I'm sorry-didn't want to rant on the prayers thread for the victims.
I'm angry- Just watched the news coverage of the service - one of the school officials gave a sort of rally cry- "we will prevail! "
What is this- a pep rally? - over thirty young people dead- who prevails here?
Then there is George Bush saying the dead were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. WHAT? They were young people in school!
It was the killer who was in the wrong place and the schools administration that was in the wrong place for two hours before the majority of the killings.
Don't the parents of these children have to go through enough without these kinds of statements?
Full Version: virginia tech
I saw the coverage too, my thoughts echo yours. I'll add a couple of more comments:
It troubled me that politicians were quick to say that the US gun laws were/are adequate. A review might shed some light on the situation.
The same broadcast network also pointed to mass murder in Canada "dispite some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world". Our gun laws aren't especially restrictive. We own a couple of guns and a ton of other weapons - all antique, spears, swords cross bows and and one battleax waaaaatch it!!! The case in Montreal were 14 young female engineering students were slaughtered were victims of a deranged man. We can check mental illness at the time of gun sales and purchase, but it would be impossible to check up on everyone after the fact to see if they had become ill. But gun violence, gun murder here is 1/600th of that of the US. and I think its something like twice that again to the UK. It might be worth considering. In both countries, the UK and Canada, people can own weapons. Its how they're stored, and how or where they're used and to whom they're sold that's the key.
I say it because the NRA and apparently the "most trusted name in news" has it a little wrong.
It troubled me that politicians were quick to say that the US gun laws were/are adequate. A review might shed some light on the situation.
The same broadcast network also pointed to mass murder in Canada "dispite some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world". Our gun laws aren't especially restrictive. We own a couple of guns and a ton of other weapons - all antique, spears, swords cross bows and and one battleax waaaaatch it!!! The case in Montreal were 14 young female engineering students were slaughtered were victims of a deranged man. We can check mental illness at the time of gun sales and purchase, but it would be impossible to check up on everyone after the fact to see if they had become ill. But gun violence, gun murder here is 1/600th of that of the US. and I think its something like twice that again to the UK. It might be worth considering. In both countries, the UK and Canada, people can own weapons. Its how they're stored, and how or where they're used and to whom they're sold that's the key.
I say it because the NRA and apparently the "most trusted name in news" has it a little wrong.
Hmmmmm ...........Im still mad at the media coveredge of the London bombings .......Ive had it with reporters, news and politicians.............sensationalist vampires.....they've all got hidden agendas.
Thank you Lidge for starting this thread. I too, did not want to get into this type of debate on the Prayer Thread. I am a Canadian. I want to make that clear as I am not totaly familiar with your gun laws. I like millions of others was horrified when I watched the news about these horrific killings. After my initial shock at the killings, the news coverage on this nightmare was making me extremly agitated. Gun Control was barely menntioned on the first day.....so.....I switched stations from CNN, to CBC (Canadian National Broadcasting)......
First and foremost, I do not think that my country is the best country in the world, we have our share of problems. Notwithstanding, I found a great difference in the way this story was told over an American Station and a Canadian Station. CBC was quite focused on the fact that in Virginia, there would appear to be NO Gun Control. Anyone can go in and purchase a gun, without having any sort of background check.......and this is just for a handgun. A rifle can be purchased without even showing Identification!! I was also dismayed to learn that in Virginia, anyone can have a concealed weapon...oh did I mention you need a pernit....WHAT?!?!?! I don't understand how the NRA has gotten SO much backing.
Smoking will kill ya, but hey....Americans have the right to bare arms? WHY? Why is it necessary to bare arms in this day and age? Now the powers that be are actually discussing that campus police should be armed. Oh My Lord!! Why not arm the students as well? Oh wait I forgot, they are already armed. I am so sorry to sound glib, but I am infuriated that guns are so readily available in the United States. My fellow Canuck, Duch, apparently owns guns .... I will have a wee chat with her later...just kidding
But other than my friend Duch...who lives in a different province than I do, I know no-one who owns a gun.
For years I have avoided traveling through the United States. When we took our daughter to university in the fall.....it would have been easier driving to go thru the States.....but truth be told......we REALLY did not want to risk the chance of being SHOT! We get American news coverage up here, and it is frightenning to hear of the rampant gun violence.
Now before I am thrown to the proverbial wolves.....let me say...that here on Power Surge...the women that I have had the privalage of chatting with....I just adore! I also want to add that living in the city that I live in, we do have our fair share of violence. But honestly nothing like the big cities in the States. And for the record, I personally have nothing against Americans. I am just having a HUGE problem with this whole "right to bare arms' debate is just so antiquated. Isn't there also something in your 'old laws', that mentions something about having slaves? You abolished that insane law....why does the gun law still hold such fascination with so many?
Can someone please enlighten me.
In the meantime.....my Grandmother was American....so I am 1/4 American......or is that 1/8th? Ohh heck, I dunno
First and foremost, I do not think that my country is the best country in the world, we have our share of problems. Notwithstanding, I found a great difference in the way this story was told over an American Station and a Canadian Station. CBC was quite focused on the fact that in Virginia, there would appear to be NO Gun Control. Anyone can go in and purchase a gun, without having any sort of background check.......and this is just for a handgun. A rifle can be purchased without even showing Identification!! I was also dismayed to learn that in Virginia, anyone can have a concealed weapon...oh did I mention you need a pernit....WHAT?!?!?! I don't understand how the NRA has gotten SO much backing.
