VA Tech Shootings

[Eric B]

Are you sure about that? That is one of the mistakes people make about weapons: "I'll be afraid if somebody pulled a gun on me, but I wouldn't be afraid if somebody pulled a knife on me." WRONG! A knife can be a very formidable weapon and can cause more damage than a bullet. Guns need reloading. Knives never do. It is possible to disarm someone with a knife, but it's not as easy as it appears in the movies.

I've had self defense training. Part of it was handling knife attacks.

Well, let's face it. The person has to be in arm's length to be able to get you with a knife; unless he's a good Ninja. And even then, a thrown knife would be slower and therefore easier to dodge or sheild than a bullet.

 

[amity]

Plus a knife is much less likely to do serious damage if it does reach its mark.

 

[Hope of Glory]

"Squeaky clean"? They must not have really checked much of anything, or ignored alot of stuff. They're saying now that this kid had been acting strange two years ago, was suicidal, stalking people, alarming professors with his paper assignment writings, and was even sent to a mental facility. That is what "control" such as background checks are designed to look for. Why does a person like that need to be allowed to buy a gun without any sort of regulation?. Again, 'cause I got mine, and I'll finish him off and ride off into the sunset!

You might want to check your laws again.

There is a check box on the form asking if he had mental problems. (Guess which one he checked?)

That's as far as they're permitted because of "privacy" issues with doctors.

Talk to the ACLU, not the gun dealers.

Legally, according to the criminal background check, he was squeaky clean.

 

[Hope of Glory]

So are you saying that bearing arms against the federal government would be a legitimate reason for the public to be armed?

This reasoning is not working for me any longer. I really cannot think of a single legitimate reason for ordinary citizens to be armed at this point in our history. At one time much of the populace hunted to put meat on the table. That is not the case presently. What other legitimate reason is there to keep a gun? Self-defense would hardly be a valid argument if a single glock suddenly cost $5000 on the black market.

I was raised in a very gun friendly household. My stepfather is a champion rifleman. He shoots most every weekend, and may make the hall of fame this year. He owns maybe $100,000 worth of rifles of all sorts, has even made some himself. Never killed a single living thing. Taught me to shoot when I was 8. But I am sure he would be willing to give it all up to have safety in our streets and in our homes. And that IS within our reach if we resolve to banish guns within 10 years.

So, are you willing to give you your freedom of speech? After all, many people misuse it and cause great harm.

How about freedom of religion? There have been many wars started in the name of religion, Christianity included.

What other rights are you willing to give up?

The Constitution is not about "needs", it's about rights.

We need to ban the criminals, not the law abiding citizens.

Firearms are used more than 1 million times annually to prevent crime, often without a shot being fired.

And I do feed my family with one, and I did before moving here.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Well, that would make you a criminal at that point, wouldn't it?

How absurd!

You have the right to defend yourself (or others) against the threat of death or severe bodily harm.

That includes if someone bigger than you are is beating you.

That includes carjackers.

Doesn't matter if they have a gun or not. They're the criminal!

Where does anyone get the notion that self-defense is criminal?!?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Anecdotal. This is no more of an argument against gun control than the Virginia shooting is, as an event unto itself, an argument for gun control. It is the "statistics" that count - not individual events.

I posted a link to those stats, a page or two ago.

 

[Hope of Glory]

I think the odds of someone attempting robbery at knifepoint are relatively slim. If you had a choice, would you rather be threatened with a gun or a knife? Take the knife any day.

Well, I can tell you've never been the target of an attempted robbery.

Of the four that I stopped, three of them were armed with knives.

In the fourth, my gun was bigger than his.

In three of the four cases, I held them until the police arrived.

Only had to fire one shot total, and it was a warning shot about 6 inches from the guy's foot.

Personally, I'd rather take my chance against a gun than a knife. Most people are very bad shots, since most criminals don't go to the range to practice.

