Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Parsing the Polls on Gun Control

In the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy, the issue of gun control is likely to reemerge in the national political debate. But will the Monday's terrible massacre fundamentally reshape American public opinion about guns and gun control? And will gun control now join Iraq, health care, terrorism and the economy as key issues around which voters will make their decisions at the ballot box?

Recent and historical polling information suggests the answer to both questions is no. Polling on gun control has remained remarkably consistent for the past decade or so, with external events -- even emotionally powerful ones -- not moving the dial in any appreciable way.

Let's Parse the Polls!

Scan recent surveys that touch on guns and gun control and you realize quickly that it has not been a matter of political debate in quite some time. Last fall, a question on gun control was included in an October Post/ABC News survey.

The sample was asked whether they favored or opposed "stricter gun laws." Sixty-one percent said they favored tighter restrictions while 37 percent opposed more stringent regulations.

Not surprisingly, Democrats were generally more supportive of more gun restrictions than Republicans. Seventy-three percent of Democrats favored stricter laws, compared with 52 percent of Republicans who said the same; 56 percent of independents supported tighter strictures.

The same trend was seen when voters were differentiated by ideology. Seventy-one percent of liberals backed stricter gun laws, followed by 61 percent of moderates and 55 percent of conservatives.

It's interesting to note that the Post/ABC poll was in the field shortly after the the shooting at an Amish schoolhouse in Pennsylvania -- the third fatal school shooting in a week's time. Events like the Amish school shooting or even Columbine incident -- i.e. ones that managed to make gun violence in schools a part of the daily debate for several years -- don't have any long-term impact on Americans' overall beliefs about gun laws. Since 1989, an average of 63 percent have expressed support for stricter gun laws -- regardless of external events.

Gallup provides more historical perspective. A survey conducted at almost the same time the Post/ABC poll was in the field last fall (after the Amish shooting) found that 53 percent of the sample favored stricter enforcement of current law while 43 percent backed the idea of stricter enforcement of current laws as well as new regulations.

For more than a decade, Gallup has also asked a standard question -- "Do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict or kept as they are now?" The results show that support for tighter gun control has actually weakened over past years.

In mid-October 2004, 54 percent of Gallup's sample said they agreed that "the laws covering the sales of firearms" should be "more strict," while 11 percent favored "less strict" laws and 34 percent preferred to uphold the status quo. Compare that with 51 percent who said they favored stricter laws, 11 percent backing less strict regulations and 36 percent supporting the laws as they were currently written in October 2002.

In 1999, when Gallup asked the question six times in the wake of Columbine, the number of those in favor of stricter laws ranged between 60 and 66 percent. The "less strict" number fluctuated between five and nine percent while the "kept as now" number ranged from 25 to 31 percent. Going back to March 1993, the tougher laws number was 70 percent in a Gallup survey; in 1990 it was 78 percent.

Given the fairly entrenched views about gun control and apparent disconnect between tragedy and public opinion, it seems unlikely that the shootings at Virginia Tech will have a lasting impact on the political debate over guns. While a solid majority of Americans believes that some gun control makes sense, they are generally opposed to banning guns entirely and would simply prefer to see the current laws enforced. The public also tends to blame cultural factors as much or more than the availability of firearms for tragedies like this one. And, the National Rifle Association is one of the most powerful lobbies in the country, closely monitoring and fighting any attempts to restrict gun rights. That vigilance has largely kept gun control legislation at bay over the past several years.

Pro-gun-control lawmakers may argue that the Virginia Tech killings -- the worst in modern American history -- were so awful that public opinion will almost certainly swing toward tougher gun laws. A decade's worth of polling, however, suggests they are still likely to face an uphill struggle.

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 18, 2007; 9:15 AM ET
Categories:  Parsing the Polls  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCain's Negative Flyer
Next: Udall Disappoints

Comments

As a precursor to the upcoming illegal immigration debate, Rosemary Jenks, Director of Government Relations for NumbersUSA testified before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law on the Shortfalls of the 1986 Immigration Reform Legislation.

Her testimony hit the nail on the head with all the horrors of the 1986 amnesty and how we must not repeat that mistake again in 2007.

She references a study by the Heritage Foundation that examined all households in the US that are headed by a high school drop‐out--about 17.5 million households total, of which about 26% are immigrant households (both legal and illegal). All spending and all revenue at the Federal, state and local levels and found that each of these households costs taxpayers a net average of about $22,500 each year. They have also found that each foreign‐born household costs $18,500 per year.

An estimated 5 million illegal alien households currently come with an annual net cost to the US taxpayer of $92.5 billion! If they are able to achieve US citizenship, the costs to taxpayers will increase by $20 billion as they use more "entitlements". If the current group of illegal aliens are granted amnesty and citizenship, this will legally allow them to bring millions more of their family members and encourage millions more to come.

So when your Senator or Congressman stands up and says we need to grant amnesty and a path to citizenship for illegal aliens, know that comes with a net annual cost of $100 BILLION.

http://stoptheinvasion.blogspot.com

Posted by: VA Patriot | April 22, 2007 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Gun control has never prevented one crime.Gun control fanactics are frightened cringing people who are afraid to stand up for themselves and for what is right.The VT shootings show what happens when only the deranged are armed.This man could not have killed that many people if faculty or students were armed.The VA legislature should feel ashamed and share part of the blame for not passing a bill that would let law abiding citizens protect themselves wherever they are.Only the unarmed are victimized.At least with my second amendm ent rights i have a shooting chance to protect myselve and others.Oh,by the way,Gun control freaks,you can move to England,Australia or some other such country that welcomes such BS.

Posted by: Mark | April 21, 2007 10:11 AM | Report abuse

rufus: Where did I say God was pro gun! (if you are addressing me) I wish there was no violence in the word but God granted man free will and sometimes we really mess up! But I am telling you that I will not stand by and let the Cho's of the world butcher my son or daughter! No law written by man about restricting my right of self-defense will cause me to sacrifice them if I can avoid it! And Kevin, you have to get in the real world. Just because a person has a gun gun doesn't mean he's going to shoot someone in a fight! I'll bet you right now there are people carrying you don't even have a clue about. In Arizona they do it in the open! Don't hear about blood baths do you? If there was the anti gunners with the help of their media friends would have it all over the place! You know at the very least the school police should be armed and not standing there in uniform! Uniforms would be the first target! It's the political correctness that doesn't allow campus police to be armed! Look what it gets you! They have to run away and call for help first. Ever hear much about a nut trying to shoot everybody at the police headquarters? There is a reason for that!

Posted by: Hummm | April 20, 2007 10:05 PM | Report abuse

are you guys crazy? advocating more people carrying guns? Yes in this situation someone strapping might have saved 10-15 lives, assuming they didn't get shot first, and didn't hit any one IN A CROWDED class room in the crossfire. However, in world filled with petty fist fights, and minor stabbings, domestic vilolence more guns would have a profound effect, if people used guns instead of conventional violent means. You are looking at a solution to one incident with out the greater ramifications.

Posted by: kevin | April 20, 2007 7:57 PM | Report abuse

I'll leave others to comment on the absurdity that God was pro gun. I'm not touching that with a ten foot pole. You people have tried to use my religon for war and have succeded in many respects. Just know the church is not God. Follow the Christ. The church is not longer his. The church sold out his message for money and power, as history shows. God will not live in that house as with the jewish tradition. Hopefully, true christians can take our church back for the capitalism who are difiling it, one day

Posted by: rufus1133 | April 20, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

rufus, Jesus also said "if you have no sword then sell your cloak" I believe this was in referance to self-defense! For those who think arming some students is nuts I say start with the returning Iraq veterans who or now entering colleges and also give them a free ride on everything for doing some work for security work!I would say their training is quite good.

Posted by: Hummm | April 20, 2007 8:33 AM | Report abuse

answer me this all you gun hating liberals,


why has there only ever been mass shootings at events and locations were guns are banned,

go to a gun show, there is litterally tens of thousands of guns, and most people attending the shows are carrying guns,

and guess what, theres never been a firearm related murder, at a gun show, or NRA convention,
and i will take it a step furthur, to all those families who are suffering through the tragedy of losing a loved one to a crazed whaco,
i have a licence to carry a concealed weapon, as do many people in this country, and if just one of us was on the campus of VT that faitful day, less families would be suffering today,

Posted by: jamie | April 20, 2007 1:29 AM | Report abuse

Those who oppose the 2nd ammendment are the biggest argument for it since they would impose their will on the majority in this matter, it is likely that they would impose thier will in all other matters involving constitutional freedoms and natural liberty.

Posted by: Allan White | April 19, 2007 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Less gun Control.
thanks

Posted by: sheedyslick | April 19, 2007 7:30 PM | Report abuse

The comments about "tying the hands of law enforcement" is very interesting, in light of the fact that law enforcement organizations are among the most supportive of gun control measures.

MikeB - Time to get a life. You rant, make all sorts of claims without references, and then say that you don't provide references because somebody disparaged one of the sources.

BooHoo!

If it's a good source it should be able stand on its own.

You're posts are beginning to become pathetic. You make a "Sky is falling" post as the massacre story is beginning to unravel and then criticize others who went off on other tangents.

Time to look in the mirror.

Still haven't seen a gun advocate here pose one solution to preventing things such as the Virginia Tech massacre; other than more guns.

With only a few exceptions, the gun advocate posts almost all seem to boil down to "It's all about Me, Me, Me!"

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

It makes so much sense, I dont' know why it hasn't been done already!

I see it clearly now. Thank you all so much for making me see the obvious!

To stop murder, all we have to do is pass a law banning citizens from owning guns.

So, to stop all these terrorists blowing things up all over the world, we just need to pass a law against it!

It is so obvious!

Brilliant!

Posted by: Bill | April 19, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

The King of Zouk, the King of Zouk
a crabby, narrow-minded kook

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Gary, go conculate yourself, whatever that means. If America is only as brilliant as its dimmest bulb, I am rapidly losing hope. And you expect me to be OK with arming someone who talks / writes like that?

Posted by: Wm. F. Buckley | April 19, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

IF ONE LOOKS AT THE RESULTS OF CRIME COMMITTED BY CWC PERMITS HOLDERS, THE ONLY CONCULATION THAT CAN BE REACHED IS THAT EVERONE IS SAFER WHERE PEOPLE ARE ARMED. THE CRIMES COMMITTED BY CWC ARE LESS THAT 1%. THIS IS LESS THAT COMMITTED BY LAW OFFERS.

Posted by: GARY | April 19, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

You people are not exactly reassuring me. Are these the kinds of minds behind the trigger fingers? Scary.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 19, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

"This is a bit late but still- have you people ever heard of MAD? the last time two parties where assured of distruction resulted in a 30 years of life on a knife edge- would you really like to walk down the street not knowing who could attack you at a moments notice- at least now if you see a gun you run away."

I already know that someone could attack me at a moments notice. I also know that if I am unarmed, there is a much greater chance that the would be murderer will continue to fire after the initial shot. If the moment his shot it fired, however, I and those around me draw our own weapons and return fire, there is a great deterrent to his attacking me in the first place.

I assume that if one would break the law to murder someone, they will likely break the law to get the weapon regardless of legality.

Gun Control can work, but only if the black market for firearms is shut down first. If the black market exists, then criminals still have access to weapons. this is undeniable. Because of this, the only substantial effect of Gun Control is to remove legally purchased and owned firearms.

Whereas the Supreme Court has ruled the police to not have the responsibility to protect individuals, only to enforce the law, without methods of protecting ourselves we are effectively naked until the police show up to arrest the criminal. We, as citizens, have a right and duty to protect ourselves and those around us. The police are not everywhere, and cannot save us in every scenario. It is up to us to rescue ourselves.

Posted by: Leonidas | April 19, 2007 9:01 AM | Report abuse

Ban homosexuality, that kills people too "eventually", taints our blood suplies with HIV, etc. Swallow that one libs. I know it doesn't really have anything to do with this discussion but figured I throw it out there anyways since we want to ban "everything" that can lead to death in society and culture.

Posted by: TDK | April 19, 2007 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Correction on the AJC story, I read the story and was wrong about his thinking the wife was at work. Sorry about the mistake. Read it yourself and it shows what a lot of folks have been saying.

Posted by: lylepink | April 19, 2007 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Check the AJC this AM and you will find an example of an man shooting his wife by mistake, thinking she was at work and mistook her for a intruder. Will checking the story change any minds? NO.

Posted by: lylepink | April 19, 2007 8:38 AM | Report abuse

This is a bit late but still- have you people ever heard of MAD? the last time two parties where assured of distruction resulted in a 30 years of life on a knife edge- would you really like to walk down the street not knowing who could attack you at a moments notice- at least now if you see a gun you run away.

Posted by: Aussie Bill | April 19, 2007 8:03 AM | Report abuse

Aaron, 33 people on campus killed. Answer, allowing students to carry concealed on campus. Think how many lives would have been saved if the first person cho had taken a shot at had been armed? Cho would have been dead, and 32 lives would have been saved

Posted by: Joe Smith | April 19, 2007 7:29 AM | Report abuse

DaShamu, you can peacefully plead with a deranged individual to stop when he is putting bullets into you or hacking at you with a chain-saw. I'll shoot back where I am allowed by my concealed carry permit. Unfortunately, a carrying gun owner probably could have stopped the campus incident as happens over 10,000 times yearly in the United States if campus carry were legal. ....but the law didn't stop the deranged perpetrator did it?

Posted by: Rob | April 19, 2007 3:22 AM | Report abuse

Gun ban on campus results in 33 killed - Answer, more gun control.

Gun ban in Washington DC results in "murder capital" of the US - Answer, don't let people defend themselves.

Gun ban in UK results in continually increasing violent crime rates - Answer, let the violent crime rate continue to climb.

US states adopt concealed carry laws - result, violent crime decreases.

Posted by: Aaron Moore | April 19, 2007 3:15 AM | Report abuse

OK, grammar time:

"you're" = "you are"
"your" = "belongs to you"
"Republican's" = "belongs to a Republican"
"Republicans" = "more than one Republican"
"where" = "what location"
"were" = past tense (pl) of the verb "to be"
"we're" = "we are"

It's really not that hard.

Posted by: grammar | April 19, 2007 1:46 AM | Report abuse

I am a Southerner.
I am a registered independent.
I am a hunter.
I am a veteran.
I am a gun owner.

And I support reasonable gun restrictions. Why? Because I do not trust the average person with the ability to kill others. Don't get me wrong - I like the average person. hell, I AM an average person. And I am damn glad that I wasn't packing when my truck got rear-ended last week in the VFW parking lot.
I am glad my daughter didn't have a gun when her ex-husband parked on her lawn at 5 in the morning.
Guns are good for hunting, target shooting, police, and the army. But in a country where only 60-some percent of the population knows the name of the Vice President, or can find Vietnam on a map, or understand basic science or economics, ain't no way I trust the average joe to make life or death decisions on the spot. Guns just encourage easy - but irreversible - solutions to everyday problems.

Posted by: Vietnam vet | April 19, 2007 1:27 AM | Report abuse

I really do not mind that you don't want a gun, or that you are afraid of, or even detest guns. You absolutely have the right to feel that way and I will gladly support you.

None of the above constitutes the right for you to abrogate my right to possess a firearm, or my natural and unalienable right to defend my self, my family, and my property.

Posted by: ACL | April 19, 2007 12:39 AM | Report abuse

Comment: Rosie O is packing as well as her bodyguards. Hypo/what!! Please do not refer to people with which you disagree as Morons, Idiots, or Retards. Those terms are used to identify persons who have a genetic defect, Downs Syndrome, and they are doing the best they can with what they have. Refer to them as "Very Intelligent People" which means educated into drooling stupidity. I am sure some of these "Very Intelligent People" have papers on their walls that prove graduation from some pretty exclusive University's and colledge"s. The important section of the 2nd amendment isn't refering to the malitia but that part stating that the right of the PEOPLE to own fire arms shall not be abridged. I am pretty sure that our founding fathers could have substituted something other than the word PEOPLE. They really were not the bumkins some would have us believe you know. You must also remember that the "Brown Bess" military arm of the time was the assalt rifle of the time. Semi-Automatic means that the spent shell is ejected from the weapon and a new round is chambered and the weapon can be fired with the next pull of the trigger. Fully automatic weapons just need the trigger pulled and held, You too can own one of these weapons if you have the price and wish to surrender your life and privacy to the B.A.T. as long as you own one.
Gee! You could own a 50cal. Macinegun, the ammunition may be hard to come by however. Legally!
I believe if the person who, alledigly, prescribed anti-depressants to Cho had properly flagged him his purchases of firearms would have been turned down, I do know that my stepfather was flagged and the L.A.P.D. was at his home to make sure that there were no firearms in the home. They also told my Mother that he could not own any firearms. I did read that Scotland Yard did have to start arming its officers of late, and that some articles have been published on the availability of firearms in the criminal element.
I do believe that firearms are illegal in England for most people. But then again the criminal by his vocation is breaking the law. On a regular basis isn't he? We had an Israeli professor who tried to block the door and was killed, and two students who also tried to block the door one of whom was killed. Israel has a high instance of "private" ownership of firearms,like the Swiss, and I believe that both countries have compulsery military membership.
The Swiss get their training and take their arms home with their uniforms and gear so they can quickly mobilize. Notice that I said compuslery not volunteer.
Think, Read and Learn. Do not accept anything without cross referenceing it. Have a nice day!

Posted by: h1m912009 | April 19, 2007 12:37 AM | Report abuse

Why is it that liberals scream were for pro-choice only when it comes to abortion? Why can't I exercise my choice when it comes to my protection. Why do liberals fight so hard to block access to the mental health records, even court records stating this guy to be mentally ill and a danger to himself and others? Then they say we need more gun laws or need to ban guns. If those documents were reported to the police like they should have, this madman wouldn't have been able to purchase the guns. Why do liberals object to the government listening in on phone conversations of suspected terrorists? They don't trust the government to use this power wisely? I find it strange they then want us to trust the government to protect, educate, tax, and control or regulate every facet of our lives. Liberals even want our government to control our medical services. But liberals don't trust our government with the treatment of terrorists? Liberals don't trust our government spying on suspected terrorists? Do you want to know why democracies fail at around 200 years duration? It's because liberals want government to do more and more in their lives and provide more and better benefits until the treasury goes broke! Finally with more people taking out than people putting in, chaos. Liberals beleive in creating class warfare, tax the rich and give to the poor until the rich flee or go broke taking jobs with them. Liberals always blame something or someone else for failures. They keep us from finding out about this madman and then blame the gun. As for gun crime being less in countries that outlaw guns, DUH! Crime might not be less but at least it wasn't the evil gun.

Posted by: conservative and proud | April 19, 2007 12:28 AM | Report abuse

MikeB: The answers we are getting appear to be the CYA at all levels as you stated, and the lawsuits that are sure to be coming soon. I can think of at least three cases where the suits can/will be filed against. The school seems to be more at fault than the others and would be the target for they have the most money.

Posted by: lylepink | April 19, 2007 12:03 AM | Report abuse

WEDNESDAY, April 18 (HealthDay News) -- The 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court ruling Wednesday that a ban on so-called partial birth abortions is constitutional doesn't outlaw the procedure entirely.

