Comment by hacker bob — April 17, 2007 @ 2:44 pm

The last paragraph:

Past experience also suggests that congressional discussion of broadening the assault-weapons ban to new models or features would raise prices and production of the weapons being considered, the report said, adding that if the ban were lifted, gun and magazine manufacturers could reintroduce weapons and magazines in substantial numbers. But, the report said, any resulting increase in crimes with assault weapons and large-capacity magazines might increase gunshot victimizations, “though this effect could be difficult to measure.”

The people most likely to be targeted by those with assault rifles according to the article: law enforcement personnel.

Guns are already banned at Va Tech. Apparantly (sic), gun control doesn’t work.

Good lord, you think gun control has even been remotely attempted in America? Pfff… Nice try.

Also, how many campuses in the US have a no gun policy and have never been shot up? By your logic, that proves a no gun policy on campus does work much more often than not. Your pathetic argument holds no value.

Ah, another mention of global warmnig here on one of the indoctrination sites. I say “global” you say “warming.”

“Global!” ….

Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: “There is evidence of global warming. The climate has warmed about 0.6C in the past 100 years, but most of that warming occurred prior to 1940, before the post World War II industrialisation that led to an increase in carbon dioxide emissions. But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming.”

Dr. de Freitas has expressed similar distrust of the global climate models developed and used by scientists as they “do not adequately handle key aspects of the climate system, such as the role of clouds and aspects of heat transfer in ocean circulation.” Until such models are more reliable, argues Dr. de Freitas, they cannot be made the basis for sound public policy.

Global warming supporter Ronald Baily says about Al Gore, “On balance Gore gets it more right than wrong on the science (we’ll leave the policy stuff to another time), but he undercuts his message by becoming the opposite of a global warming denier. He’s a global warming exaggerator.”

Over the past 70 years, the city of Lewiston, Idaho has seen their annual mean temperature drop by .48 degrees. So if the rest of the planet is heating up, we can all move to Lewiston, ID to cool down.

My point is, adding more guns to a stressful, alcohol-fueled, youthful environment would certainly shed just as much innocent blood, 9 time out of 10.

So it is not always fear that is the motivator.

You make it sound as if every student would be out there playing “Dirty Harry”

Out of a population of 32,000 students, you would only need a fraction of a percent playing “Dirty Harry” to cause a disaster. It’s a very real possibility bob, you should be able to see that. One tenth of one percent is all you’d need for dozens of students playing vigilante. End result, disaster.

Why would we want to take away peoples Constitutional rights because of fear?

Bob, come on, fear is the motivating factor for all those who believe they must arm-up. What other than fear drives those who conceal weapons for self-defense? And those people motivated by fear really REALLY shouldn’t be walking around a campus with a gun. Again, that scenario will bring much more bad than good.

You make it sound as if every student would be out there playing “Dirty Harry”. You have to consider that even if they were allowed to arm themselves, very few would.

Yes, there could be drastic problems, and I agree that the school has the right to have that policy. I am talking about the over all picture. Why would we want to take away peoples Constitutional rights because of fear?

Automatic weapons are banned.

Here is an interesting article on the effects of the Assault Weapons Ban that expired in September. As you see, it did not have the intended effects.

Do you advocate the Government going into peoples houses and taking their firearms? That is one way to reduce the number of legally acquired and possessed weapons. How are you going to get to the unregistered, illegally obtained weapons? At what point do only criminals have guns while the rest of the population do not?

Society is not guilty of facilitating greatly in this kids rampage. He is. He is the only one responsible.

What I am saying is “Don’t deny them the right to arm themselves.”

Including every nut on campus. Your calls for armed self defense would clearly end in many more bloodbaths, but you envision the one outcome in which the perpetrator would be identified, targeted, and killed without incident. Every other possible outcome and scenario would be a disaster, and you should be able to see that. Can you not envision your scenario going wildly wrong? Can you not envision the cops blowing away someone wrongly identified in the chaos, or one vigilante gunning down another vigilante in the fray, or as I said earlier, a criminal mugging and killing a weaker student for his or her gun?

I understand you believe what you do because you never want this to happen again, however I submit to you bob, and the rest, the risks of an armed-up campus would greatly over-shadow the one narrow possibility of identifying, targeting, and downing a suspect without further incident. You must be able to recognize the other possibilities of your theory, particularly in an environment filled with stress, alcohol and youthful indiscretion. But maybe you don’t.

Why must have automatic, semi-automatic, weapons with large clips, pistols and handguns a different treatment?