Smoking will kill ya, but hey....Americans have the right to bare arms? WHY? Why is it necessary to bare arms in this day and age? Now the powers that be are actually discussing that campus police should be armed. Oh My Lord!! Why not arm the students as well? Oh wait I forgot, they are already armed. I am so sorry to sound glib, but I am infuriated that guns are so readily available in the United States. My fellow Canuck, Duch, apparently owns guns .... I will have a wee chat with her later...just kidding
But other than my friend Duch...who lives in a different province than I do, I know no-one who owns a gun. For years I have avoided traveling through the United States. When we took our daughter to university in the fall.....it would have been easier driving to go thru the States.....but truth be told......we REALLY did not want to risk the chance of being SHOT! We get American news coverage up here, and it is frightenning to hear of the rampant gun violence.
Now before I am thrown to the proverbial wolves.....let me say...that here on Power Surge...the women that I have had the privalage of chatting with....I just adore! I also want to add that living in the city that I live in, we do have our fair share of violence. But honestly nothing like the big cities in the States. And for the record, I personally have nothing against Americans. I am just having a HUGE problem with this whole "right to bare arms' debate is just so antiquated. Isn't there also something in your 'old laws', that mentions something about having slaves? You abolished that insane law....why does the gun law still hold such fascination with so many?
Can someone please enlighten me.
In the meantime.....my Grandmother was American....so I am 1/4 American......or is that 1/8th? Ohh heck, I dunno
On this complicated issue, I would recommend Saul Cornell's book, _A Well-Regulated Militia_. It explains the evolution of the second amendment (right to bear arms) up through the modern debate. Here is the blurb from Amazon:
"Americans are deeply divided over the Second Amendment. Some passionately assert that the Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns. Others, that it does no more than protect the right of states to maintain militias. Now, in the first and only comprehensive history of this bitter controversy, Saul Cornell proves conclusively that both sides are wrong. Cornell, a leading constitutional historian, shows that the Founders understood the right to bear arms as neither an individual nor a collective right, but as a civic right--an obligation citizens owed to the state to arm themselves so that they could participate in a well regulated militia. He shows how the modern "collective right" view of the Second Amendment, the one federal courts have accepted for over a hundred years, owes more to the Anti-Federalists than the Founders. Likewise, the modern "individual right" view emerged only in the nineteenth century. The modern debate, Cornell reveals, has its roots in the nineteenth century, during America's first and now largely forgotten gun violence crisis, when the earliest gun control laws were passed and the first cases on the right to bear arms came before the courts. Equally important, he describes how the gun control battle took on a new urgency during Reconstruction, when Republicans and Democrats clashed over the meaning of the right to bear arms and its connection to the Fourteenth Amendment. When the Democrats defeated the Republicans, it elevated the "collective rights" theory to preeminence and set the terms for constitutional debate over this issue for the next century. A Well Regulated Militia not only restores the lost meaning of the original Second Amendment, but it provides a clear historical road map that charts how we have arrived at our current impasse over guns. For anyone interested in understanding the great American gun debate, this is a must read."
"Americans are deeply divided over the Second Amendment. Some passionately assert that the Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns. Others, that it does no more than protect the right of states to maintain militias. Now, in the first and only comprehensive history of this bitter controversy, Saul Cornell proves conclusively that both sides are wrong. Cornell, a leading constitutional historian, shows that the Founders understood the right to bear arms as neither an individual nor a collective right, but as a civic right--an obligation citizens owed to the state to arm themselves so that they could participate in a well regulated militia. He shows how the modern "collective right" view of the Second Amendment, the one federal courts have accepted for over a hundred years, owes more to the Anti-Federalists than the Founders. Likewise, the modern "individual right" view emerged only in the nineteenth century. The modern debate, Cornell reveals, has its roots in the nineteenth century, during America's first and now largely forgotten gun violence crisis, when the earliest gun control laws were passed and the first cases on the right to bear arms came before the courts. Equally important, he describes how the gun control battle took on a new urgency during Reconstruction, when Republicans and Democrats clashed over the meaning of the right to bear arms and its connection to the Fourteenth Amendment. When the Democrats defeated the Republicans, it elevated the "collective rights" theory to preeminence and set the terms for constitutional debate over this issue for the next century. A Well Regulated Militia not only restores the lost meaning of the original Second Amendment, but it provides a clear historical road map that charts how we have arrived at our current impasse over guns. For anyone interested in understanding the great American gun debate, this is a must read."
I have done some research on gun violence...here is what I found.
The human toll from gun crime in the U.S. is monstrous.....11,348 homicides in 2001, compared to 168 in Canada, 331 in Germany, and 96 in the United Kingdom.
Gun laws are most useful in preventing ordinary crimes from spiralling out of control....the robber who gets spooked and shoots the milk store clerk. The drug dealer who sprays a crowd in order to knock off a rival, the husband who in a burst of anger shoots his wife. These are the routine gun homicides that rarely make the front pages anymore. In the U.S. they happen virtually every single day.
