wearing Arab headress and a T-shirt that says “Osama was right” or something like it whilst shouting “Bush should die” or some other nonsense and see what happens. I reckon you’d last all of five minutes before you got bundled up and carted off.

    Not saying that it shouldn’t happen, btw, just making a point. Censorship exists in many forms.

  • STM

    Sorry, Paul is NOT advocating a ban

  • vertroue

    For all of you that would like an entertaining view of a portion of this debate: Enjoy!

  • Tim

    Oh yeah! I can’t wait to hear how the Police and George Bush and Virginias Representives, are going to explain to the parents of all the dead victims at Virginia Tech. Why they allowed a terrorist to walk the streets after being busted for bomb making?
    Then try to sell the idea that an Unarmed popluace is a good thing. When their own government will not protect them. Good Luck Paul on that one!

  • vertroue

    The US government has banned plenty of movies, ads, art, books, ideas (remember McCarthyism) you name it. Like I say, please know your subject before you get on here and write your thoughts.

    And like I say: show me what you think is banned from adults in the US.

  • STM

    “Another thought. This country tried once already to ban something based on passioned pleas and paranoid policy and it created a multi million dollar bootleg industry to satisfy needs”.

    What a bloody ridiculous thing to do, too, that was. Imagine banning booze, but letting everyone run around with a gun. Now’s it’s a smoking ban creeping in, but enough guns to arm all the world’s third-world countries and then some, that’s fine. Only in America …

  • STM

    “if the gov tells me I cant look at them its censorship….get it?”

    The US government has banned plenty of movies, ads, art, books, ideas (remember McCarthyism) you name it. Like I say, please know your subject before you get on here and write your thoughts.

    Censorship has always existed in the United States – and fair enough too, why shouldn’t the government/governments you elect be free to make some of those decisions?

  • vertroue

    My wife says I have male-pattern blindness, and always miss seeing stuff right in front of me…:)

    My ex used to say the same thing.

    She must be right, I can’t see her anymore!

  • vertroue

    Sweet! its cheap too!

    Another thought. This country tried once already to ban something based on passioned pleas and paranoid policy and it created a multi million dollar bootleg industry to satisfy needs.

    Lets not try that again shall we?

    I truly think that if folks believe we need to ban something because to many people are abusing it, that we should honestly separate and live in different areas of this country. I wont predict what would happen, but it would make a neat experiment, no?

  • Tim
  • vertroue

    Oh….up there!

    🙂 Thanks Paul.

  • Tim

    Go ahead and repeal it/ See what happens.

    People like you ignore the real problem.
    People being allowed in this country that donot share our values. eg., Foreigners!

    I see the Press continue to ignore that this shooter @ Virginia tech was busted last year for Bomb Making and he’s out walking the streets of America?
    So much for the Law putting criminals away huh?

  • vertroue

    STM sayz: the US has its own censorship divisions.

    For determining the needs of minors. Not the voting public. If I choose not to look at nudie pics its my choice….if the gov tells me I cant look at them its censorship….get it?

    Even the toughest movie ratings can be overridden by a parent. An “R” rating still means that a twelve year old can see the movie with a parent and isnt that who we are supposed to be learning responsibility from anyway? 🙂

    As a side note, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank parents everywhere who actually give a damn what there child is doing/learning at any given minute…

  • vertroue

    STM: with a $200 tax stamp and the most lengthy background check this government has, I CAN own a rocket launcher, a grenade launcher, even a true machine gun.

    To quote something i read somewhere once:

    “… make sure you know what you’re talking about before you start writing.”

  • vertroue

    Paul Levinson: I dont see the amazon link… is it in your url?

    The purpose was not merely to kill the inhabitants, but to show force and possibly end a months long siege conflict with no further bloodshed. Barring that, yes it was Braveheart time…

    STM: what about the Monash University shooting? Or all of the gangland murders in Melbourne? Did it stop those?

    The US currently has the most restrictive process for purchasing any item pinned squarely on the firearm. Hell, its easier to get actual explosives than it is firearms. Legally.

    And if your the un-legal type, money talks.

    And now, for fun:

    “In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting,government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940’s, 1950’s and 1960’s,anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations,variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.”

  • STM

    Vertroue wrote: “Which is also declared by the same statute … and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions … ”

    Please, once again, take note of the last bit – “under due restrictions”. I read that very clearly as meaning it was never meant to be unrestricted, and the previous bit I’ve quoted as meaning that the government has every right to decide on what weapons can be banned by law.

    Go and take a look also at all the writings on the 9th amendment, particularly the thoughts of the founding fathers. The consensus: an instruction on how the constitition of the United States should NOT be interpreted. In other words, not the ONLY law of the land.

  • STM

    Vertroue … the US has its own censorship divisions. They’re the ones that decide what kinds of ratings to put on films (or whether to ban them), and whether to allow books to be read, or read by minors, and what ads and TV programs you can and can’t watch. There is plenty of censorship at various levels of government in the US: federal, state and local, along with some industry censorship boards. And there always has been … make sure you know what you’re talking about before you start writing.

    And don’t get carried away with this notion of having more rights than anyone else. You don’t.

    As for me not being able to buy a samurai sword because it’s banned by law, well, I’ll just say that you can’t buy a rocket launcher because it’s banned by law.

    What’s the difference when you’re talking these kinds of “rights”? It’s either all in, or all out, according to your way of thinking.

    Clearly, that’s not the case even in the US.

  • vertroue

    STM: dont forget to finish your thought:

    “Which is also declared by the same statute … and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”

  • vertroue

    Dr Dreadful: the “gun” came from a need to breech wooden and stonemasoned walls many, many years ago.

    Thanks anyway.

  • STM

    “The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law.”

    Please take note of the last bit. “such as allowed by law”. The 9th amendment was expressly designed to guard against the very notions being expressed in many of the above posts – for those who think that the constitition should be the sole means of deciding what the law might be, or how it should be interpreted.

