Jump to content

another slaughter


cubituscubitus
 Share

Recommended Posts

OK folks- a question:

 

What do....

a). the Virginia Tech massacre

b). the Long Island Railway massacre

c). the Columbine massacre

d). the "Son of Sam" murders

e). the Luby's resturaunt massacre

f). the Beslan school massacre

g). the Stockton schoolyard massacre

h). the Dunblaine (sp?), Scotland massacre

i). the San Ysidero McDonald's massacre,

j). John Lennon's murder

k). the recient shooting in that college in Toronto

l). the Moscow theatre massacre, and

m). the massacre in Austraila a few years back that caused most of the guns there to be outlawed and collected by the government

all have in common.... apart from the fact that in MOST (but probably not all) cases the guns used were legally aquired and possesed under existing laws, and that in each case there were one or more nut-cases involved?

 

Any guesses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

my solution:

1) require all persons wanting to buy pump shotguns, revolvers or lever action rifles (anything beyond a single-shot weapon) to take a one time mandatory firearms safety class, maybe 6 hours or something. At the least this would allow some initial interaction between the buyer and an official to weed out the obvious nutcases.

2) require a second, stricter class for purchase of semi automatic weapons.

 

I fully realize that this would have little or no effect on illegal gun trade, but at least it would help to get the most dangerous weapons out of the hands of irresponsible assholes. If the guy had no option but a single shot 12 guage when he walked into that shop, this wouldn't have happened unless he figured out how to build a bomb.

I really think that gun ownership should be treated as a priviledge earned by responsible people. The system in a lot of States simply dosen't work as it is; taking away firearms from those who use them responsibly is no solution, but happily handing over a Glock or AK to someone who is mentally unstable, whether you know it or not, isn't any kind of solution either.

:unsure2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of rambling points;

 

One, I like how when NBC (MSNBC) received "the package" and before they turned it over to the police; they went to "great pains" to not taint the "evidence" by using "white gloves" to handle it...while making copies. Just had to make copies didn't they...I guess it's o.k. since he shot himself...no trial, so no chance of aquital due to tainted evidence...no O.J. crap here. I just find it pathetic.

 

Two, thank God we have guns...if we didn't. the nut cases might start using something that would kill a bunch of folks in one shot...like a passenger jet or car full of fertilizer. If they are gonna, they are gonna...and no amount of laws will stop them.

 

Chas., have you ever sat in on a "weapons" class of any type? What a joke, it's like going to traffic school. The B.S. I've heard slung around in some of those classes is unbelievable. I realize all are not this way of course, but you will solve nothing with a class. What do you hear most about people who commit these type crimes? TV interview with friend, relative or neighbor-"Oh, he was such a quiet/nice man/neighbor...I would have never thought..." Folks like this would glide right through a class. Then what happens when they are institutionalized? Christ, they want to let Hinkley out.

 

Ramble mode off...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howdy All,

 

And so the worm turns, again. Again we are besieged by those who fear guns, no nothing about them, and blame an inanimate object for the evil that is done by it's holder. There is nothing new here, there is nothing that can be said to change the minds of those who hold strong beliefs on either side of this issue, so why waste the time to discuss it.

 

All I can say is that I am damned sure glad I have the guns I have, if the safety Nazis get their way it will soon be MUCH more expensive to buy a gun but not any harder. The only things gun laws, I should say ANTI gun laws have any effect on is the price of the gun. My H&K 91 which I bought in 1969 for less then $250.00 was selling for close to $3,000.00 while the so called assault weapons ban was in effect.

 

To my fellow riders in Europe, Canada and other parts of the world who abhor us Americans and our guns, all I can say is this, I respect your right to be a subject and a victim, please respect my right to be a citizen and self defender.

It must be horrible to live in such fear that you need to be armed 24-7. (I hope you take that with as much humour as I took your last sentance). :unsure2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of good those laws did. So while the American media bangs the drums for tighter gun control, this story of a failed extreme gun control policy in Japan gets buried.