Gun use in the States is out of control.
Many Americans are clearly willing to scarifice valuable human rights, such as privacy or the right to a fair trial, in order to prevent another 9/11. It seems to me that logic dictates that Americans should also be willing to curb their far less important constitutional right to bear arms to reduce a death toll that each year outstrips the horrific 9/11 toll.
Even after Columbine eight years ago sending shock waves across the world....there has been no real push in Congress or among the state legislatures for stricter gun control.
As a Canadian I have no reason to be complacent. A Canadian teacher was killed in this rampage. Virginia is not that far from our border, and easy availablity of weaponary also spills across the border into Canada.
Debate is a good thing....and I hope that this debate will if nothing else...bring lax gun laws into this already bloody new century.
The human toll from gun crime in the U.S. is monstrous.....11,348 homicides in 2001, compared to 168 in Canada, 331 in Germany, and 96 in the United Kingdom.
Gun laws are most useful in preventing ordinary crimes from spiralling out of control....the robber who gets spooked and shoots the milk store clerk. The drug dealer who sprays a crowd in order to knock off a rival, the husband who in a burst of anger shoots his wife. These are the routine gun homicides that rarely make the front pages anymore. In the U.S. they happen virtually every single day.
Gun use in the States is out of control.
Many Americans are clearly willing to scarifice valuable human rights, such as privacy or the right to a fair trial, in order to prevent another 9/11. It seems to me that logic dictates that Americans should also be willing to curb their far less important constitutional right to bear arms to reduce a death toll that each year outstrips the horrific 9/11 toll.
Even after Columbine eight years ago sending shock waves across the world....there has been no real push in Congress or among the state legislatures for stricter gun control.
As a Canadian I have no reason to be complacent. A Canadian teacher was killed in this rampage. Virginia is not that far from our border, and easy availablity of weaponary also spills across the border into Canada.
Debate is a good thing....and I hope that this debate will if nothing else...bring lax gun laws into this already bloody new century.
My last sentence should have read.....
Debate is a good thing ...and I hope that this debate will...if nothing else... AMEND the current LAX GUN CONTROL...into this already bloodied, new century.
Debate is a good thing ...and I hope that this debate will...if nothing else... AMEND the current LAX GUN CONTROL...into this already bloodied, new century.
Part of the situation at Virginia Tech was that it was illegal for anyone to have guns on campus. Therefore, they were "easy pickin's" for someone who didn't care if he broke the law! If someone had had a gun, this maniac may have been stopped before he killed 32 people.
The studies I've heard about show percent of violence goes up when guns are outlawed - because then only the criminals have guns. Everyone is then at their mercy. Where concealed carry is allowed, crime goes down because criminals know some of their victims may fight back!
I too am horrified at what happened - I just think gun control would make it worse and would increase the likelyhood it will happen again. Some how, criminals always can get guns - they don't care if they are legal. And 9-11 happened with box cutters - so horrible things can be done with very inane items.
I just hope people learn they must pay attention to a kid that acts weird - loner - writes horrible senarios with killing with axes, chainsaws and such. Somehow, he should have been noticed and stopped long before he started shooting (or using the other methods his stories described). He was even kicked out of one professor's class because he scared the other students so bad! Why didn't anyone intervene to the point that they got him real help???
The studies I've heard about show percent of violence goes up when guns are outlawed - because then only the criminals have guns. Everyone is then at their mercy. Where concealed carry is allowed, crime goes down because criminals know some of their victims may fight back!
I too am horrified at what happened - I just think gun control would make it worse and would increase the likelyhood it will happen again. Some how, criminals always can get guns - they don't care if they are legal. And 9-11 happened with box cutters - so horrible things can be done with very inane items.
I just hope people learn they must pay attention to a kid that acts weird - loner - writes horrible senarios with killing with axes, chainsaws and such. Somehow, he should have been noticed and stopped long before he started shooting (or using the other methods his stories described). He was even kicked out of one professor's class because he scared the other students so bad! Why didn't anyone intervene to the point that they got him real help???
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. They were talking about this on the radio this morning with a veteran police officer. He made the point that every fall here, hundreds of thousands of people go deer hunting with high-powered rifles. And we don't have people who are out hunting killing each other with these weapons.
We could just as well say, oh my husband is using his cell phone to have an affair. Ban all cell phones!
We have to open our eyes and realize that it is moral, mental health, and spiritual issues that lead people to kill other people. Some people are just plain evil. Others, like the Virginia shooter, are mentally ill. I hope that one thing we learn from this is how schools can be better empowered to deal with students who are mentally ill.
Dot, they do have a background check requirement in Virginia, as well as an ID requirement. It would be a good thing for them to tighten the laws in that state. Some states require a 30-day waiting period. Although that probably wouldn't have helped in this case, because he bought one of the guns 30 days before the tragic shooting. I do hope you have a chance to drive through the US sometime! I have to say I've never heard of anyone here being afraid to drive anywhere for fear of being shot. Please don't let the news paint an inaccurate picture of what life is like here in your mind.
The right to bear arms is what allowed America to become a nation, a free country with democracy. It was private citizens who had weapons that fought for our freedom. It is an important right, because it protects citizens from government tyranny. Sure it would be a good thing to have restrictions on who can buy and own guns. But please don't blame murder on guns. Guns don't have a will or a conscience. People do.
zjsurfer, I am with you, and you make a very good point.