Comment by Evil Spaniard — April 17, 2007 @ 2:19 pm

I think you’re extending the scope of this incident… this involved two handguns, certainly not automatic weapons.

But the simple answer to “Why?” is the 2nd ammendment; the people’s right to bear arms.

Comment by hacker bob — April 17, 2007 @ 1:59 pm

No, bob. The killer isn’t a victim. But the USA society has facilitated greatly his rampage.

Control closely the number of weapons in the street and killers would have a harsher time obtaining guns, making them far easier to stop BEFORE the shooting.

It’s not so hard to understand. You have already laws banning free possession of large amounts of explosives. Why? Because is too easy to harm innocents. Why must have automatic, semi-automatic, weapons with large clips, pistols and handguns a different treatment?

The thing you are missing is that it is not the gun manufacturers fault that this kid went on this rampage. It is also not societies fault, the girlfriends fault, the medias fault, rock music, rap music, or little green men. It is Cho Seung-Hui’s fault.

You are painting the killer as another victim.

You should know by now that I will pretty much tell you what I think with no backpeddling.

Obviously not enforced. The shooter was a student with weapons on campus. Maybe if the VT had enforced the no weapons policy everybody would be alive.
Comment by Shane — April 17, 2007 @ 11:29 am

And how do you expect them to enforce it? What about the ones that live off campus?

Is it worse when a white man is killed?
Comment by Shane — April 17, 2007 @ 11:32 am

No

If a black man gets a rifle and only shoots white people it would also be a hate crime.
Comment by Shane — April 17, 2007 @ 11:32 am

How often do you see a minority charged with hate crimes?

Forget the hangover, are you drunk? Hate crime is based on “intent”.
Comment by Shane — April 17, 2007 @ 11:40 am

1. First Degree Murder: All premeditated murders, and (in some states) murders involving certain especially dangerous felonies, such as arson or rape, or committed by an inmate serving a life sentence.
2. Second Degree Murder: Non pre-meditated killing.
3. Voluntary manslaughter cases where the defendant may have an intent to cause death or serious injury, but the potential liability for murder is mitigated by the circumstances and state of mind. The most common example is the so-called heat of passion killing, such as where the defendant is provoked into a loss of control by unexpectedly finding a spouse in the arms of a lover or witnessing an attack against his or her child.
4. Involuntary manslaughter, sometimes called criminally negligent homicide in the United States or culpable homicide in Scotland, occurs where there is no intention to kill or cause serious injury but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence.

All murders pretty much fall into one of these four categories. Can you show me one that requires “hate” to be a motivator? When you commit murder, you do not have love for your victims.

Not at all.

If a white man kills a black man to take his wallet it is not a hate crime. If he shoots him because he is black that is a hate crime.

In either case, is the victim any less dead? Is it any more or less a crime? Murder is murder.

If the shooter is dead, again, he can’t be tried for any kind of crime.

No Sh*t.

You white men are so sensitive. If you don’t want to be accused of hate crimes then don’t commit any
Comment by Shane — April 17, 2007 @ 11:24 am

So, are you saying that only white men commit hate crimes?

No one is saying “Arm all the students”

What I am saying is “Don’t deny them the right to arm themselves.”

VT had a POLICY of not allowing weapons on campus. It was a really effective deterrent, wasn’t it?

Not enforced. Yourself are answering your own question. A law not enforced is the same as no law at all. But we know that you don’t want laws restricting weapon possession, isn’t?

Everything points to a violent culture too prone to acquire weapons.
Comment by Evil Spaniard — April 17, 2007 @ 10:16 am

Comment by hacker bob — April 17, 2007 @ 10:28 am

You’re really good playing dumb, bob. The culture that has provided the violent boy with weapons has been the USA one. Think of it: if he had a green card, wasn’t because he had no criminal background? Maybe the last time he was angry only punched a nose back in Korea, because he had no easy access to firearms?

And another thing: how many of these rampages have been done by full american boys? How many have been comitted by fresh vets from any war? Almost every time you see a shooting in a McDonalds, you can check the shooter background and, alas, he was licensed few months ago, had a couple “best shooter” medals, and lacked mental health care back at home.

Again, Juan, this is the real world we are living in here.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey

I was going to point out that economic brakes havent prevented the poorest African countries from getting weaponry to slaughter their own population. Or that a bum gets a gun in order to rob a shop, or a passionate teenager from killing his rivals…but, you have already made up your mind. Lets continue this way. Lets what other tragedies we have to see.