I do.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Oh, yes, no one is denying that knives can kill, but if given a choice between an attacker armed with a gun and one armed with a knife, your chances are much greater with the latter.

Funny thing about it, even in the US, more than twice as many people are stabbed to death than shot.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Ever try and hit a moving target with a 22 pistol ? It sure ain't easy.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Well, let's face it. The person has to be in arm's length to be able to get you with a knife; unless he's a good Ninja. And even then, a thrown knife would be slower and therefore easier to dodge or sheild than a bullet.

So, do you watch a lot of movies?

Have you ever been attacked by a knife-wielding psycho?

Have you ever had self-defense training?

Have you ever tried to shoot a moving target with a handgun?

 

[Hope of Glory]

If we raise the price of a Glock to $5000, then only the rich will be able to defend themselves against the criminals who don't worry too much about the legality or price of purchasing or stealing a gun.

Don't believe me? Automatics have been illegal since 1932. (I think that's the correct year, but I'm not certain.) Yet criminals have no problem acquiring them.

For that matter, I'm not a criminal, and I know where I could get one.

 

[Jaaaman]

People forget that the prohibition against alcohol did not work. Trying to outlaw sale of guns and ammunition would be disasterous failure and our neighborhoods and streets would be more dangerous.

 

[amity]

Arrrggghhh! It is very diffcult to carry on a coherent conversation if those who are posting are not reading the posts they are trying to respond to! :BangHead: Never mind. I do it sometimes, too. Here is the post I was commenting on:

If guns are outlawed and my family is attacked by a knife weilding assailant, I'm still going to shoot him.

So, are you willing to give you your freedom of speech? After all, many people misuse it and cause great harm.
How about freedom of religion? There have been many wars started in the name of religion, Christianity included.
What other rights are you willing to give up?.

The right to own slaves.
The right to beat my wife.
The right to hire 6 year olds to do dangerous jobs.
The right to sell heroin as a "miracle tonic."

The Constitution is not about "needs", it's about rights.
We need to ban the criminals, not the law abiding citizens.

Right you are!
You haven't established a need to have a personal firearm.
This is still a democracy, and we make our own laws.
If we do not want private citizens to have the right to own hand guns for personal use, and if we can get it onto the voting agenda, and if we can get majority to vote a new law onto the books, then you are going to have to go along with that or become a criminal.

Firearms are used more than 1 million times annually to prevent crime, often without a shot being fired.

One million? Really? I am still waiting to hear my first real life story of this happening. Meanwhile I have known several people personally whose possession of firearms has resulted in accidental death or injury to family members.

And I do feed my family with one, and I did before moving here.

Get it at the meat market.

People forget that the prohibition against alcohol did not work. Trying to outlaw sale of guns and ammunition would be disasterous failure and our neighborhoods and streets would be more dangerous.

The status quo is definitely not working. Its an even bigger failure than prohibition. Let's give gun control say a 50-year trial, and then we can compare the two ways of life. And I defy anyone to make a semi-automatic weapon in their bathtub.

 

[rbell]

Here is the post again, folks, just to clear up the confusion:

This reasoning is not working for me any longer. I really cannot think of a single legitimate reason for ordinary citizens to be armed at this point in our history. At one time much of the populace hunted to put meat on the table. That is not the case presently. What other legitimate reason is there to keep a gun? Self-defense would hardly be a valid argument if a single glock suddenly cost $5000 on the black market.

one valid reason? Self defense, and the defense of my family.

There is no more noble reason than that.

Some other monkey wrenches for your machine:

• Do you think the millions of guns already out there would disappear? Well, they would disappear from the average citizen's hand...not the criminals.
• Last time I checked, alcohol was made illegal...and that didn't work so well.
• This question keeps getting overlooked, so here goes...again...
  • What happens when your city has a "Katrina-like" situation...a crisis of massive proportions in which there is a total breakdown of civil authority? You'll probably either have a gun, wish you did, or hang around a law-abiding person that does.
• Guns don't have to be fired to be helpful. If given a choice between an armed house and an unarmed house, which one will the scumbag choose to invade?