I appreciate all of my PS sisters here! So while it is good to debate, let's not hold anything against each other.
We could just as well say, oh my husband is using his cell phone to have an affair. Ban all cell phones!
We have to open our eyes and realize that it is moral, mental health, and spiritual issues that lead people to kill other people. Some people are just plain evil. Others, like the Virginia shooter, are mentally ill. I hope that one thing we learn from this is how schools can be better empowered to deal with students who are mentally ill.
Dot, they do have a background check requirement in Virginia, as well as an ID requirement. It would be a good thing for them to tighten the laws in that state. Some states require a 30-day waiting period. Although that probably wouldn't have helped in this case, because he bought one of the guns 30 days before the tragic shooting. I do hope you have a chance to drive through the US sometime! I have to say I've never heard of anyone here being afraid to drive anywhere for fear of being shot. Please don't let the news paint an inaccurate picture of what life is like here in your mind.
The right to bear arms is what allowed America to become a nation, a free country with democracy. It was private citizens who had weapons that fought for our freedom. It is an important right, because it protects citizens from government tyranny. Sure it would be a good thing to have restrictions on who can buy and own guns. But please don't blame murder on guns. Guns don't have a will or a conscience. People do.
zjsurfer, I am with you, and you make a very good point.
I appreciate all of my PS sisters here! So while it is good to debate, let's not hold anything against each other.
((((Greenie))))((((zjsurfer))))
I disagree with both of you, however I am a Voltaire lover....perhaps it is the French in me, perhaps it is because he encompasses much of what I believe.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Voltaire
1694-1778
That statement, for me....defines 'true' freedom. Not the 'right to bear arms'.
So, although I may disagree with you, and although I may throw statistics to back up my findings, and although I will never ....NEVER....think that the gun laws in the United States are logical. I will enjoy this reasonable, and knowledgable....debate.
Hugs
Dottie
I disagree with both of you, however I am a Voltaire lover....perhaps it is the French in me, perhaps it is because he encompasses much of what I believe.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Voltaire
1694-1778
That statement, for me....defines 'true' freedom. Not the 'right to bear arms'.
So, although I may disagree with you, and although I may throw statistics to back up my findings, and although I will never ....NEVER....think that the gun laws in the United States are logical. I will enjoy this reasonable, and knowledgable....debate.
Hugs
Dottie
I know where Dot's getting her data, but on:
"The studies I've heard about show percent of violence goes up when guns are outlawed - because then only the criminals have guns. Everyone is then at their mercy. Where concealed carry is allowed, crime goes down because criminals know some of their victims may fight back!"
I'd be interested to know the source and sponsor of the study, svp.
------------------------
On: guns don't kill people, people kill people
It's clear that it's people who kill people, and its true that guns are not the only instruments of death, but it must be said: people armed with guns kill more efficiently and quickly than people armed with bananas.
--------------------------
On the boy slipping through the cracks:
This is part of the 'gun control legislation' in most countries (the ones with the far lower murder rates per capita): to screen for criminal records and for mental health issues before the issuance of arms.
"The studies I've heard about show percent of violence goes up when guns are outlawed - because then only the criminals have guns. Everyone is then at their mercy. Where concealed carry is allowed, crime goes down because criminals know some of their victims may fight back!"
I'd be interested to know the source and sponsor of the study, svp.
------------------------
On: guns don't kill people, people kill people
It's clear that it's people who kill people, and its true that guns are not the only instruments of death, but it must be said: people armed with guns kill more efficiently and quickly than people armed with bananas.
--------------------------
On the boy slipping through the cracks:
This is part of the 'gun control legislation' in most countries (the ones with the far lower murder rates per capita): to screen for criminal records and for mental health issues before the issuance of arms.
From an article today:
"In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.
The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.
Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189. "
"By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268.1." Posted: April 19, 2007
1:52 p.m. Eastern - 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
"In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.
The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.
Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189. "
"By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268.1." Posted: April 19, 2007
1:52 p.m. Eastern - 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Thanks, ZJ, but I'm looking for the actual study, not a statistic of one. Thanks in advance.
Printed today in The Toronto Star
Under the Heading
Gun seller's cure: MORE GUNS
A study from the: SMALL ARMS SURVEY 2007
Largest Arsenals
The United States ranks highest in the world for weapons possession per 100 civilians
U.S. ---90
Yemen ---61
Finland ---56
Switzerland --- 46
Iraq --- 39
Serbia --- 38
France --- 32
Canada --- 31
Sweden --- 31
Under the Heading
Gun seller's cure: MORE GUNS
A study from the: SMALL ARMS SURVEY 2007
Largest Arsenals
The United States ranks highest in the world for weapons possession per 100 civilians
U.S. ---90
Yemen ---61
Finland ---56
Switzerland --- 46
Iraq --- 39
Serbia --- 38
France --- 32
Canada --- 31
Sweden --- 31
Austria --- 31
I have many more actual studies that have been issued in the press in Canada, and the rest of the world.....but I am having a dinner party this evening......I have a feeling I will get quite alot of fascinating viewpoints that I will be able to share .....later.