You're making the exception the rule. In 1994 the US had 14.24 gun related deaths per 100,000 people, Japan had 0.05 (I haven't dug deeper to get more recent stats, but I'll wager the gap hasn't closed significantly). I've got no problem witih the US's gun laws, but trying to justify them with specious arguements and sensational yet rare examples is a pet peeve. BTW, that's one Mayor that's been shot in Japan, compared to how many US presidents?

 

The freedom to own guns results in more gun fatalities, statistics prove that. If you have any real data that contradicts that I'd like to see it. The only legitimate arguement you have for gun ownership is freedom, the freedom to own one, or many. Personally I have no problem with that arguement, it's in the constitution and shouldn't be taken away. Good on the US, the governement hasn't taken away your guns. But come-on, to say you're safer with them or to throw out an example from a country where gun related deaths are far, and I mean FAR, lower than those of the US is complete horsesh1t.

 

I'll say what you guys complain against all the time, the easy access to a firearm that can fire many rounds and be quickly reloaded resulted in more deaths than if this nut job showed up with a revolver or a knife or a sword. That's the price the country pays to have these weapons available. The government enforces seatbelt laws because they protect people and in turn save the government money with regards to response vehicles, employees, etc. Gun laws would preform the same function, but people are much more passionate about their guns than seatbelts, plus it's in the constitution (or bill of rights, or wherever it is), so the government doesn't dare try to take that away, or at least the federal government.

 

I am personally opposed to gun control laws in the US myself, but I'm also opposed to being fed horsesh1t in order for people to justify gun ownership. It's a freedom, period, they don't make you safer, they don't make you more polite, and they cause more gun related deaths than societies with strict gun control laws. Yet for some reason the anti-gun law types can't grasp this. It reminds me of the helmet law types. Yes, if you get in a bike accident you're safer with a helmet than without, but the anti-helmet law types will come up with all sorts of crap to try and prove otherwise when they should simply be stating that they don't want to wear one and that it's a personal choice, a freedom to choose one way or the other.

 

Something tells me I'm not making friends here today. :unsure2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we use your logic, cars should be banned in the U.S. because they cause far more deaths per year than guns. And driving a car is not a Constitutional right, it is a priviledge. Of course, motorcycles would not be banned.

 

All "rights" come with responsiblities. This is were we have gone awry in America. No one is responsible for there actions, it is always someone else. We are weak. If I chose to not wear a helmet, seatbelt, whatever...and get injured in an accident; if I do not have the insurance to cover my injuries, I should not get treated to the degree of someone properly covered. Sounds harda$$? Remember, driving is a priviledge not a right. Same with smoking, you know it will kill you. If you aren't insured and you can not pay cash for your lung cancer...so be it. If you want to play you got to pay. But no, everybody has to be the same...I always thought that was socialism or commie stuff. Now I got to pay taxes to take care of some dead beat smoker while paying for my own private insurance. That is what sucks...o.k., some of you out there are not dead beat smokers...but you know what I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we use your logic, cars should be banned in the U.S. because they cause far more deaths per year than guns. And driving a car is not a Constitutional right, it is a priviledge. Of course, motorcycles would not be banned.

A) Seeing as I didn't call for a ban on guns, in fact quite the opposite, I'm not sure you could say that following my logic cars should be banned.

B) They are apples and oranges because of the benifits that cars provide, these benifits would, in my opinion, outweigh the risks involved. I don't believe that gun owership offers enough benifits to outweigh the risks.

 

If you're going to follow my logic, please be sure that it's actually MY logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something that has not been focused on was that Cho was not an American citizen.

 

Why do we extend full Constitutional Rights to foreign nationals? (I have five legally sponsored, green card holding family members in the USA, by the way, so I'm not prejudiced.) This leaves the door wide open for serious minded terrorists. If one whacked out kid with a legal gun can take out 32 unarmed people and still take time out of his busy killing spree to film a documentary and bee-bop down to the post office to mail it before killing more people then himself, how much more damage could several heavily armed, motivated, non-break taking, terrorists do before authorities organized to take them down?

