Nuge's view

[Nitrousbird]

An armed society is a polite society.

 

For those anti-gun people, what would you do if someone was breaking into your home?? Call 911 and hope for the best? Your average B&E crook probably isn't packing, so your chances are far in your favor if you are.

[HAOLE]

An armed society is a polite society.

 

For those anti-gun people, what would you do if someone was breaking into your home?? Call 911 and hope for the best? Your average B&E crook probably isn't packing, so your chances are far in your favor if you are.

The police are not normally a protective force, they are reactive in most cases. Personal protection is the responsibility of the individual.

 

You are right in saying an armed society is a polite society.

[copperhead]

Ok I'll stand up and agree with you.

As you've all read, this guy at VT might have had problems and deemed "mentally ill" but he had every right (legally) as an American citizen to buy that gun. So there's your theory of "criminals will have them so why can't we" go right out the window.

 

You think these people are born criminals? Nope.. they start at the gun shop, buying a 9mm handgun.

 

Ban all handguns!

 

My .02

 

Wrong

Wrong

and Wrong

 

First off, if you have been deemed to be mentally ill, you CAN NOT legally buy a gun. I challenge you to take a look at the form that is required that you fill out before you can purchase a gun of any kind.

 

Second, this fucker wasn't even an American citizen, he was a citizen of South Korea.

 

Third, people may not be born criminals, but I have yet to see any proof that buying a gun automatically makes me a criminal. Last I checked, neither myself nor dozens of my gun owning friends have killed, raped, or mugged anyone. However, it is possible to commit all of those crimes without a gun. Another note on the killer - his guns had the serial numbers filed off. What's the point in doing that unless you (illegally) bought the guns off the street?

 

 

The anti-gun lobby loves spewing misinformation, as you have proven. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, one of the main sponsors for the impending assault weapon ban, doesn't have a clue as to what she is trying to ban, as shown here:

clicky

 

How can you trust someone to regulate something that is such a huge part of our culture, when that person is completely ignorant on the subject? What if I tried to ban rap music due to its negative influence, promoting violence, drug use and disrespect towards women?

[copperhead]

Also, I would like to explore a quote from the dissenting viewpoint before I wander off to bed.

 

"So let's just disregard all the hoopla about the race of the student responsible for the slayings. These students were not killed by a Korean, they were killed by a 9 mm handgun and a .22-caliber handgun."

 

According to whoever this guy may be, these deaths can be attributed solely upon the weapons that were used. It is as if the guns themselves took Cho's mind hostage, forced him to capture all of these students, and pop them all 3 times. Almost as if, just maybe, Cho was actually innocent in this matter, and if it weren't for the guns he never would have killed anyone.

 

Last I checked, a chunk of steel doesn't have psychic powers. Although sometimes I could almost believe it when it comes to cars taking over our lives. But that's completely different, right?

[copperhead]

Sorry, just had to go for the triple post.

 

Here is an interesting story with direct results from gun ownership.

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

 

As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms.

 

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.

 

(Story continues below)

 

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 per 100,000.

 

This was not what some predicted.

 

In a column titled "Gun Town USA," Art Buchwald suggested Kennesaw would soon become a place where routine disagreements between neighbors would be settled in shootouts. The Washington Post mocked Kennesaw as "the brave little city … soon to be pistol-packing capital of the world." Phil Donahue invited the mayor on his show.

 

Reuters, the European news service, today revisited the Kennesaw controversy following the Virginia Tech Massacre.

 

Police Lt. Craig Graydon said: "When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime … and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area." Kennesaw is just north of Atlanta.

 

The Reuters story went on to report: "Since the Virginia Tech shootings, some conservative U.S. talk show hosts have rejected attempts to link the massacre to the availability of guns, arguing that had students been allowed to carry weapons on campus someone might have been able to shoot the killer."

 

Virginia Tech, like many of the nation's schools and college campuses, is a so-called "gun-free zone," which Second Amendment supporters say invites gun violence – especially from disturbed individuals seeking to kill as many victims as possible.

 

Cho Seung-Hui murdered 32 and wounded another 15 before turning his gun on himself.

[Dr. Apex]

They cannot ban handguns obviously as then only police and criminals will have weapons and everyone else will be screwed. The day they ban weapons is the day I become a criminal.

[Orion]

those who would trade essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.

[sciongirl]

lol you people get all serious when I post about guns but want to joke about sluts and whores....

 

I will not sit back down. It's my opinion, just like all of you.

 

I'm not saying by taking away handguns shootings will stop. But it will be a lot harder to kill 32 people with a rifle.

 

And yes I know.. it's your right blah blah blah. You've been brought up with that in your head. We'll I'm Canadian and I've been brought up knowing more guns in the hands of people wont solve the problem of shootings.

 

I stick by my RIGHT to think this. Obviously, you all think otherwise. Congrats.

[SHIEF]

lol you people get all serious when I post about guns but want to joke about sluts and whores....