  • vertroue

    If you dont live in a country where you had to fight for your freedom, you may not trust anyone with weapons.

    I’m glad that this can be open for debate and that folks from around the world can participate, but if you havent lived here, your perspective might be a bit… skewed.

    For instance, I’d have a hard time collecting Japanese historical swords in the UK or in AUS: BBC News The Age -because the gov told me that they are looking out for my safety.

    But I suppose that’s better than living in one of those other facist Western Countries like New Zealand… New Zealand Government PDF -isnt that nice? They have there own censorship division that looks out for my safety because I’m not smart enough to take care of my own needs.

    I wont even get into slippery slope.

    Gun control by any other name (2nd amendment changes) is still gun control and is still racist.

    And for those of you who currently live in this country, There is no first without the second.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Dave Nalle #51: “Guns aren’t expressly designed to kill people.” Really? The invention of the gun took off precisely because it was a very good way of killing people. The other uses came later.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Sean #81: Actually I’m glad you’re not a cop. I’d especially not like to be your commanding officer. The phrase “loose cannon” springs irresistibly to mind.

  • STM

    And here’s a PS on Amy Sue’s #80. Gun crime has NOT risen in Australia since the gun ban, and most of the shootings there have been have been crims shooting crims. You are NEVER going to guard against that.

    However, there is one fact that is not in dispute: since certain types of weapons were banned, the kinds of mass shootings that used to happen regularly and culminated in the deaths of 35 people at Port Arthur in a single shooting, have not happened in the 10 years since.

    You can also still own guns here, BTW – just with stringent controls – and the use of reasonable force, even with a gun, to protect yourself, is still considered a legitimate defence at law. Where do you get your ideas, Amy Sue?

  • STM

    Dr Dreadful: “Don’t get me wrong – I enjoy shooting. I just think guns belong on the range, not in people’s pockets.”

    Hear, hear, and quoted for truth.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Amy Sue #80.

    Before you make idiotic comments about the state of law and order in my country, please make sure that what you are saying is fact and not just something you heard in a one-sided debate with your fellow gun nuts.

    Rapists in Britain are NOT “just given a ticket”. If convicted, they go to prison for a very long time. And you will not get sent down for using reasonable force to defend yourself either (reasonable force NOT being defined as blowing your assailant’s head off with something designed to stop a charging blue whale at 600 paces).

    Every single time something like today happens, you can guarantee that some pro-gun person will whine, “But in Britain they banned guns and gun crime went up!” Let’s get one thing clear. Private gun ownership is not now, and never has been, widespread in Britain. If violent crime has increased, it probably has a lot more to do with underlying social problems than with criminals suddenly not having to worry about whether their victim is going to fill them full of holes.

    Don’t get me wrong – I enjoy shooting. I just think guns belong on the range, not in people’s pockets.

  • STM

    “Amy Sue” said: “Because over 100 million people were murdered by their own governments in the 20th century”.

    1) It’s not the 20th century;

    2) It didn’t happen here, in NZ, or Canada, and it certainly didn’t happen in America;

    3) It only happened in Britain when people started firing at the government (in Ireland).

    Do you seriously believe that your institutions of law can’t protect you from your own government?

    What, the evidence of the past 200 years says you can’t trust the US Government? Please, spare me – this is just paranoid, loony right-wing madness.

    And what a thing to say about the victims not having the self respect to protect themselves. You should give yourself an upper cut for that one, Amy Sue.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Amy Sue: “Not one of those people had enough respect for themselves to defend themselves.”

    That is a despicable comment. Were you there?

  • What about the university and the Feds banning guns on campus? It used to be that schools allowed them on campus and had shooting ranges. guess what no school shootings. Now days they are banned and no one has the ability to defend them selves. the 2nd is not only about protecting the natural right of self defense or defending yourself against the government. It is about people being able to have arms to protect themselves and thier families any time any where.

    What if I told you that as a result of this we wanted to ban knives and fists and bats etc? Heck in MA it is illegal to defend yourself. you’ll get charged with a crime most times especailly if you use a gun. Pepper spray requires a pistol carry license.

    Now this was a chinese national with a visa. So guess what this guy had to get his guns illegally. the serial numbers were filed off. So you are saying we don’t have the right to defend our selves against a chinese national who gets a gun or guns and decides to go rambo on an open campus.

    The cops in the level 3 suits were all just out there waiting for a long time. The cops didn’t get in there and take that jerk out. They failed in thier duty IMHO. I would have gone in there and taken him out. I don’t accept criminals doing that. Maybe I get wounded or or killed but it will be in the line of protecting innocents.

    I do not accept trash like this killing people. I would respond. The cops never even got near this guy or even seen him before he killed himself.

    If I were a cop I would have got in there asap back up or not and taken this ass hole out.

  • Amy Sue

    Because over 100 million people were murdered by their own governments in the 20th century ……… just say NO to gun control!

    As for the other more civilized countries in the world, such as the (formerly) Great Britian and Australia (among others) ….. Crime, especially violent crime, has gone up exponentially, since instituting gun bans. Not an example I would care to follow. And now even their gun crime volume is going up – how can that be. The UK sends victims to prison. If a person defends themselves in the UK it’s prison for them. There a Rapist is just given a ticket.

    Sixty people were shot here. And 32 of them shot to death. Not one of those people had enough respect for themselves to defend themselves. I choose to be responsible for my own safety, thank you very much. I might not be able to stop some “crazy” from sneaking up and shooting me, but I can ensure that I am the last person he ever shoots.

    I find it sad that many people in this country don’t feel their own, or any life is worth defending. I feel so much pity for them.

    We need the second amendment now more than ever.

    Amy

  • An inalienable Right CANNOT be “repealed”. Especially when it was enacted with the words “shall NOT be infringed”. It is a PRE-EXISTENT NATURAL RIGHT. One long considered as the First Law of Nature. Which laws, are the very basis of our intended government.

