poncho said:
http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/xp-21770
According to gun rights activists such as Aaron Zelman of Jews For The Preservation of Firearms, VA Tech has "blood on its hands" for disarming the victims and other students who could potentially have stopped the killer in his tracks in the three hour time period he was allowed to carry out his rampage by cowardly police who hid behind trees as the carnage ensued.
Reuters is already disseminating the talking points for an imminent propaganda coup against the Second Amendment, and yet it was the stripping of that right to bear arms that ensured today's death toll represents the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.
SOURCE
Bro. Curtis said:
I read that, and wanted to post it, but decided to wait for two or three days before talking about this aspect. I agree with Zelman, an armed population would have been able to stop this.
It's not a cheap political point. An armed population could have stopped this.
2 Timothy2:1-4 said:
I strongly agree that mass gun control would have kept the impact of this horrific event to a minimum. But then again I define gun control as a firm grip, careful aim, and a slow squeeze of the trigger.
And the gun control legislation might have prevented this person from being able to do this in the first place.
I don't see how anyone can possibly blame gun control legislation, when that is not even attrempt to take all guns away from all law abiding citizens, as Gun control opponents often scream. A background check, waiting period, and stuff like that? If you really are a law abiding citizen, then you should have nothing to hide. If you're not planning to rob a bank tonight, you can wait for your first gun. It's the criminals that is aimed at, but the conservative conspiratorialists always have to make it a plot against themselves. Getting a house or car is made much harder (credit reports for payments, etc) and everyone seems to accept that.
It seemed like people
want thugs to be able to buy guns easily, and then go into the cities and shoot each other up. Only this time, it wasn't some far away urban slum.
And then we figure, if the gunman does happen to come our way, I got mine, and I'll take him out. First of all, who says you'd even win? A person like this who just started oening up shooting, you might not even have a chance to reach for or go get your gun (while meanwhile, the children could be finding it, and shooting themselves, as often happens).
So we patch up the negative result of so many guns easily availble with more guns more easily available. Now you're saying all the students should have been armed. Or that
everyone in society should be armed? So it's that easy! We'll all be John Wayne in the great big showdown at the OK Corral, right? I think many people are living in this "American Wild West" shootemup movie fantasy where only the bad guy gets killed in the end because the posse was properly armed. But what we're forgetting is if you have everyone armed and shooting, those bullets fly, and many will miss their target, and innocent people will still be slaughtered en-masse (which again, happens in urban high crime areas all the time). Just look at the Mideast, and other such places like that. Is that what you want here?
Again, nobody's trying to take guns from any law abiding citizens, and I don't see how a Church that almost universally tells suffering or fearful people "trust God" or "be anxious for nothing" can side with the gun lobby, as if guns are what are trusted as the salvation of mankind. (And this right after decrying tragedies like Columbine, and trying to blame the removal of prayer or the 10 Commandments for kids having guns).
)