Peace
Dot
Regarding the Kennesaw ordinance on arming the whole population-
I'm imagining if such a law were passed in my area (NJ).
- there would be blood on the streets over parking spaces
- there would be blood in the malls (especially Christmas) when someone else got the last Tickle me Elmo or whatever
- everyday misunderstandings etc. would ratchet up to bloodbaths when tempers got hot
The people that stalk and kill always have the advantage - the element of surprise. Perhaps in this case the carnage could have been mitigated if someone had a gun, but overall, I think the body count would go through the roof if such a a law was implemented.
BTW, I do believe there should be armed guards on campus, on planes, malls etc. But arming the population with the thought
that they can defend themselves from determined suicidal murderers is a Rush Limbaugh fantasy. Most folks today have
a cell phone to their ear and are oblivious to all those around them.
We are a nation of lawbreakers. Just look at Rush Limbaugh. Just look at our NJ governor who is laying in critical condition because he was going 90 mph in a 65 mph road with no seatbelt in a state where it is mandatory.
P.S. - it is a good thing I don't own one now- things could get ugly!
I'm imagining if such a law were passed in my area (NJ).
- there would be blood on the streets over parking spaces
- there would be blood in the malls (especially Christmas) when someone else got the last Tickle me Elmo or whatever
- everyday misunderstandings etc. would ratchet up to bloodbaths when tempers got hot
The people that stalk and kill always have the advantage - the element of surprise. Perhaps in this case the carnage could have been mitigated if someone had a gun, but overall, I think the body count would go through the roof if such a a law was implemented.
BTW, I do believe there should be armed guards on campus, on planes, malls etc. But arming the population with the thought
that they can defend themselves from determined suicidal murderers is a Rush Limbaugh fantasy. Most folks today have
a cell phone to their ear and are oblivious to all those around them.
We are a nation of lawbreakers. Just look at Rush Limbaugh. Just look at our NJ governor who is laying in critical condition because he was going 90 mph in a 65 mph road with no seatbelt in a state where it is mandatory.
P.S. - it is a good thing I don't own one now- things could get ugly!
This is a very interesting debate. Some things i do agree with ,others i do not, but i am only one person in a world of millions but i do believe with all my heart something somewhere has to be done. There is enough killing going on in the world today without our children who are just trying to get an education being killed. And Bush saying the kids were in the wrong place at the wrong time .Can someone explain him saying that to me please those people were either in class trying to learn or teaching and he can say they were in the wrong place .Don't think so. I do agree there was alot on the part of the university that was wrong but if that i dont even know what to call him had been locked up like he should have been ,things might be a whole lot different now . It is alot of gun issues but it is also the people alot of the kids dont have much of a home life,or parents who think everything is ok and dont involve themselves in their kids lives such as friends hang outs and all,i dont mean all of us are like that but there is alot out there that is. Today here in NC ,we had a 16 yr old threaten 2 other students in the parking lot at school the 16 yr old then took his own life. How sad cant parents see that something is wrong any more or is it they are to busy with thier own lives to stop and take a look. I hope i dont upset anyone. just saying what i feel. And if we do change gun laws ,guns will only be gotten from the underground so where do we end this , let alone try to find a way to stop it. And how will step up and do anything about it.
northcarolinahappy
northcarolinahappy
Lidge
I can't speak of course, for your community, but the premise of that newspaper story is that more guns per capita (necessarily) results in fewer gun crimes. The story is, sadly, a tad shy on stats. How many death by guns had occurred in the previous decade?
The behaviour in villages is more predictable than in larger centres with a more transient population and a greater criminal element. I don't think you can compare kennesaw to Huston, or inner city NY.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating: Dots has supplied the world stats on gun crime and gun ownership per capita. To the contrary of the a/m story, the US has the distinction of having the the highest gun crime and the highest gun ownership per capita. But the writer of the story would have you believe quite the opposite.
NRA advocates tend to imply that gun laws result in an all or none deal. T'ain't so: western nations permit private ownership. We own a rifle or two. The difference is that the guns are registered federally, which means they are more likely to be traceable; purchasers are screened for criminal backgrounds and the firearms and the ammo must be properly stored.
I think it's interesting to note that gun crimes plummeted in the 1990's, and its directly attributable to a handful of actions:
* more police officers
* restrictions on the importation and distribution automatic weapons
* closing loop holes that permit boot sales of weapons, skipping back ground checks
* a functional and funded registry.
In the post 9-ll world, it seems the nabs were canned, the restrictions legislations lapsed and the registry shut.
How you decide the future in America is your business. It's your children at risk, but I can tell you flat out: I would not want my children living next door to a gun owner who was legislated into owning a gun without benefit of a sanity and or criminal check. You're dead right about the criminal having enough advantage with the element of surprise. Whilst some crimes are plotted and planned, too many are crimes of opportunity. The nimroddic paedaphile next door might have an AK47, but I bet most 5 year olds won't.
And, had the owners of the guns had them under lock and key, Columbine - and the ensuing copycat murders, may not have occurred.
I can't speak of course, for your community, but the premise of that newspaper story is that more guns per capita (necessarily) results in fewer gun crimes. The story is, sadly, a tad shy on stats. How many death by guns had occurred in the previous decade?