Anecdotal. This is no more of an argument against gun control than the Virginia shooting is, as an event unto itself, an argument for gun control. It is the "statistics" that count - not individual events.

So let's say I get hives each time I eat strawberries. I don't have any scientific studies that confirm such...but I know that after eating strawberries recently, I itched and got quite uncomfortable.

The wrong answer would be, "Well, that's anecdotal. Until we do a scientific study, we just don't know."

Some of these "anecdotal" events that are being brushed off are really quite compelling. There is something to be said for cause and effect, straightforward, common-sensical answers.

I'm still waiting for a cogent answer regarding why three cities with extremely strict gun laws--Washington DC, Baltimore, and Detroit--would consistently be at the top of FBI crime stats? Until Katrina messed 'em up, New Orleans was a "top ten" city as well (it's another "handgun free" zone).

But I am sure he would be willing to give it all up to have safety in our streets and in our homes. And that IS within our reach if we resolve to banish guns within 10 years.

So you really think that outlawing guns will make our streets safe? No way at all. We don't even consistently enforce the gun laws we currently have. Banning guns will make average citizens to be at the mercy of criminals...who did NOT turn their guns in when told to. It will make the average citizen totally dependent on law enforcement for the protection of his family. (Hope your police are 100 percent in their efforts!)

IF banning guns made streets safer, the Distict of Columbia would be the garden of Eden.

 

[Rufus_1611]

...
Right you are! You haven't established a need to have a personal firearm.
This is still a democracy, and we make our own laws.
If we do not want private citizens to have the right to own hand guns for personal use, and if we can get it onto the voting agenda, and if we can get majority to vote a new law onto the books, then you are going to have to go along with that or become a criminal.
...

First, no one has to establish a need to have a personal firearm. Our founders saw a need and they wrote it into the constitution. Second, the United States of America is not a democracy, as it is a constitutional republic. Our founding fathers loathed democracies and they loathed it for this very reason. Democratic majorities have a tendency to trample on the rights of the minorities. The bill of rights was intended to protect individuals regardless of how ignorant the majority became. Thus, even if the majority of folks bought into the marketing that guns are bad, it doesn't mean they have the constitutional capability to take away the rights of others. The mob can not render null the bill of rights via majority rule, save for a constitutional amendment which requires more than a majority or save for overthrowing the constitution.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" - Benjamin Franklin​

 

[amity]

Yes, it would take decades to get the guns out of the hands of the criminals. If we do not have gun control, no amount of time is going to get the guns out of the hands of criminals and the problem will just become more and more severe with greater loss of life each year.

Gun control does not work if it is just in a locality, like Detroit, because the guns are still in plentiful and cheap supply just right outside the municipal boundaries, so the supply within the city limits can constantly be replenished. We would have to make manufacture and importation illegal, and really mean this for it to work. Over time as guns were confiscated the supply would dwindle and would become too scarce and expensive for ordinary criminals to afford.

I used to work as a flight attendant for an international air carrier. There was a certain country we used to fly in and out of where the men still wore these huge curved knives, scimitars, with fancy filigree work and sometimes jewel encrusted. They never used them for anything, but it was something to fuss over and preen with, I guess, a real badge of manhood. Needless to say we had to confiscate these knives before they could board the plane, and this was very psychologically uncomfortable for them and for us, but it had to be done. We would tell them what I am telling you now "But you are not using it for anything." It was just an archaic holdover from previous centuries, but incredibly dangerous to have in the context of an airplane, obviously. Now guns are becoming the same thing .. just an incredibly dangerous archaic luxury item, a psychological security blanket that in reality is worse than merely worthless. They are not secure, they are dangerous. It is time to give them up.

And you know I really don't care for the consistent misrepresentation of the constitution. You and your neighbors are no militia.

