VA shooting

[Led_Zep_Sx]

Windows, dumbfuck.

 

What floor were they on?

[jokersarewild]

What's the difference between Alaska and VA Tech?

 

Nothing, they're both -33.

[Jhony5]

What's the difference between Alaska and VA Tech?

 

Nothing, they're both -33.

 

ooooooooo.....dude, its too soon.

 

Or...look to Australia. We had plenty more guns out there 10 years ago, but decided to tighten gun laws. We got rid of thousands of weapons, and the number of gun deaths has dropped dramatically.

Why don't cha check how stabbings went up? About 200%.

 

Now imagine being stabbed by an intruder a few years after you were forced to surrender your gun to the government.

 

Thomas Jefferson once said "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".--

[OmegaManiac]

suck my fucking cock you bunch of sorry ass t.v.babyslave bitches!!!!!!

after seeing how people react to this shit I think I may just have to go on a killing spree, except my weapon of choice with be a combination of parking tickets, utility bills, anti-gun propaganda leaflets, and vhs copies of network t.v. shows. I will use these unlikely implements of death to slowly and methodically kill my patiently waiting victims with a series of vicious papercuts and vhs cassette bludgeoning. This will be a long proccess so I ask you all to make sure that any time you know you are going to be in a large social group, ie. class room, bank, girlscout jamboree, etc. make sure you go to the bathroom first and also try to bring a snack and maybe a crossword puzzle or book, death by papercuts and vhs tape takes a little longer than death by copper jacketed lead being quickly introduced to the brain so just wait patiently and your turn will come. thank you for being the sheep that you are.

[thekid65]

News just reported 170 rounds, in a period of 9 minutes that fucker fired off. 1 round every 3 seconds. Methinks there wasnt too much opportunity to intervene.

[RoyalOrleans]

News just reported 170 rounds, in a period of 9 minutes that fucker fired off. 1 round every 3 seconds. Methinks there wasnt too much opportunity to intervene.

 

Me thinks, he be a pussy and was never formally trained.

[Jhony5]

News just reported 170 rounds, in a period of 9 minutes that fucker fired off. 1 round every 3 seconds. Methinks there wasnt too much opportunity to intervene.

 

Bullshit!

 

Those guns fire at best 2 rounds per second, and he has to reload. 1 of the guns was a .22 cal. A good thick textbook would deflect that shoddy round. The sound of a .22 is distinct. If I heard that thing crackin, I would know there was a chance to close in on him. Considering his frail stature, he would've been an ez take down.

 

There was time to react. The big issue was everyone was running away from him, and no one was trying to take him out. He re-entered 3 rooms after shooting people in other rooms. What did he find when he came back? People cowering, hoping he was gone.

 

I know its easy to criticize, being that I wasn't there, but for christ sakes.

 

All humans have an inherent instinct for survival. However the instinct manifests itself in two categories.

 

Fighting.

Fleeing.

 

Picture yourself in a restaurant, and a gunman walks in and begins shooting. Does your instinct tell you to find a place to hide?

Or does it tell you to think and fight back?

Only the first victims had no choice. Its the others that have time to make a choice.

 

If I was there at VA tech, and I had survived his initial volley, I woulda been armed with something, crouching behind the door, just waiting. If nothing else, I'll take a pencil as my weapon. Fuck it, I'd rather die with a pathetic pencil in my hand, stabbing with my last breath, than die in a fetal position, pants full of shit and piss.

 

Choo Ching Chong (whatever the gooks name) was fortunate to find himself among a large gathering of people that instinctively flee. There was nowhere to flee, so the outcome was sealed.

 

I'm sure many of the victims had no chance whatsoever. But we all know there was opportunity abound. Shamefully, no one would seize it.

[jokersarewild]

ooooooooo.....dude, its too soon.

It's never to soon for a good joke.

[cybacaT]

Nah - not too soon. Jokes are jokes - let em fly...