The behaviour in villages is more predictable than in larger centres with a more transient population and a greater criminal element. I don't think you can compare kennesaw to Huston, or inner city NY.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating: Dots has supplied the world stats on gun crime and gun ownership per capita. To the contrary of the a/m story, the US has the distinction of having the the highest gun crime and the highest gun ownership per capita. But the writer of the story would have you believe quite the opposite.
NRA advocates tend to imply that gun laws result in an all or none deal. T'ain't so: western nations permit private ownership. We own a rifle or two. The difference is that the guns are registered federally, which means they are more likely to be traceable; purchasers are screened for criminal backgrounds and the firearms and the ammo must be properly stored.
I think it's interesting to note that gun crimes plummeted in the 1990's, and its directly attributable to a handful of actions:
* more police officers
* restrictions on the importation and distribution automatic weapons
* closing loop holes that permit boot sales of weapons, skipping back ground checks
* a functional and funded registry.
In the post 9-ll world, it seems the nabs were canned, the restrictions legislations lapsed and the registry shut.
How you decide the future in America is your business. It's your children at risk, but I can tell you flat out: I would not want my children living next door to a gun owner who was legislated into owning a gun without benefit of a sanity and or criminal check. You're dead right about the criminal having enough advantage with the element of surprise. Whilst some crimes are plotted and planned, too many are crimes of opportunity. The nimroddic paedaphile next door might have an AK47, but I bet most 5 year olds won't.
And, had the owners of the guns had them under lock and key, Columbine - and the ensuing copycat murders, may not have occurred.
They had a bit on the news about our state's gun laws. We have a law that says if you voluntarily, or involuntarily, seek help for a mental health issue or are committed to a mental health facility, then you can't buy a gun here. So technically speaking, the murderer in Virginia would not have been able to buy a gun here in Minnesota. I guess in Virginia, you are prevented from buying a gun only if you are involuntarily treated for a mental health issue, and since the murderer had gone voluntarily, he was not blocked from buying a gun.
It seems like a lot of people view this issue in black-and-white terms: either you are for guns or against them, either you think anyone and everyone should be able to have any kind of gun, or you think guns should be banned. I think the best answers are to be found in the middle. I do believe in the second ammendment as an important part of our country's rights and history. But I don't think everyone should be able to have a gun, and I don't think all kinds of guns should be available for purchase by citizens. I mean, why would a person really need a semi-automatic pistol? I think limits and laws and regulations are a good thing. I don't think guns in and of themselves are evil. And I don't think Americans are gun-totin' lunatics, LOL!
Duch, the laws here vary by state, so there are many states in which you can't buy a gun if you have a mental health issue, and I think every state does a criminal background check.
NC, you bring up very good points. This isn't just a gun issue. It is about parents, and about schools being able to recognize and act on mental health problems, and about other things as well. It's easy to say guns are the problem, because that is the easy answer. The problem is really more complex than that. We all need to be thinking on multiple levels about societal problems if we want to solve them.
It seems like a lot of people view this issue in black-and-white terms: either you are for guns or against them, either you think anyone and everyone should be able to have any kind of gun, or you think guns should be banned. I think the best answers are to be found in the middle. I do believe in the second ammendment as an important part of our country's rights and history. But I don't think everyone should be able to have a gun, and I don't think all kinds of guns should be available for purchase by citizens. I mean, why would a person really need a semi-automatic pistol? I think limits and laws and regulations are a good thing. I don't think guns in and of themselves are evil. And I don't think Americans are gun-totin' lunatics, LOL!
Duch, the laws here vary by state, so there are many states in which you can't buy a gun if you have a mental health issue, and I think every state does a criminal background check.
NC, you bring up very good points. This isn't just a gun issue. It is about parents, and about schools being able to recognize and act on mental health problems, and about other things as well. It's easy to say guns are the problem, because that is the easy answer. The problem is really more complex than that. We all need to be thinking on multiple levels about societal problems if we want to solve them.
Hi Greenie
First, let me reiterate: We own guns too. Just want to be sure we're on the same page. I had read or heard that most legislation pertaining to guns was state dependent. The laws to which I am referring were those introduced by Clinton to inhibit, if not outright ban, the importation of automatic weapons for public distribution. As to the criminal and mental health checks, from MSN:
www.msnbc.msnDOTcom/id/18087435/
First, let me reiterate: We own guns too. Just want to be sure we're on the same page. I had read or heard that most legislation pertaining to guns was state dependent. The laws to which I am referring were those introduced by Clinton to inhibit, if not outright ban, the importation of automatic weapons for public distribution. As to the criminal and mental health checks, from MSN:
Only 15 states do their own background checks on long gun buyers, while 26 do their own checks on people buying handguns, according to the Brady Campaign.
[b]No mental health check[/b]
Despite what his estranged wife’s attorney said is a history of depression and mental health problems, there was apparently nothing in LaCalamita’s FBI background check that prevented him from buying the shotgun. It’s left up to applicants to admit on their FBI background check form if they have psychological problems."Did Gun Law Loop Hole Aid Office Shooter" April 13, 2007,
www.msnbc.msnDOTcom/id/18087435/
Duch, yes we probably are on the same page. Of course there are differences of opinion here about whether things like gun regulation should be done by state governments or the federal government. That is one of the basic differences between the two parties here, although I bet a lot of people don't know that.