 

Remember, he was a foreign nut case, he just happened to be on American soil (you can take the boy outta Asia, but you can't take the Asian outta the boy):

 

Campus (single gunman) high scores go to:

1) South Korea-32+1

2) Germany-17+1

3) USA-16+1

 

Off-Campus (single gunman)

1) South Korea-57+1 (potential disqualification for grenade use)

2) Austrailia-35

2) Japan-29+1

Dishonorable Mention) USA-23+1

 

 

John, ustabe that Florida would waive all that concealed gun red tape with prior military service and $200 ifn you're seriously considering it. (NOT that I agree that some of the Army whack jobs I work with aughta be granted one!!!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This event, sadly is a wake up for for the mid-east crazys, they have seen, how easy it was to accomplish this dirty work, it happens daily in iraq....what to do...My thoughts are to be ever observant in all situations, where there are large groups of people, super markets, shopping centers,churches,theaters, music fests. the list can go on and on. Since bikers , motorcyclists, have a much more defensive attitudes than the normal stream of american idol watchers, I would propose that our segment of socicety become the eyes and ears of law enforcement, yes our country will by this, probably tighten up security in other place besides airlines, now no one get more hacked at airport security than I, but you have to acknowledge that since 9-11, there has been little activity in the airline sector. I would say that a music fest would be a very easy place to do this sort of thing, old hearses,school buses,milk trucks, could be an instrument of biblical porportions. If a "buzz" was started, and passed from group to group among bikers, to keep eyes and ears open for unusal people, actions,conduct,etc, and it short circuted just one attempt it would do the job. look what that border gaurd did, by catching that rat in washinton state a few years back, who was going to do L.A. with a bomb. He had his eyes and ears open, they shud have given him a medal, and early retirement, with full pay, he earned it. we need to each be an army of one to insure that they don't get off the ground here, with these type of acts. You can bet your arse on this day every school in the US is looking and gearing up their security plan, they need help. talk to the various biker group about it. No matter where you live this is, and will become very important if the near future. think about it.....It fits into the real teddy's...."walk quiet and carry a big assed stick"......Ken :unsure2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, that's one Mayor that's been shot in Japan, compared to how many US presidents?

 

If ya don't have a gun in Japan to kill a politician, a samurai sword will do... :unsure2:

 

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inejiro_Asanuma

 

Swords don't kill people, people kill people....

 

Tud - do some research into gun death statistics in the US in the 1880's (The "Wild West Days) versus the 1980's - the results might surprise you.

 

Here's a link to some interesting research concerning concealed weapons and crime statistics... http://www.johnrlott.com/

 

Here's a funny one for ya: http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658 Wow! that law really made VT safer.

post-544-1177004554_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Randy... I'm sure all the poor young men that died in Viet Nam would have preferred to die with a glass of JD in their hands than an M-16..... they probably would've got at least a few more years of life at any rate....

 

Anyway... this is a circular-jerk of an argument about guns.

 

I like guns. I'd love to own one. The laws in Sweden are strict, and I'm glad. The chance sof my kids being gunned down at school or college are practially nil. I'm afraid you cannot say the same in the US, given the history of these school shootings.

 

1+1=2

 

More guns available = more nutters with guns.

 

Not everyone carries a gun and cannot therefore defend themselves from nutter who DO carry a gun (whether bought legally or not).

 

So - either EVERYONE should be armed (see how that works out) - or the laws should be tightened so that only sane people can have them.

 

Seems like a reasonable and sensible solution.

 

Dub

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tud - do some research into gun death statistics in the US in the 1880's (The "Wild West Days) versus the 1980's - the results might surprise you.

Instead of just saying "do some research", why don't you offer up some information, or a link, and it might not hurt to make a point. A quick google search of "gun death statistics in the US in the 1880's" doesn't bring up anything terribly useful. Gotta link, or some numbers to provide?

Here's a link to some interesting research concerning concealed weapons and crime statistics... http://www.johnrlott.com/

At least there's a link to something this time, but by following it I'm not seeing any concealed weapons and crime statistics research on that page.

Here's a funny one for ya: http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658 Wow! that law really made VT safer.