 

In Australia we heard all the same arguments:

 

- you'll never get gun owners to turn in their guns.

 

- if guns are outlawed...only outlaws will have guns!

 

- it's just too hard, so just leave things as they are.

 

Here were the factors that made a difference though:

 

- Australians decided that the right to own guns and hunt wasn't as important as the gun death toll which we were unhappy with.

 

- Australia doesn't have a cashed-up gun lobby with it's hands wrapped around the throat of our govt.

 

- Australia's PM John Howard is a ballsy fellow who was prepared to lose the votes of many of his core supporters by implementing strict gun laws.

 

 

The result? We have 1/15th the ratio of gun deaths in Australia to that which you have in the US. A miniscule fraction. Apply that to the US, and you would have lost 2,000 people last year instead of 30,000. That's 28,000 American lives saved. Imagine you could put a stop to the Twin Towers disaster and save all those lives - many times over. Would you do that?

 

 

I have some questions for you about the Second Amendment:

 

- back when the amendment was written, and there WAS a militia who had the right to bear arms, did you think that the developers of the 2nd Amendment ever envisaged that the US would move to a time of peace, yet some Americans would still abuse their amendment by claiming it meant a right for every citizen to bear arms...not just the militia of the day?

 

- if the only defence for bearing arms is the 2nd amendment, and as you say it would be near impossible to go against the enshrined constitution...then how is that you manage to restrict so many citizens of their right to bear arms? Why can't kids buy guns? Why can't adults by fully automatic weapons? Why isn't every US citizen allowed to carry around weapons in public(bearing arms?)? Why are some arms allowed, and some arms restricted - if an American wants to bear and RPG - why can't they? Why can't Americans carry weapons on planes?

 

All of these rules and laws you have are impinging on your 2nd AMENDMENT! Surely this is an impossibility - since these many examples contradict your own constitution! I'm also listening for the screaming cries for those whose constitutional rights are being so grossly violated! It's the SECOND AMENDMENT!! Aren't you ashamed that there are 10 year old American Citizens who aren't allowed to tote an RPG onto a plane with them? I mean - it's the SECOND AMENDMENT!!

 

 

As for the source of the 30,000 deaths figure - you'll find that's been fairly constant for the past umpteen years in the US, perhaps slightly decreasing. Sources are from the body whose job it is to collect these statistics: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

http://www.cdc.gov/DataStatistics/

 

From 38,000+ in 1991:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00032378.htm

 

To 28,663 in 2000:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/02facts/final2000.htm

 

Have a dig around, and you'll find that 30,000 dead Americans figure is fairly constant.

[Jhony5]

Let me start by pointing out that the glaring difference between the banishment of guns here in the States, and the banishment of guns in Oz is obvious. We have way way way more guns on our streets. Way fucking more.

 

This creates a vastly more challenging issue than what Oz had to undertake. I believe the Australian governments gun buyback program only distributed approximately $600,000 dollars buying guns back from citizens. We could rack up totals like that in one mid-size state. I believe that the stir for a gun ban began with a mass shooting in Australia. I can't remember the details, but it was quite severe.

 

The risk to our citizens would be far greater than what you experienced. The incalculable amount of illegal guns in America constitutes a considerable issue with disarming our law abiding citizens.

if guns are outlawed...only outlaws will have guns

This sounds so clich

[snafu]

.........Therein lies the paradox and the steam behind the tired old clich

[OmegaManiac]

It seems to me that the whole reason that so many "innocent" people(if there is such a thing) get killed by jackasses with guns is simply a lack of education. I say that every kid should be introduced to firearms from a very early age, they should also be taught from this early age the importance of gun safety and respect for the awesome power that they hold in their hands. Demonizing and ignoring firearms and the role they play in our society is a blatant mistake that is quickly becoming the norm. There is no "gun problem" in the U.S. or anywhere else for that matter. There is however a "violent people with no respect for others problem" that is sweeping the globe and will quite likely escalate with the passage of time if we don't take our cue to evolve.