    “The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”

    – William Blackstone, 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 136, 1765-1769.

    “Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance.”

    – Thomas Jefferson, Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376.

    “….The express authority of the people alone could give due validity to the Constitution….

    “…The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature’s God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed. Perhaps, also, an answer may be found without searching beyond the principles of the compact itself….”

    “…A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void….”

    “It is one of those cases which must be left to provide for itself. In general, it may be observed, that although no political relation can subsist between the assenting and dissenting States, yet the moral relations will remain uncancelled. The claims of justice, both on one side and on the other, will be in force, and must be fulfilled; the rights of humanity must in all cases be duly and mutually respected; whilst considerations of a common interest, and, above all, the remembrance of the endearing scenes which are past, and the anticipation of a speedy triumph over the obstacles to reunion, will, it is hoped, not urge in vain moderation on one side, and prudence on the other.”

    PUBLIUS

    – James Madison, The Federalist No. 43, Jan. 23, 1788.

  • Mark Townsend

    The idea of repealing the 2nd amendment is twisted. In the aftermath of this horrible tragedy, some may understandably be attracted to this solution.
    First, let me say the 2nd amendment didn’t CREATE the right to “keep and bear arms.” The right existed prior to the 2A and would continue afterword, no matter what. Without it, however, it would be far easier for the government to punish people for excercizing the right.
    And do you really believe the 2nd amendment will be the ONLY right that gets trampled?
    Far from it. Already the 10th amendment is near-meaningless. The 1st amendment gets a workout every time some goofus like Imus sticks his foot in his mouth.
    In an age of ever-diminishing rights, is it possible the ONLY reason why we have ANY left is BECAUSE of the 2nd amendment???

  • STM

    [Entire comment deleted. I think that’s enough now, Gentlemen. All complaints to the usual place. Thank you. The Comments Editor]

  • vertroue

    To all whom wish for more controls on US firearms: please move to one area of the country so your government can assist you. Advertise the fact that you dont like guns. Then leave the rest of us alone.

    Take the majority of the funding for state and local police forces with you.

    I’ll petition to live in Col. Cooperville today.

    And STM, I missed it, are you in AU or NZ or something?

  • call me a fuckwit all you want…fight along side my countrymen, thank you…you’re not a citizen..YOU DON’T GET A SAY!

    Sorry pal..that’s the way it works over here…you become a citizen..you vote…otherwise…hey…honestly…shut the fuck up! No body cares what you think.

    But you’re right, here in this fairly awesome place I call home…you do…like everybody else have the right to say what you like…and I like everybody else have the right to change the channel…consider this one turned off!

    Have a nice day!

  • Clavos

    OK, Stan.

    It would be a dull world (and friendship) if we agreed on everything

  • STM

    Who’s talking anti-gun Clav?? Why is it that having a viewpoint about the proliferation of firearms has to be interpreted as anti-gun?

    I don’t know a single soldier here who thinks it’s OK for every second person to have a gun, especially when they haven’t been trained to use them.

    As for you Andy, you sound like a bloody fu.kwit on this: there are plenty of my countrymen out there putting their lives on the line for your country even as we speak, and they’ve been doing it both for you and the British since the Boer War. Learn your fucking facts mate before you start with that crap.

    Ask Clav, he knows. He was in Vietnam with my countrymen. I’ll say again: I’m not anti-American … I’ll say it again, even. I’m against blind belief in the right to own weapons 200 years after a simple piece of legislation was devised to help protect against marauders when the US had no standing army.

    And why do I care? I have spent a bit of time in the US over the years, and doubtless will be there again in the future. So while that’s always a possibility, it does bother me and it’s my right to be bothered.

    Plus mate, this is a free country (mine) – just like yours. I’m allowed to have an opinion and express it even if you don’t like it. And while we’re on amendments, since it’s a US-based website, your first one allows anyone to say whatever they like as long as they’re not breaking the law.

  • Clavos

    BTW, to be fair to CR’s viewpoint, he was a squaddie and has a fair idea of what guns can do to people, and like most ex-soldiers, he quite rightly has somewhat of an aversion to them being in the hands of the wrong people (the untrained, I’d assume, and those who don’t need them). (emphasis added)

    I don’t personally know a single ex-GI who’s anti-gun, and every single one I know is, like me, a combat veteran.

    From what I know of the NRA membership profile, a high proportion of members are veterans.

  • If you believe your govt…what ever fucking govt it is can protect you from the loonies of the world…I’d say you’re the prize wanker there bucko! but good luck with it…and if you ain’t from here…then why the fuck do you even care??? For that matter…what business is it of yours??? don’t you have enough issues where you are from?

  • STM

    Andy wrote: “dispute it all you want…and while you’re at it keep believing that this govt…the one that I’m sure I could find a million negative comments here from you and your buddies…to defend you from all those enemies…both foreign and domestic…”

    You sound like a prize wanker. Get a fu.king grip on reality before you start posting this gibberish. And as most people know here, I’m not anti-American. It’s this ONE thing that I find bizarre. All the other mad stuff about America I can deal with …

  • and I actually did start shouting…I was pounding the keys while I was typing that!

  • STM

    Andy wrote: “Besides..as I’ve read here many times…we ain’t civilized…we’re juvenile…right CR?”

    Don’t confuse me with CR. Also, let’s get this straight: I don’t advocate a total ban on guns as some people do need them, and sports shooting is legitimate. BTW, to be fair to CR’s viewpoint, he was a squaddie and has a fair idea of what guns can do to people, and like most ex-soldiers, he quite rightly has somewhat of an aversion to them being in the hands of the wrong people (the untrained, I’d assume, and those who don’t need them).

    Why can’t you guys see the wood for the trees? You too Clav. But you are probably right, it is likely only a matter of time before someone goes berserk again.