I read it, which law are you reffering to? You did read the article yourself didn't you? There was no mention of a law that prohibitted the lawful carrying of concealed weapons on campus. I assume you're reffering to the campus's ban (completely different than a law) on weapons. I agree with your point, with guns so readily available in the US it seems silly to try to ban them if you can't possibly enforce that ban.

 

I wouldn't know where to get a handgun around here, and I've lived here for over a total of 30 years. It's a good thing Cho could get one legally because I can't imagine how hard it would have been for a socially ackward foreigner to buy one illegally. My point? By making them readily accessible you're not creating an atmosphere where people are afraid to use them, you're just making it easier for the nut jobs to get one. This is the risk associated with the freedom to own guns, perhaps a small price to pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya gots me there....

 

But just don't let the criminals buy guns then....

 

:unsure2:

 

:blush2:

 

Dub

 

Dub: This particular nut-case was not a "criminal" at the time he purchaced the guns. No criminal record equals no rejection by the government background check. Same for John Hinkley and a bunch of others. In this country, political correctness requires that people like this guy be given a break for minor infractions. He was a minority and a deeply troubled person. Either of these qualified him for "special treatment" by the system and he was never reported- to do so would have probably insulted him and perminantly damaged his self-esteem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tud - do some research into gun death statistics in the US in the 1880's (The "Wild West Days) versus the 1980's - the results might surprise you.

Instead of just saying "do some research", why don't you offer up some information, or a link, and it might not hurt to make a point. A quick google search of "gun death statistics in the US in the 1880's" doesn't bring up anything terribly useful. Gotta link, or some numbers to provide?

Here's a link to some interesting research concerning concealed weapons and crime statistics... http://www.johnrlott.com/

At least there's a link to something this time, but by following it I'm not seeing any concealed weapons and crime statistics research on that page.

Here's a funny one for ya: http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658 Wow! that law really made VT safer.

I read it, which law are you reffering to? You did read the article yourself didn't you? There was no mention of a law that prohibitted the lawful carrying of concealed weapons on campus. I assume you're reffering to the campus's ban (completely different than a law) on weapons. I agree with your point, with guns so readily available in the US it seems silly to try to ban them if you can't possibly enforce that ban.

 

I wouldn't know where to get a handgun around here, and I've lived here for over a total of 30 years. It's a good thing Cho could get one legally because I can't imagine how hard it would have been for a socially ackward foreigner to buy one illegally. My point? By making them readily accessible you're not creating an atmosphere where people are afraid to use them, you're just making it easier for the nut jobs to get one. This is the risk associated with the freedom to own guns, perhaps a small price to pay.

 

Tud - you asked for statistics - you look them up. There are plenty of sources available. John Lott's book (check your local branch library) has some very interesting points about the "Wild West Days". Crimes per capita including rapes and murders were less than todays.

 

 

 

The whole point of the Roanoke article is that even if you have a valid carry permit, you are prohibited by law from carrying a gun on a Virginia college campus. Obvuisly, Mr. Cho did not respect that law, whilst students and teachers who might have carried for self defense were left defenseless. All the law did was keep law abiding citizens form being armed. The criminals just ignore the law.

 

Appearntly, Cho did get his firearms legally. Virginia only requires a criminal background check and not a medical (psych) records check. Should they have one? perhaps. I don't want nutjobs having guns.

 

The really sad part is now it is becoming appearant thet the university knew Cho was a nutjob but were powerless to expel him as the Virginia legislature also passed a law prohibiting Universities from barring the mentally unstable/challenged, as well as the threats of lawsuits and being called racists..

 

IMO political correctness was a more likely cause of the chain of events that led to this massacre, than any particular gun law.

 

The part most troubling part to me is it appears nobody fought back. Why didn't students try to tackle this guy, throw something at him? Why did they just sit there under a desk and let themselves be murdered? Maybe it's the era of PC again, everybody should be non-violent and not fight whatever the circumstances. In my kid's schools, if they defend themselves in a physical confrontation, they receive the same punishment as the confronter. Our kids need to learn to defend themselves. Punish the bully, not the victim.

 

Maybe another case of the "unintended consuequences" of our PC culture and "well meaning" legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...