 

I will not sit back down. It's my opinion, just like all of you.

 

I'm not saying by taking away handguns shootings will stop. But it will be a lot harder to kill 32 people with a rifle.

 

And yes I know.. it's your right blah blah blah. You've been brought up with that in your head. We'll I'm Canadian and I've been brought up knowing more guns in the hands of people wont solve the problem of shootings.

 

I stick by my RIGHT to think this. Obviously, you all think otherwise. Congrats.

Your right, it is your opinion. It just happens to be wrong.

 

Alot harder to kill people with a rifle? Uh..no. If I was gonna go on a rampage I'd take my ak47 (that could handle 75-100 rounds at one time) and use it over my 9mm anyday. You have alot more bullets at one time, and alot more power/larger ammo with a rifle. Aye!

[Scotty2Hotty]

Ok I'll stand up and agree with you.

As you've all read, this guy at VT might have had problems and deemed "mentally ill" but he had every right (legally) as an American citizen to buy that gun. So there's your theory of "criminals will have them so why can't we" go right out the window.

 

You think these people are born criminals? Nope.. they start at the gun shop, buying a 9mm handgun.

 

Ban all handguns!

 

My .02

HELLS NO! I'm sorry I've served our great United States of America in the Army for the past 6 years of my life. I've been to Iraq 2 times, been shot at, blown up, brought down who needed to be put to rest. I have protected the 2nd Amendment rights, in which I beleive I more than ANYONE is entitled to. I have carried/USED firearms more than any law enforcement officer probably has. I'm sorry but when something goes down, I can act faster than most officers probably could. WHY? I've had the training and I've BEEN in situations people have only seen in movies, but I was in it IN person. Personally it should be hard for criminals to get guns, I AGREE 100%, but legal and RESPONSIBLE AMERICANS like MYSELF and thousands of others, should not have OUR RIGHTS pissed on cause of a few nut jobs. Anywho, I like rifles anyways, here's an example of mine from a far off land:

http://a443.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/01291/24/46/1291946442_l.jpg

[Scotty2Hotty]

I will not sit back down. It's my opinion, just like all of you.

 

I'm not saying by taking away handguns shootings will stop. But it will be a lot harder to kill 32 people with a rifle.

 

I stick by my RIGHT to think this. Obviously, you all think otherwise. Congrats.

Your opinion isn't wrong at all. But welcome to America. People like me grew up with firearms, and around a military family. In the military your weapon is life and death. I don't feel safe without one, because I KNOW how to use it, I KNOW what it can do, and I HAVE seen the aftermath of using one. Your suggestion of a rifle is false. Rifles hold a lot more, bigger caliber, and as far as M16/AR15/M4's go, they're nasty fast. But again you are not wrong for thinking how you do. The sad thing is most people that HAVEN'T BEEN around guns, or never used them, just automatically assume they're EVIL and kill people. 2nd Amendment stays.

THIS RIFLE SAVED MY LIFE BTW

http://a954.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/35/l_cd9c5a8371a579159b9fca8811629d11.jpg

[Scotty2Hotty]

Down right funny/true.

http://www.funnyheck.com/images/pilotgun.jpg

[Dr. Pomade]

Just to interject as a means of clarifying, my statement was overly idealistic, wholly unrealistic, and ultimately unattainable short of a utopia.

 

I should have known better than to say something like that - without clarifying - in the present company.

[l36tols1]

This is really a lost cause. Gun laws or no gun laws people will still be able to get there hands on guns..

 

I can count how many people I personally know that own full automatic weapons and guess what those are illegal..

 

If you have the cash you can get your hands on A LOT of things legal or not.

[SHIEF]

Just to interject as a means of clarifying, my statement was overly idealistic, wholly unrealistic, and ultimately unattainable short of a utopia.

 

I should have known better than to say something like that - without clarifying - in the present company.

I got the idea of what you were trying to say. I didn't want to quote you in a negative sense being I thought you'd come back around and clear up what your idea was to the others .

 

As for fully-auto's, yeah they can easily be attained. It's all in who you know, and who keeps their mouth shut to others. Such as a fully-auto Sten gun for about $2500 w/ no paperwork, and not from a towliehead.

[Kevin R.]

The individual was judged mentally ill. He used a TOOL to kill people. He could have swerved his hyundai at high speed down a crowded campus sidewalk and take out that many people. Time to ban cars because they are a tool that can be used to kill.

 

 

That is not the point.

 

He had a tool to kill people, and used it because he was mentally ill. But the fact of the matter is, no one was allowed to have a tool to stop him from using his maliciously. They just had to sit back and do nothing about it.

 

You can guarantee if someone in that building had CC the outcome would have been a lot different.

 

My $.02

[Guest Mushijobah]

I think it would be easier to kill more people with a shotgun loaded with buckshot. Shotguns are the most common used on American soil. BAN THEM!!!!!

[BuckeyeGT]

Ban All Noobs!!!

 

just my .02.

[Mitch]

That is not the point.