    However, we used to have these kinds of incidents every couple of years – without fail. There hasn’t been one since Port Arthur, and that’s a good thing. You can’t totally guard against nutcases, but you can make it harder for them.

    It’s really hard to stab 30-plus people with a knife, or shoot that many with a rimfire single-shot weapon before someone jumps on you.

  • you keep relying on your govt…

    probably for everything….I know my govt can’t keep weapons from every second idiot…but I have it under control…at least at my house.

    I’ve been to a couple of countries with more freedoms than I have here…and I envy them some of those freedoms…but some of those freedoms…those that I envy are changing in this country every day…it’s still the best place on the planet…

    dispute it all you want…and while you’re at it keep believing that this govt…the one that I’m sure I could find a million negative comments here from you and your buddies…to defend you from all those enemies…both foreign and domestic…

    and it comforts me so to know that you can live with a few criminals being armed while the rest of us aren’t…I hope he prowls your neighborhood first!

    country’s turning into a bunch of sissies!

    HA!!!

  • Stephen

    What’s next. In Scotland they are banning knives. What comes after that rocks, bats. What else?? Do you feel safe now??

  • STM

    Yeah, lovely piece of reasoned thought, there, Andy. I’m surprised you didn’t start shouting!

    Loved the bullsh.t bit in the other post about defending the freedoms you have. You have about the same amount of freedoms every other civilised western democracy has. Some actually have more, but there’s your other delusion, eh?

    I know you don’t see it this way, but I consider it a freedom to have a government that had the balls to take steps to make sure every second idiot can’t get a weapon that he or she might want to use to start taking potshots at me.

    I’m glad most of the guns in this country are now in the hands of the Army and the police, and not available to any total fu.kwit. And much as I don’t like it, I can live live with the idea that a few crims still have them.

  • Besides..as I’ve read here many times…we ain’t civilized…we’re juvenile…right CR?

  • Clavos

    STM says:

    Keep your guns … just bring in some legislation that places some restrictions on their type, availability, calibre, storage, carriage and use.

    Pass all the laws you want; they won’t stop the guy who wants to do some killing. They’ll just stop those he shoots at.

    You heard it here first, Stan. You Aussies have just been lucky so far. Inevitably, some other nutcase is going to get his hands on a gun and head for the nearest crowd; Pt. Arthur all over again, bans or no bans.

    One other thing, cobber:

    Sorry mate, but I just don’t understand how anyone can condone the keeping of “military-style” weapons in a civilised society

    Watch your language there, mate! Who the hell you callin’ a “civilised society”, eh?

  • that is the truth…I really don’t give a rats ass what the rest of the world thinks of my country…I’ve been there…I like it fine, but I was born and raised here…and it’s here I stay.

    As far as I’m concerned we outta close up shop and let the world see what it’s like without us for a while…they’ll be back…they always come back.

    didn’t this country get started because our forefathers were tired of what the rest of the world thought we should be doing?

    But what’s fucked up is you jump on this tragedy to start singing about an assault weapon ban! Even though this lunatic foreigner…from a country that you probably think we should be concerned at how they see us…came over here on a STUDENT VISA…and shot up a quiet little campus in Blacksburg VA

    FUCK THAT!!!

    Once you get your grubby little hands on assault weapons…and see that it did absolutely nothing to stem the gun violence problem then you’ll go after every other gun! It’s a bullshit argument. and that’s the truth!

  • STM

    A 9mm is a fairly potent firearm Andy, and the .22 … was it a .22 or .223? It depends on the size of the charge, btw, in regards to what gives a bullet it’s power, and how that charge is configured for firing.

    Most small .22s are rimfire weapons, which are unlikely to have done the kind of carnage we’re seeing here. My bet: the .22 is really a .223 centre fire, fired from a semi-auto with a magazine of 10-15 rounds.

    Sorry mate, but I just don’t understand how anyone can condone the keeping of “military-style” weapons in a civilised society in this day and age. Really, if people have a desperate need to fart around with guns, they should join the armed forces or the police – where they can also learn why you don’t fart around with guns.

    Like I say, 300 million firearms out there in the community just makes this one aspect of American life a laughing stock – if it wasn’t so tragic – in the eyes of the rest of the civilised world (although like I say, it’s a blind spot for you and you probably couldn’t give a shit, but still, that’s the truth).

    But whatever you say, it’s still total madness.

  • What happens if cars become a choice of weapon for madmen? Ramming them into sidewalk cafes for example?

    Do you ban cars? True, there is no “right to bear cars” clause and it seems like a strange example but it really is besides the point. I can see STM’s point and I have grappled with that one for years Society change and evolve but I’m not sure if repealing the 2nd amendment would do anyting regardless of its original intent. I think it goes deeper than that. The bottom line is that it won’t change a damn thing.

    I’m glad it’s worked out for Australia but I can tell you the gun registry introduced by the incompetent corrupt Liberal party has been an unmitigating disaster that has cost taxpayers millions – if not billions. Guess what else? We had a tragedy on a College (equivalent to Grade 12/13 in high school) campus here in Montreal only last year. Despite the tireless efforts of well-inentioned people who vowed to eradicate this sort of madness after the famous Polytechnique massacre at the Unversity of Montreal where 15 women were killed in 1989.

    The sad thing is that it happened again in 1994 with Valery Fabrikant who killed four colleagues at the engineering department at Concordia University and as I mentioned the Dawson shooting that claimed one life. Had it not been for the quick and professional repsonse of the Montreal police and the fact that the killer did not know how to shoot and aim properly it would have been worse.

    There most certainly is a problem or even a malaise but we need to be measured and enlightened in our response. Banning guns is the not the problem. Maybe we simply are failing our kids at the most basic levels?

    God speed to the victims families and friends as well as Virginia Tech.

  • sr

    Dave my good man. Jim Jones killed over 900 people, a far cry from the 150 you stated. Glocks rock.