A gun is a mechanical tool, a piece of finely crafted art, and a means for many to feed clothe and protect their families. Every man woman and child today should be educated properly on the subject of guns so that there is a common understanding across the board. If ALL people were given equal and legal opportunity to arm themselves along with the proper education that MUST go with such a great responsibility then perhapse there would be less criminal gun related activity.

I could go on forever on this subject but if you guys are anything like me you just stop reading when someones rant gets too long winded.

[snafu]

It seems to me that the whole reason that so many "innocent" people(if there is such a thing) get killed by jackasses with guns is simply a lack of education. I say that every kid should be introduced to firearms from a very early age, they should also be taught from this early age the importance of gun safety and respect for the awesome power that they hold in their hands. Demonizing and ignoring firearms and the role they play in our society is a blatant mistake that is quickly becoming the norm. There is no "gun problem" in the U.S. or anywhere else for that matter. There is however a "violent people with no respect for others problem" that is sweeping the globe and will quite likely escalate with the passage of time if we don't take our cue to evolve.

A gun is a mechanical tool, a piece of finely crafted art, and a means for many to feed clothe and protect their families. Every man woman and child today should be educated properly on the subject of guns so that there is a common understanding across the board. If ALL people were given equal and legal opportunity to arm themselves along with the proper education that MUST go with such a great responsibility then perhapse there would be less criminal gun related activity.

I could go on forever on this subject but if you guys are anything like me you just stop reading when someones rant gets too long winded.

 

I can't for the life of me see anybody argue this logic. Verry well put.

[Komrade Vostok Hazard]

I say that every kid should be introduced to firearms from a very early age, they should also be taught from this early age the importance of gun safety and respect for the awesome power that they hold in their hands.

 

Good points

 

Anyone who lived in a rural community would know that EVERYONE and their dog owned (several) guns. The number of hooligans running around shooting people is ZERO.

 

 

"if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them" is a cliche

 

It's NOT a cliche. Period. If guns are outlawed, there will be EVEN MORE GUNS being smuggled into said nations with tight gun control laws and sold on the black market. What kind of people will buy them? You got it. CRIMINALS WHO DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT WHAT THE LAW SAYS. And with the guns out of the mainstream market, law abiding citizens will have NO WAY TO OBTAIN THEM (without going underground -- making them one with the criminals), and will have piss all of a chance to defend themselves against some gun toting maniac.

[Jhony5]

It's NOT a cliche. Period. If guns are outlawed, there will be EVEN MORE GUNS being smuggled into said nations with tight gun control laws and sold on the black market.

CLICHE;

1 : a trite phrase or expression; also : the idea expressed by it

2 : a hackneyed theme, characterization, or situation

3 : something (as a menu item) that has become overly familiar or commonplace

My use of the word "cliche" fits perfectly into definition 3, as listed above. C'mon people. Comprehend before you retort. You simply parroted what I posted in DEFENSE of this old cliche...whenI said this..

This sounds so clich

[OmegaManiac]

Realizing of course that this thread is not supposed to be about guns as much as it is about whats his fuck and fuckbags like him I have no real problem with stealing some of the soapbox for one more little bit of wisdom. Here goes, The number one reason that EVERYONE should carry guns at all times is..................Knowing that someone you piss off at any given time can very easily blow your fucking brains all over your shoes without even skipping a beat on the way to the grocery store is a great incentive for people to be very polite when dealing with friends and strangers alike.

[cybacaT]

Jhoney5

 

Let me start by pointing out that the glaring difference between the banishment of guns here in the States, and the banishment of guns in Oz is obvious. We have way way way more guns on our streets. Way fucking more.

 

Yes - you have more guns. You have a bigger problem.

BUT...you also have more tools that are part of the solution - bigger govt budget, more cops, more courts etc.

 

So the scale isn't the issue - no-one's denying it's a massive problem in the US and would take decades to fix.