An example of the new law not applying is when a late-term abortion may be necessary to save the mother if her life is endangered.

However, medical statistics suggest that the court's ruling might not have much impact on the number of abortions done every year in the United States.

The controversial procedure is usually performed after 12 weeks of pregnancy, and it accounted for only less than 1 percent of all U.S. abortions in 2000, according to a survey from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit group focused on reproductive health.

According to the U.S. government's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 857,475 abortions were performed in the United States in 2003.

Women usually choose to have a late-term abortion for medical reasons, such as a diagnosis of a serious fetal abnormality late in the pregnancy, according to doctors who perform the procedure.

Reaction to the Supreme Court ruling was predictable.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 11:25 PM | Report abuse


A new full-page national advertising campaign from a prominent advocacy organization points a sharp finger at the Bush administration in efforts to end the ongoing genocide in Sudan's Darfur region.

"The time for stalling has passed; the time for action has come," the ad reads in bold print, quoting Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Sept. 27, 2006, remarks to the Africa Society of the National Summit on Africa. The ad from SaveDarfur.org notes that Rice's comments were seven months ago, and says: "It takes more than talk to stop a genocide."

The ad acknowledges that Sudan President Omar al-Bashir has broken promises, but then says Bush administration diplomacy "has not even slowed that genocide."

The ad calls for a ban on Sudanese oil imports, the implementation of a no-fly zone, full funding for the U.S. share of peacekeeping and humanitarian aid and assistance in the prosecution of the case before the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 11:18 PM | Report abuse

Peace in the middle east :)

Posted by: rufus1133 | April 18, 2007 11:18 PM | Report abuse

'the worst school rampage occurred when an anti-tax zealot blew up a school in Bath, Mich., in 1927, killing around 40 children and a handful of adults,'

yes well, that's what you folks are all about.. self interest. And you just love violence.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 11:15 PM | Report abuse

lylepink - The system broke at just about every level. This guy was before courts for an involuntary commital. He had been accused of stalking and threatening behavior. He had received counselling for some serious psychological problems. And he had been contacted by the police for harrasement. All of this came out after the kilings. I have to wonder why/how none of these agencies, the university, and the court, had not entered their data into the national database that was checked when he did purchase at least one of those handguns. Any any one of those agencies had done their job, this tragedy could have been averted.

Posted by: MikeB | April 18, 2007 11:12 PM | Report abuse

The more that comes out about the shooter clearly shows a long list of things that were plainly ignored. "A danger to himself or others" among those being reported, goes back to 2005. I hope some of the legal folks would give an opinion about how long it will be before the lawsuits begin. I am not sure how he was able to get around "The danger to himself and others" that would have been made in a background check, and I am pretty sure that would have stopped him from buying the guns legally.

Posted by: lylepink | April 18, 2007 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Hey if you really are rosie O. you are lucky to be able to buy your protection! What about the rest of us poor slobs? Just so you know that some of the first gun control laws were used by Southern democrats after the civil war because they didn't want the blacks armed! How many more must die before you get it? Now if you and your ilk would have reported this unstable nut to proper authorities in the first place he would have been not allowed his purchase! Instead you worry about his privacy and rights! Oh but I forgot, you are the ones who believe Bush had people fly the planes on 9-11! I think you are the one who "needs" to see the men in white coats! Hope your not packin'!

Posted by: Hmmm | April 18, 2007 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Joe Truth,
"Or do you think our country, with its horrible crime record involving guns, is a model for the rest of the world to follow?" Actually, I could care less about the stats of other countries really - they just don't matter. And yes, i do thing the US is a model for the rest of the world to follow. The founders put the right to bear arms at number 2 on the top ten list for a reason. Our country is really set upon the premise that with great power comes great responsibility. The rights and freedoms that our founding fathers gave us gives each of us potential to do great things. It's up to us to use them appropriately. Unfortunately with those rights we have, we also need to accept the abuses. Limiting the right may (or may not) limit the abuse, but America is defined by its rights and freedoms. When you change those or give them away to the government, you invariably change who we are and what we are about.

Posted by: Dave! | April 18, 2007 9:24 PM | Report abuse

So what, are you saying that gun registration is good. Gun registration means gun confiscation. What happens when the public is unable to defend itself? The government takes them over. Look at history, Germany, Turkey, Uganda, same story. When you outlaw guns, only the outlaws have guns.

Posted by: Joe Smith | April 18, 2007 9:20 PM | Report abuse

First off, i have to say it's hard for me actually being in agreement on an issue with MikeB. I'm sure we'll fix that on the next topic.

Anon,
"Why do you accept limitation on your First Ammendment rights (such as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater) but you reaqct violently when anyone dares to similarly impose some common sense restrictions on the Second Ammendment."

OK, I'll bite. First off, its FALSELY yelling fire (if there is a fire, then it is OK and encouraged). Secondly, the decision under which this remark was made (Schenck) was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which ruled that speech could only be banned when it was directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). Personally, i still think that may be too much of a restriction. But you can only fight so many battles at once (so many amendments, so little time). Finally, what exactly is your definition of "common sense restrictions"? From this blog, it runs the gammut from allowing people to own nukes to banning everything but sticks. One man's firearm is another man's WND.

Posted by: Dave! | April 18, 2007 9:01 PM | Report abuse

FYI: Reports of a shooting at The U of Mo.

Posted by: lylepink | April 18, 2007 8:41 PM | Report abuse

CC's right. Guns will not make any difference in the '08 election. Well, at least this event won't. You never know when another nut-job will strike...
http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: mp | April 18, 2007 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Joe Truth: Your comments are well thought out and at least tries to address the problem. Cable news stations are reporting the tapes and other things sent to NBC apparently between the shootings.

Posted by: lylepink | April 18, 2007 7:07 PM | Report abuse

I'm not disputing that fact MikeB. That doesn't mean, that my opinons or anyone else here are less. I know Democrats are scared or this issue and the repub.s are slaves to it, like abortion and gay marriage. The point is. It doesn't have to be. This is America. WE never let what has stopped us in the past effect our future. My goal in life is to get the people how speard hate and make a profit of my religon off the air. That is my goal. You can agree or not. You cannot say I'm missguided or crazy, because I can say the same things about the conservative movement.

Posted by: rufus1133 | April 18, 2007 7:03 PM | Report abuse

RUFUS1133 -
You keep forgetting the 20 or so self identified liberals posting here, in defense of guns and gun ownership. You also, all too conveniently, forget the 25 percent or so of Democrats who enjoy shooting sports and oppose gun control laws. One thing you cannot ignore, however, is that this issue is political suicide for any candidate calling for gun control. We gun owners vote in a block. However we disagree on most policy, this issue pretty much makes or breaks who we will vote for. Any candidate ignoring that fact is inviting defeat at the polls. To be sure, a very few big city nut cases like Chuck Schumer can win and be opposed to gun ownership, but nation wide it will wreck most candidates and they all know it.

Posted by: MikeB | April 18, 2007 6:58 PM | Report abuse

DaShamu - I couldn't agree with you more. But....you still seem to associate guns with violence. Now, I own a semi-automatic pistol. Most of the anti-gun crowd here claims that the only reason for the existance of these things is to kill people. But I really don't think I have it in me to harm someone else. I target shoot with mine. It has a ten shot clip, because that is what is required in competition shooting. I tune that gun, play with the sights, and put in countless hours coming up with the most accurate loads I possibly can. But it IS ALL ABOUT ACCURACY. It has nothing to do with violence. My shooting is about as violent as your bowling - but a lot more fun....louder, but safer, too. And no beer belly!

Posted by: MikeB | April 18, 2007 6:50 PM | Report abuse

"Have we set the one-day record yet!

I'd like to know who sent out the word to flood this site today?"


rIGHT-WING FEAR FLOODED THIS SITE TODAY. Check this blog out on politico.com:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0407/Obama_on_Virginia_Tech_and_Violence.html#comments

The other blog here have one or two entries. One, had 647. Why is that? Someone must have came on and tried to spread truth. The conservative movement can't stand for that. Let's flood the site so the message is drowned out.

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | April 18, 2007 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Mike: what exactly was hysterical about my request? you should have no trouble providing a simple link to a simple news story. if this event happened the local paper at least should have written about it -- otherwise how else did you hear about it?

you're the one who sounds hysterical my friend.

all i want is ONE link to ONE of these stories. come on, you talk the talk, now walk the walk.

Posted by: Loudounian | April 18, 2007 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Loudounian - I've already played that game with you and yoour fellow hysterics. What I got, when I cited something, was a remark disparaging it for one reason or other. I'll tell you what, YOU do a Google search. SImple enough to find the article. There are thousands of similar ones, occuring every day, all across the country. The FBI published stats every year that support the contention that legally armed citizens PREVENT CRIME.

And, while we're at it, Cho Seung-Hui, was illegally in possession of those guns he used to commit his crime. He had been committed to a mental hospital, had been seeing a counselor for psychological problems, had been warned about stalking woemn on two different occations. Where were the reports on this? If the local government, if even VT, had done their job, that inforamton would have gone into the National Crime Database and he wopuld have been prevented from purchasing or owning any gun, even any ammunition. Your blaming legal gun owners or guns for this is misplaced. Instead the blame resides with those very government institutions you have so studiously ignored. The "system" wont work if government employees, university administrators, and police, don't do THEIR jobs.

Posted by: MikeB | April 18, 2007 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Have we set the one-day record yet!

I'd like to know who sent out the word to flood this site today?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 6:40 PM | Report abuse

It's sad to see how many people are dealing problems with violence.
Some religions encourage people to take revenge on others; some regimes use violence to control their people. While some media teach kids how to be violent; some adults show to kids how to solve problems with violence without noticing what influence they might give.
It happens not only between people and people, but also between nations. As one of the leading country in the world, the U.S. government should not show their leadership in a violent way. Bush's "War on Terror" is one of the great examples.
It is clear that the military solution is continuing to worsen the situation in Iraq, so now is time to reinforce a humanitarian aid to bring peace to the world.
Instead spending $522 billion on U.S. military budget and wasting our precious lives by sending more troops, we can use the money to save so many lives by providing food, water access and sanitation. According to The Borgen Project, it only costs $19 billion to eliminate global hunger.
I hope our next political leader will make a commitment to the U.N.'s Millennium Development Goals to stop the global poverty and make the world a better place.

Posted by: DaShamu | April 18, 2007 6:38 PM | Report abuse

I so sincerely wish that all of you gun folks posting here could have fulfilled your fantasies and been on the campus that day.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 6:36 PM | Report abuse

As you should know, FIVER, its hard to prove something didn't happen. There are no lists of what hasn't happened, and the basis for my statement that the core of the patriot act as been upheld is that so little of it has been overruled.

In late September, a federal district judge in New York, Victor Marrero, ruled that a key component of the USA Patriot Act is unconstitutional. The ruling made headlines, for it is the first to strike down any of the vast new surveillance powers the act authorized. http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/15/ramasastry.patriot.act/index.html

This is a 2004 article which says its the first sucessful legal challenge to the Patriot Act. So from 2001-2004, there were NO sucessful challenges.

This part that was overruled is still being enforced. The 2nd Circuit court put the decision on hold, and Ginsburg was asked to intervene. In turning down that request, Ginsburg said she expected the appeals court to hear arguments in the government's appeal and rule "with appropriate care and dispatch." Arguments are Nov. 2.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/07/politics/main927811.shtml

Also:Federal prosecutors have maintained that secrecy about records demands is necessary to keep from alerting suspects and jeopardizing terrorism investigations.

In other words, a court had to tell the ACLU not to tip off the terrorist suspect under investigation.

FIVER, if this suspect BLOWS something up, will you again accuse law enforcement of doing nothing?


In that all of the patriot act is still being enforced pending court review, my statement stands as correct.

Also, note that no significant changes have been enacted by your newly blue Congress.

Posted by: Razorback | April 18, 2007 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Right. It's all about me, huh. It's all about rufus1133. You can blame me all day if it makes you feel better. I can take that for you, I am a christian. I'll blame the people who lead the misguided sheep done this path, and then tried to use my religon as justification to line their pockets. With that being said I agree. Left The Christ out. That's what I have been saying to the religous right, the falwells the robertsons of the worls

Posted by: rufus1133 | April 18, 2007 6:34 PM | Report abuse

My God, this is not the wild west. Why does everyone have to carry thier own gun to defend themselves against others? Arming the public is not going to resolve our sorry state. In regards to the first admendment, and defending ourselves against the government- how is owning a handgun going to protect you from the armies????

Posted by: J | April 18, 2007 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Rufus,

Instead of summarizing Christ's teaching trying reading the Bible it might open your eyes. Christ said he came to divide parent from child and said unless you forsake your family you have no part of me. Christ never said he came to teach tolerance for he condemned sin (i.e., Old Testament) and said he came to fulfill the law not to destroy it. Christ message is a radical message that neither liberals nor conservatives embrace.

I personally do not think Christ would have taken any side in the debate. His mission was to bring man to a relationship with God. I would say keep Jesus out of this debate.

Posted by: slt | April 18, 2007 6:29 PM | Report abuse

"You didn't read about it on the national news becasue it was a crime prevented by someone exercising that Second Amendment right."

Funny how that's always the case with these alleged incidents. So why don't you provide a link?

Posted by: Loudounian | April 18, 2007 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Razorback,

I provided you with examples of the Patriot Act's unconstituiionality at: (Posted by: fiver | April 18, 2007 05:21 PM)

I then gave you one example of many case citations at: (Posted by: fiver | April 18, 2007 05:59 PM).

I've said nothing whatsoever regarding profiling but directed several specific questions and requests to you which you have ignored.

Do you really think you can get away with these tactics when there is a written record of our comments? It makes you look less than foolish. Have a nice day; I'm through with you.

Posted by: fiver | April 18, 2007 6:24 PM | Report abuse

hi, i'm such a lazy cretin i can't even take the time to make up a fake name to attach to my moronic posts.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 6:23 PM | Report abuse

I heard something very interesting on NPR this morning. Someone had identified the shooter as South Korean and someone else made a stuid racist comment. Thereafter, there was a parade of comments and emails from listeners that being Asian or South Korean was not the issue. This was simply one deranged person who committed a horrible crime. I believe that. I wonder why some of tjose ame liberals took leave of their senses, then, when it came time to simply point out that the use of firearms was also an isolated act, by one deranged individual, and is not typical of most gun owners.

And, in answer to the comment by the annon poster above, "yes" I do think we would be safer if all law abiding people were armed. The shooter at VT would have been shot very quickly if even one a few of the students had permits and were lawfully carying weapons. That is simply common sense. Here, in Oregon, just a few weeks ago, a deranged man attempted to murder several families and was shot and wounded by a trucker, with a permit to carry a handgun. You didn't read about it on the national news becasue it was a crime prevented by someone exercising that Second Amendment right. Now, I don't carry. I don't think I could kill someone, even to save my own life, but I've got to tell you, I feel safer with "gun nuts" around me than I do at any other time. Those VT students, most of them at least, would be alive today if some students were legally armed.

Posted by: MikeB | April 18, 2007 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Please someone make fun of my spelling and grammar - it will take away from the obvious faults with my reasoning.

Dufus1133

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 6:19 PM | Report abuse

What do you mean he ignored the ban? how could he? He must be the victim somehow.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Well, I'm going to call you on a couple of things. First your use of male genitilia as a form of insult is benieth contempt and you ought to be banned fom the Post forever. The only reason you wnt is becasue the Post gives left wing cretins and Naderites a free pass when they express their bigotry. Second, Christian's "turn the other cheek" when it is appropriate. At other times, the example is Christ, with a whip, driving the money changers from the temple steps."

Please don't use Jesus actions, and that specfic action, to justify the right-wing lunicy. Bush tried that he failed.

1. Jesus would have never been FOR guns. any form.
2. The money changers scene was because they allowed non-jewish money in the temple. THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT SOLD THIS COUNTRY OUT FOR HIGH STOCK PRICES AND OIL. They choose money over doing the Christian thing. So in that sense the religous right is actually the oppisit eof that lesson.
3. Most of the post on this site or from conservative. A high number are people not even talking about the subject at hand or how to fix it. They can't win that debate.

The only ways is to silence the real speak. Do me a favor and never try to say the right in this country is "of high moral character". They are making BILLIONS off of blood money.

Sorry for the rant. It is a sin to try and twist the teachings of a great man for your politcal process unless, of course you honor he specifically said so. In this case Jesus preached the opposite of everything you see hear. Let's go down the list and see how the right fares:

1.He preach Tolerance
2. Peace
3. Love
4. Shunning of money
5. living Fun full life

The opposite is true on each one of these things, in regards to the right in this country. So, Please don't do that.

Posted by: rufus1133 | April 18, 2007 6:15 PM | Report abuse

I only said that if you read or watched anything outside of the LSM you would have surely found this story. It was considered a victory for the Bush admin - probably the reason you haven't ever heard of it. Try going to yahoo and typing 'patriot act court ruling'. you may actually learn something out of the usual propaganda. I would be willing to bet you never heard we are winning in Iraq either. Or that the economy is booming.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Re: (Cho's acts demonstrate this. If the ban had been effective, he would not have killed 32 others.) - Dan H.

There is no ban in Virginia, so how is this relevant?

VT DID ban possession of firearms on campus. Thus, their ban was ineffective and unenforceable, as are all gun bans.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 6:13 PM | Report abuse

anonymous commenter,

I've responded to each request for sources by providing sources, not by the "homework" excuse you quoted.

Further,are you saying this landmark was only reported on FOX? Not on any other network? Not in legal newspapers? Nowhere but FOX? And you won't even divulge the FOX reference?

But my problem is that I "watch those fake news shows."? Did you read your post before you clicked on publish?

Posted by: fiver | April 18, 2007 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Fiver

I understand why you dont want to site specifics about the constitutionality of the Patriot Act, along with a court decision.

All you have to do is convice a judge that you are right, and they will enter a restraining order prohibiting the government from violating your constitutional rights.

The goverment was afraid of being accuse of profiling, and therefore the FBI national office overruled the local agents request for a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui computer prior to 9/11.

No liberals said we have to put up with the violence of 9/11 because our Constitution protects people like Moussaoui, and its just part of the price we pay for freedom. Rather, liberals said the administration failed to protect Americans, ignoring the fact that the politically correct atmosphere in which profiling is used to call people racists contributed to the unwillingness of the government to aggressively go after a dark complected Islamic immigrant.

Likewise, liberals will point out that playrights have first amendment rights, that mentally ill persons should not be stigmatized, and that immigrants should not be given special attention from law enforcement.

Less concern about the rights of persons to write about violent fantasies, less concern about the rights of the mentally ill, and less concern about stigmatizing immigrants might have caused a more aggressive preventative approach to Cho.

There is obviously no guarantee that any of this would have prevented what happened, just as it is obvious that different gun laws would not have guaranteed a different outcome.

Politically correct advocacy for all of these supposedly oppressed groups gets in the way of prevention when a member of the groups favored by the left decide that they want to victimize the innocent.