  • he didn’t have high powered weapons…a 9mm and a 22! mighta been a 25…but no where near high powered! and a butt load of ammo!

    It’s not the proliferation of guns…it’s the proliferation of a life style…people ain’t killing each other in my neighborhood!

  • STM

    The only thing is Andy, there’s no getting around the fact that the gun homicide rate in the US is way higher per capita than any other comparable western democracy. The real reason: the proliferation of guns in the US (300 million and counting, and that’s a conservative estimate).

    I’m sure it doesn’t bother you one iota, but people outside the US do think it’s bizarre and even laughable that Americans continue with this blind-belief in the absolute infallibility of the constitution nonsense around the 2nd amendment (I notice too that the people who are often squealing about the need to punt the 16th amendment are also the ones who don’t want the 2nd touched. Both are as legitimate as the other, BTW). The founding fathers never intended for the constitution to be the sole arbiter of the law in the United States – that’s why they included the 9th, as a very strong warning against that idea.

    It’s the proliferation of high-powered weapons that’s the problem, Andy, not the fact that one person on campus could’ve ended it in a heartbeat if they’d been armed.

    I love that hoary old NRA chestnut: “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”.

    True … but nine times out of 10 in the US, it’s people with guns doing the killing. I am not an anti-gun nut, BTW, and have had to use firearms in the past in the country. They do have their place, especially for rural workers. But I have also seen first hand on quite a few occasions what high-powered weapons can do to the human body and it ain’t pretty (especially on kids) and it’s what turned me around to the idea that the average person has no business owning one.

    Keep your guns… just bring in some legislation that places some restrictions on their type, availability, calibre, storage, carriage and use.

  • The Second Amendment will never, ever be repealed. Ever. If you live to be three thousand years old, and witness the President, the Vice President, the Cabinet, and the entire Congress all killed by citizens with guns in a single half-hour, you will not see the right to bear arms repealed in this country.

    I applaud your speaking on your principles, but for all practical purposes you’re wasting your time. Whether I, or even the majority of Americans, agree with you–it’s a hopeless, helpless, fruitless cause. Period.

  • Jason Taylor

    A car can kill 30 people within a few seconds. An airliner used in a creative enough manner can kill hundreds instantly, thousands over the course of a few hours.

    While you may not be willing to fight for your right to defend yourself, I am. MEN are inherently evil, not firearms.

    I will never be a victim.

  • “damned fine paperweights”

    …that’s funny!

  • and apparently…at least from what I’m hearing on the news out here in the bay area…this was also a product of our great open border policy…bring us your hungry, your tired…your freaking loonies!!!

    big fucking fence I tell ya! that’s what we need!

  • Guns aren’t expressly designed to kill people. That is just one of their functions. Plus it’s a legitimate function in its own right. Guns can kill animals, they can deter those who intend violence, they can wound, they can be used for improving hand-eye coordination and for competitive sports. Hell, they make damned fine paperweights too.

    But the fact is that there are situations where guns have legitimate uses, as legitimate as a car or a swimming pool. Do you think you should not have the capacity to defend yourself by killing someone who is attempting to kill you?

    As for the number killed, you can kill a hell of a lot more with a gallon of gas, a match and a crowded nightclub.

    Dave

  • STM – todays events prove we don’t live in a modern civilized society…as you’d like to believe…one armed person on that campus…in that engineering building could’ve ended that dumb shit in a heart beat…but those of you that want to disarm us all stopped that from happening. As long as we have the freedoms we have in this country we need to defend ourselves from the crazy ones…

  • Dave wrote: There’s also no guarantee that they won’t go berserk in their cars as has happened in several recent incidents and run the cars into crowds. Does that mean we should ban cars?

    As Dr. Dreadful replied to Jay, above – the difference is that cars and swimming pools are not expressly designed to kill people.

    Look, you can kill someone with a pillow, with just about anything.

    Surely you see the difference between cars, swimming pools, and pillows, on the one hand, and guns on the other.

    A gun can kill 30 or more people in a few minutes, and can’t be used for anything other than killing.

    That’s why we should do all in our power to strictly limit their availability.

  • STM

    The second amendment was designed to keep a standing militia in the period after the War of Independence and prior to the US attack on Canada that began the war of 1812.

    That’s over 200 years ago, where the weapon of choice was a slow-loading flintlock pistol or musket, and let’s be honest – a lot’s changed. Is there really any place for 300 million guns in a modern society? There is already a standing militia: The National Guard. So that takes care of that bit. How could the founding fathers have foreseen a country of this size sprining up from the 13 colonies, with any understanding of what the future would be like or how eaponry would change?

    There’s no need for a total gun ban IMO – but restrictions both on gun ownership, through licensing etc, and the types of guns able to be kept, in no way infringes Americans’ 2nd amendment rights. It still gives citizens the right to bear arms.

    In the city, and in most rural areas, can anyone tell me why you’d need anything more than a low-calibre, single-shot bolt action or repeat loader rimfire weapon?

    The restriction should be on auto and semi-auto large calibre or .223 centrefire weapons.

    And handguns, of course …

    Just doesn’t make sense to ban cigarette smoking almost everywhere and then let every second idiot walk around with a gun. It’s absolute madness in this day and age in a modern, civilised society.

    Perhaps it’s time America sorted out its priorities. Otherwise, this shit will keep happening.

    In answer to those who know I’m Australian, BTW, and want to point out that the crime rate Down Under hasn’t fallen since the gun ban here 10 years ago, I’ll just say this: there have been no mass shootings or multiple gun murders since the Port Arthur massacre that led to the (partial) gun ban.

  • Americans have a right to bear arms — under the Second Amendment to our Constitution — but that right should be repealed.

