Reducing the number of guns could conflict with the Second Amendment - it therefore needs to be repealed.
“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.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Andy Marsh
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.
27 - Big Gay Al
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.
28 - 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.
29 - Benjamin Cossel
And you, good sir, are apparently lacking in imagination.
30 - Paul Levinson
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?
31 - 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.
32 - 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.
33 - 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
34 - 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.
35 - ChiefCrash
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?
36 - 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.
37 - 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?
38 - Benjamin Cossel
To N - That wsan't me, that was Madison.
39 - 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?
40 - 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.
41 - 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.
42 - vertroue
Dr Dreadful: "The difference is that pools are not built for the express purpose of drowning people."
Neither are my tools.
43 - 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.
44 - ChiefCrash
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...
45 - Dave Nalle
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
46 - Dave Nalle
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
47 - 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.
48 - Paul Levinson
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.
49 - Andy Marsh
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...
50 - Dave Nalle
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
51 - Andy Marsh
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!
52 - Andy Marsh
"damned fine paperweights"
...that's funny!
53 - 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.
54 - Michael J. West
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.
55 - 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.
56 - Andy Marsh
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!
57 - sr
Dave my good man. Jim Jones killed over 900 people, a far cry from the 150 you stated. Glocks rock.
58 - alessandro Nicolo
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.
59 - 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.
60 - Paul Levinson
Alessandro wrote: What happens if cars become a choice of weapon for madmen? Ramming them into sidewalk cafes for example?
Do you ban cars?
Again, no, because killing is a perversion of the use of a car - in contrast to killing with a gun
61 - Andy Marsh
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!
62 - 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?
63 - Andy Marsh
Besides..as I've read here many times...we ain't civilized...we're juvenile...right CR?
64 - 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.
65 - Stephen
What's next. In Scotland they are banning knives. What comes after that rocks, bats. What else?? Do you feel safe now??
66 - Andy Marsh
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!!!
67 - 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.
68 - Andy Marsh
and I actually did start shouting...I was pounding the keys while I was typing that!
69 - 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 ...
70 - Andy Marsh
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?
71 - 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.
72 - 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.
73 - Clavos
OK, Stan.
It would be a dull world (and friendship) if we agreed on everything...
74 - Andy Marsh
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!
75 - 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?