I'm not sure what you are saying with the clip about someone in LaCalamita? Like I said in my post, states have different laws regarding who can and who can't buy a gun. The Virginia shooter would not have been able to get one in Minnesota. In Minnesota, a buyer has to go through both a state and a federal background check.
Here are some clips from an article from Psychiatric News, Sept. 1, 2006, that you might find interesting:
State laws that restrict people with mental illness, including substance use problems, from gaining access to firearms differ widely across the nation, according to a review of these laws in the August American Journal of Psychiatry.
The laws differ in their definition of mental illness, type and duration of gun restriction, and reporting practices on the part of physicians caring for these patients, according to the report.
This diversity is why psychiatrists must familiarize themselves with the laws governing the state in which they practice regarding the licensure, purchase, possession, and carrying of firearms, lead author Donna Norris, M.D., told Psychiatric News.
...
When Norris and her colleagues began to review the state laws in 2000, only 19 states had legislation restricting gun ownership for people with mental illness, she noted. But by the end of the review in 2005, 43 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico had laws prohibiting people with mental illness from obtaining firearm licensure, 36 states and Puerto Rico had similar prohibitions for those with substance use problems, and 31 states, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico had similar prohibitions for those with alcohol problems.
Twenty states and Washington, D.C., have databases containing information submitted by courts or mental health treatment facilities on people with mental illness. In California, for instance, people who have been admitted to a psychiatric hospital and ruled a danger to themselves or others must be reported to the local law enforcement agency by an attending health care professional, according to the report.
"In most jurisdictions, law enforcement authorities have access to these mental health data and can use them to determine legal access to firearms," the report stated.
...
I'm not sure what you are saying with the clip about someone in LaCalamita? Like I said in my post, states have different laws regarding who can and who can't buy a gun. The Virginia shooter would not have been able to get one in Minnesota. In Minnesota, a buyer has to go through both a state and a federal background check.
Here are some clips from an article from Psychiatric News, Sept. 1, 2006, that you might find interesting:
State laws that restrict people with mental illness, including substance use problems, from gaining access to firearms differ widely across the nation, according to a review of these laws in the August American Journal of Psychiatry.
The laws differ in their definition of mental illness, type and duration of gun restriction, and reporting practices on the part of physicians caring for these patients, according to the report.
This diversity is why psychiatrists must familiarize themselves with the laws governing the state in which they practice regarding the licensure, purchase, possession, and carrying of firearms, lead author Donna Norris, M.D., told Psychiatric News.
...
When Norris and her colleagues began to review the state laws in 2000, only 19 states had legislation restricting gun ownership for people with mental illness, she noted. But by the end of the review in 2005, 43 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico had laws prohibiting people with mental illness from obtaining firearm licensure, 36 states and Puerto Rico had similar prohibitions for those with substance use problems, and 31 states, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico had similar prohibitions for those with alcohol problems.
Twenty states and Washington, D.C., have databases containing information submitted by courts or mental health treatment facilities on people with mental illness. In California, for instance, people who have been admitted to a psychiatric hospital and ruled a danger to themselves or others must be reported to the local law enforcement agency by an attending health care professional, according to the report.
"In most jurisdictions, law enforcement authorities have access to these mental health data and can use them to determine legal access to firearms," the report stated.
...
I don't like guns and never will. So of course I would vote on any type of gun laws. I think the problem is the types of guns people can buy. I mean if you deer hunt then fine own a hunting rife. I know hunting rife's kill people too but whom needs a AK47, or be allow to buy armor piercing bullets.
I know people enjoy hunting or shooting for fun, but most of us do not need to worry about a lion or a deranged squirrel!
But welcome to the America >>>Home of the Brave and the Land of the Free....
I still think where lucking living in the US and I feel safe.... Just a few days ago when the bombing hit that market in Iraq and kill 170 people, all I could think about was what if we had to face that everyday.
How sad!!!!
Not everyone is kill with guns! My 26 y/o nephew was murder 5 years ago. He came home from work, went to bed, someone broke into his home, he was beaten until he was unconscious and then his house was set a fire to cover it up... His killers mistook him for a drug dealer whom lived a few doors down...
Lil so when you said it was the killer who was in the wrong place> you where so right.
Chris was home after pulling a 12 shift at work.
Chris was a kind gentle soul whom we still miss so very much!
I know people enjoy hunting or shooting for fun, but most of us do not need to worry about a lion or a deranged squirrel!
But welcome to the America >>>Home of the Brave and the Land of the Free....
I still think where lucking living in the US and I feel safe.... Just a few days ago when the bombing hit that market in Iraq and kill 170 people, all I could think about was what if we had to face that everyday.
How sad!!!!
Not everyone is kill with guns! My 26 y/o nephew was murder 5 years ago. He came home from work, went to bed, someone broke into his home, he was beaten until he was unconscious and then his house was set a fire to cover it up... His killers mistook him for a drug dealer whom lived a few doors down...
Lil so when you said it was the killer who was in the wrong place> you where so right.
Chris was home after pulling a 12 shift at work.
Chris was a kind gentle soul whom we still miss so very much!
Snowmoon
I am so sorry to read of your nephew Chris's fate. That must be a dreadful memory to bear.
Greenie
That was indeed an interesting bit of detail.
I'm sure as the story is disclosed in the media, we're all becoming more familiar with some of the problems with registries and gun checks - and I'm not simply referring to yours. As one person observed, a data base is only as good as what's entered.
A number of the states that purport to have criminal or mental health checks have the opportunity to do an end run around the legislation, by buying and selling guns at car boot sales. But the truly exasperating thing to my eye, and I'm wondering how we do on this score - is the tussle between holding back ground checks for mental health (including substance abuse) obviously designed with public safety at its heart, versus th fundamental privacy rights of the patient. Apparently, mental health records are not being proffered to FBI nor police for privacy concerns, with a coalition of lobbiests supporting privacy rights over public safety: Civil Rights orgs, Mental Health orgs and the N. R. A. This means mental health records checks are down to the discretion of the gun purchaser. S/He can be truthful or not, and if not, nothing will come up to contradict the claim.
I have a great regard for privacy and civil rights. I also have a grave concern for public safety. What constitutes poor mental health? Psychosis? Using ADs? If we allow public safety to trump personal privacy where do we draw the line, and what sources are fair game, and who can access that data? Esh. Solomon, I'm not.
I am so sorry to read of your nephew Chris's fate. That must be a dreadful memory to bear.
Greenie
That was indeed an interesting bit of detail.
I'm sure as the story is disclosed in the media, we're all becoming more familiar with some of the problems with registries and gun checks - and I'm not simply referring to yours. As one person observed, a data base is only as good as what's entered.
A number of the states that purport to have criminal or mental health checks have the opportunity to do an end run around the legislation, by buying and selling guns at car boot sales. But the truly exasperating thing to my eye, and I'm wondering how we do on this score - is the tussle between holding back ground checks for mental health (including substance abuse) obviously designed with public safety at its heart, versus th fundamental privacy rights of the patient. Apparently, mental health records are not being proffered to FBI nor police for privacy concerns, with a coalition of lobbiests supporting privacy rights over public safety: Civil Rights orgs, Mental Health orgs and the N. R. A. This means mental health records checks are down to the discretion of the gun purchaser. S/He can be truthful or not, and if not, nothing will come up to contradict the claim.
I have a great regard for privacy and civil rights. I also have a grave concern for public safety. What constitutes poor mental health? Psychosis? Using ADs? If we allow public safety to trump personal privacy where do we draw the line, and what sources are fair game, and who can access that data? Esh. Solomon, I'm not.
"A deeply troubled and disgruntled foreign student runs afoul of college authorities. He comes to the Virginia campus armed and starts shooting in one building.
But, unlike the massacre at Virginia Tech last week, the damage was contained in this incident that occurred five years ago, before the state legislature banned guns on college campuses."
"As soon as the gunfire erupted, two students acting independently of one another, Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross, ran to their vehicles to retrieve firearms."
"Bridges and Gross went back to the building where the shots were heard and as Odighizuwa exited, they approached from different angles. Bridges yelled for him to drop his weapon and the shooter was subdued by several unarmed students."
3 died, 3 wounded
Now:
"Foreign-born student Cho Seung-Hui murdered 32 and wounded another 15 before turning his gun on himself.
A year earlier, the Virginia legislature banned all guns on campus in the interest of safety." 2007 WorldNetDaily
32 died, 15 wounded
Sometimes, what we think will help, doesn't!
Zelma
But, unlike the massacre at Virginia Tech last week, the damage was contained in this incident that occurred five years ago, before the state legislature banned guns on college campuses."
"As soon as the gunfire erupted, two students acting independently of one another, Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross, ran to their vehicles to retrieve firearms."
"Bridges and Gross went back to the building where the shots were heard and as Odighizuwa exited, they approached from different angles. Bridges yelled for him to drop his weapon and the shooter was subdued by several unarmed students."
3 died, 3 wounded
Now:
"Foreign-born student Cho Seung-Hui murdered 32 and wounded another 15 before turning his gun on himself.
A year earlier, the Virginia legislature banned all guns on campus in the interest of safety." 2007 WorldNetDaily
32 died, 15 wounded
Sometimes, what we think will help, doesn't!
Zelma
"The mad homicidal rampages in American schools will halt when attackers find out that faculty and students sometimes are armed and trained to use those weapons effectively, so an expert in the defensive use of guns is offering free training to educators."
Example of it working:
""My offer is not a new idea. In the early 70's, Israel was faced with much greater problems of armed terrorist attacks on schools. The cry for more gun control was heard then too, but Israel very carefully analyzed all possible options before adopting the proactive position of arming and training their teachers. School shootings stopped and terrorists looked for easier targets.""
You can find this article by searching for: Expert offers teachers free weapons training - Choose the one from World Net Daily.
Example of it working:
""My offer is not a new idea. In the early 70's, Israel was faced with much greater problems of armed terrorist attacks on schools. The cry for more gun control was heard then too, but Israel very carefully analyzed all possible options before adopting the proactive position of arming and training their teachers. School shootings stopped and terrorists looked for easier targets.""
You can find this article by searching for: Expert offers teachers free weapons training - Choose the one from World Net Daily.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.