 

 

I believe that the stir for a gun ban began with a mass shooting in Australia. I can't remember the details, but it was quite severe.

We had 1 big massacre that triggered the changes, but like the US we'd had several massacres over the previous years, and finally the public had enough.

 

 

 

There is a real issue here. It would take decades to effectively remove illegal guns from the hands of criminals in America.

That's true.

 

 

You're also right - there would be a black market, and no solution will be perfect. No-one's saying gun control would be popular, quick, or easy - but neither is it impossible.

 

I talk about Australia because we heard all the same lies about how hard it would be, how only crims would have guns etc - yet, we found that gun control worked! We have 1/15th the ratio of people to gun deaths that you have in the US.

 

 

 

The past ideals for citizen armament has changed drastically. Originally the idea for such availability of guns was in the interest of protecting our new found nationality and granted freedoms. Now we have more personal issues involved.

Yes it seems a leap of logic to assume that a right granted to a militia way back when...somehow translates into an individual's right to own/carry weapons.

 

 

The VA shooter would most likely not have been capable of arming himself for such an event if guns were all-out illegal. That being said, if our gun laws were geared more toward responsible people with sound mental states, than the same could be said.

This guy didn't have any prior mental health record did he? We was checked out once afaik, but left undiagnosed. The only person who could have stopped him is his teacher who reported some behaviour as worrying.

 

I maintain that it's difficult to stop all nutjobs, and far easier to keep the weapons out of their reach. Who knows where the next fruitcake with a beef is coming from? Who knows when a sane person who's legally obtained guns is going to snap because things in their life change? It's just too hard to predict. But you can stop them getting their hands on tools of mass killing.

 

 

 

Outright banning guns creates a situation where the private citizen would be in a great deal of jeopardy.

I just don't see this.

 

 

Sad to say but gun banishment in America is nothing like gun banishment in Australia. We live in a different world here. More people. More diversity. More crime. More drugs. And...more guns. Much much more.

 

You have more people, crime, drugs etc...but also have more jails, more cops, more courts. You don't have more diversity of people. The US is somewhat different, but also very similar in many respects.

- you have a very similar culture.

- your violent videos, games etc are the same ones we have here.

- what happens in America in terms of drugs, crime etc...tends to happen here a year or so later.

- you have gun owners who think they have a right to own guns.

- you have had a number of mass slaughters in your own country.

 

The main difference is we decided to take a stand, and it paid off. It's just a shame that America can't or won't listen and at least try to put a stop to the needless death of so many thousands of Americans each year.

[Jhony5]

Outright banning guns creates a situation where the private citizen would be in a great deal of jeopardy.

Your answer...

I just don't see this.

How can you not see this? If they took my handgun away from me tomorrow, which I carry on my person at all times, and I got assaulted while driving my daughter to school, I would be powerless to stop it. As it is now, I can meet or beat any threat posed to me. If I hear glass shatter in my living room at three in the morning, I have a shotgun loaded with Double O Bucks to greet them with. These scenarios are not fantasy driven, nor are they rare in occurrence.

 

Answer one question for me if you would. What would you do if you heard an intruder enter you home tonight? Lets assume its a violent rapist, or a a homicidal maniac. What do you do? Call the police? Scream? Your either raped or dead or both. Period. No question.

 

You're also right - there would be a black market, and no solution will be perfect. No-one's saying gun control would be popular, quick, or easy - but neither is it impossible.

What your saying is its worth the death and assault of innocent people on a wide scale to prevent a handful of people from being shot in one fell swoop (VA Tech for example).

 

Heres the gist of it. Criminals break into homes every minute in America. They do this for a variety of reasons. Burglary. Rape. Kidnap. Murder. Every minute it happens. Up to 5 people have been victimized by home invasion in the US just in the time it took me to type this. The average reaction time for police is 7 minutes. Many times when a person breaks into a home they do not have a gun. They have a knife or no weapon at all. Often they're strung out on drugs and cannot afford a gun. This does not meant hey do not pose a threat to you.