Posted by: Razorback | April 18, 2007 6:09 PM | Report abuse

I wasn't going to do your homework for you"
- translation - I just make this sh*t up.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 6:09 PM | Report abuse

MikeB - you are in good form today. this suits you much better then the protectionist rantings you usually post. there is hope for you yet.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 6:07 PM | Report abuse

If all citizens carried loaded handguns, would we all be safer?

Posted by: Question | April 18, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Fiver - you are not aware because you don't watch fox, you watch those fake news shows. this was a highly public finding only a few weeks ago. Here is a taste of what libs do when confronted with requests for sources:

"I wasn't going to do your homework for you"

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 6:02 PM | Report abuse

How many think VT would be safer if all students were allowed to carry concealed and loaded weapons? Safer? You cannot be serious.

Posted by: StevieB | April 18, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

JoeTruth | April 18, 2007 05:32 PM -
Well, I'm going to call you on a couple of things. First your use of male genitilia as a form of insult is benieth contempt and you ought to be banned fom the Post forever. The only reason you wnt is becasue the Post gives left wing cretins and Naderites a free pass when they express their bigotry. Second, Christian's "turn the other cheek" when it is appropriate. At other times, the example is Christ, with a whip, driving the money changers from the temple steps. I leave i for you to decide whether you are a potential convert or simply an evil, twitsted little gnoe that no amount of work can save. And, third, I am noramlly a liberal Democrat, pro-choice, pro-Gay rights, pro-National Health Care, a John Kerry voting, anti-Bush, anti-corporation, pro-union, Democrat. I also happen to be a fire eating proponent of *all* of the Bill Of Rights and am an avid hunter and target shooter and gun owner. I stand very solidly with the other gun owners here, liberal and conservative. What we all have in common is a deep seated belief in the Seond Amendment, a love of shooting sports, and mutual respect. We are also politcially active and WILL NOT vote for any candiate who advocates gun control laws and that includes that stupid Brady Bill.

Posted by: MikeB | April 18, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

"I can't make you people respect life"

but the supreme court did just that today, despite protest from all the Dems who can't get their story straight.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

"The core of the patriot act has been upheld."

Razorback,

In the same post where you demand I give you a case citation, you make the above claim with no reference?

In answer to your request, the case of ACLU v. National Security Agency, Docket No. 06-2095 challenges NSA surveillance and is currently on appeal in Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. There are many others.

I am aware of no case in which "the core of the Patriot Act has been upheld." Please provide your source.

Posted by: fiver | April 18, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

What you do to each other is not my concern. I can't make you people respect life. If you have hate, if you want to shoot people, I say you shoot like-minded people rather than my children

Posted by: rufus1133 | April 18, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

As a practical Liberal I am all for collecting up all the guns and sending them back to Mexico. you see I can find those guns no matter where you hide them. I will not be able to find any illegal aliens during this effort.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

To CH:

Re - "the deterrant here would be the use of the weapon, not its presence"

Hmmmm..... and the deterrent value of using a weapon that was NOT there.....?

Your original postulate seemed to be that the fact that a gun was concealed removed it's value as a deterrent. This is not true, as a concealed weapon may kill a misbehaving wacko just as well as one openly carried.

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 18, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

I'll preach love tolerance, power to the people.
In case you miseed my message of peace and tolerance I'll repeat it:

I say send all conservatives to Austraila with their boy Rupert Murdock

Why don't you all move to Alaska and hunt and shoot each other all day.

We don't need these people in office. We need them in rehab :)

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Tougher gun laws wont do jack.... this guy killed 30+ people then himself, you think he would have qualms about breaking into someones house to steal their registered firearms to use in his attack?

Is a criminal really going to be concerned about breaking laws to obtain a weapon he plans to use illegally anyway?
And to the whole... protect yourself from oppressive government argument... that might have been true back in the 1700's, however military weaponry has come a long way since then.. Before you even had a chance to protect yourself you would be labeled an enemy combatant and shipped off to Cuba.

Posted by: Unarmed | April 18, 2007 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Razorback,

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that the government does nothing to protect the public. I did, however, point out that on September 11, at Columbine, and at Virginia Tech, the government and law enforcement did nothing to protect the public. If I'm incorrect, please point out what they did.

Also, as asked before, how were law enforcement's hands tied at Columbine and Virginia Tech? There were plenty of heavily armed officers present at both for significant periods of time during the attacks. No attempt was made to stop the attacks. How were their hands tied? By me? Again, if I'm wrong, please point out what they did.

Posted by: fiver | April 18, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

In response to "it only takes one" post regarding "would I trust everyone to carry"?

The short answer is no, not everyone, but I would trust the large majority of those that want to carry.

This is very simular to driving cars. They can be made to be lethal weapons, are are used as such in some circumstances. Yet, the great majority of drivers learn the laws and rules of the road, get enough training to responsibly use their car in most circumstances, and use the car to improve their and other's lives. The greatest majority don't snap and go plowing through an open air market if a spouse cheats on them. So, I trust them to use their car responsibly,a nd will punish those that don't.

It really is a matter of "Who do you trust?" The libs tend to trust a big brother govenment, even though it has proved time and again to be inadequate to deal effectively in preventing gun violence. Conservatives tend to trust themselves and their fellow citizens to do the right thing, in the greatest majority of cases. The gun debate essentially boils down to this calculation.

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 18, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

I do recall Jesus said "turn the other cheek

so according to liberal views, we should ignore all attacks. Yes that does fit in with cut and run and rights for terrorists.

I recall something about an eye for an eye. but as a Lib I only use the bible when convenient. it has no redeeming value on its own.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

how will you function. I know how. You move to where everythinks like you. You'll all sit around watching Fox drinking beers talking about how no one understands. That is your existence. HAte,intolerance, ignorance, fear.

Good luck with that life. I'll preach love tolerance, power to the people.

Posted by: rufus1133 | April 18, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

It's all good. You don't have to understand, blank poster attacking me on every post. When they are pulled you will get it. What will you do when you brain is off the air?

Posted by: rufus1133 | April 18, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

have learned from experience in dealing with less advanced primates - other Liberals

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Solution II,
I believe the case your referring to is U.S. v. Miller decided in 1939. It did involve a sawed-off shotgun, but the statute in question made it a crime for a felon to transport one across state lines. This is not clear precedent for banning handguns.

Posted by: fiver | April 18, 2007 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Rush/O'Reilly/Coulter/HannityRush/O'Reilly/Coulter/HannityRush/O'Reilly/Coulter/HannityRush/O'Reilly/Coulter/HannityRush/O'Reilly/Coulter/HannityRush/O'Reilly/Coulter/HannityRush/O'Reilly/Coulter/HannityRush/O'Reilly/Coulter/HannityRush/O'Reilly/Coulter/Hannity

someone over at daily Kos told me if I print this as a single word often enough, I could win arguments with those evil cons. how's it working?

they also told me I have no obligation to make sense otherwise. this appeals to me as a Democrat because I have never made sense.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 5:35 PM | Report abuse

This is beginning to sound like a bar-room brawl. Name calling has gone wild. I see testicular influences taking hold. Let's get our guns out and fight like a man! As for my sources of information, I said that I wasn't going to do your homework for you. I am just making you aware of what I have read. I have learned from experience in dealing with less advanced primates that the validity of any source providing unpalatable information is routinely,in fact always, attacked as "biased" etc. by the knee-jerk pro-gun advocates. Perhaps these people need a personal tragedy in their own home to come to their senses. This is not a football game. This life and death. Grab a beer and start shooting. This a manhood thing, right? The funny thing is that most gun advocates are also Christians. I do recall Jesus said "turn the other cheek." If there is one thing I can't suffer, it's hypocrites!

Posted by: JoeTruth | April 18, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

We can pass all sorts of laws that criminals will ignore and law-abiding citizens will follow. this will put the citizen at a disadvantage but we like new laws anyhow.

I think banning volcanoes makes more sense. do you know how many people suffer from volcano fear? do you remember pompeii? they are also ruining our environment. all we need is a movie. did you know that in Hawaii the fear of volcanoes is higher than in France? This proves it is a problem.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Nore would we want to ban volcano's because we would all be dead without an atomosphere. Don't get sidtracked joe. They love to bring up points that are of no relevance. Like, "people die of obesity, let's ban spoons." Stick to your guns. Don't worry about these crackpots agreing with you. It will never happen. They are just an Avatar of Rush/O'Reilly/Coulter/Hannity.

Posted by: rufus1133 | April 18, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Due to time constraints, I can only tell you to check out the crime statistics before and after New York passed its ban. Same for DC.

Posted by: DBS | April 18, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Fiver says the government does nothing to protect the public, but lots to protect Bush and Cheney.

They blame law enforcement, then tie law enforcements hands.

They say the CIA should have figured it out, the FBI should have figured it out, the airport should have figured it out, then they try to deny them to tools to figure it out.

Just find a court case. NO MORE EXCUSES. The core of the patriot act has been upheld.

Posted by: Razorback | April 18, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Joe Truth - the reaon you're appalled is that there is no factual basis for you gun control stance. The violent crime rate stas pubished by the various governments, the actual homicide figurs from the Department of Justice, everything flies in the face of your closely held beliefs. Oh, what to do when reality creeps in, challenging your whole reason for thnking one way.... Oh well, there's always drugs!

Posted by: MikeB | April 18, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Chris, if you ever read your comments sections, you know that I'm a loyal reader. Please leave this stuff alone at least until the funerals are over. Whether it's a politician or a special interest group or, yes, a journalist, exploiting this tragedy so quickly for political purposes is cheap and it's beneath you. You may not have a side in the debate you refer to, but you definitely have a professional interest in immediately politicizing the deaths of these people.

Just stop. Just stop and wait until the dead are buried and then we can all get into this.

Posted by: Jackson Landers | April 18, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Supreme Court has upheld ban on certain categories of firearms (decision was Al Capone era, on sawed-off shotguns). Why not similar ban on semi-autos (which any dignified hunter doesn't need) and/or handguns?
Wholly absent among the Second Amendment defenders is ANY mention of the "well-regualted militia" clause. How many of these people are out doing PT on Saturday mornings? Company-level tactics? Maneuver warfare? I thought not.
As to the idea that a single armed student in a classroom would've "prevented" the whole thing: let's just hope that student was a better shot than the trained professional G-man who managed to shoot his fellow FBI special agent last week. And/or that he hadn't been hitting the Keystone Lights the night before...
As for "soft" targets: last year another deranged individual killed two local Virginia police officers at their precinct house using semi-automatic weapons (AK-47 derivative, I think).

Posted by: Solution II | April 18, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Typical of the silly comments splattered in this blog site. "Ban volcanoes" the bloogger states. How stupid. If we could, we would!!!! Now, let's get back on track. We CAN pass gun control laws. We CAN'T pass anti-volcano laws. What nonsense!

Posted by: JoeTruth | April 18, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

We democrats will not surveille the enemy or collect intelligence. We are completely against intelligence as you all know. that might make the enemy FEEL bad. we prefer to wait until after the carnage and then send in inspector cluseau to track down the criminals and bring them to justice in the Hague where they can play the media for years and eventually get off. Its only fair.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

cdw, your citation is from a university survey of crime in the four LARGEST cities in a sampling of countries. This hacked piece of garbage has been tossed around by the gun control crowd for so long that people actually started to look at it. The statistics are based on HEARSAY/surveys of households and not on published government crime reports. Furthermore, the methologogy has been repeadly questioned in academic circles......e,g, no one of any academic standing believes a thing about it. How on earth the authors of this doggeral expect to extrapolate the crime rate for the entire U.S. by looking at New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Miami is beyoind me...it is also a very very sick joke. WorldNetDaily uses police reports and official government reports of violent crime.

Posted by: MiikeB | April 18, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Rehab? That is the left's answer to everything. Everything can be cured with rehab. Isn't rehab a form of brainwashing? Isn't brainwashing a popular technique of Socialists? Oh my, it is all coming back now.

Posted by: DBS | April 18, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

All this talk from gun-toters about the constitution. What about three seperate branches of government? Is that in the constiution somwhere?

Posted by: rufus1133 | April 18, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

You gots to understand peoples, its true because JOE KNOWS its true. Joe's preconcieved ideological biases are true just because JOE SAYS SO. Facts that stand in the way of what JOE KNOWS can be disregarded, because JOE knows the TRUTH.

Quit picking on Joe, we don't want JOE to go CHO.

Posted by: DrPhil | April 18, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

JoeTruth -

Then cite your sources please.

Posted by: BingMan | April 18, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

I am so sure of my truth I needn't bother to provide my citation. I have also seen big foot and have pictures to prove it. go to my site, enter your creidt card and I'll show you.

Joe truth

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Razorback,

The suits against the Patriot Act are still winding their way through the courts.

If you believe the surveillance authorized by the Patriot Act is the same that we have been using against organized crime, you simply don't know what you are talking about.

Surveillance on organized crime requires a warrant based on probable cause found by a neutral and impartial magistrate. The surveillance authorized by Patriot Act requires no suspicion whatsoever, no warrant,and no judge. Only a finding by authorized law enforcement (with no requirement of evidence) that the surveillance is needed for a terrorist investigation.

But again, what has you so afraid that you're willing to abandon your Constitutional protections? Do you think Al Qaeda is going to get you? In Arkansas? Remember, the last time Al Qaeda attacked in the U.S. the authorities did nothing to protect the public (but plenty to protect Bush and Cheney).

Posted by: fiver | April 18, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

I am appalled by the cynical use of so-called data provided by nothing less than liars. The typical gun lover finds a phony data base, probably planted by a gun control maniac (on the edge of psychiatric illness), circulates it and uses it to refute the truth. Sorry, fellows, but that doesn't work with people like me. I have seen the statistics before from credible PRIMARY sources, and the US is BY FAR, the most homicidal nation in the First World per capita, regardless of means of homicide. And the miscreants who provided a phony data base should be able to reason that even if it were true that in other nations homicides are more common, just not by guns, then we still should set out to reduce homicides using guns-- they could reason that this would FURTHER reduce our "sterling" and wonderfully "low" homicide rate!!!!! Go do your homework yourself. I have seen official figures for homicides and they do not in the least resemble what has been provided here.

Posted by: JoeTruth | April 18, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Ban volcanoes, unless they are gay volcanoes, don't profile volcanoes, tax volcanoes, they are ruining the environment, subsidize volcanoes, because Hawaii is a very cool place. Gay marriage might be legal there.

Posted by: DrPhil | April 18, 2007 5:18 PM | Report abuse

John you are ignorant. Got proof?

Posted by: DBS | April 18, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

That's right John. We don't need these people in office. We need them in rehab :)

We need them to work on their daddy issues.

Posted by: rufus1133 | April 18, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Thousands of people were evacuated after a long-dormant volcano erupted late Tuesday and again early Wednesday, provoking avalanches and floods that swept away houses and bridges.


Ban volcanoes!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

This comment by John...

"Gun ownership for most American men is a sign of frustrated and insecure masculinity."

...is a sign of his effeminate sensative transexual girly man nature.

I hope that the tough woman (or man) in his life has given him permission to play on the computer, otherwise a big time spanking is coming for JohnJohn.

Posted by: DrPhil | April 18, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Still the same basic question - how will you collect up all the existing guns?

Is this too hard to contemplate silly Libs? It is a very simple and straightforward query? Otherwise go back to worshipping fake science and false hope.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

cdw - Check the cite I give above about the overall *violent* crime rate being higher in Australia. The researchers, from Holland and employed by the E.U. mind you, conclude that Australia;s rate oif violent crime went up AS A RESULT OF the strict gun control laws passed by their nut job PM. Here's another citation of violent crime stas that makes our Canadian and other gun control nuts cringe: http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/may/19/dantre.htm

There is apparently an INVERSE RELATIONSHIP between gun ownership and violent crime. Like it or not, those are the facts. All you can do is whine and spout emotional nonsense. You have no facts to support gun control. Even the homicide rate stats used by the Brady fools is cocked up. There were fewer than 18,000 homicides in the U.S. in 2005. Of those, about 5,200 were due to firearms of all types. 80% of those were a result of gang on gang violence, primarily in large inner cities. Your rate of being harmed or killed by a firearm in the U.S., unless you are a gang member, is 5.7 times LESS than your chances of being harmed in a knife attack in England.

Posted by: MIkeB | April 18, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

As a woman, I have no "testicular connection" with my desire to own a gun. I have been around them all of my life. Seven kids grew up in a house with a gun. Most never saw it, I have seen it twice in my life. I believe in proper parental control and discipline, something severely lacking these days. My son collects swords and knives. They scare me more than any gun could. If Cho didn't use a gun, he could have found an internet website that would have shown him how to use a bomb using regulare household items. What would the argument be then?

Posted by: DBS | April 18, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Gun ownership for most American men is a sign of frustrated and insecure masculinity.

Posted by: John | April 18, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

jwelch, ultimately evrything int his world is about probability. Death by firearms is far more likely in this country than in, say, European nations. This unquestioning support for the Constitution avoids the reality of history. The Constitution IS NOT in stone. We have had amendments that have allowed women to vote, for example. Our founding fathers allowed us a way out if things changed. We are now in the 21st century, and things have changed. It is time to amend our Constitution to reflect this, just as we finally allowed women the right to vote. Your statements about banning mental illness are not to the point. The reality is that these mentally ill people cannot all be tracked down in time, and so we must be on guard by passing appropriate laws. It seems gun advocates believe the guns have rights like people do. They seem to fight relentlessly against laws that protect our children, as if guns had Constitutional rights. Guns are probability modifiers. This is my point. They vastly increase the probability of death. I wonder why the rest of the democratic and civilized world, the ones with much lower homicide rates, disagree with you and people like you. Doesn't that put you on the defensive? Or do you think our country, with its horrible crime record involving guns, is a model for the rest of the world to follow? This liberal vs conservative nonsense reminds me of the mindless rooting for one's football team. This is not a silly game. This is about life and death, not liberals vs conservatives. Start thinking intelligently, please.

Posted by: JoeTruth | April 18, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Matt Wright

The fifth amendment says if they take it, they have to provide "just compensation", but you know how those liberals like to tear up the constitution.

Is that a Remington semi-automatic shotgun? I will trade you my .357 magnum revolver for it.

Posted by: Razorback | April 18, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Worldnet Daily is a rightwing hack paper. Below are some statistics from the same study they "reference". Besides Switzerland (discussed earlier), the US is an outlier in terms of gun ownership and crime.

Sorry the data is not very well formatted. Welcome to the real world, where data is king.