 

He had a tool to kill people, and used it because he was mentally ill. But the fact of the matter is, no one was allowed to have a tool to stop him from using his maliciously. They just had to sit back and do nothing about it.

 

You can guarantee if someone in that building had CC the outcome would have been a lot different.

 

My $.02

 

We see eye to eye. I got the gist of both articles. On a college campus the students are adults and should be able to legally protect themselves from harm how they choose.

[El Karacho1647545492]

Here's something to think about; that guy that shot his supervisor in the NASA building did so because of a poor performance review. Perfect mental health, did not own a gun, then 2 days after a poor performance review something snaps and he buys a S&W 5-shot and hollowpoint rounds, goes to NASA (somewhere HE BELONGS) and shoots his supervisor. So how is him filling out a form or the gun shop performing a background check in any way going to reflect his state of mind given immediately present events? And why should anyone be allowed to have hollowpoint rounds? The only people that need those are people that intend to kill, not defend themselves.

 

 

Just adding fuel to this fire.

 

 

 

EDIT: My main point here is that yes, in cases like at VA Tech, a few people with CCW licenses could have stopped Cho Seung-Hui from killing 32 people...while 32 casualties is way too much, I would argue that taking measures to prevent even one casualty is more important. You can't tell the family of the supervisor at NASA that CCW would have saved their beloved father/husband/son/whatever, because the gunman shot the supervisor and then turned the gun on himself. CCW isn't going to save that guy. Preventing the gunman from easily obtaining the gun would have.

[Rally Pat]

lol you people get all serious when I post about guns but want to joke about sluts and whores....

 

I will not sit back down. It's my opinion, just like all of you.

 

I'm not saying by taking away handguns shootings will stop. But it will be a lot harder to kill 32 people with a rifle.

 

And yes I know.. it's your right blah blah blah. You've been brought up with that in your head. We'll I'm Canadian and I've been brought up knowing more guns in the hands of people wont solve the problem of shootings.

 

I stick by my RIGHT to think this. Obviously, you all think otherwise. Congrats.

You may have a right to think this, even if it is wrong, but you might want to read this also. It backs all of our arguments up.

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

[Scotty2Hotty]

http://www.downrangezero.com/9mm.JPG

Hi-point 9mm is the gun of choice for most criminals using firearms. Why? Hi-points are the cheapest thing on the market and is made in good ol' Ohio. But look at the statistics, crime rates with handguns fell. I wonder why????

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm

[TheHaze]

EDIT: My main point here is that yes, in cases like at VA Tech, a few people with CCW licenses could have stopped Cho Seung-Hui from killing 32 people...while 32 casualties is way too much, I would argue that taking measures to prevent even one casualty is more important. You can't tell the family of the supervisor at NASA that CCW would have saved their beloved father/husband/son/whatever, because the gunman shot the supervisor and then turned the gun on himself. CCW isn't going to save that guy. Preventing the gunman from easily obtaining the gun would have.

Right, the NASA guy had little hope. If he believed in carrying a concealed weapon, there'd be a little hope. Telling a man that he's fucked in a situation like that is the last thing America needs.

[Scotty2Hotty]

We'll I'm Canadian

http://enos.ehpg.net/~nitro/canada.png

[RedRocket1647545505]

And why should anyone be allowed to have hollowpoint rounds?

 

Why not? Hollowpoints are designed to lead to a quicker kill due to their expansion properties/more tissue damage. This applies to both hunting, and if necessary, self defense.

 

The only people that need those are people that intend to kill, not defend themselves.

 

If I make the decision to defend myself with a gun, I've already made the decision to kill. Dead people don't put up much of a fight.

 

You can't tell the family of the supervisor at NASA that CCW would have saved their beloved father/husband/son/whatever, because the gunman shot the supervisor and then turned the gun on himself.

 

I most certainly can tell the family that it might have given him a better chance at living. I don't care if the guy is suicidal. If I kill him, before he kills himself, I've probably suceeded in defending myself.

 

CCW isn't going to save that guy.

 

And you know this how? Beats throwing a stapler at him.

 

You can't argue the fact that having a gun in his situation wouldn't have given him a better tactical advantage than being in the same situation without a gun. I know I'd rather have one in that situation.

 

Preventing the gunman from easily obtaining the gun would have [saved him.]

 

Again, this goes back to the fact that any person willing to commit a crime of that magnitude, isn't going to be stopped from obtaining a gun if he wants one. He's made the decision to commit murder without fear of consequences. I'm almost positive he couldn't give a shit less about some minor (in comparison to murder) anti-gun law.

 

Again, anti-gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens. Law abiding citizens usually obey the law. Criminal do not. You're only serving to take away any tactical advantage a common citizen might have against such a criminal.

 

 

 

 

*Caxide- Don't take any of this personally. I'm just trying to add to the conversation. Your 'fuel to the fire' post just so happened to spark my interest.

 

Carry on....in more ways than one. :woowoo: