Today's horrific massacre at Va. Tech. will undoubtedly give rise to another round of efforts to ban handguns. It was worse than Columbine and the University of Texas massacres.
Today's horrific massacre at Va. Tech. will undoubtedly give rise to another round of efforts to ban handguns. It was worse than Columbine and the University of Texas massacres.





I wonder what VT's policy on gun possession is...
Oh never mind, I found it.
http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/xp-21770
http://www.policies.vt.edu/5616.pdf
The university’s employees, students, and volunteers, or any visitor or other third party attending a sporting, entertainment, or educational event, or visiting an academic or administrative office building or residence hall, are further prohibited from carrying, maintaining, or storing a firearm or weapon on any university facility, even if the owner has a valid permit, when it is not required by the individual’s job, or in accordance with the relevant University Student Life Policies.
Any such individual who is reported or discovered to possess a firearm or weapon on university property will be asked to remove it immediately. Failure to comply may result in a student judicial referral and/or arrest, or anemployee disciplinary action and/or arrest.
Hmm....very interesting, and I'm sure there's going to be some second guessing considering how the shooting today transpired.
Former SCJ now in rehab.





So if the Killer hadn't commited suicide then he would have been expelled? Well that will teach him, but that made him pause for reconsideration. I wonder what the backlash will be. I have read but have been unable to confirm Israeli policy. I was told that Israel had a problem with Palestinians attacking schools. That in response the schools armed the teachers and that volunteers such as grandparents are armed on schools.
Someone correct me if I'm mistaken but I've heard that when buying a gun today you have to fill out a form that asks whether or not you've ever been convicted of a crime. And if you answer "No" there is a database where your criminal history, if any, can be cross-checked.
They also ask if you've ever been diagnosed or treated for mental illness. If you answer "NO" there is no way to check whether or not you really have. So I've been told - so I understand.





In the UK about 20 years ago we had a number of massacres - Dunblane, Hungerford, etc.
We then had some draconian laws passed that effectively removed legal ways of the average person owning or accessing handguns and rifles.
Since then we've had zero massacres because it's far more difficult for a mentally unbalanced person to acccess a firearm.
Wish I could say the same for the US.
OK - UK based criminals get and use them, but these tend to be single shootings, not massacres. Plus, although shooting make headlines, they're not that frequent in the UK.
Check out the homicide rate per 1,000 people in the UK and the US. I think you'll find the largely gun free UK has a significantly lower rate than the US.
Phil.





^^^ ironically, the highest incidence of gun related deaths in the USA occurs in cities / states that have enacted the stricted anti-gun laws ! The lowest incidence of gun related deaths occurs in cities / states where the gun laws are very lenient. Arguably the differentiating factor is the odds of the would be assailant encountering a victim who is equally / better armed than the assailant !
Yes, obviously the 33 deaths resulting from the Virginia Tech nutcase shooting spree was tragic and made major headlines. But statistically speaking this is a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to typical murder rates in D.C., New Orleans, NYC, L.A. and a host of other major US cities that have enacted strict anti-gun laws - which DON'T make the headlines (very often).
~
Last edited by Melonie; 04-17-2007 at 03:42 PM.





BATFE Form 4473
National Crime Information Computer (NCIC)
No transaction if:
Criminal conviction
Domestic Violence
Diagnosed with mental illness
Illegal drug abuser
Bad Conduct Discharge
Illegal alien
Under 18 (handguns)
there's more thats off the top of my head.
Records
name, address, SSN or Tax ID, DL#, make, model, serial, number, caliber, multiple hanguns require additional paperwork.





As I stated above, I wonder if the body count yesterday could have been minimized if VT students, faculty and staff were allowed to carry firearms with them on campus. By some media accounts, the shooter only turned his weapon on himself when the police (the only other ones with weapons) had closed in on him.
Former SCJ now in rehab.




While I think gun control should be tighter in the US (the right to bear arms is, in my view, largely responsible for America's high homicide rate compared to countries like Australia, where no such right exists and there is stringent gun control), my main feeling about this latest shooting is simply sadness. Such a terrible waste.
It's ironic because when you actually bother to look at other countries with private gun ownership- Canada, Switzerland, Israel - their crime rates are much lower than ours. Especially gun violence.
Afaik when Texas and Florida passed "right to carry" laws they both had large declines in violent crime; particularly assaults on women.
I did some checking and to answer my own question : At present there is no effective way to check the mental history of a gun applicant thanks to the ACLU and others who insist on keeping medical records "private". Well DUH ! if you want to legally buy a firearm what's wrong with waiving a little "privacy" and signing an authorization to permit checking your mental as well as criminal background ? What's wrong with suspending if not revoking the gun permits for "mentally ill" people and taking away their guns ?




You're right, I didn't bother to look at countries aside from my own and the UK. However, I wasn't interested in having a detailed debate on the issue (if I had been I'd likely have done research further afield). A mere statement of opinion was my intent, rather than entry into another long and pointless internet argument.
I agree that the ownership of guns should be carefully screened. While I think medical records should indeed be kept private in most circumstances, there perhaps should be exemptions in cases where others are potentially endangered. There are broader public safety issues afoot, and to me that trumps any right an applicant for an arms license might have to shield their psychiatric history. I also would not see mental health screening as necessarily being an invasion of privacy since there's always the option of simply not applying for a gun. Gun ownership is a voluntary thing, after all, and I'd hardly call it an essential.



These are two interesting links on this topic
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b7f78c351b6.htm
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/The...unControl.html
One pro and one con, so each one obviously has a specific agenda in this debate.
I've only taken the time to skim through both at the moment, but believe these links are relevant to the current debate here.
I'm going to read the one about Switzerland vs. the U.S. first, as I'm interested in why the difference in gun-related violence between the two countries?
As to what transpired at Virginia Tech, I saw some headline this morning on my way to work, describing the murderer as a "tormented loner." I've heard similar phrases used before to describe others who've committed the same type of crime. But in this case, the killer was a legal immigrant from South Korea. I don't know how long he has been in the U.S., but wonder if whatever motivated him to mass murder is related to U.S. culture, South Korean culture, or is some combination of both cultures.
Last edited by PhaedrusZ; 04-18-2007 at 12:04 PM. Reason: typo
I'm so with you on this! The problem here isn't that too many people have easy access to guns; the problem here is that not enough students are taking guns to class. They should be as mandatory as pen, pencil, and paper, and textbooks. In fact, I can't understand why pencil cases with 9mm barrels and telescopic sights haven't been invented yet.
Wouldn't it be beneficial if students were to bring guns into school at an even earlier age, so that younger students can learn how to use them in case an incident like this occurs at their elementary schools? Steve Jobs is working on a very user-friendly iHandgun, I hear. I think this will definitely help to prevent more campus shootings in the future, and thank God, really.





Smartcookie, you're missing the point, which is that the dude was a fucking immigrant and if our goddamn borders were sealed he wouldn't have made it in to America where his nautralized ass could buy a gun. It's immigration that's at the root of this tragedy!
But I support your modest proposal for all students to be armed. That would so help.
jesus fucking christ, people, what is up with this country's ridiculous attachment to firearms? It's bullshit.










Given the horrific event. I know the families must be extremely hurt and angry. My prayers go out to them! Yet I hope everyone understand banning guns will not end this promblem. It will leave citzen even more vunerable. I stand by my bill of rights.( the right to bear arms). Which I believe provide one of the best protection. Dealing with these crazy people. who will go to extreme event to hurt you, F&*&^ that! I now carry my pieace, so I can be at peace.
Because you ban things that do not mean it wont be easy to get, it will mean people will crave for it more, maybe we all should be more educated on guns and life and rage and hate. Also it will be a good idea to get help for the mently ill instead of letting them run the streets.
If you want the present to be differant from the past, study the past.
Baruch Spindza
It is what it is, not what you want it to become, that's important -- at least for now. Today, remember that things worth having are worth waiting for!
The Stars
Minds are like parachutes: They only function when open.
Thomas Dewar
Dont throw away the old bucket until you know whether the new one holds water.
Swedish Proverb
The trouble there is who decides what? I have had a history of depression and anxiety, and I've been under care for it. I spent four weeks in a mental hospital when I was 12, saw a lot of shrinks as a teenager, and as a 19-year-old college student I spent a lot of time in therapy. I've got a handle on it now and don't need treatment. If I had a stalker after me or economic circumstances forced me to live in a dangerous neighborhood, I would want a gun. But a lot of people's definition of "history of mental illness" would prohibit me from purchasing one under those rules, thus putting my life in jeopardy. So who gets to decide where the line is drawn?Originally Posted by Eric Stoner
I'm not saying "let's arm the insane," just pointing out that there are considerations here.
As for gun control... I know that Europe and Australia do great with it, but it would require a constitutional amendment here. I CANNOT support gun control laws that violate the Constitution, or the Constitution is meaningless (although it pretty much is nowadays anyway).
And there are cultural issues at work here. You can ban handguns in Britain and Australia and most people will comply, but here that only removes them from law-abiding people who want to defend themselves. We have a HUGE criminal element that will always be able to obtain handguns. And as long as the criminals are going to have guns, then in my opinion law-abiding citizens should be able to have them too. It's a proven fact that areas with high numbers of concealed-carry permits have much lower crime rates.