Source: International Crime Victimization Survey (ICVS), 1989-2000
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/cocoon/NACJD/STUDY/03803.xml
hand all
gun% gun% A/T SA Rob Bur Homicide
England & Wales 0.5 4.7 5.3 3.4 1.9 9.4 0.7
Scotland 0.5 5.3 2.9 1.8 9.0 1.8
Northern Ireland 1.5 4.3 3.3 1.5 4.7 5.2
Netherlands 1.0 2.0 9.3 6.4 2.0 8.9 0.9
West Germany 6.5 9.2 9.3 7.9 3.0 4.7 1.2
Switzerland 14.0 32.6 3.9 5.5 2.2 4.0 1.2
Belgium 6.0 16.8 6.4 4.9 4.0 7.7 1.8
France 5.5 24.7 7.1 4.3 2.9 10.4 1.2
Spain 2.0 7.5 6.8 9.1 5.6 1.0
Norway 3.5 31.2 8.2 4.7 1.5 3.2 1.2
Finland 7.0 25.5 9.7 4.3 2.7 2.0 2.9
USA 29.0 48.9 12.7 10.4 5.5 13.7 8.8
Canada 4.0 30.8 8.8 10.0 2.6 10.2 2.1
Australia 2.0 20.1 11.6 13.5 2.3 16.6 2.0

Posted by: cdw | April 18, 2007 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Stop with the facts, its ruining liberalism.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Matt Wright:

Does this mean that now that I am 47 they can take my Remington?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, my NBC package link didn't work. See http://www.wnbc.com/news/12418237/detail.html?rss=ny&psp=news

Posted by: fiver | April 18, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

An automatic weapon has no purpose but to kill humans. No purpose on this planet other than that, regardsless of what these souless hacks say. I say send all conservatives to Austraila with their boy Rupert Murdock. See how safe they feel when everybody has guns then.

Posted by: Rufs1133 | April 18, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Joe Truth,

Cho hardly seems to have done this on a whim. NBC just got a package from him today.

Posted by: fiver | April 18, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

fiver

Just how many of those suits have been sucessful?

Do you object to using the same electronic means which have been used against mobsters and drug dealers to be used againt terrorists?

As Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) explained during the floor debate about the Act, "the FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists. To put it bluntly, that was crazy! What's good for the mob should be good for terrorists." (Cong. Rec., 10/25/01)

Now police officers, FBI agents, federal prosecutors and intelligence officials can protect our communities by "connecting the dots" to uncover terrorist plots before they are completed. As Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) said about the Patriot Act, "we simply cannot prevail in the battle against terrorism if the right hand of our government has no idea what the left hand is doing" (Press release, 10/26/01)

Which of this do you disagree with? Are Biden and Edwards right wing fanatics? Specifics fiver, enough of the false drive by rhetoric.

As for me, my views are entirely consistent. I agree with reasonable restrictions on the second amendment. I support the back ground checks, I support banning maching guns (and tanks and nuclear weapons for the idiots who must inject those into the discussion).

I also believe that the same techniques of surveillance that have been used on mafioso and drug dealers should be used on terrorists.


Posted by: Razorback | April 18, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

The Virginia Tech gunman sent photographs, videos and writings to NBC in New York before he died in the massacre that left 33 people dead

TO NBC - the heart of liberalism. Looking for a sympathetic audience.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Joe Truth, NOT TRUE. You gun control freaks keep inventing "facts". The homicide rate in European countries with strict gun control laws is about the same as the U.S. They just don't use guns. Also the rate of violent crime in those same countries is THREE TIMES higher than the U.S. and your chance of being a victum of a crime is 5.7 times greater in England and Wales and France and Australia than in the U.S. ANyone can go Google any number of studies on this by simply typing in "Violent crimes U.S. Brtain". I would, however, refer you to a WorldNetDaily article, which references and ongoing study from the Netherlands: http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html

Every single contention you have made is merely emotional hysteria born of some misguided "belief" you have and your irrational fear of firearms. If this debate were about anything other than gun cotnrol, you would be urged to seek pyschological counselling.

Posted by: MikeB | April 18, 2007 5:01 PM | Report abuse

the simple fact is that guns are out there. what will you libs lose elections to prove - that you can control criminals. you couldn't even stop the Cin C from doing interns.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Joe Truth,
I fear you have failed to grasp the issue sir...

weather you ban guns, or don't
unless you consider the mentality society is adopting, the desensitization of our youth, our inability to prevent people from possibly committing crimes because we are afraid to discriminate against them...

you will not be able to prevent crimes like these from happening again.

You haven't since the 60's or 70's, and we have forms of gun control, and what you have failed to see, is that doing so, has done nothing to prevent violence from happening.

Good luck on preventing mental illness and murder.

I'll be rooting for you.

What you are also failing to see, is that once you remove rights, one slowly after another creep away from you.

But since you are going to be able to prevent all bad things from happening in the future in your Utopia, I am certain that the government in your Utopia will never allow sanctioned murder, like Hitler's did.

You fail to see the trick that one incident, shocking, frightening and horrible, makes everyone debate the wrong issue.

Killing will continue to exist.
Doesn't matter how.

The greatest weapon of mass destruction sir, is the mind, followed by the inability to use it.

Posted by: jwelch | April 18, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

When will truth prevail? Imagine the killer at Virginia Tech trying to accomplish what he did with only a knife? Guns help, and they help because they can be used quickly (little time for the emotionally disturbed to clear his mind, perhaps), and are highly effective and easy to use by those with the inability to think up more elaborate schemes for killing people. I would rather take my chances with a knife than a gun. If I owned a gun, I would only be more likely to kill an innocent bystander or cause another person to want to kill me.

Posted by: JoeTruth | April 18, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

-United States Legal Code, Title 10, Sub A, Part I, Chapter 13, 311

I hope this shuts up the 'NG, police, and military are our militia' crowd.

Posted by: Matt Wright | April 18, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

If gun is used in any crime ----
by use ~ it means fired, shown, indicates
by any means that (he/she/them) have one
weather it can be seen or not...........
also NO PLEA Bargins in ANY case where a gun is 'used'.............

Posted by: PoorRichard | April 18, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

"The Dow Jones industrial average closed above 12,800 for the first time Wednesday,

Blame it on Bush"


I hope all that money you conservatives are making off of death makes you happy. How is that differant from blood money on the streets. Conservatives hate crime, right? You hate hustlers on the street right? You will have to answer for yousins one day. Maybe not today, but someday

Posted by: rufus1133 | April 18, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Actually, Jacie, VT is case and point. Guns are banned on college campuses. A crazed person thinks hey this is like stealing candy from a baby..... let me update my post

In 2006, state supported college campuses banned concealed weapons on campus. As a result, 32 students, unable to defend themselves were chased down and exterminated due to a failure of local police to show up and do their duty

Posted by: Jim House | April 18, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

the worst school rampage occurred when an anti-tax zealot blew up a school in Bath, Mich., in 1927, killing around 40 children and a handful of adults, including himself.

Ban schools!

BTW, I make myself look stupiod so I can fit in with liberals.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

jwelch, I am sorry that you fail to grasp the issues here. I agree that the killer was mental ill, to put it bluntly. But there are many like him out there, and for that reason alone we have to make an effort to avoid this kind of thing happening again. Europeans have a far lower rate of homicide because of strict gun control. Of course, you can argue it is just cultural and nothing else. And that would suit me fine. We need to alter our sick way of dealing with perceived and real threats. Just as this crazy kid was ill, so is American society as a whole. He reflects the violence that this country so adamantly promotes. Every time I read an article about some poor teenager killing himself with a firearm from his home, I will think of you.

Posted by: JoeTruth | April 18, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Razorback,
Numerous lawsuits have filed against the Patriot Act (including several by the ACLU) for the evisceration of the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. As I've mentioned earlier, you're on a board with several self-described liberals who believe that the Bill of Rights (Second Amendment included) must be protected. Yet your posts seem to reveal little or no respect for any Amendment other than the Second.

Questions: Who's being inconsistent? What has you so frightened that you're willing to hand over your rights to authorities who are either unable or unwilling to protect you?

Posted by: fiver | April 18, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

The Dow Jones industrial average closed above 12,800 for the first time Wednesday,

Blame it on Bush

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

ooo. bY the way. I misspell words on purpose just to mess with you conservatives. I know you have short attension spans and love to attack. I'll give you the misspelled words. Have fun. Attack that if it helps your intelecual point :)

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | April 18, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

LYLEPINKO, are you the same LYLEPINKO that said I was mistaken about the application of the so called "assault weapons" ban? Are you the same LYLEPINKO that I had to correct?

Now LYLEPINKO says:

"A few days before this tragic event, we had a good discussion going until the nuts took over this cite. Any time a valid point is raised, for or agaist, the nut wackos are sure to be found in a matter of minutes."

Was your "good discussion" all of you liberals yacking off, reinforcing their ingnorant intollerant ideological biases without interruption from anyone who disagrees?

Oh for the good ole days when liberals were all about "diversity".

Posted by: Razorback | April 18, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

TO answer the post above...
the level of arrogance of the liberal anti gun people is just awful too.

In fact, the level of arrogance of this debate is abhorrent.

32 students are dead because of an anomaly that is a product of a disturbed society.

I would be appauled to read this if I were one of their parents.

Figure it out people. Society is changing and NOT in a better way. That being said, there is substance in MUDs posting that CHO is a small fraction of the population. It doesnt matter what color creed religion orientation political party ... HE WAS A MANIAC WITH MENTAL DISORDERS.

To take these children's massacre and make it about gun control and politics is RETARDED (no offense to those who's IQ actually falls in the range 75-100 who are suppossed to be Retarded).

IF CHO DID NOT HAVE A GUN, HE WOULD HAVE USED SOMETHING ELSE. We should be talking about WHY youth are so quick to violence now, and WHY people are afraid to report crimes, WHY crimes are not prosecuted ...like stalking, in which someone really can't be prosecuted until they have physically harmed another being...WHY people feared him and yet nothing was done.

Hey Gun Control debaters...which came first, the chicken or the egg? There is not right...

In a UTOPIA it would be nice that we do not have guns and everyone loves each other and nobody is violent. In REALITY that's not the case.

And...if keeping your right to speak freely, such as on this blog, meant you had to bear arms against a oppressive governtment, you would happily take them up.

If you wouldn't you have no right to complain. If you have no desire to protect your rights, then you have no right to fufil your desires...such as that to have an opinion.

That being said, most Gun collectors are not looking for high powered Automatic or Semi Automatic weapons. Most criminals are. And those criminals probably are going to register them.

STOP BEING STUPID and take in that the other side's opinion might have some merritt. BOTH SIDES.

Quit insulting the lost by using their deaths to pummel each other about a moot point. If Cho wanted to kill these people and couldn't buy the gun at a gun shop, he surely could have purchased one from a fellow student or some other ne'er do well in the area.

HIS MOTIVE IS THE ISSUE NOT HIS METHOD.

Posted by: jwelch | April 18, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Jim House: The fallacy exposed by your post is your leap to the conclusion that because something happened after something else happened means that there was a cause and effect. But this is not true. America arguably has the most lax gun laws in the world. Yet our society is also one of the most violent. Your correlation between lax gun laws and a safe society falls apart.

Posted by: Jacie | April 18, 2007 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Dorian, your question does nothing to address the issues I brought up. There was no pamphlet. Now let's discuss the issues. I am not surprised that the kind of silly invective you threw at me, impotent as it is, is about all you can muster against logic and the facts. The best propaganda are facts and logic!

Posted by: JoeTruth | April 18, 2007 4:46 PM | Report abuse

JoeTruth,

What propogandist pamphlet are you quoting?

Posted by: Dorian | April 18, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

After reading the comments precipitated by yet another shooting spree, I am left pondering the illogic of most of the writers. I am sick and tired of silly comments like "guns don't kill people, people do", etc., etc., ad nauseam. To those who use the argument that guns don't kill people, I have to argue that guns sure HELP!!!! Many killings result from temporary loss of self control and emotional instability. The availability of a gun can make all of the difference in the world-- imagine if the latest mass murderer set out to kill 32 people with a only a knife. Another ridiculous claim is that if we are not armed to the teeth, an oppressive power will sweep us aside without resistance. Get real! That's why we have a military, the National Guard, and the police. Furthermore, in modern times such as ours no single family unit can provide effective resistance against that kind of takeover in the absence of organization and coordination. This is a democracy, and anyone trying to take it away from us will have to take on our hi-tech military first. Just won't happen. So let's talk about the real issue. The real issue is that Americans are cultural outliers who have been programmed to believe that guns are as American as apple pie (cherry pie would be a better comparison). There is a macho culture here that promotes the belief that guns empower innocent people and I can't help but think that there is a testicular connection between that primal feeling and the desire to own and fire guns. We have our right to bear arms already expressed in our National Guard, police forces, and our defense department. The person who thinks a gun in his home makes him and his family safer is dreaming. The statistics clearly show that in a ratio of about 16 to 1 a gun in the home is more likely to kill a family member than anyone else. Sorry, but burglars and intruders do not typically attack you at home, and if they do, they've already stacked things up in their favor. The tragic use of firearms in a home can be accounted for from the following possible causes: 1) Accidental firing of a firearm, usually by a child or irresponsible gun owner; 2) Firing of a gun by a playful child; 3) Firing because of mistaken identity (e.g., a teenager goes out to smoke a cigarette and sneaks back into the house at 3 am-- one of the parents only barely makes him out in the dark and shoots him in the head thinking he's an intruder); 4) Suicide by a troubled resident, such as a jilted teenager; 5) Homicide from a crime of passion, an act not impeded by time to cool off. If the use of seat belts has been mandated because of statistical evidence that they help save lives, why can't the same be done with guns? Having a gun is like owning a pet cobra that is left to roam freely around the house. You never know whom and when it will strike. The gun lobbyists and manufacturers cynically disregard the unnecessary deaths of innocent people every year, many of them children and teenagers. I can only believe these people are sociopaths without a conscience.

Posted by: JoeTruth | April 18, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Any of the idiots that keep talking about the unconstitutional Patriot Act need to file a law suit contesting its constitutionality.

Since you probably don't have enough courage of your convictions to try them out in court, why dont you just try listing what it is in the Patriot Act that you find so offensive?

As soon as you provide a list of what is so wrong about the act, and state that public safety does not justify the act's provisions, we will all be able to see what hypocrits you are because if public safety is your excuse to obliterate the second amendment, why isn't public safety sufficient justification to use electronic means to protect the public from terrorists?

Woe unto you HYPOCRITES.

Posted by: Razorback | April 18, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Let's assume that the pro-gun people are correct that the right to bear arms is ab absolute right under the 2nd Amendment.

Now that we don't have to hear justifications for that, I like to see some posts from some of them which actually show some thought and intelligence on how we prevent, or minimize, massacres such as happened at Columbine, at Virginia Tech, etc.

Or, are we doomed to just have to accept them, because they will happen no matter what anybody does?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

In 1915, virtually all of the types of weapons normally acquired by private owners were available. This includes semi-automatic rifles and pistols and shotguns, high capacity magazines, etc. At that time, the homicide rate was less than 1 in 100,000. Yet, 2/3 of households had firearms. Today, that rate is 5.7 per 100,000 (only 30% of those due to firearms). I would suggest that the increase in our national homicide rate, our high violent crime rate (which, incidently is three times lower than that of England, Australia, France, Wales, etc. - the U.S. isn't even in the top ten industized nations with the highest rates of violent crime) and firearm deaths is due to factors other than private ownership of guns. WorldNetDaily cite: http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html
Other statistcs and stuidies, notably one done in Holland in 2005 for the E.U., also bear this out. There is simply too much hysteria by the "true believers" in gun control, who don't care about facts, only about there "feelings" and "hunches".

Posted by: MikeB | April 18, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

My friends if guns go on shooting rampages whos to say that matches didnt walk to Yellowstone and start the infamous "Yellowston Fire". Oh dear we better run background checks and make a waiting period on those strike anywhere kitchen matches

Posted by: James Ward | April 18, 2007 4:37 PM | Report abuse

I'll come back in. Why not. I've been watching. I don't care if anybody in hear agree's with me or not. I am what is called an individual. I watch what I watch, read what I want. I don't need to be told what to think or need your approval. OR be told what is truth by Rush/O'Reilly/Hannity/Coulter. Why be obsessed with me? This issue is not about us. This is not a game. Do you people have children? Do you want their world to be a better place or worst? If worse why? A lot of you people agree with Bush also. How did that work out for you. Conservatives are the lemmings not the lib/democrats. I'm just trying to keep a string of truth in this blog rather than the gun loving murders attacking everyone in here that has something ORIGINAL to say. It's reminds me of the borg on star trek. All one brain. Newt/Rush/Hannity/O'REilly. Without them what would you do? How would you think for yourslef? Does that thought scare you? Without their opinons do you have any?

Posted by: rufus1133 | April 18, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

JOE IT IS YOUR RIGHT TO CHOSE NOT TO DEFEND YOURSELF AND YOUR FAMILY, BUT DO NOT TRY TO FORCE CHOCES UPON ME.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

It's amazing just how gun control really does work!

Gun History

Whether you agree or not, it's an interesting lesson in history. Something to think about...

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

It has now been several years since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a
steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their law abiding prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in
break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our president, governors or other politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans.....before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun
control, please remind them of this history lesson. With gun rights, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends...

lesson here: If you have a gun. Keep
it.......

Posted by: Jim House | April 18, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

I would think it would be the law-abiding gun owners that would be the first to want to keep the Cho Seung-Huis out of their ranks by calling for a more effective background check for gun buyers.

Surely, someone can come up with a better system to keep an unstable person from legally buying a gun.

Posted by: george | April 18, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Ryan Rowley,

As much as it pains me to admit it, you make some very good points and have me thinking.

While I'm still rabidly anti-gun, I like to think there is some kind of middle ground that can be found it between my opposition and your decision to carry a gun.

Posted by: Thin Man | April 18, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Josh, I regret the timing of posting the quote if it causes you personal anguish because of the loss you are dealing with.

I was in Law School when Whitman was shooting from the tower in '66. I lost an acquaintance. Another friend of mine scrambled to pull wounded out of the line of fire for two hours. Another friend of mine was pinned to the floorboard of her car on that 90+ degree day for three hours. That would not have been a good day for me to hear that rights have social costs. Sorry.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | April 18, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Wonder why all the ads on the Rush Limbaugh show are for Vi*gra and baldness cures?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

no one:

Citation???

Posted by: cdw | April 18, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

"The gun lobbyists and manufacturers cynically disregard the unnecessary deaths of innocent people every year, many of them children and teenagers. I can only believe these people are sociopaths without a conscience.

Posted by: JoeTruth"

Did you know that 10% of all crime is gun crime, and about half of the deaths are suicides? Assuming homicides account for ALL the 10% (not true because armed robbery and rape account for a portion), you have a maximum of 5% of crime resulting in death by gun. If you want to talk about missing the forrest for the trees, you have to start hollering about our criminal justice system, which is ineffective against ANY crime.

Posted by: Matt Wright | April 18, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Kudos DCLiberal for an educated post.

I believe it all comes down to the answer to this one simple question...

IF you are EVER in a position where you need a gun to get out of the situation alive (say in a school shooting), wouldn't you prefer to have the ability to shoot back?

If you answered yes, then you need to support pro-gun owner laws. If you said no, you are content to try and unarm an armed killer hell bent on killing as many people as possible, then I wish you luck, and I hope for your family's sake, that you have adequate life insurance (even though suicidal behavior may void it).

People have posted about using other means to defend yourself (i.e. your body, sticks, knives, etc), but face facts people, when they have a gun and you don't, the odds are in the psycho's favor in a very big way.