    Actually, the right to defend oneself is a fundamental human right which is merely affirmed in the constitution. You can repeal the amendment, but that doesn’t take away the right. The amendments don’t GRANT rights. We have the rights and the amendments are there to protect them. Without the amendments being enforced we have to protect them by other means.

    Dave

  • Dave – I understand why you linked to the article, but as I said, I disagree with your solution: There’s no guarantee that one of the well-trained and well-armed citizens won’t have a nervous breakdown and go ballistic – well-armed and well-trained.

    There’s also no guarantee that they won’t go berserk in their cars as has happened in several recent incidents and run the cars into crowds. Does that mean we should ban cars?

    Hell, Jim Jones killed 150 people with Kool-Aid. Should we ban that too? David Koresh got a couple of score killed for Jesus. Should we ban Jesus?

    If the death count on this incident is correct it is the 8th biggest mass murder in the US in the 20th/21st century. Of the 7 larger ones, only #7 was also carried out with guns. #s 1-6 were 1 arson, 3 bombings and 2 deliberate plane crashings (assuming we count 9/11 as a single event). So let’s ban gasoline, a variety of household and farm chemicals and airplanes.

    The point I’m making here is that the problem isn’t by any means the guns. It’s the intent to kill a bunch of people by whatever means are available.

    Dave

  • To everyone who has said/is saying/will say “guns are meant only to kill” or “xxx wasn’t designed to kill people, guns are” STOP IT.

    Firstly, a gun is designed to fire a metal projectile from a barrel, through the use of combusting a highly flammable material. That’s it. That’s all they are designed to do.

    People use them for various things. Unfortunately, some people choose to use a firearm to criminal ends. Others choose to slaughter tin cans, blast holes in paper, put some dear meat on the family table, or prevent a rape.

    On the other hand, there’s cars. Cars are not designed to kill people. In fact, they are designed to be as safe as possible. They have to go through crash testing, seatbelts are required. Virtually every car on the market today has an airbag. You have to go through driver’s ed, spend so many hours practicing, and take a knowledge AND practical test just to get a license to drive. And somehow with all those safety restrictions, and regulations, and features, cars still kill more people than guns ON ACCIDENT…

  • Servant

    This is just a pattern of history repeating itself. The Pope tried to ban crossbows, gurrelia combat was abhorred by the “civilized” European nations, then nuclear/biochemical weaponry and handguns. See what I’m saying? People will always kill people, regardless of secular law, religous mandate, or even common morals. Sorry, but that’s the way the world works.

  • vertroue

    Dr Dreadful: “The difference is that pools are not built for the express purpose of drowning people.”

    Neither are my tools.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Jay: “The fact remains that the pools are much more dangerous than guns. How about banning those instead?”

    The difference is that pools are not built for the express purpose of drowning people.

  • Benjamin Cossel

    To Paul – one of the two histroical roles of the FEDERAL government, the one you mention, was/is to provide for a National Defense.

    Again, I go back to – the 2nd amendment is more about our ability as citizens to have a means to protect ourselves from ourselves.

    I don’t think the law has outlived it’s usefulness, in fact I think everyday it becomes more and more viable.

  • Jay

    I would point you toward the book Freakonomics in which an economist, who has never owned a gun, ran numbers on gun deaths vs. swimming pool deaths. Swimming pools are much more likely to kill a child than a gun. Problem is guns are frightening (to those who have no knowledge of them) but swimming pools are calm pools of water. The fact remains that the pools are much more dangerous than guns. How about banning those instead?

  • Benjamin Cossel

    To N – That wsan’t me, that was Madison.

  • The Haze

    Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    Benjamin Franklin
    What is wrong with you people? Don’t you see where this would lead?

  • N

    The 2nd amendment is that final check, it the check and balance scheme, that says don’t fuck with us too bad, we are armed. – Benjamin Cossel

    Well put.

  • FEAR THE GOVERNMENT THAT FEARS YOUR GUNS. I’m betting that you are one of those folks scared to death by the Patriot Act. You should be. Do you really want to give up the government reset-button? You can say “call the police” when you need help from a robber. But who do you call when you need help from the police? think HARD!

    Enough of the government conspiracy theories. Here’s some logic: A supreme court case (Castle Rock v. Gonzales) basically stated that the police are not required to provide protection from criminals. That means the police are not RESPONSIBLE for you or your family’s protection. So who *IS* responsible? YOU ARE! Do you really want to give up your most effective means of self defense?

    Think about this: criminals BREAK laws. that’s what they do. If someone is willing to break a law against murder (which could get him the death penalty), do you really thing they’re going to be concerned with a gun law?

    Think of guns like drugs. Crystal meth is illegal, right? I bet you know what part of town you could find some, right? So if crystal meth is illegal, why is it available? And if criminals could get drugs that are totally illegal, what makes you think that they couldn’t get guns? Would it be that hard for some columbian drug cartel to pack his speedboats full of guns instead of drugs?

    Do you really want to tell the entire nation’s criminals that they need no longer fear a homeowner with a shotgun?

  • vertroue

    Evem Thomas Hobbes may have thought that the gov exists to protect its citizens, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the government, its employees, the military, and Federal State and local police are not responsible for the saftey of its citizens.

    You are responsible for your own saftey and possibly the safety of your family (if you have one). Lesson learned from today? Dont go to school where a panel of highly educated intelligent like minded individuals whom have never been exposed to violence dictate your rights to defend yourself.

  • troll

    Paul – as you know reality often flies in the face of theory

    your government cannot protect you from incidents like today’s

    look to yourself and your friends

  • Liz

    Violence and right to bear arms: do they go together? They may in some cases, but in most situations they dont. The right to carry arms is a powerful way against the universal rights of government, which is more deadly. For this, read a brilliant new book: China and the new world order: how entrepreneurship, globalization, and borderless business are reshaping China and the world. In that book, Chinese reporter george zhibin gu gives an huge account on how China is trapped by a self-appointed government, and how the nation is trying to escape the deadly bureaucratic trap. Very powerful.