 

[rbell]

Right you are! (1) You haven't established a need to have a personal firearm.
2. This is still a democracy, and we make our own laws.
3. If we do not want private citizens to have the right to own hand guns for personal use, and if we can get it onto the voting agenda, and if we can get majority to vote a new law onto the books, then you are going to have to go along with that or become a criminal.

1. Self-defense. Self-defense. Self-defense. Why can't folks get this????
2. No it's not. Congress (and other legislative bodies) make laws. We are a constitutional republic. BIG difference. We don't engage in mob rule as do pure democracies.
3. You might want to read up on a civics book. You don't have the process quite down.

If I lived in a high-crime area with my family, and a "no handguns law whatsoever" ban came down, I'd have some hard thinking to do. I am obidient to the law...but I feel I have a higher charge from God to protect my family. There might be some civil disobedience going on then.

Fortunately, I don't see any way your scenario happens in the forseeable future. And for that I'm thankful.

 

[tinytim]

I thank God for the Venison, Elk, and Mule deer I ate last week

Man, were they good... (I've got a great marinade, if you want it, PM me )I thank God for the hunter and Gun that killed them. God supplies our needs...
He even gave us the greatest country in the world to live and have a right to carry a firearm to provide for ourselves and others...

In WV, hunters give away their food to the needy...
I wonder how many would not be fed if they didn't?

Thank God for guns...
It is the idiots that need to be gotten rid of.... and if the mental health authorities in VA would have done their job, this massacre wouldn't have happened....

 

[Hope of Glory]

Arrrggghhh! It is very diffcult to carry on a coherent conversation if those who are posting are not reading the posts they are trying to respond to! :BangHead: Never mind. I do it sometimes, too. Here is the post I was commenting on:

I responded to your inane statement calling self-defense murder. Then, I made a new comment.

Try some reading comprehension.

The right to own slaves.
The right to beat my wife.
The right to hire 6 year olds to do dangerous jobs.
The right to sell heroin as a "miracle tonic."

Mind showing me where these are covered in the Constitution?

I take that back: I challenge you to show me where these are covered in the Constitution.

I can show you where my right to keep and bear arms is.

Right you are!
You haven't established a need to have a personal firearm.
This is still a democracy, and we make our own laws.
If we do not want private citizens to have the right to own hand guns for personal use, and if we can get it onto the voting agenda, and if we can get majority to vote a new law onto the books, then you are going to have to go along with that or become a criminal.

Good thing we're not a democracy or tyranny such as this would rule the day.

Thomas Jefferson stated, "A true democracy is the purest form of tyranny".

One million? Really? I am still waiting to hear my first real life story of this happening. Meanwhile I have known several people personally whose possession of firearms has resulted in accidental death or injury to family members.

I gave you four that are personal and dear.

The MSM doesn't like this kind of story, though, as they're not sensational and don't help them further the liberal agenda.

However, you can find the stories in local newspapers, or the NRA compiles them.

Get it at the meat market.

And you may worship only at your local mosque, and do it in silence.

May as well give up the right to free worship and free speech, if we're just going to give up rights to tyrants.

Besides, have you checked the price of buffalo or beef in Alaska? I can feed my family for a year with one bullet. OK, I also have to buy gas to get out of town. Although, the first moose taken last year was behind the gas station, in town.

The status quo is definitely not working. Its an even bigger failure than prohibition. Let's give gun control say a 50-year trial, and then we can compare the two ways of life. And I defy anyone to make a semi-automatic weapon in their bathtub.

I can make one in my machine shop. I have the blueprints for the Makarov model 54. Only 32 parts, if memory serves.

Besides, why do you need a semi-automatic? It only takes one bullet to rob a bank. We obviously need to ban machine shops and pharmaceuticals which can be used to make propellants.

 

[Hope of Glory]

and if the mental health authorities in VA would have done their job, this massacre wouldn't have happened....

Try the ACLU. Privacy laws prevented him being reported. There's nothing the mental health authorities could legally do, even if they were so inclined.