I carry. I hope I am never in a situation where I need to use my pistol. But if the situation should ever arise, I at least have a chance of coming home to my family, can you say the same?

Posted by: Ryan Rowley | April 18, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Wonder why all the ads on the Rush Limbaugh show are for Viagra and baldness cures?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

It's amazing just how gun control really does work!

Gun History

Whether you agree or not, it's an interesting lesson in history. Something to think about...

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

It has now been several years since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a
steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their law abiding prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in
break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our president, governors or other politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans.....before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun
control, please remind them of this history lesson. With gun rights, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends...

lesson here: If you have a gun. Keep
it.......

Posted by: no one | April 18, 2007 4:27 PM | Report abuse

I guess if mandating that guns be kept with trigger locks or kept in a cabinet are going too far because no one should be able to tell you how to store your gun, then is it okay to keep your children in cages?

No one should be able to tell you what to do with your children either, according to your logic.

Posted by: Thin Man | April 18, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse

It should be even easier for people to run american foreign policy and surrender, especially mentally ill people and SF democrats, but I repeat myself. Then stuff like this wouild happen every day. Every time we go to the grocery, to the mall, to school, to work, to church, ride the bus or drive our cars, we could watch loads of being just geting blown away. It would be so cool, like a movie. and what's better is it would be bush's fault.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Every time GUNS are brought up for discussion the nuts are out in force with the same arguements. A few days before this tragic event, we had a good discussion going until the nuts took over this cite. Any time a valid point is raised, for or agaist, the nut wackos are sure to be found in a matter of minutes. I wonder if they have some sort of plan to disrupt any reasonable talk on this subject.

Posted by: lylepink | April 18, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

anonymous poster who keeps implying (over and over) that people who support Second Amendment rights believe Cho was a hero just exercising his rights:

Please use an identifier so we can respond to your idiocy and move on to someone who actually has a point.

Posted by: fiver | April 18, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

RUFUS WHY DO YOU HAVE SUCH A HARD TIME WITH PEOPLE WHO DO NOT HOLD YOUR OPIONS?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

"Absolutely. Cho is a hero.

Posted by: The person too scared to come up with a name"

You just don't get it, do you? Cho - had he not blwon his brains out - would probably be executed for his crimes based on laws already on the books... So... we shoot him twice? Three times?

Posted by: Matt Wright | April 18, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

After reading the comments precipitated by yet another shooting spree, I am left pondering the illogic of most of the writers. I am sick and tired of silly comments like "guns don't kill people, people do", etc., etc., ad nauseam. To those who use the argument that guns don't kill people, I have to argue that guns sure HELP!!!! Many killings result from temporary loss of self control and emotional instability. The availability of a gun can make all of the difference in the world-- imagine if the latest mass murderer set out to kill 32 people with a only a knife. Another ridiculous claim is that if we are not armed to the teeth, an oppressive power will sweep us aside without resistance. Get real! That's why we have a military, the National Guard, and the police. Furthermore, in modern times such as ours no single family unit can provide effective resistance against that kind of takeover in the absence of organization and coordination. This is a democracy, and anyone trying to take it away from us will have to take on our hi-tech military first. Just won't happen. So let's talk about the real issue. The real issue is that Americans are cultural outliers who have been programmed to believe that guns are as American as apple pie (cherry pie would be a better comparison). There is a macho culture here that promotes the belief that guns empower innocent people and I can't help but think that there is a testicular connection between that primal feeling and the desire to own and fire guns. We have our right to bear arms already expressed in our National Guard, police forces, and our defense department. The person who thinks a gun in his home makes him and his family safer is dreaming. The statistics clearly show that in a ratio of about 16 to 1 a gun in the home is more likely to kill a family member than anyone else. Sorry, but burglars and intruders do not typically attack you at home, and if they do, they've already stacked things up in their favor. The tragic use of firearms in a home can be accounted for from the following possible causes: 1) Accidental firing of a firearm, usually by a child or irresponsible gun owner; 2) Firing of a gun by a playful child; 3) Firing because of mistaken identity (e.g., a teenager goes out to smoke a cigarette and sneaks back into the house at 3 am-- one of the parents only barely makes him out in the dark and shoots him in the head thinking he's an intruder); 4) Suicide by a troubled resident, such as a jilted teenager; 5) Homicide from a crime of passion, an act not impeded by time to cool off. If the use of seat belts has been mandated because of statistical evidence that they help save lives, why can't the same be done with guns? Having a gun is like owning a pet cobra that is left to roam freely around the house. You never know whom and when it will strike. The gun lobbyists and manufacturers cynically disregard the unnecessary deaths of innocent people every year, many of them children and teenagers. I can only believe these people are sociopaths without a conscience.

Posted by: JoeTruth | April 18, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

"You should send a congratulatory card to Cho's family, telling them how proud you are that he exercised his Constitutional rights. Send copies to the victims' families also.

Posted by: Blarg"

I would do so as long as you promise to send a card to Virginia Tech thanking them for their 'gun-free-zone' approach to security.

Posted by: Matt Wright | April 18, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Cho was here legally, and all he was doing was exercising his Constitutional rights, like a good American. I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Hey Blarg, while you are working on those postcards, send one to OJ Simpson's victims, since OJ had a right to a jury trial and the guilty SOB got off.

Posted by: Razorback | April 18, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

"There is simply no need whatsoever for an AK-47 or any other weapon that can shoot hundreds of rounds in a matter of seconds. It's that simple.

Posted by: "

HAHAHAHAHAHA. The full auto (read illegal) version of the Ak-47 shoots about 600 rounds per minute.... divide the seconds, carry the zeros... thats 10 bullets a second.

And if you have an AK-47 on full auto I guarantee you aren't hitting anything. Commanders in Vietnam started fining GIs for using full auto because its just a waste of bullets.

Posted by: Matt Wright | April 18, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

"I am always perfectly fine with any American excersising the Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms."

Absolutely. Cho is a hero.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Everyone interested in the Second Amendment issues should read this now famous, or infamous, law review article:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm

hint:

"...what it meant to take rights seriously is that one will honor them even when there is significant social cost in doing so."

Posted by: Mark in Austin | April 18, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Idiots and their "trigger locks". This shows the complete ingnorance of liberals when it comes to guns.

The Glock pistol used by the crazed immigrant at VT has a safety mechanism in the trigger that is designed to prevent accidental discharge. This mechanism is pushed down by a trigger lock. The trigger lock makes it MORE LIKELY that the gun will accidentally discharge, because it disables the safety mechanism.

Maybe we should debate porn, tofu, purple hair, tattoos, socialism, gay anthems or something else that liberals might actually know something about.

Posted by: ImKeepingMine | April 18, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

It should be even easier for people to buy guns, especially mentally ill people. Then stuff like this wouild happen every day. Every time we go to the grocery, to the mall, to school, to work, to church, ride the bus or drive our cars, we could watch loads of being just geting blown away. It would be so cool, like a movie.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

"I am always perfectly fine with any American excersising the Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms."

You should send a congratulatory card to Cho's family, telling them how proud you are that he exercised his Constitutional rights. Send copies to the victims' families also.

Posted by: Blarg | April 18, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Ok. What is the deal with banning guns? This is obviously not the path to a better America. If gun control were established the responsible gun owners of America would be the ones who suffer. We register our guns and go through all the red tape to buy our guns. Who would benefit from gun control? Criminals. If gun control were established they could be gaurunteed that any upstanding citizen they decided to mess with would be unarmed and helpless. What a great idea gun control is!!!

Posted by: People | April 18, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

--The definition of an assault weapon? It's a conversation I'd like to have, but this is where the problems begin...look how riled up the NRA gets whenever anyone talks about it. Ditto trigger locks, ditto gun cabinets (two points you seem to have ignored in your response).

There is simply no need whatsoever for an AK-47 or any other weapon that can shoot hundreds of rounds in a matter of seconds. It's that simple.--

Thank you, anonymous poster, for proving that you have no idea what an "assault weapon" is. I can therefore assume you have no idea what a semi-automatic weapon is either. Please do some research then come back and have a meaningful discussion.

As for the other points, I'll throw you one more bone and answer your question (even though you can't answer mine): I see no justifiable reason to be forced to use trigger locks or keep my firearms in a locked cabinet; this completely defeats any attempt at using a firearm as a defensive tool. I live alone, so there is no issue with others gaining access to them unless they are already breaking-and-entering, but even if I had children, the onus is on ME to educate my children properly. If a parent is not prepared to do that, then they should not have a weapon in the home.

Posted by: BingMan | April 18, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

--- Yes, I am far more concerned with the constitutional issues than I am with the fear of gun violence. So Josh, that colors my view. Would you have understood an analogy to the notion that passing the Patriot Act in the shadow of 9-11 was ill-timed, because it was driven by fear?

Yes. Yes I would. Point taken.

I lived in Blacksburg for 10 years, and I worked with people who died there, and that probably does color my feelings in this case.

All that said, I think the Patriot Act is a bit more dangerous to our constitution than a federal law that would restrict the sale of semi-automatic firearms and assault rifles.

Posted by: Josh | April 18, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

I would sure love to put all you gun lovers in a room together and lock the door. Now that would be funny.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 4:12 PM | Report abuse


the level of arrogance from the know-it-all gun nuts on this site is astounding.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 4:12 PM | Report abuse

The day after we ban AK-47, some slick will produce an AK-48. The problem with defining "assault" weapons, is whether or not a weapon is an "assault" weapon depends mostly on which end of it you are on.

A "semi-automatic" weapon is a weapon that uses the recoil of the previous shot to load the next shot. Lots of guns like this are used for hunting.

The logic used for banning a speaker from yelling "fire" in a theatre is that it would create a clear and present danger to public safety. Law abiding citizens ownership if firearms does not create a clear and present danger to public safety.

No right is unlimited, but neither should rights be gutted or obliterated by exceptions. The exceptions to the first amendment are clearly lined out by the courts, and the first amendment still protects speech that most would consider very offensive.

Posted by: ImKeepingMine | April 18, 2007 4:11 PM | Report abuse

"If you could explain to me why you need an AK-47 to hunt deer then I'd be satisfied. Otherwsie, outlawing assault weapons strikes me as a common sense restriction on the 2nd ammendment. Similarly, I would submit that keeping the gun in a locked cabinet or with a trigger lock is also common sense.

Try directly answering the question.

Posted by: "

'Common sense' is subjective. No one needs to explain why your personal opinions aren't law.

And your AK-47 and assault weapons comment shows a general ignorance of guns in general. Most major manufacturers of guns make semi-automatic hunting rifles. They all have barrels, they all have magazines, they all go BOOM when you pull the trigger. Banning something based on looks is akin to racism.

AK-47s are cost effective and reliable. Theres a reason they are still in use around the world after 50 years (or whatever it is).

Additionally, hunting calls for 'ethical' killing. Basically, you don't shoot a deer with an handgun and let him bleed out. You kill it as quickly as possible. Not everyone are crack shots, and sometimes well placed shots graze a moving deer. Follow up shots make sure a wounded deer doesnt scamper off to die from infection or starvation.

Posted by: Matt Wright | April 18, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Actually, all I've been doing is stating Hizzoner's positions.

Posted by: Liberal Elite | April 18, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

A lot of hot air here...if you are going to state a "fact" (ie places with conceal carry laws have less gun violence) why don't you back it up with a citation.

There are more than two sides to this issue:
Side one (Republican): I should be able to own and carry what I want without limitation
Side two (Democrat): No guns ever

There are a lot of us (me included) who think that people should be able to own firearms but that there should be "reasonable limitations". Now, there could be a lot of good debate here about whether or not there should be limitations and what they should be. That has not occured, only a lot of name calling and assertions of "fact".

Another point, although this terrible tragedy is serving as a catylst for the discussion, I for one do not believe that reasonable gun control could have stopped it. However, just because a course of action is not effective 100% of the time does not mean it is useless.

Note: I know that I have not put any citations here either but I have also not made any assertions of fact.

Posted by: cdw | April 18, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

What kind of idiot are you? "There is simply no need whatsoever for an AK-47 or any other weapon that can shoot hundreds of rounds in a matter of seconds. It's that simple" what???? Listen if you want to be a flippin left wing crazy person get your facts right he used a .22 handgun and a 9mm pistol.

Posted by: someone | April 18, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Thin Man, I've got to get on the road, but my parting shot would be that I certainly don't agree with your opinion that banning AK-47 ownership represents a common sense approach to stopping gun violence in America. I've explained my position on free speech limitation in earlier posts. I've enjoyed the exchanges, good luck all.

Posted by: stopmakingsense | April 18, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Stopmakingsense: "As written" the second amendment makes no mention of AK-47s.

Posted by: stevieB | April 18, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

"I could make the case that you don't "need" free speech, now couldn't I?"

I don't think so!

Posted by: T. Paine | April 18, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Thin - we have no regulation of free speech as it was originally intended - as protected speech against vilyfying the government. all the modern liberals have tried to alter this to mean the right to say and do anything pleasing to oneself. It is not the first amendment. No one cares about your right to porn, it is your right to publish anti-bush hysterics that is protected. You probably found this other right in a penumbra of an enigma.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

If Guns cause crime then matches cause arson.

Posted by: None | April 18, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

---There is simply no need whatsoever for an AK-47 or any other weapon that can shoot hundreds of rounds in a matter of seconds. It's that simple.---

First, anonymous blogger, this is not a question of need. Need has nothing to do with the debate. I could make the case that you don't "need" free speech, now couldn't I? It's a question of the Constitution, as written. As written, the 2nd Amendment stands.

Posted by: stopmakingsense | April 18, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

"...ban small easily concealable handguns for the same public safety reasons that we don't allow people to own bazookas."

StevieB,
Are you talking about the gum?

Posted by: fiver | April 18, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

the level of arrogance from the know-it-all liberal elite on this site is astounding. they can't even get a straight answer from their leading candidates on any issues yet they have all of OUR problems solved for us. If only we weren't all just like them.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

"My friend Sandy Levinson, a Law Prof at U.T., has written an analysis of the Second Amendment that takes a very pro gun ownership position." - Mark in

Mark - Until last month all I heard all of my life was the case for individual ownership rights under the 2nd Amendment. It wasn't until Parker v. DC that I became aware that there is an equally strong case for the "well regulated militia" approach. What surprised me even more was that pro-militia opinions have been rendered in nurmerous Circuits.

The NRA, and like-minded groups, have so controlled the debate for decades keeping it so focused on the "right to bear arms" phrase, that hardly anybody knows that any Courts have found for the "well regulated militia" side.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

stopmakingsense,

You've gotten to the root of the matter. I submit that banning AK-47s is a common sense limitation on the Second Ammendment. We have limitations on free speech, why not the right to keep a gun?

Posted by: Thin Man | April 18, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

---STOPMAKINGSENSE,
WOULD YOU BE UNHAPPY IF ONE OF THE STUDENTS OR PROF IN THOSE CLASS WHERE THE ATTACKS OCCURED HAD BEEN ARMED? WHY IS THIS NOT ANSEWERED BY ANY OF THE ANTI-GUN GROUP?---

I am always perfectly fine with any American excersising the Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.

Posted by: stopmakingsense | April 18, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

I guess you could say the same thing about your taxes - justify lowering them smarty pants.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Register all firearms, and ban small easily concealable handguns for the same public safety reasons that we don't allow people to own bazookas. You can own a rifle (to protect your home against a criminal or the government) but the rifle must be registered, and the registration must be renewed every two years to be sure you should still be allowed to own a rifle and to ensure that you still know where the rifle is. Problem solved.

Posted by: StevieB | April 18, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

The definition of an assault weapon? It's a conversation I'd like to have, but this is where the problems begin...look how riled up the NRA gets whenever anyone talks about it. Ditto trigger locks, ditto gun cabinets (two points you seem to have ignored in your response).

There is simply no need whatsoever for an AK-47 or any other weapon that can shoot hundreds of rounds in a matter of seconds. It's that simple.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

stopmakingsense, I, like you, am not aware of a specific screening procedure that would have stopped this incident. I tend to see that as a problem. I am not, however, willing to take that as a sign that massacres such as this one are now simply a part of our shared American reality.

If Cho could have been more carefully screened before he was allowed to purchase semi-automatic weapons, a tragedy of this calibre might have been avoided. The same logic, I think, probably applies to a lot of gun violence in America. Not necessarily a majority of it, but in raw numbers of lives lost, enough to make more scrutiny worthwhile.

If you agree with that much, then the question is not should we have more strict screening in place for the purchase of semi-automatic fireamrs, but how should we carry out this screening.

Posted by: Josh | April 18, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Imkeepingmine - I won't miss the tax base walking off to South Carolina as long as they take along cousin Sally Sue, the meth addict, and Jimmy Bob, who keeps killing people while driving drunk and Aunt Lou Lou who's too fat to get through the trailer door.

Posted by: John | April 18, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

I just got back from huffington and now have some interesting points of view.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

---If you could explain to me why you need an AK-47 to hunt deer then I'd be satisfied.---

Well this is really the point, isn't it? The fact that I do not have to JUSTIFY ownership of an AK-47 to hunt deer or for any other reason is exactly what we've all been talking about. This is a RIGHT, not a privelege. You would have to justify to me why I should feel inclined to give up a RIGHT, not the other way around.

Posted by: stopmakingsense | April 18, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

"Why do liberals who want to shred the second amendment, and the fifth amendment...and the first amendment by classifying anything they disagree with as "hate" speech, and trying to ban it."

ImKeepingMine,

When regurgitating Rush Limbaugh's talking points, it is important to keep several things in mind:
-Not all liberals think alike as we are not spoon fed our beliefs by talk radio;
-Liberals are hardly in favor of shredding the First Amendment (unless the ACLU somehow became conservative by fighting for the Neo-Nazis' right to demonstrate in Skokie, IL);
-Many liberals, including several on this board, defend Second Amendment rights; and
-Rush is not a liberal, he hates liberals, he's not qualified to state what liberals believe, and he lies.

Posted by: fiver | April 18, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

STOPMAKINGSENSE,
WOULD YOU BE UNHAPPY IF ONE OF THE STUDENTS OR PROF IN THOSE CLASS WHERE THE ATTACKS OCCURED HAD BEEN ARMED? WHY IS THIS NOT ANSEWERED BY ANY OF THE ANTI-GUN GROUP?

Posted by: GARY COKER | April 18, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

---None of those statements answer the question.---

I did directly answer your questions. Let me clarify further:

1) Yelling "Fire!" is not Constitutionally protected free speech in the first place, as it is not political in nature. The Supreme Court has often said that the primary purpose of the First Amendment is to protect speech that promotes a robust public debate. Therefore, where speech is less valuable--a judgement made on the basis of the speech's category, not its content--it is granted less protection or no protection at all. Furthermore, The government can regulate speech that is intended and likely to incite "imminent lawless action," or where the speech presents a "clear and present danger" to the security of the nation. This is why you cannot yell fire. My point about similarly not being able to brandish a firearm in public addressed your point directly, and also made your comment relevant to this debate.

2 and 3) These are, to my mind, common sense limits on the 2nd Amendment. What sort of "common sense limits" did you have in mind?

Please provide a name when posting. Anonymous posting is both rude and annoying.