  • Leo Green

    Paul:

    Before we ban guns to protect American citizens, we should ban automobiles and swimming pools; both of which kill far more people every year than guns do.

  • Benjamin wrote: To Paul who is willing to sacrifice his constitutional rights to feel safer

    Benjamin -what do you reckon to be the purpose of government?

    Evem Thomas Hobbes acknowledged that the fundamental purpose of government – the only purpose on which everyone should agree – is to protect the lives of its citizens.

    If a right guaranteed in the Constitution does more harm than good in that fundamental purpose, isn’t it wise to consider if we might be better off without it?

  • Benjamin Cossel

    And you, good sir, are apparently lacking in imagination.

  • Benjamin Cossel

    To Dave who thinks only liberals can hold an anti-gun view – Believe it or not, I’m as liberal as they come, yes to all my conservative friends, some of us liberals are also pro-gun.

    To Paul who is willing to sacrifice his constitutional rights to feel safer – I would rather be gunned down in a hail of bullets by a crazy ten-year old who got ahold of his daddy’s automatic hunting rifle that wasn’t in a gun safe with a trigger guard then repel the second.

  • Paul: A gun, lawfully owned, in the hands of a “good citizen” can prevent a crime. In fact, it has prevented many crimes. I suggest you read the “Armed Citizen” section of the American Rifleman magazine. There are plenty examples there.

    Guns in the hands of the police do not stop nearly as many crimes as those in the hands of lawful gun owners. Remember, the police are there to pick up the pieces AFTER a crime has happened. They rarely stop one in motion.

    With regard to what a “Well armed militia” might do against a modern army. Let me remind ALL of you, the Afghans did an excellent job of fighting off the Soviet Army. It just goes to show you, what determined people can do, with proper motivation.

  • Taking the guns away from good sensible people doesn’t do anything to those odds your talking aobut but make them worse!

    Think about it…there’s 20 people in a room, all of them have guns…one pulls his out and starts shooting…one of the other 19 will take him out…now, take those 19 guns away from the good people…you end up with 19 dead people…nobody to stop the looney!

    I’m pretty sure there’s an area in florida where the citizens walk around armed…and htye have one of the lowest crime rates in the country…

    You walk into a bank to rob it and see EVERYBODY armed you’re more than likely gonna go find another bank to rob…unless you’re trying to commit suicide.

  • Clavos

    Paul comments:

    It’s about doing whatever we can to improve the odds, even just a little bit.

    As in any human endeavor, the cost has to be measured against the benefit.

    Taking away everyone’s right to own a gun is much too high a cost for what is certain to be a minimal level of benefit, IMO.

  • A Symptom of our “Chain Letter Society“?

    Read an analysis of the influences in our “Chain Letter Society” that may be precipitating events like the tragedy at Virginia Tech and how our focus on winning and being number one may be fostering a generation of children with fully inadequate coping skills who have a misguided sense of self-worth…

  • Dawn wrote, I am about as anti-gun as they come, but really, it’s pointless to try and take guns away. Obviously with all the gun control in the world it wouldn’t have stopped this assface from killing who he wanted.

    But I don’t think it’s about complete or perfect solutions, or anything remotely close to that.

    It’s about doing whatever we can to improve the odds, even just a little bit.

  • These mass killings happen because the victims are unarmed and following an unconstitutional “gun free” zone law. If any other gun had been present at any of the mass killings that do happen, the killer might have been stopped before anyone was dead. But “gun laws” make some people feel good, so the logic of cops with guns good and citizens with guns bad doesn’t strike thenm as completely illogical.

  • J.J. Hunsecker

    Unless you are going to repeal people from going crazy, you have no solution. The genie is already out of the bottle, so you can’t just click your heels and wish guns would go away. I don’t own them, nor do I care for them, but what is making them illegal actually going to accomplish? Drugs, child porn, drunk driving, all still around.

  • JJ

    Regardless of how people feel about the second amendment, it would have been nice if Bush and the white house simply offered their prayers and sorrow for the families of those killed and left it at that. We all know that Bush is pro-bare arms, amid the worst shooting in US history is not the time to remind us. The loss of human life should take precedence over his politics.

  • I am about as anti-gun as they come, but really, it’s pointless to try and take guns away. Obviously with all the gun control in the world it wouldn’t have stopped this assface from killing who he wanted.

    When I first talked to EO about this on the phone today I said “I’ll bet it was some student of an “ethnic” background who either went crazy because a) he got a bad grade and freaked or b) a domestic situation with a girl.

    Weird. Those engineering students are wound too tight. I wonder what his motivation for killing 32 people will be.

  • troll

    and you’d be what Paul…human – ?

    figures

  • Dave wrote: Very, very few people suddenly turn into lunatics and go on a shooting spree. No matter how much publicity it gets, it’s still freakishly uncommon.

    I would think that even if this happened once, it would be more than enough.

  • speak for yourself, troll … in my case, I know quite a lot of humans who do a lot of good…

  • troll

    (don’t ban guns…ban humans

    what good are they – ?)

  • If we look at what a great job we did with something like Prohibition, I am sure that one gets the idea that guns will only become more popular with any kind of legislation banning them.

    All the gun control rules have done nothing for a place like Washington, DC, or England for that matter. Criminals will always find a way to get guns, while law-abiding citizen will be defending themselves with utensils.

  • Big Al: No, we shouldn’t ban doctors, because they do some good, in addition to making mistakes. What good do guns do?

    Dave – I understand why you linked to the article, but as I said, I disagree with your solution: There’s no guarantee that one of the well-trained and well-armed citizens won’t have a nervous breakdown and go ballistic – well-armed and well-trained.

    Benj: No, in fact I don’t think the US military would be likely to attack Americans (thank goodness, nothing like that has happened since Kent State and other tragedies like that in the 1970s). But, if that’s the case, we lose an argument in favor of a well-armed citizenry, don’t we.