 

An outright ban on legal gun ownership removes the most effective and immediate response from the homeowner. YOU CANNOT ARGUE THIS! Your answer is simple. Let the police handle it. Thats wishful thinking. You have seven minutes before they appear.

 

So the scale isn't the issue - no-one's denying it's a massive problem in the US and would take decades to fix.

 

 

 

Yes it is. The scale of the problem is EXACTLY the issue at hand.

 

 

School shootings are a pseudo-phenomenon in America right now. Its an issue being used by the anti-gun lobby, and aided by the sensationalist media, to ban guns altogether.

 

There are thousands of schools in America. Millions of students that attend them. In the last few decades only about 10 of these schools experienced a shooting. And out of millions and millions of students that have attended schools over the last two decades, maybe less than 50 students have been shot.

 

That IS NOT a serious problem. Thats a very very rare occurrence. The knee jerk reaction from concerned parents is always "If guns were illegal, this wouldn't have happened". BULLSHIT!

 

You are far more likely to be shot in your home or at the gas station, than in school. PERIOD. No arguing that fact.

 

I maintain that it's difficult to stop all nut jobs, and far easier to keep the weapons out of their reach. Who knows where the next fruitcake with a beef is coming from?

This brings up an interesting point. Most gun deaths in America aren't caused by "nut-jobs". Its most often either suicide, or young criminals who have illegally obtained firearms.

 

So how is making guns illegal, going to get rid of illegal gun ownership?

Thats the problem. Criminals with malice intent already own guns illegally. Making it illegal for me to own a gun, does nothing to disarm a criminal. It only serves to disarm law abiding citizens. I will never surrender my guns, EVER. Therefor if gun ownership was illegal, I am now a criminal by default.

[snafu]

First Jhony you are a criminal. You carry your gun in a “gun free zone”. What were you thinking?

Second the cops can respond approximately 7 minutes if someone calls them.

Third you are more likely to be hit by lightning than to be shot on campus or anywhere for that matter, by a mass murder.

 

 

I want to reiterate what OmeagaManiac said because it is important. EDUCATION! Gun knowledge and safety should be mandatory curriculum in schools. Elementary, Middle and High school.

[hugo]

Buyback has no effect on murder rate

Matthew Moore

October 24, 2006

 

HALF a billion dollars spent buying back hundreds of thousands of guns after the Port Arthur massacre had no effect on the homicide rate, says a study published in an influential British journal.

 

The report by two Australian academics, published in the British Journal of Criminology, said statistics gathered in the decade since Port Arthur showed gun deaths had been declining well before 1996 and the buyback of more than 600,000 mainly semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns had made no difference in the rate of decline.

 

The only area where the package of Commonwealth and State laws, known as the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) may have had some impact was on the rate of suicide, but the study said the evidence was not clear and any reductions attributable to the new gun rules were slight.

 

"Homicide patterns (firearm and non-firearm) were not influenced by the NFA, the conclusion being that the gun buyback and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia," the study says.

 

In his first year in office, the Prime Minister, John Howard, forced through some of the world's toughest gun laws, including the national buyback scheme, after Martin Bryant used semi-automatic rifles to shoot dead 35 people at Port Arthur.

 

Although furious licensed gun-owners said the laws would have no impact because criminals would not hand in their guns, Mr Howard and others predicted the removal of so many guns from the community, and new laws making it harder to buy and keep guns, would lead to a reduction in all types of gun-related deaths.

 

One of the authors of the study, Jeanine Baker, said she knew in 1996 it would be impossible for years to know whether the Prime Minister or the shooters were right.

 

"I have been collecting data since 1996 … The decision was we would wait for a decade and then evaluate," she said.

 

The findings were clear, she said: "The policy has made no difference. There was a trend of declining deaths that has continued."

 

Dr Baker and her co-author, Samara McPhedran, declared their membership of gun groups in the article, something Dr Baker said they had done deliberately to make clear "who we are" and head off any possible criticism that they had hidden relevant details.

 

The significance of the article was not who had written it but the fact it had been published in a respected journal after the regular rigorous process of being peer reviewed, she said.

 

Politicians had assumed tighter gun laws would cut off the supply of guns to would-be criminals and that homicide rates would fall as a result, the study said. But more than 90 per cent of firearms used to commit homicide were not registered, their users were not licensed and they had been unaffected by the firearms agreement.

 

Dr Baker said many more lives would have been saved had the Government spent the $500 million on mental health or other programs rather than on destroying semi-automatic weapons.

 

She believed semi-automatic rifles should be available to shooters, although with tight restrictions such as those in place in New Zealand.

 

The director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics, Dr Don Weatherburn, said he was not surprised by the study. He said it showed "politicians would be well advised to claim success of their policies after they were evaluated, not before".

 

HANDGUN CONTROL, INC. ATTEMPTS TO MYTHOLOGIZE SECOND AMENDMENT HISTORY

 

 

 

MYTH 1: The Second Amendment was not crafted with the same breadth of language as the other Amendments. Instead, this Amendment begins by stating clearly its limited purpose: the preservation of "well regulated" state militia forces.

 

FACT: Unlike certain indefinite rights recognized by the courts (e.g., abortion), the Second Amendment uses broad and explicit language. The introductory clause of the Second Amendment contains precatory language. The subordinate clause's precatory language in no way limits the amendment's sweeping command that "the right of the people to keep and bear shall not be infringed."

 

Akil Amar, Professor of Law at Yale University and author of The Bill of Rights as a Constitution, 100 Yale, (1990) has written: "The states' rights reading puts great weight on the word `militia', but this word appears only in the Amendment's subordinate clause. The ultimate right to keep and bear arms belongs to `the people' not `the states.' As the language of the Tenth Amendment shows, these two are of course not identical when the constitution means `states' it says so. Thus as noted above, `the people' at the core of the Second Amendment are the same `people' at the heart of the Preamble and the First Amendment, namely citizens."

 

MYTH 2: The original colonial militia did not include everyone. Rather it included able-bodied adult males between the ages of 18 and 45. The militia was always an organized state-sponsored military force, not simply an ad hoc collection of armed citizens.

 

FACT: Founding Father George Mason supplied the response to this fantasy: "I ask, Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

 

A decade ago in his book That Every Man Be Armed, attorney and former law professor Stephen P. Halbrook offered gun prohibitionists a challenge they have yet to accepted. Halbook wrote: "In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the `collective' right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of `the people' to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the 18th century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis."

 

MYTH 3: Federal Law distinguishes between the organized militia (the National Guard) and the unorganized militia. The Second Amendment right to bear arms belongs to the organized or, to use its own words, "well regulated" militia.

 

FACT: The framers provide a response to this myth. A proposed Bill of Rights, in Roger Sherman's handwriting, would have provided for a militia for the states, but it had no guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It was rejected. Instead, the broad language of what became the Second Amendment, with its command that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," was adopted.

 

MYTH 4: Possession of a weapon is not constitutionally protected by the fact that it could in some scenario be used by the state militia. Rather the possession and use of the weapon must be connected with active service in the state militia.

 

FACT: The real myth is that the Second Amendment does not guarantee a private right to keep and bear arms. The framers knew how to use the King's English. People on active service in the military do not need a constitutional guarantee to carry guns while on duty. The most repressive regimes on earth allow members of the military to carry guns while on duty. The Second Amendment commands that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This guarantees the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and for communal defense.

 

MYTH 5: U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez was not a Second Amendment case at all. It was a Fourth Amendment case. It does not address the meaning of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

 

FACT: The myth is that the decision is irrelevant to the Second Amendment. Verdugo-Urquidez focused on what the word "people" means in the Fourth Amendment. The court was compelled to canvas the Bill of Rights. The court held that the word "people" has the same meaning in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, i.e., it is an individual right.

 

MYTH 6: In Perpich v. Department of Defense the court held that members of the National Guard, when not in federal service, "continue to satisfy [the] description of a militia."

 

FACT: The myth is that "militia" means exclusively the National Guard. Under Perpich the term militia is not restricted to the National Guard: "all portions of the 'militia' - organized or not- [are subject] to call if needed for the purposes specified in the Militia Clauses."

 

"The argument that today's National Guardsmen, members of a select militia, would constitute the only persons entitled to keep and bear arms has no historical foundation," writes historian Joyce Lee Malcolm in To Keep and Bear Arms (Harvard University Press 1994).

 

MYTH 7: The NRA consistently quotes colonial leaders out of context. There is sufficient historical evidence to show that the basic concern of these leaders, in the drafting and passage of the Second Amendment, was the preservation and the efficiency of state militia forces.

 

FACT: This is a myth. NRA's view is supported by publications from the most prestigious universities in the nation: e.g., Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Rutgers and Yale.

[Jhony5]

First Jhony you are a criminal. You carry your gun in a

[snafu]

Actually I try not to do that. I keep my gun in my glove compartment when I drop off, or pick up, my daughter from school. Which is still illegal, but what they don't know ain't hurting them. I don't bring my gun into a bank, either. However I was harassed by a manager at a grocery store about a year ago. My shaggy appearance didn't go well with my sidearm. I guess some customers were complaining. Idiots. As I left I was wishing a crack head would enter the store and rob it, shooting a few of those complaining customers. "To bad we asked that guy with the gun to leave".

 

I smoke marijuana which requires me to be a criminal by the base definition. It really is hard to have fun without breaking the law.

 

 

That's alright. I'm a criminal too.

[hugo]

That's alright. I'm a criminal too.

 

Me too. I frequently consume a 24 oz Bud on the way home from work. Government busybodies have created a nation of criminals.

[cybacaT]

jhony

 

If they took my handgun away from me tomorrow, which I carry on my person at all times, and I got assaulted while driving my daughter to school, I would be powerless to stop it.

And if your daughter is one of the thousands killed each year because she touched your gun, or it malfunctioned, or it went off while you were transporting it/changing bullets/cleaning it etc?

You'd probably have a greater chance of her being shot by you, than being assaulted on the way to school. The only difference is you'd have no-one to blame but yourself.

 

 

As it is now, I can meet or beat any threat posed to me.

Perhaps - but what kind of world is it you're creating? If the decisions everyone made are based purely on self defence, then we could all stroll around with a pitbull in one hand, and a semi-auto in the other. But there's always someone with a bigger, better weapon who can gun, or bomb you down. It's a never-ending cycle.

In Britain they've got a camera on every corner with microphones, and now speakers - for self defence. So every movement you make is recorded, much of what you say is being listened to, and soon you'll be getting told what to do as you move around.

In both cases above - the CURE is far worse than the illness!!

What kind of sick, unstable and unhealthy societies are you creating? On the US side, you've created one where gun deaths are a part of life, crime is out of control, and violence is considered the solution to everything. On the British side, civil liberties have been thrown out the window, and they're rapidly moving towards a real Big Brother scenario.

 

 

If I hear glass shatter in my living room at three in the morning, I have a shotgun loaded with Double O Bucks to greet them with. These scenarios are not fantasy driven, nor are they rare in occurrence.

Did you ever consider that an unarmed assailant might be much easier to stop than one that's armed? Chances are that guy breaking in has a gun too. Now your whole family is at risk from both your erratic shooting to stop the intruder, and his blasting away at anything that moves. Great solution.

 

 

What would you do if you heard an intruder enter you home tonight? Lets assume its a violent rapist, or a a homicidal maniac. What do you do? Call the police? Scream? Your either raped or dead or both. Period. No question.

Good news! I live in Australia! So there's very little chance the intruder has a gun. That means I can stop him. First priority - get my family out. Second - call the Police. Third - stop the guy.

We had a peeping tom in the neighbourhood - I went out and chased him down until I had him cornered, and then called the cops.

Another time I had an armed (with knife) robber hiding from police in my front yard. He'd just robbed a place. I went out and confronted him and he bolted - the Police were again right on his tail.

If he had a gun, or I had a gun, we would've almost certainly ended up with dead people. And in these cases above, because of strict gun laws, no-one needed to die.

 

 

 

Often they're strung out on drugs and cannot afford a gun.

Most burglaries are by druggies looking for cash, or things they can sell. If one breaks into your house, give them what you have, and they'll move on. If they have guns and you have guns, the problem just gets much, much worse.

 

 

Let the police handle it.

Yes! These people are trained to use their weapons - trained not to over-react. Trained to use other methods before using their weapons. Trained to be level-headed in a crisis. Yes - the police are the right people to deal with criminals.

 

 

You are far more likely to be shot in your home or at the gas station, than in school. PERIOD. No arguing that fact.

That's correct. I don't see anyone arguing for greater gun control simply because of school shootings. It's the 30,000 dead Americans that is the reason. Iraq looks like a kindergarten compared to what you gun-toting Americans do to each other - in your own country - each year!

 

 

Therefor if gun ownership was illegal, I am now a criminal by default.

Well...yeah. Let the people decide though - there needs to be a free debate in the US, and it's a democracy. If given all the facts and figures, the American people decide that 30,000 dead Americans is a reasonable price to pay so that some people can hunt...then so be it. But at the moment the NRA has their hands around the throat of your govt, media, and society. Politicians fear to speak against them for fear of the NRA attack dog launching into them.

 

It's a sad state of affairs.

[cybacaT]

hugo

 

Figures from 2001, and some interesting observations:

http://thegreenman.net.au/mt/archives/000473.html

"Here is the price that ordinary Americans are paying for the privilege

 

- 8 children a day die in murders, suicides and accidents involving guns

 

- since John F. Kennedy was assinated more Americans have died from gunshot wounds at home than died in all the wars of the 20th century

 

- Osama bin Laden would need at least nine twin towers like attacks each year to equal what Americans do to themselves every year with guns.

 

- Murder rates in LA, NY and Chigago were approaching the hightest in the world (30 per 100,000) until moves were made in late 20th century to restrict access to guns to teenagers. (The NRA wants these moves reversed)

 

If Osama bin Laden had had more sense, instead of launching a terrorist attack, he would simply have provided financial backing to the NRA."

 

 

And sorry, but I'm going with the University study - not some study done by a couple of gun advocates (undoubtedly NRA funded):

 

Decline in gun deaths doubled since Australia destroyed 700,000 firearms

 

14 December 2006

 

The risk of dying by gunshot has halved since Australia destroyed 700,000 privately owned firearms, according to a new study published today in the international research journal, Injury Prevention.

 

"Not only were Australia's post-Port Arthur gun laws followed by a decade in which the crime they were designed to reduce hasn't happened again, but we also saw a life-saving bonus: the decline in overall gun deaths accelerated to twice the rate seen before the new gun laws," says study lead author, Professor Simon Chapman.

 

"From 1996 to 2003, the total number of gun deaths each year fell from 521 to 289, suggesting that the removal of more than 700,000 guns was associated with a faster declining rate of gun suicide and gun homicide," said Adjunct Associate Professor Philip Alpers, also from the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney. "This was a milestone public health and safety issue, driven by an overwhelming swing in public opinion, and promptly delivered by governments."

 

After 112 people were shot dead in 11 mass shootings in a decade, Australia collected and destroyed categories of firearms designed to kill many people quickly. In his immediate reaction to the Port Arthur massacre, Prime Minister John Howard said of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns: "There is no legitimate interest served in my view by the free availability in this country of weapons of this kind