Posted by: stopmakingsense | April 18, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Razorback - If you wanted to go to South Carolina according to John's idea, and then secede, that would be okay.

You'd be happy, and we'd be safe!

Posted by: Hillary | April 18, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

If you could explain to me why you need an AK-47 to hunt deer then I'd be satisfied. Otherwsie, outlawing assault weapons strikes me as a common sense restriction on the 2nd ammendment. Similarly, I would submit that keeping the gun in a locked cabinet or with a trigger lock is also common sense.

**************

The problem you are having with this issue is understanding that pro-gun activists NEVER feel that they need an AK-47 to hunt deer. The 2nd Ammendment is NOT about hunting. Nor is it about AK-47s. So, before I bother explaining things further, I'd like YOU to answer a question of mine: What, exactly, makes a firearm an "assault weapon"?

Posted by: BingMan | April 18, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

I'd rather get you back to Ozark Country first; so I'd now exactly where you are.

Posted by: Hillary | April 18, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

""Come and get 'em big boy. Don't send the boys in blue to do something you feel should be done!"-MW
Typical..."-AL

Why should the Police have to fight a politcal war? If you have a spine to fight for something you believe in, then fight. But if you take up arms for your cause then that would put you in the gun nut crowd. Welcome to the Monkey House

Posted by: Matt Wright | April 18, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

I second jwelch comment that muD's post is the best one so far.

I would just note that both sides of the issue are using the Virginia Tech massacre to support their own beliefs.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Hillary, why dont you show that you have a pair by calling for more gun control, instead staying silent because of a cynical political calculation.

Posted by: Razorback | April 18, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Fiver, thanks for the citation; I will read it.

My friend Sandy Levinson, a Law Prof at U.T., has written an analysis of the Second Amendment that takes a very pro gun ownership position.

Yes, I am far more concerned with the constitutional issues than I am with the fear of gun violence. So Josh, that colors my view. Would you have understood an analogy to the notion that passing the Patriot Act in the shadow of 9-11 was ill-timed, because it was driven by fear?
Jihadi terrorism is real all the time, but our response to it in the law should not discard the Constitution as a mandatory framework of limitations on the power of government, driven by the emotion of the moment.

At the least, I would be comfortable arguing that position against either the Patriot Act's excesses or against sweeping federal gun control legislation.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | April 18, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

None of those statements answer the question.

1. I wasn't talking about the legality of yelling "Fire!". I was using it an an example of a common sense restriction on Free Speech. You obfuscated and avoided directly answering the question.

2. The examples you cite, such as owning an RPGs and tanks are certainly not what I was talking about in terms of common sense.

3. Ditto in terms of keeping the gun unloaded and transporting ammunition seperately.

If you could explain to me why you need an AK-47 to hunt deer then I'd be satisfied. Otherwsie, outlawing assault weapons strikes me as a common sense restriction on the 2nd ammendment. Similarly, I would submit that keeping the gun in a locked cabinet or with a trigger lock is also common sense.

Try directly answering the question.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Razorback, please come home.

Posted by: Hillary | April 18, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

A QUESTION NO CONSERVATIVE OR PRO-GUN POSTER HAS YET TO ANSWER:

Why do you accept limitation on your First Ammendment rights (such as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater) but you reaqct violently when anyone dares to similarly impose some common sense restrictions on the Second Ammendment.

The silence on this question (which has been posed several times) is deafening.

********

Well, if you would bother to READ the posts you'd have seen that there has been at least 2 replies to this throughout the day. As for my reply to it:

You'd think that with 30000 gun laws on the books, there'd have to be some "common sense" ones already in place. I wonder which ones you feel are NOT common sense.

And I'll take your theater analogy a bit farther and propose that every one of the pro-gun posters on here today would agree to not only refrain from yelling "Fire" needlessly in a theater, but also not to discharge any weapons needlessly in one either.

(Now hopefully you will read this and not keep reposting the same item repeatedly.)

Posted by: BingMan | April 18, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

THE ONLY WAY TO STOP MAD PEOPLE, IS FOR EACH PERSON ACCEPT THE RESPONABILITY OF THERE SAFETY, AND BE PREPARIED TO PROTECT THEMSELFS, WITH DEADLY FORCE IF SUCH IS REQUIRED. BUY A GUN AND CARRY IT WITH YOU THEN YOU DO NOT NEED TO WATE FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO TAKE CARE OF YOU.

Posted by: GARY COKER | April 18, 2007 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Josh, we do have a difference of opinion. I am simply trying to understand yours. I am not aware of a specific screening procedure that would have stopped this incident, but I also do not accept the premise that this proves the "lax screening procedures" argument. I'm simply not following how you can identify lax screening as a causal link in this chain of events.

Posted by: stopmakingsense | April 18, 2007 3:44 PM | Report abuse

---A QUESTION NO CONSERVATIVE OR PRO-GUN POSTER HAS YET TO ANSWER---

This question has been answered in several ways, but let me clear it up for you:

1) Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater is not necessarily illegal. It is only illegal if there is no actual fire, since such an action may lead to injury or death resulting from unnecessary panic. This would be equivalent to the fact that it is unlawful to brandish a firearm in public, unless you are doing so for a lawful purpose, i.e., defending yourself from an assailant.

2) We have already accepted limits on the 2nd Amendment. For example, convicted felons cannot own firearms. Certain weapons, such as RPGs and Tanks with working main guns are also illegal.

3) We have further accepted limits in the form of laws governing how we may "bear arms." For example, in some states, the ammunition must be transported separately from the weapon, etc.

Why was that so difficult to understand?

Posted by: stopmakingsense | April 18, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Razorback - If you had much credibility prior to the 3:24 pm post, you lost it all with that.

What a stupid statement. LYLEPINKO and I were debating the application of the so called assault weapons ban. What he said was false, and what I said was true, and I proved it by citing a gun control advocacy cite that says the law is exactly what I said it was. LYLEPINKO has no credibility on this issue. I cannot say whether or not he lies about other issues, but he lied about this one.

Posted by: Razorback | April 18, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Why do liberals who want to shred the second amendment, and the fifth amendment (unless they think government should pay for all the guns they think it should confiscate) and the first amendment by classifying anything they disagree with as "hate" speech, and trying to ban it.

Why do they keep rattling on about Bush shredding the constitution? Are they unfamiliar with the most basic concept of logical consistency?

Posted by: ImKeepingMine | April 18, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

--- how does this situation remind anyone of the "consequences of inconsistent enforcement and lax screening procedures?" What does it have to do with either? Please show me what law was inconsistently enforced, or what screening procedure was lax in this case?

stopmakingsense, the lax screening procedures I had in mind were the ones that culminated in the sales of two semi-automatic weapons to Cho Seung-Hui.

I see that as the definition of a lax screening procedure. Perhaps this is where our points-of-view begin to differ.

Posted by: Josh | April 18, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Loudounian is smarter than Lylepinko. He/she/it will not state facts for me to shoot down.

Lylepinko lied about the application of the so called "assault weapons ban".

Can you defend Lylepinko, Loudounian? If you can, go for it. If you can't, stand down and shut up.

Posted by: Razorback | April 18, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

---It's certainly ironic that the same people who cherish fantasies of opposing an oppresive American government with their fire arms tend to support a president who wishes he could just be king and shred that pesky Constitution.---

John, why do you keep insisting on trying to make this a debate about (twice elected) President Bush? What we are talking about has NOTHING to do with the President.

Posted by: stopmakingsense | April 18, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Razorback, come back home.

Posted by: W. J. Clinton | April 18, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Razorback - If you had much credibility prior to the 3:24 pm post, you lost it all with that.

Lylepink is a regular poster on this blog, and straight forward in their beliefs and has not been previously accused of lying or being a Communist.

Changing the name to Lylepinko juts placed you in the tinfoil hat, "They're storming the Beaches" Brigade.

You just gave more credibility to lylepink.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 3:32 PM | Report abuse

A QUESTION NO CONSERVATIVE OR PRO-GUN POSTER HAS YET TO ANSWER:

Why do you accept limitation on your First Ammendment rights (such as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater) but you reaqct violently when anyone dares to similarly impose some common sense restrictions on the Second Ammendment.

The silence on this question (which has been posed several times) is deafening.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 3:32 PM | Report abuse

LYLEPINKO confess your lie. Confession is good for the soul.

Posted by: Razorback | April 18, 2007 3:32 PM | Report abuse

razorback never lets facts get in the way of a good screed.

Posted by: Loudounian | April 18, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

John says:
What ever happened to that wonderful idea thought up by some conservative whack jobs where all the God, gays and guns nut cases would move to South Carolina and secede. It will be a pity if it never comes to pass.

You arn't really for that, Johnnyboy. You don't want to see the tax base walk off. Ever heard of suburban sprawl? We are trying to get away, and you taxing liberals keep chasing us.

Posted by: ImKeepingMine | April 18, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

It's certainly ironic that the same people who cherish fantasies of opposing an oppresive American government with their fire arms tend to support a president who wishes he could just be king and shred that pesky Constitution. By the way, your little fire arms won't be of much use against a government that sold Sadam Hussein the chemical weapons he used to kill the Kurds.

Posted by: John | April 18, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Just think - gun control ~ may be the reason that THE shooter did all the shooting..... If they had legal carry
(CCW) someone -be that a student or instructor- may very well have stop him from all the killing......

If a gun is used in a crime - ANY TYPE
-- then it should carry a automatic
seven (7) years sentence in addition
to whatever the sentence the crime itself carries.... no time off for 'being
good' in jail/no early out/no nothing =
YOU do the crime U do the time......
hey-you bleeding hearts have them crooks/
muggers/rapist/robbers live with you-
if you feel so sorry for them............

Posted by: PoorRichard | April 18, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

We should ALL carry concealed weapons? THAT'S going to keep us safe? Everyone carrying loaded weapons makes for a safe society? Yeah right.

Posted by: StevieB | April 18, 2007 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Lylepinko it was just fine to buy any gun or clip you wanted as long as it had a date stamp which said it was made prior to the ban.

"The 1994 Act did not, however, prohibit the continued transfer or possession of assault weapons or large capacity ammunition magazines manufactured before the law's effective date (including those manufactured in other countries). Manufacturers took advantage of this loophole by boosting production of assault weapons and large capacity magazines in the months leading up to the ban, creating a legal stockpile of these items. In addition, manufacturers successfully circumvented the law by making minor modifications to the weapons they produced. As a result, assault weapons and large capacity magazines continued to be readily available - and legal - nationwide, except where specifically banned by state or local law without these loopholes."

This is not what I say, this is what the Legal Community Against Violence (expertise, information & advocacy to end gun violence)says.

http://www.lcav.org/content/mllargecapacityprint.asp

LYLEPINKO, you just got busted for telling a LIE.

Posted by: Razorback | April 18, 2007 3:24 PM | Report abuse

' I'll pray for your children for you. Hopefully they will revolt against you when they turn 18 and we can re-build this country for the better. '

These are the kind of folks whose teenagers eventually murder with their own guns -- and people wonder why.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 3:20 PM | Report abuse

I should have put my name on the "Demagogue" post. I was trying to do some name-dropping of my own to keep in line with RUFUS1133. In my years of listening to Conservative talk, I have never heard one of them throw out a speech like that one back in 1988. You want to spar about hate speech? Answer the question in my last post.

Posted by: DBS | April 18, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

---Most of the mass murders, especially at schools, are perpetrated by Angry White Republican Men.---

You mean like at VT? Do you have any facts to back this up, or are you simply resorting to name-calling because you cannot fashion a coherent argument or articulate your position clearly?

Posted by: stopmakingsense | April 18, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse


Do you know who we are? Fear is our sales pitch and hate is our stock in trade. We are here to save you from the heretic, the Jew, the Catholic, the gypsy, the witch, the infidel, the Communist, the Negro, the secular humanist, or the racist. Follow us, give us money, publicity, and votes, and we'll save you fom the bogeyman. And if the bogeyman doesn't exist, we'll invent him.

...We're here to hurl reckless accusations and to slander innocent people. We're here to murder liberals...

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

damnit..
MUD you win in my book for best post.

Posted by: jwelch | April 18, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

'some will resort to name-calling (i.e., challenging the IQ of those who do not share their opinions) and the like when they cannot make a coherent argument or clearly articulate their opinions.'

you mean like all the insane, low IQ gun nuts here?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

What ever happened to that wonderful idea thought up by some conservative whack jobs where all the God, gays and guns nut cases would move to South Carolina and secede. It will be a pity if it never comes to pass.

Posted by: John | April 18, 2007 3:14 PM | Report abuse

To all you weekend warriors advocating "concealed carry" - think of all the people you know. Not just your friends or hunting buddies - ALL of them. Would you trust each and every one of them to keep his or her cool in a stressful situation - argument with a neighbor, minor traffic accident, speeding ticket, cheated on by your significant other, reprimanded or even fired at work, or even just bullying, name-calling, etc. - if he or she were armed? Think about it. I certainly would not trust everyone I might meet on a random day...
Please note that I am NOT claiming that gun owners are on average any more unstable than the rest of us are. But in advocating concealed carry permits, you are placing an enormous amount of trust in everyone you see... inevitably including those members of any group who are intoxicated, disturbed, bitter, or just plain bad people. Some might respond - "That's why YOU yourself have to be armed, to fight back." Is that really the kind of world we choose to live in?

Posted by: it only takes one | April 18, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

GunNuts don't usually get to shoot, they just collect.


Nut Nuts shoot. Or stab, or poisoin, or drown, or strangle.

Gun Nuts usualy have large collections, but like the erectile dysfuntional, they come to the party but don't get to shoot.

Here's another topic for debate...the country is up in arms because the first killing took place at the dorm "domestic dispute" at 7:15 -- then the others two hours later...hindsight is screaming, we should have shut the campus down...

How many people are aware when a domestic dispute takes place in your neighborhood? I don't mean on your street or block, but in your township of 20,000? Let's debate this too.

Thru tomorrow cause this time, Im really going.

Posted by: jwelch | April 18, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

"Liberals who tie law enforcements hands are the first ones to complain when something bad is not prevented."

Razorback,
Who tied law enforcement's hands at Virginia Tech or at Columbine? There were plenty of them there, heavily armed, and they didn't even try to stop the attacks.

Law enforcement protects its own- not the public. Why are you so willing to give up your rights to authorities that have no obligation to protect you?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

I've said enough. I leave you conservatives to your sad existance. If you want hate, keep it. If you want lies, keep it. If you want to kill, do that.

If I can help to save just one of your souls a day, the day was a success. A christian can never be for war. Follow the christ not the church.

Good luck. I'll pray for your children for you. Hopefully they will revolt against you when they turn 18 and we can re-build this country for the better. All POWER BACK TO THE PEOPLE.

Posted by: rufus1133 | April 18, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

A disproportionate number of murders are committed by African-American males, stupid.

Posted by: NappyHeadedHo | April 18, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Razorback: Get your FACTS straight before you start claiming someone is mistaken. My post was/is 100% accurate.

Posted by: lylepink | April 18, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Other countries, especially those that hate us, are happy to sell us guns. Because americas kill lots of other americans with them.

Most of the mass murders, especially at schools, are perpetrated by Angry White Republican Men.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 3:09 PM | Report abuse

There are four general categories of gun deaths.
1. Suicide and accidents. Accidents are rare and suicide is a mental health issue.

2. Acts of passion. When people kill family members, relatives and those they are sleeping with. I had a friend murdered four years and eighteen days ago by his girlfriend's ex. The human stain that did it then shot himself.

3. Crime. Mostly criminals killed, but also cab drivers, convenience store workers and other innocent bystanders.

4. Serial killers and mass murderers. Biology is not a nine sigma process, there are going to be a certain number of defectives in a population of 300 million.

Then there is tobacco, alcohol and cars. I don't want people to die and draconian gun laws would probably have prevented my friend's murder, but I still don't support draconian gun laws. Because that is what you need to prevent (most) mass murderers. Serial killers will use other means (many, if not most do) and suicides will too. Sanely written drug laws would take a big chunk out of the crime death category and cost the nation a hell of a lot fewer tax and health care dollars.

It's natural to want your government to do something to make this never happen again. Passing an unfunded law here and there restricting gun access will not prevent the next gun massacre. Others will write better pieces about the opportunities missed in stopping this human stain. But I don't believe a draconian gun law is the correct answer. If you want different gun laws to address a different aspect (not mass murder) of gun deaths that is your prerogative. But don't exploit this tragedy to sell it.

Posted by: muD | April 18, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

"We are the Demagogogues"

Do you know who we are? Fear is our sales pitch and hate is our stock in trade. We are here to save you from the heretic, the Jew, the Catholic, the gypsy, the witch, the infidel, the Communist, the Negro, the secular humanist, or the racist. Follow us, give us money, publicity, and votes, and we'll save you fom the bogeyman. And if the bogeyman doesn't exist, we'll invent him.
...We're here to hurl reckless accusations and to slander innocent people. We're here to talk about "crackers," "gutter religions," and "Uncle Toms." ...We'll threaten the public safety if we have to; "Someone may show up with a grenade."
...Yesterday we are Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizards. Today we are Sharpton, Maddox, Mason, and Farrakhan.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Josh, how does this situation remind anyone of the "consequences of inconsistent enforcement and lax screening procedures?" What does it have to do with either? Please show me what law was inconsistently enforced, or what screening procedure was lax in this case?

Posted by: stopmakingsense | April 18, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Lets debate? No need to debate, we already know the answer. When the FBI went light on the Islamic extremist arrested in Minnesota in the weeks before 9/11 for fear of being accused of profiling, what did the liberals do?

Did they defend the fact that someone has not been profiled? Or did they accuse those who had been browbeaten into not profiling of failing to connect the dots thereby allowing the attach to occur?

Liberals who tie law enforcements hands are the first ones to complain when something bad is not prevented.

Arrest someone based on a play they wrote? Arrest someone because of mental illness? Stigmatize someone because of mental illess? Target an immigrant just because they listen to the same rock song over and over? Is that what we should have done to prevent this attack?

Posted by: Razorback | April 18, 2007 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Me thinky crazy CHAINSAW boy might have used other methods to kill. Sadly, he was able to do so with semi automatic weapons.

PS Everyone, I have wasted enough of my employer's money for the day...

but to quote some person who said this, the "they" in the term "they say"...

Vote like you think it counts!

woo hoo
see you all tomorrow.

Posted by: jwelch | April 18, 2007 3:05 PM | Report abuse

If the people abuse their rights, then they should be taken away. The law is designed to provide an orderly society. When the law supports mayhem, it needs adjustment. The constitution doesn't necessarily need to be changed. The States have the authority to limit the amount and type of weapons available. Hopefully, this massacre of innocents will be the catalyst to bring forth the necessary restrictions.

Posted by: Lay-z | April 18, 2007 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Let's make policy based on one nut out of millions of normal people. We Libs can control behavior, you'll see. Our favorite president controlled his taste for fat chicks and only partook in one that we admit to during his tenure. see it can be done with proper supervision by hillary. vote for her and all your troubles will be handled by the village.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 3:05 PM | Report abuse

We shouldn't ban guns -- we should ban gun nuts. Guns don't kill people, gun nuts do.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Rufus1133, you are the only one still framing the debate in terms of liberal sources vs. conservative sources. I think we are all open to facts, so long as they are "facts", as the term is commonly defined.

Posted by: stopmakingsense | April 18, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

stopmakingsense:

I agree, the empirical data that has been collected is not sufficient to make a normative judgment on whether or not gun ownership is a positive thing. I also recognize that there are cases in which previously "law-abiding" citizens have used firearms to commit crimes.

What I do submit is that (1). Based on the data, the situation in which a "law-abiding" (no previous history of contact with the criminal system or mental illness) citizen misuses a firearm is far rarer than the public debate would suggest, and (2). Given that our continent is already totally saturated with guns, gun laws cannot have any significant effect on preventing criminals from obtaining guns. Therefore, the net effect of "law-abiding" citizens owning firearms is not significantly detrimental to public safety, it is pretty close to a wash.

Posted by: DC Liberal | April 18, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

REVOLUTION BROTHER!!!

I want to start the Conservative Constitutionalist Polar Bear Platform Party. If I raise enough money, I can be president. And, I will endorse my opinion on gun control to the highest bidder.

Anyone in?

(PS..I am really upset about the polar bears, therefore they are part of my platform...by the way, the don't have opposable thumbs, but are considered maniacs in the animal world.)

Posted by: jwelch | April 18, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

The last few posts (particularly from Mark and DC Liberal) demonstrate a really important point. This debate does not have to fall along party lines; nor need any solutions be polarized.

That said, I disagree with Mark a bit. I think now is the precise time to make decisions about gun control.

Mark, I think the grocery-store-on-a-fast analogy verges on specious. While we constantly need food, we do not feel a constant need for smart gun legislation.

The VT slaughter serves to remind our voting public of the consequences of inconsistent enforcement and lax screening procedures. The needless deaths of those students and professors turn an otherwise idealogical argument into a practical discussion.

Posted by: Josh | April 18, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Don't give them facts DC Liberal. It is moot. I can give facts all day. Any website that is not conservative based is bias and partisan, in their eyes. All info must come from one of four sources only. The info has to be something they can understand. Make sure it came from a "good" source, like Rush/Coulter /Hannity/O'Reilly. Anything else is blocked out as liberal

Posted by: rufus1133 | April 18, 2007 3:01 PM | Report abuse

It is interesting to note that America buys guns from a lot of countries, Austria the Glock used by Cho, China the AK47 automatic assault rifle among others, and
we buy them by the boat load, yet non of these countries allow their own people to just randomly buy guns, they*ve got us over a barrel and are kicking us right up the you know what.

Posted by: Charles | April 18, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

We not only need to get rid of the secondt amendment, we also need to get rid of the fifth amendment, which states that the goverment cannot confiscate property without just compensation.

My guns are for sale at the market rate.

And these liberals are always bloviating about their concern for the bill of rights. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Posted by: AnswerOne | April 18, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Im with you on that one Chris. I'm afraid he would have carried out his biding with some other form of destruction, but it is damn hard to mass murder or drive by with a muzzel loader. The only problem I have with the database is just as posted above, big brother is watching, and may need a list of gun owners so that they know who to take them from. But, I'm okay with that. Because they will have to "pry it out of my cold dead hands"..oh wait, I don't own a gun.

But I like that I can, and have no problem being screened for it. I do not however need a semi automatic weapon. Gun's wouldn't make me a killer either. Anger, rage, mental illness, inability to control my emotions, inability to discern reality from fantasy...these things might.

Let's debate this: Would the student's rights have been violated if the teacher went to the press or dean and said, this guy is a lunatic, let's kick him out of college...or did the professor single him out by having security check on him and suggesting counseling, therefore furthering his mania and rage.

Or would he be able to sue based on being racially profiled or singled out. Would Stephen King or Rick Baker have been singled out for their writing, granted neither had been accused of stalking, but where do we draw the line with..."that person bothers me so they can't be in my world."

Let's debate ...GO....

Posted by: jwelch | April 18, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin,

No, the Second Amendment has not been incorporated through the Fourteenth. The issue has not yet been addressed. (See, e.g. Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007)).

The Second Amendment is, of course, applicable to federal gun control laws (as well as D.C.)

Posted by: fiver | April 18, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Libs are on the run. watch out for rabid biting. they have lost the gun debate in the court and now are showing the last throws of looniness. they are beginning to lose the abortion debate today in the court too. soon they will lose the surrender debate. It is tough dissappearering into irrelevance.

thanks for some sense from DCLiberal

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

See what I mean, Rufus1133 is still finding some way to squeeze in the names of conservative talk hosts in every post. You sound close to needing a strait jacket. Give me one good example or at least some evidence of damage those you keep naming have created. And I don't mean an instance of where some weenie getting their feelings hurt. Maybe if people like you weren't condoning the weenie-ization of America through political correctness, the incident at VA Tech would not have happened. But we cannot call the lunatic on his close to insane attitude and behavior in past years because his feelings may get hurt or we may be violating his civil rights in some odd way.

Posted by: DBS | April 18, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Answer one question - how will you eliminate all the guns currently out there?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin: Thats is, lawyer all around the issue. And when we are done, all of the liberal vices (dope, crime, abortion, porn) are protected by the Constitution and all of the conservative vices (guns, football, red meat, fried foods, hunting, capitalism) can be banned.

Liberals seem to think freedom means that their vices can be promoted while the vices they do not like can be banned.

And by the way Mark, look up the recent DC Circuit Second Amendment case. Many appeals yet to come, but the gunners won that one.

Posted by: ImKeepingMine | April 18, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

DCLiberal, you have just elevated the debate. Congratulations are in order.

As an aside, I would submit that empirical data alone is not sufficient to make the point that gun ownership by law abiding citizens is a positive thing. I would also submit that no matter how much vetted, peer-reviewed, objective empirical data you provide, some will resort to name-calling (i.e., challenging the IQ of those who do not share their opinions) and the like when they cannot make a coherent argument or clearly articulate their opinions.

Posted by: stopmakingsense | April 18, 2007 2:47 PM | Report abuse

"Come and get 'em big boy. Don't send the boys in blue to do something you feel should be done!"


Typical...

Posted by: Al | April 18, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

What we have right now on the books for gun control laws is not working. No one to hear the word no anymore. Our kids don't want to hear it. Parents don't want to hear it. Congress doesn't want to hear it. We are too lax with our gun laws nationally.

Posted by: Chris | April 18, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Trying to make gun laws based on the recent despicable actions of a lone crazed gunman is akin to grocery shopping on a two day fast - the feelings overcome the common sense.

There may be room for more "sensible" gun laws within the ambit of the Second Amendment but this is actually the very worst time to argue about it.
-------------------------------------
I remember the taciturn Mike Mansfield telling an interviewer that "New York may need stricter gun laws, but Montana does not." I suspect, in an atmosphere of calm, we might recognize that to remain a correct statement of fact.
---------------------------------------
I read the Second Amendment as a limitation on Congress, not upon the states. I invite other lawyers to share their views. I do not think the Court has ever incorporated the Second as applicable to the states, through the Fourteenth, as it has the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sith, and Eighth. I stand to be corrected as I took Con Law in 1965...

Posted by: Mark in Austin | April 18, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

You are obviously ignorant of the majority of gun law in the U.S.

Most states have more stringent guidlines than what you have suggested. Do a little research before you post out your ...

BTW, I am not a member of the NRA, nor am I affiliated with any political party.

Posted by: Dorian | April 18, 2007 2:43 PM | Report abuse

I know Chris and his ilk very well. It was party time for them when gun nut Webb defeated George Allen to give the Dems control of the Senate. Now they are all complaining about the politicians refusal to act. They compromised. They liked it, so get over it.

Posted by: Razorback | April 18, 2007 2:43 PM | Report abuse

I'm disappointed by the amount of misinformation, illogic, and baiting here. If people actually want to read peer reviewed work on the issue, it is readily available: I would suggest "Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? (62 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596). Of course, peer reviewed studies are really long and usually include large words, so, you know . . . no one reads them.

Anyway, like the author's of that study, I am an avowed liberal who has come to recognize that the criminology data supports some surprising conclusions: that firearm ownership by ordinarily responsible individuals does not cause an increase in violent or criminal behavior, that the defensive value of firearms is underestimated in the public debate, that gun control regulations are exceptionally difficult to enforce against criminals, and that because in any society the number of firearms is sufficient to arm those who want to use them illegally, the effect of gun laws on the criminal use of guns is marginal in the best case.

That said, I do believe in the strictest possible enforcement of current law, and would not be opposed to far increasing the level of scrutiny applied to those wanting to purchase firearms, handguns in particular. I do not find my opinion to be irreconcilable with an individual right to bear arms, which I support.

Posted by: DC Liberal | April 18, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

*National 3 day waiting period. All states, Register all guns with photo ids of owners. History of mental illness- No guns your profile added to the data base. No guns for you. No automatic or semi automatic guns to be ever sold. No multi mega bullet clips . Outlaw them all! I'm so tired of the complaceny! We can't do this anymore.*

Come and get 'em big boy. Don't send the boys in blue to do something you feel should be done!

Posted by: Matt Wright | April 18, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

*Bobby, how does having guns make it possible to rebel against the government? The government has more guns than you could ever have. They also have tanks, bombers, aircraft carriers, and a military consisting of several hundred thousand well-trained soldiers. Whether or not you have a shotgun, you're going to lose that fight.

Posted by: Blarg*

So the government puts down an insurrection by destroying its own infrastructure and economy... Uh huh.

Posted by: Matt Wright | April 18, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Wow, Razorback. You must know Chris really well.

I entered this discussion wondering how so many people could support lax gun control laws. Now I'm wondering how so many people manage to feed themselves and not aspirate on their own vomit while they sleep.

Posted by: Josh | April 18, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Profiling is wrong, don't you know nuthin? Why ban people from airplanes, when you can ban shampoo instead?

What will they propose next? To arrest all of the mentally ill immigrant playrights?

Posted by: DrPhil | April 18, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Chris, gun registration is the first step in gun confiscation. If you don't believe me, then do your homework and see what happened in Canada and Australia. First, they made it illegal to own non-registered firearms. Then, they used the lists of registered gun owners to go around and confiscate the firearms. That will not be allowed to happen here, and the reason is that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be infringed."

Posted by: stopmakingsense | April 18, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

DrPhil: And just what is so wrong with profiling?

Posted by: Dan W | April 18, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Chris says: I'm so tired of the complaceny! We can't do this anymore.

That is a big lie Chris. You don't care about the complaceny. Complaceny is just fine when it is part of Hillary or Barack's political calculation.

You will be foaming at the mouth to vote liberal, even though they are throwing you under the bus on gun issues. Complaceny is just fine with you. Just another political calculation.

Posted by: Razorback | April 18, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Apr 18, 10:45 AM (ET)

By ADAM GELLER

(AP) Reagan Cannon of Halifax, Va., left, embraces friend Rececca Buckman, also of Halifax, in front of...
Full Image



Google sponsored links
Reverse Lookup - Enter Phone Number & Find Caller. (Free website reveals all!)
www.realistic-choice.com

People Finder - Free - Find old friends, family & lovers. Or see who is looking for you!
www.reunion.com



BLACKSBURG, Va. (AP) - The gunman blamed for the deadliest shooting in modern U.S. history had previously been accused of stalking two female students and had been taken to a mental health facility in 2005 after his parents worried he might be suicidal, police said Wednesday.

HOW DARE YOU STIGMITIZE PEOPLE WITH MENTAL ILLNESS THAT WAY. WHY, THAT IS JUST AS BAD AS PROFILING.

Posted by: DrPhil | April 18, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

jwelch: Thank you for articulating that so well.

Posted by: Josh | April 18, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

National 3 day waiting period. All states, Register all guns with photo ids of owners. History of mental illness- No guns your profile added to the data base. No guns for you. No automatic or semi automatic guns to be ever sold. No multi mega bullet clips . Outlaw them all! I'm so tired of the complaceny! We can't do this anymore.

Posted by: Chris | April 18, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Not screen them. But if they have a record of racism, lying, propoganda, misinformation, hate-speech. They should be labeled as such, as Imus. He made money off SOME of the above. He should stand up and be responsible for his statments. The market decided it didn't want a racist on the air anymore. In the case of Rush/Hannity/Coulter/O'REilly you people line up to defend them. How many times have they admitted they were wrong in the last 5 years. Wrong and right doesn't matter. ONLY THE RATINGS. Put an execution on tv and check the ratings. Just cause we can doesn't mean we should. That is the differance. Simple doublethink.

Posted by: rufus1133 | April 18, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Left left left, its all about me left wing. I want to sit on my butt and have free health care, I don't care of someone else has to pay double. I don't like guns, so ban them. To hell with the second amendment. I dont like right wing talk, so to hell with the first amendment.

Since I like porn and the government wants to ban it, doesn't that prove that Pat Robertson is against the constitution.

Left left left, its good to be left. All my vices are protected by the constitution and everyone else vices should be banned.

Oh, and by the way, you are an idiot and I am so much smarter than you.

Leave Rosie alone, she is cute.

Gotta run to the Obama rally, he is going to bring America together so everyone with think like me.

Posted by: NappyHeadedHo | April 18, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Rufus1133, it's your reasoning that is faulty here. You want them pulled from the airwaves simply because they do not espouse your beliefs, when what you should be supporting is their inherent right to disagree with you and others who share your opinions. This is the essence of free speech in a democratic society. Because you do not agree with them, you villify them by labeling them "hate-mongers" and blame them for all of the country's ills. Who says you are right?

Posted by: stopmakingsense | April 18, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

So we should screen people and try to prevent outbreaks of violence? Sounds like Cheney's preemption doctrine to me.

Posted by: ImKeepingMine | April 18, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

RIght, Right Right. It's all about me, right right-wing? It's about Rosie and the media and sean penn and lawyers and judges and blah and blah blah. It's all our fault right? It's everybody who is not a conservative's fault. Conservatives are above reproch though, right? I, rufus1133 on a post, can't call for Rush/Hannity/O'Reilly but each can demand to a ntional tv crowd Rosie be pulled from the air everyday, right? That's your American right?

Posted by: rufus1133 | April 18, 2007 2:21 PM | Report abuse

---about one third of California's prison population is first- or second-generation immigrant

What percentage of America is first- or second-generation immigrant? I'm a regular American by just about everyone's standard, but my parents are second-generation. Where does this argument eventually go? Only Natives are good citizens? Somehow, I don't think that's what you meant.

Posted by: Josh | April 18, 2007 2:21 PM | Report abuse

There we go. Point proven. Instead of focusing on the fact that gun control would not have stopped the guy who wanted to kill people with chainsaws and hammers...we now have a intriguing debate of ...

You're a retard vs. You're a retard.

GUN CONTROL and the steps we have already taken are working very well. Can't you tell? Great news the mental health screening portion of this student's application did a stunnig job at predicting that he is was a potential mass murderer. However, after reading this mind numbing banter of Liberals are stupid vs Progressives and Republicans and Democrats are stupid... I see no point in the propogation of society anyway. Why don't you all turn on your talk radio so you can respectively be told what you are suppossed to think for the day.

The rest of us really are thinking about the parents, friends, and family of 32 people who suffered an unnecessary death, at the hands of a maniac.

The simple minded are quick to say:"Well if there were no guns then those kids wouldn't have died".


Let's remove everyones thumbs. If you don't have a thumb than you can't pull a trigger. The opposable thumb therefore is to blame. Damn evolution.

Posted by: jwelch | April 18, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Nice one, Imkeepingmine. For what it's worth, in the great State of Texas, it is perfectly legal to shoot at trespassers. Funny thing is, it sure seems to cut down on trespassing.

Posted by: stopmakingsense | April 18, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

rufus1133, your last two or three posts are rather incoherent. I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but it seems evident that you support neither the 1st or 2nd Amendments.

Posted by: stopmakingsense | April 18, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

I am ignorant coward. Please ignore me if I talk myself in circles. sometimes I make so much sense I can't keep up with myself. I am off to cut and paste. I'll be back when I find something good to think.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

To Niceday who posted earlier this morning... Al Gore didn't lose West Virginia in the election because of his strong stance on gun control and the environment...he lost it because he is a boob.

Posted by: elcie | April 18, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

"For instance, yelling fire in a crowded movie theater does not count as free speech."

Thin Man,

That is possibly the most mis-used Oliver Wendell Holmes quote ever.

You are not only entitled to yell fire in a crowded theater, but also, if you are ever in a a crowded theater and see a fire, many people would appreciate your saying something.

Posted by: fiver | April 18, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like immenent danger to me - swimming in your pool, how scary. I would go against all the articles I ever wrote and break the law for that too. No sense calling the vaunted police. you see the rules don't apply to us ultra liberal columnists.

Posted by: Carl ROwan | April 18, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Actually, Carl ROwan shot at someone when they were swimming in his pool. They never broke into his house.

Would that be Carl ROwan, the liberal Washington Post columnist that railed about how evil guns were, but had one himself, despite the DC gun ban?

Posted by: ImKeepingMine | April 18, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

'Minneapolis attorney Mike Ciresi announced his candidacy for U.S. Senate this morning.' - so there will be a primary for the Dems - I can't wait to see how this will play out. . .

Posted by: star11 | April 18, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

"glass window, (like fire extinguishers) with an alarm going off when the glass is broken"
GREAT IDEA.

The progunners love the fact that there are more normal people that don't carry guns so they get that extra kick about having them. I bet if everybody had one they would get bored and move on...

Posted by: AL | April 18, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Actually, Carl ROwan shot at someone when they were swimming in his pool. They never broke into his house.

Messed up facts? Must be a gun-toting ignorant conservative.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

"If you love your country, stop attacking it.Liberal - heed your own advice."

I'm not attacking my country, I'm attacking indivuals who are ruining it. Is Rush America? Is O'Reilly a super patriot, and me an Army infantry soldiers is not. That is my problem with the right-wing pundits. They convinced you people that they are America. The George Bush is the Government. It's ok. Fox "news' is done by two months. Everyone now knows what is going on. The right-wing has sold this country out for their high stock prices and oil. People know that now. It's ok. You cannot live in a cave forever watching only fox shows and listening to these hate-mongers. I am not making millions on politico.com. They are, and they are laughing at you

Posted by: rufus1133 | April 18, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Stop your logic, we Libs don't do science and math.

In fact, since science and math ineveitably lead to truth, we Libs have ruined the public school system to avoid having any educated voters who would surely vote us out of office.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Guns in the US are like of a religion than a matter of culture, tradition or logic. The Gun church comes with tenets of faith: any meager attempt to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is confiscation in disguise; the NRA Armed Citizen is the answer to crime, etc. Unfortunately, we all pay the penalty for this insane theology.

Posted by: audacious | April 18, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Don,

We accept certain limitation on other rights listed in the Bill of Rights. For instance, yelling fire in a crowded movie theater does not count as free speech.

Why them are so many people resistant to some common sense limitations on the right to own a gun?

And to answer your question, I was born, raised, and continue to live in Washington, DC. I guess I don;t understand much about democracy because I am taxed and have no representation in Congress.