Maybe you can help me understand something.
When I read the Second Amendment, I feel that the "well-regulated militia" part takes precedence over the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" part.
I mean, when the Amendment was written, we'd just fought a war against a powerful country. Our population was very small--there were not enough people to allow for a large army of professional soldiers. Regular folks fought the Redcoats, right? Anyone who was able to pick up a musket became a soldier. Wasn't that the primary reason to "keep and bear arms"? So that you could pick them up and defend your country against foreign invaders, should the need arise, as part of a well-regulated militia?
Things have changed so much since the Bill of Rights was written. We have a large, powerful, standing army (or we did till youknowwho took office). Our population is exploding. Mental illness is more prevalent than ever. The "criminal element" in society is a tad different than it was in the 1790's. Muskets are antiques. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons can wreak horrific damage in less time than it takes your heart to beat.
I'm not entirely anti-gun. But I read the Second Amendment to allow for some very serious gun control. Again, the phrase "well-regulated militia" really jumps out at me.
And even if the Second Amendment is interpreted to allow no room for restrictions on who may own or carry a weapon, the beauty of our Constitution, and the reason it has survived so long, is that there are provisions to allow for change--with careful consideration, and appropriate consensus.
It takes only a brief look at the original document to see that some things that were allowed for in the Constitution were just plain morally wrong, and bad for society and humanity as a whole.
So, yeah. I think we should exercise extreme caution in changing the Constitution. But refusing to do it at all, ever, would be missing the whole point--the Founding Fathers understood that some change would be inevitable, and they expressly allowed for it in the document itself. When the times change in profound ways, the document--or more likely its interpretation-- can change along with them.
I agree wholeheartedly that getting Americans to give up their guns and go all British/Aussie pacifistic would require a HUGE shift in cultural attitudes. I don't see it happening anytime soon. [<--understatement]. But given the carnage that we see every day in America (not just in these rare school shootings), I think that kind of attitude change -- from "you'll have to pry it out of my cold dead hands" to "what on earth would I need a gun for?" -- would be a worthy goal to work towards.
"Doc still loved true things, but he knew it was not a general love and it could be a very dangerous mistress." - John Steinbeck, Cannery Row
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]





can i just point something out?
if guns are banned, made illegal, whatever.. PEOPLE CAN AND WILL STILL GET THEM. i just don't see the point in banning them from people who might legitimately need them, like yek said. i personally wouldn't want one in my apartment. but i was getting threatening phone calls last summer, and if i was the type of person who DID feel comfortable with it, maybe i would've wanted one.
how many criminals purchse guns legally? 100% legally. walk into the store themselves and get them? not many. and even if they were banned.. drugs aren't legal. people get drugs. many things that are illegal are still going on, so making guns illegal or making the process harder to get one would, imo, only lead to more people obtaining them illegally.





If you want the present to be differant from the past, study the past.
Baruch Spindza
It is what it is, not what you want it to become, that's important -- at least for now. Today, remember that things worth having are worth waiting for!
The Stars
Minds are like parachutes: They only function when open.
Thomas Dewar
Dont throw away the old bucket until you know whether the new one holds water.
Swedish Proverb
Nicolina, push for an amendment to the Constitution then if you like. That is your right, and plenty of people would support you. But the Second Amendment does NOT restrict gun ownership to the military. The men who wrote those words gathered the people together against an oppressive, unjust government. Now that OUR government is oppressive and unjust, they are doing everything they can to disarm the populace and keep us from fighting back. Once the population is truly helpless, who is to stop them from throwing out the Constitution entirely and setting up whatever kind of fascist dictatorship they like?




Well, I would just point out that the Virginia Tech shooter apparently obtained his gun "100% legally."
"Doc still loved true things, but he knew it was not a general love and it could be a very dangerous mistress." - John Steinbeck, Cannery Row
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]





i realize that, but my thing is that i think he would've gotten it anyway.
^^^ How many people do you think he would've killed if other people were legally allowed to carry handguns on campus? I'd bet someone would've stopped him sooner.





Banning guns in a place of learning,is one thing! But banning guns in general is a big mess. NO matter how much people that choose not to be violent. Go against guns. Who preach that violence is not the way, it still wont change the minds of a pyscho! ( Rember that) They cant even get people to help them with out getting all drug up!Maybe if the school will screen there students more carefully. Or better yet when he was throwing all those red flag around! Took him and kept him in a mental hosptial instead of letting him out again! Maybe this would have never happen.
Guns do not kill people. People kill people
If you want the present to be differant from the past, study the past.
Baruch Spindza
It is what it is, not what you want it to become, that's important -- at least for now. Today, remember that things worth having are worth waiting for!
The Stars
Minds are like parachutes: They only function when open.
Thomas Dewar
Dont throw away the old bucket until you know whether the new one holds water.
Swedish Proverb
Bookmarks