    But I do agree that repealing any part of the Constitution, let alone the Second Amendment, is a very serious matter, and I don’t advocate it lightly.

  • Clavos

    We’re not very good at controlling things in our country. Perhaps it’s due to the openness of the society, as permitted by our Bill of Rights, or maybe it can be attributed to our long-standing veneration of the individualistic, self-reliant, lone wolf who has long been an iconic mixture of our myth and history in literature and film.

    Whatever the reason, both the early twentieth century Prohibition of alcohol and the current prohibition of drugs did not, and have not succeeded, even minimally.

    One assumption everyone who advocates making guns illegal (or, in this case, repealing the Second Amendment) makes is that repeal or outlawing will magically make all currently legal guns (the NRA says there are 300 million privately owned guns in the US) disappear. That idea seems naive in the extreme.

    A far better and more effective policy would be to rigorously enforce all laws already on the books which escalate the punishment of crimes committed with the use of a gun.

  • DustoneGT

    People who say we do not need the second amendment because the military is so powerful that a militia could never stand up to it should think of one thing….Iraq.

    If a few crazies with guns can keep the military from getting complete control in Iraq that will work here if they ever decided to do something we didn’t like.

    The founding fathers were geniuses. Let’s not tinker with their work. Should we get rid of the first amendment? Fifth? Didn’t think so.

    Liberals should quit picking and choosing which fundamental constitutional rights they like.

  • You have a shooting on campus with a murder still at large, how do you not instantly lock it down.

    Benjamin, this is why I linked to my article on Whitman, because in that case one of the ways the killer was ‘locked down’ was through the support of armed citizens.

    If, as Big Al suggests, this was a ‘gun free zone’, that’s at the heart of the problem.

    Dave

  • timp and Dave: and what about guns owned by law-abiding citizens that wound and kill family members in accidental shootings?

    On a population basis the number of accidental shootings are almost statistically meaningless. They may get a lot of press coverage when they happen, but they are actually so rare these days that they can’t even be meaningfully analyzed statistically.

    Dave – Sorry, but I don’t agree with your conclusions about the Texas shootings. The problem with an armed citizenry along the lines you describe is that one of them could just as easily turn into a lunatic and start shooting at innocent people. Human nature, is, alas, not very predictable.

    This is exactly what’s wrong with the left in America today. You are starting from the assumption that every citizen is potentially dangerous to others, rather from the more reasonable and sensible assumption that most people exist to do good rather than evil. Very, very few people suddenly turn into lunatics and go on a shooting spree. No matter how much publicity it gets, it’s still freakishly uncommon.

    What you seek to do is punish the ENTIRE population by taking away their right to bear arms in order to protect us against a minority of crazies so small it can’t even be measured as a percentage of the population.

    The sensible way to deal with this threat – and this is why I linked to that article – is to have armed and trained citizens – even if only a small number – who can respond to such a threat in kind and bring an end to it.

    Dave

  • Benjamin Cossel

    And frankly to me, this shouldn’t even be an issue of gun control or the 2nd amendment, it should be about WTF happened in those two hours inbetween. You have a shooting on campus with a murder still at large, how do you not instantly lock it down.

  • Benjamin Cossel

    And do you really think, that the US Military, the all volunteer, good ole American Boys and Girls force, would stand for that? I mean come on. No, I don’t think it’s the military you have to worry about them. The 2nd amendment is that final check, it the check and balance scheme, that says don’t fuck with us too bad, we are armed.

    Take away a civil liberty – it’s shocking at first, but we settle into it, get used to it and it becomes easier and easier to strip ’em away, one by one. You don’t kill a frog by dropping him in boiling water.

  • Benjamin – I understand your argument. But if our government did start, insanely, directing the military to attack American citizens, would a “well armed militia” really be able to stand up against that?

  • Benjamin Cossel

    Paul,

    As Dave and timp have suggested, all you would do would be to unarm law abiding citizens. People killed in their homes because of a gun owner, children? While a horrible, horrible tragedy, I think there should be repercussions for those found negligent, it was and is ultimately the fault of that gun owner. To borrow the cliche, with awesome power comes awesome responsibility.

    Now, I’m no survivalist, no gun nut, hell I don’t even own one, though a member of the U.S. Military and having grown up with guns most of my childhood. Fact of the matter is, the reason the 2nd amendment exists is in the event of an overzealous, overareaching government and a citizens ability to redress, through whatever means neccessary. Don’t take that away

  • Why should the 2nd Amendment be repealed? This shooting happened in a “Gun Free Zone.” By LAW, the students and faculty are not allowed to have guns in that area. Lot of good that did them, didn’t it.

    According to an article published in 1999, there are on average 1,500 accidental deaths (all age groups) due to firearms.

    There are also in excess of 120,000 accidental deaths caused by doctors.

    Maybe we should ban doctors, and not guns?

  • timp and Dave: and what about guns owned by law-abiding citizens that wound and kill family members in accidental shootings?

    Dave – Sorry, but I don’t agree with your conclusions about the Texas shootings. The problem with an armed citizenry along the lines you describe is that one of them could just as easily turn into a lunatic and start shooting at innocent people. Human nature, is, alas, not very predictable.

  • The flaw in your lovely proposal is that repealing the second amendment will only result in disarming law-abiding citizens while the criminals and crazies will still have access to illegal weapons of all sorts, some of them a hell of a lot worse than guns.

    To put this issue in perspective, I suggest you (Paul and anyone else) read my article from last year on a similar incident where a more sensible culture dealt with this sort of situation in a more intelligent way.

    Hiding our heads in the sand and giving up essential liberties to the government only make us into greater victims. They don’t solve the problems of crime and violence.

    Dave

  • timp

    All that will do is disarm law abiding citizens. I doubt anyone can say they have run gang members through a backround check so they could purchase their guns…