Posted by: Thin Man | April 18, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

I think we should ban all guns, except when I need one to point at an intruder who breaks into my house.

Posted by: CarlRowen | April 18, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

What's the appropriate American response? More guns and violence to be sure. Place a gun in every classroom and all public places (malls, schools, public buildings etc.) behind a glass window, (like fire extinguishers) with an alarm going off when the glass is broken. Provide gun and marksmanship training to all high school 10th graders and require it for all college admissions, (the NRA can assist). Provide all college students with a handgun and ammunition. Improve access to guns by selling them in campus stores, student unions etc. Put mounted machine guns in all campus towers, and TV cameras everywhere on campus. Hire paramilitary jocks like the Blackwater thugs in Badhdad to police campuses and place an Abrams tank in every quadrangle as a reminder to all that America stands for violence and the use of force. Our society is founded on the principle that every person has a right to defend themselves and let's make that a reality.

Posted by: C. James Burke | April 18, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

(Cho's acts demonstrate this. If the ban had been effective, he would not have killed 32 others.) - Dan H.

There is no ban in Virginia, so how is this relevant?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Stop your logic, we Libs don't do science and math.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

I invite the libs among us to refute this very simple arguement:

Governmnet regulations to deal with societal problems should be enacted only when they have a reasonable chance at being effective. (The failure of Prohibition taught us that.)

Gun bans are not efective in stopping mass murder using guns. (Cho's acts demonstrate this. If the ban had been effective, he would not have killed 32 others.)

Therefore, gun bans should not be enacted by governments.

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 18, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

If you love your country, stop attacking it.

Liberal - heed your own advice.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

I think we should ban all guns, except the ones my security goons need to protect me from the unwashed masses.

Posted by: RosieO | April 18, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

If we banned liberals we could get somewhere.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

This is the arument the right always use, and why they are wrong most of the time,;

"And you, John, should be forced to serve two years in the Army or Marine Corps, and go to an insane country where the rights of the individual have never been sacred. Perhaps then you would see what a relief it is to be an American."

I was army infantry. Other countries are not America. Just because you have respect for their cultures does not mean you can bring it hear. If you love your country, stop attacking it. Let's work together. Stop holding up progress. The year is 2007

Posted by: rufus1133 | April 18, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Liberals support banning guns but oppose banning violent immigrants. Go figure.

Posted by: Profiler | April 18, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Seung-Hui was a Korean-born resident alien. Aliens increasingly drive the American crime problem: about one third of California's prison population is first- or second-generation immigrant, as is 29% of the federal prison population. Salvadoran and other Central American gangs commit the worst violence in many American cities. The finger of blame is easily pointed.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

All you other wack jobs must post your name. I am the only coward who can go without a name. I am forgetting which stupid comments are mine.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:55 PM | Report abuse

---Our government should raise taxes to pay for a program where every gun nut yahoo is forced to spend a summer in a sane country. They might realize what a relief it is, come back, turn off the 700 club and shut up.---

And you, John, should be forced to serve two years in the Army or Marine Corps, and go to an insane country where the rights of the individual have never been sacred. Perhaps then you would see what a relief it is to be an American.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Thin Man,

Never mind all the deaths that occur in the US due to guns. Just put that to the side for a moment. Let us think if the government somehow passes a ban on guns which revokes all US citizen's 2nd Amendment rights.

Would you be happy about this? Happy knowing that at any moment another constitutional right can be taken from you.

I wonder if you were born in America. Possibly you are from another country that does not have the same civil rights Americans have.

I don't know about you but my constitutional rights are something I never take for granted, although for some reason you seem to take yours for granted.

Bob posted earlier, "Might as well ban airplanes since foreigners killed thousands back on 9/11."

Screw that.. I say we ban foreigners.

Posted by: Don | April 18, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

The idiots throwing around the word "liberal" as if it were an insult really should do some homework. There are plenty of progressives in favor of Second Amendment rights - for both ideological and practical reasons.

But since liberal is an insult, I will simply change the name to progressive. We liberals love to change words. retreat is now redeploy. Abortion is now choice. see how cool that is?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

"Hey Cho, thou shalt not murder. There, we banned murder, no more discussion needed.

Problem solved in blue state America."

It's not really laws themselevs that would make a difference. I thought that was clear. Enforcement would make the difference. Stopping large-scale arms sales, stopping easy gun sales at gun shows, making it more difficult for folks to buy dangerous weapons: That's the idea.

Thing is, Cho just walked into two different stores, one just up the street from his dorm, and he purchased his semi-automatic weapons right over the counter. He bought both guns and all the ammo within a week of his attack. If it wasn't that easy, he might not have been able to kill 32 people. He certainly wouldn't have been able to do it with such ease.

This isn't a blue-red issue; nor is it a conservative-liberal issue--at least it has no reason to be. Both parties support laws that control us in various ways. This is just a matter of priorities. Do your guns matter more? Or do American lives?

Posted by: Josh | April 18, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Replying to WAYNE:
Bad math, it's actually 0.42%
Then if everybody in the country has a weapon then in a 3 year period it would be:
300,000,000 * 0.0042 = 1,260,000 crimes directly related to guns.
What do you have to say about THAT?

Posted by: Al | April 18, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

It's been said before, "guns don't kill, people do". We recently had a couple killed on the beltway because of aggressive driving. That makes a motor vehicle a deadly weapon and I think we should ban them. More people are killed by motor vehicles than guns. New York city and the District have some of the toughest gun laws around. You can not legally own a gun in either jurisdiction. If memory serves, a few years back they were both trying for the title of "Murder Capital of The World". This despite the ban on gun ownership. As for these people buying guns in Virginia and taking them into these jurisdictions they are breaking the law. So what good does a gun ban do?

Posted by: George | April 18, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

It's no coincidence that three of the worst mass shooting incidents in recent U.S. history -- at Columbine, at the Amish school house in PA, and now at VT -- occurred in schools. For many years now Federal law, and often state law, has outlawed firearms to be carried on school property. This makes a school one of the safest places not for innocent students and faculty, but for a would-be mass murderer. Knowing that a school is gun-free, such a person can go on a shooting rampage secure that no one at the school is likely to fire back at him or her. If there was a correlation between sheer number of guns in a location and the likelihood that someone will begin wildly shooting everyone around them, then shooting ranges and gun shows should have had experienced a dramatic number of such incidents. But they have not. On the contrary, shooting incidents at such locations are extremely rare. The fact that everyone else in those places is armed might be a strong deterrent to any would-be shooter. To make our schools safer, faculty members and other officials
should be permitted to carry weapons, so long as they are not otherwise legally prohibited from doing so, after undergoing training and extensive background checks. In recent years, there have been several instances in which someone carrying a gun at a school (illegally) was able to stop a would-be shooter at gun point. The best way to deter a shooter is by returning fire. Granted, it's possible that innocents might be caught in the cross fire. But the alternative is to allow someone such as Cho to walk undettered from room to room calmly shooting unarmed people, safe in the knowledge that none of them will shoot back.

Posted by: David Baca | April 18, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Rufus! It is actually RUFUS1133 who has lost his mind to the left. My apologies for the error!

Posted by: DBS | April 18, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

The idiots throwing around the word "liberal" as if it were an insult really should do some homework. There are plenty of progressives in favor of Second Amendment rights - for both ideological and practical reasons.

No one appears to be arguing for a complete ban on all firearms (including law enforcement and military). That being said, I'm not sure why so many people are willing to give George W. Bush and his ilk a monopoly on firearms.

Practically, I have no idea how Bush would eliminate the firearms already in circulation (midnight warrantless raids by those National Guard units not fighting overseas for Exxon?).

Also practically, I'm not willing to hand over self-protection to law enforcement. They are not required to protect the public and often won't even try. At both Columbine and Virginia Tech there were many heavily armed and body-armored officers present who did absolutely nothing to stop the attacks. It simply didn't matter if the officers were armed - unarmed, untrained bystanders hiding behind trees and squad cars would have been just as effective.

I'm not saying they definitely could have prevented the attacks or lessened the casualties, but it would have been nice if they at least tried.

Posted by: fiver | April 18, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

All you trembling, sissified, terrorized, whipped, bedwetting gun nuts are the weak men, the pathetic men.

why aren't you in Iraq, cowa5ds?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

"Baghdad Bombings Kill at Least 127;" or about 4 times as many people as were killed at Virginia Tech.

Posted by: The Surge is working! | April 18, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

The second amendment gives American's the ability to protect themselves, their families, their country, and their freedom. I agree with some gun control laws like prohibiting fully automatic rifles, but a complete ban is just stupid. Like others have said, this will not prevent criminals from obtaining firearms, it will just prevent innocent people from defending themselves and their families.

A well-armed civilian population would make an enemy occupation that much harder (although an occupation is hardly a concern today), and it would also serve to protect the population from the government should the government decide to turn on the people some time in the future. To all those saying that a fight against the military is futile, just look at the resistance in Iraq and Vietnam. Even if it is impossible, only cowards would allow our democratic republic to fall without lifting a finger to stop it.

Posted by: Kyle | April 18, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

You see we libs are so astute we can instantly tell someone's IQ from just a few lines of text. Actually, in practice, if you disagree with us you are stupid. See how easy it is?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

I should know, I bravely man this keyboard morning, noon and night. and I take on all comers who dare to question my manhood.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

'The best argument for gun control is the IQ of the pro-gun people here. '

Most sensible thing I've heard all day

Posted by: hear hear | April 18, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

All you trembling, sissified, terrorized, whipped, bedwetting gun nuts are the weak men, the pathetic men.
I should know, I bravely man this keyboard morning, noon and night. and I take on all comers who dare to question liberal orthodoxy.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

The best argument for gun control is the IQ of the pro-gun people here. These morons shouldn't be allowed to come near a gun. Mostly because they end up shooting themselves the majority of the time.

Posted by: Jim J | April 18, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Weak men? All you trembling, sissified, terrorized, whipped, bedwetting gun nuts are the weak men, the pathetic men.

You freaking cowards who refuse serve your country in a war you say you believe in -- the first generation of true american cowards.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Did somebody spike Zouk's latte again?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

The year is 2007. 1964 is past. 1776 was a long time ago. 1984 will never come to pass. Get with the times or get left in the wind. Why not live like the amish, conservative movement, if you want to be left alone. Why don't you all move to Alaska and hunt and shoot each other all day. Leave the rest of the country to law abiding people who don't want to murder and want their kids safe

Posted by: rufus1133 | April 18, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Yes! Let's arm everyone with a small nuclear weapon. Soon there will be no more violence... ever.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Yet the defining image of contemporary Canadian maleness is not M Lepine/Gharbi but the professors and the men in that classroom, who, ordered to leave by the lone gunman, meekly did so, and abandoned their female classmates to their fate -- an act of abdication that would have been unthinkable in almost any other culture throughout human history. The "men" stood outside in the corridor and, even as they heard the first shots, they did nothing. And, when it was over and Gharbi walked out of the room and past them, they still did nothing. Whatever its other defects, Canadian manhood does not suffer from an excess of testosterone.

It is a good idea that all liberals move to Canada - you will feel at home there with socialized medicine and weak men.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Are all you macho men out there posting from Iraq?

Why not? You'd LOVE it over there. Lots of people have guns -- and it's so peaceful.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

---And I might also add, "driving" is a privilege granted by a state, it is not in the constitutional amendments! The "2nd amendment" is so get over it!---

And your with which "well organized malitia"?

Posted by: Fate | April 18, 2007 1:31 PM | Report abuse

The argument that we need to retain the right to bear 'arms' in order to resist an oppressive government:

As our government grows more oppressive, we do not need massive marches in the name of our dwindling civil rights; memorial services for slaughtered soldiers and tortured Iraqis; calls for fair trade and meaningful peace; and least of all impeachment proceedings and an honest, less corrupt administration. No. What we really need right now is MORE NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Somehow, nuclear weapons--nuclear weapons that soak our small towns in the atomized particles of our slaughtered sons and daughters--semi-automatic nuclear weapons and the right to bear them for just about anyone not convicted of a murder--nuclear weapons will save us.

God bless America.

We need it.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

'just how off-the-wall and lunatic the left has become' --quite an amazing post considering the 1000 or so comments from genuine lunatics.

I own a gun so I can protect myself from the most dangerous and heavily armed group in america -- Angry White Men.

Look at all of them.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

---I can post a dumb idea almost every two minutes.---

You're not alone...

---that is why I am a Democrat. no one bothers to notice how silly we Liberals are any more.---

I see it every night on Faux News. They love to point it out while ignoring silly republicans. BTW, are they still covering the Halloway disappearance? BREAKING NEWS!

---Watch us find a way to make the shooter a victim.---

The shooter is also dead. A suicide it seems. While having been established as mentally unstable he was allowed to purchase two semi automatic handguns thanks to conservative "principles". It seems liberals are the only ones who care about people and not just the weapons they carry.

---watch us find a way to blame bush.---

To easy...

---watch us ignore the personal responsibility aspect and favor the village approach.---

You rely on the guy with the gun to have personal responsibility? Are you suicidal? I think this incident proves that "requiring" everyone to have personal responsibility is a bad argument for no gun control. Maybe we should take down all the red lights and stop signs too and just rely on all drivers being good drivers and having personal responsibility?

---Watch us lose another election.---

I've enjoyed watching the conservatives loose elections. More to come!

Posted by: Fate | April 18, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Our government should raise taxes to pay for a program where every gun nut yahoo is forced to spend a summer in a sane country. They might realize what a relief it is, come back, turn off the 700 club and shut up.

Posted by: John | April 18, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Life would be so much better if the patriots had sticks, and the tyrants had guns.

Posted by: ThomasJefferson | April 18, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

First it was Johnny Muhammad, now it was Cho Sueng Hui aka Ismail Ax. Precisely how many mass shooters have to turn out to have adopted Muslim names before we get it?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Hey Cho, thou shalt not murder. There, we banned murder, no more discussion needed.

Problem solved in blue state America. Pass the tofu, the joint, and the rap music while I color my hair purple.

Posted by: HeMan | April 18, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

The argument that we need to retain the right to bear arms in order to resist an oppressive government:

As our government grows more oppressive, we do not need massive marches in the name of our dwindling civil rights; memorial services for slaughtered soldiers and tortured Iraqis; calls for fair trade and meaningful peace; and least of all impeachment proceedings and an honest, less corrupt administration. No. What we really need right now is MORE GUNS.

Somehow, guns--guns that soak our small towns in the blood of our slaughtered sons and daughters--semi-automatic arms and the right to bear them for just about anyone not convicted of a felony--guns will save us.

God bless America.

We need it.

Posted by: Josh | April 18, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Fate, it would appear that we do have a case of "American Exceptionalism" as someone pointed out earlier, because studies in the U.S. show exactly the opposite correllation when comparing the rate of violent crime to gun ownership. Criminals simply do not commit as many crimes in places where there is a higher percentage of gun owners as they do where there is a lower percentage of gun owners.

You seem to be putting forth a red herring here, when you use the phrase "deaths due to handguns". We are not talking simply about deaths due to handguns here.

Posted by: stopmakingsense | April 18, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Hey Fate:

Gun control won't make guns disappear. It just creates more hurdles for the good guys to jump through. Even one ILLEGAL gun in the hands of a bystander could have saved many lives.

Free people don't ask for permission.

Posted by: Joe American | April 18, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

And I might also add, "driving" is a privilege granted by a state, it is not in the constitutional amendments! The "2nd amendment" is so get over it!

Posted by: Hummm | April 18, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Fate, while you were running down the street shaking your stick, some drug dealer that decided not to turn his gun in would drop you like a bad habit.

Those who will not follow murder laws cannot be expected to follow gun laws. When you disarm the law abiding public, you embolden the violent criminals.

Posted by: Razorback | April 18, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

More guns, less crime. Its been studied to ... death. Please ignore the facts to maintain liberal presence.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

"Dam right Progressive, imagine how safe and secure Iraq was when Saddam was in charge."

Uhhh, Razorback? You might want take a look at some Iraqi polling data before you say something idiotic like that again.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

If, in Iraq, there were as much media attention as in VT, we would have photos of the dead, we would know their hometowns, their names, their special interests. So, they say, it is dangerous in Iraq. Well, apparently, it is dangerous at VT. Get off your BUTTS, media!! Stop sitting in the grass in Virginia, get on the plane to the Middle East and out of the Green Zone. Get those names, faces, of the dead in Iraq.

Posted by: DD | April 18, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Please get Rush/Hannity/O'REill off the air


Our liberal message depends on no actual truth being broadcast.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

MK, I think you're onto something. While we're at it, let's also link the right to vote to military service. By my count, that would mean that only Keith, Marvin and I have any right to an opinion on this matter.

Posted by: stopmakingsense | April 18, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Canada has 1/10 the murder rate with handguns when compared with the US. Much higher in the western Canadian provinces where gun ownership is much looser than in the east. When you look at gun ownership rates and deaths due to handguns, there is a linear relationship. More guns, more gun deaths. Its been studied to ... death.

---Only a liberal would be stupid enough to bring a stick to a gun fight.---

No, the liberal would legislate gun control and there would be no gun fight to begin with, just you running away from a liberal shaking a stick at you.

Posted by: Fate | April 18, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

"I can post a dumb idea almost every two minutes. that is why I am a Democrat. "

And I have sex with my sister!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

If you support the troops, you would care about their well-being. Everything this administration, from the beginning to now, has been against the troops and American people. Rush/Coulter/O'Reilly/Hannity lead you into this war not your patriotism. This country has been sold out by the right-wing of this country. They are the one's who are not patriot's they are the one's who hate the government. Support the troops, Support America. Stop the charade. Your time is over. I was Army Infantry 11B before you start attacking me left and right. Wake-up. Please get Rush/Hannity/O'REill off the air

Posted by: Rufus1133 | April 18, 2007 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Think of Virginia Tech. Imagine that this kind of massacre happened every day. Imagine a police force that was far too small to even respond to most of them. Imagine this occurring repeatedly for years until the perpetrators and their accomplices became the de facto power-brokers throughout the land. Imagine the shootings also being accompanied by the brutal torture of victims. Imagine families never having finality on whether their own siblings or parents or children have been murdered or not.

That is the future we Liberals have planned for you after we force a surrender in Iraq.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Dam right Progressive, imagine how safe and secure Iraq was when Saddam was in charge.

Posted by: Razorback | April 18, 2007 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Think of Virginia Tech. Imagine that this kind of massacre happened every day. Imagine a police force that was far too small to even respond to most of them. Imagine this occurring repeatedly for years until the perpetrators and their accomplices became the de facto power-brokers throughout the land. Imagine the shootings also being accompanied by the brutal torture of victims. Imagine families never having finality on whether their own siblings or parents or children have been murdered or not.

This is Iraq today. Now think of the justified rage many feel at the VT campus police chief and university president for misjudgments. Now imagine them presiding over several more massacres in the same place. Ask yourself: why do we not feel as enraged by those responsible for security in Iraq? Are those victims not human beings, too? Are they not children and mothers and fathers and sons? Are we not ultimately responsible for them, having destroyed the institutions of order in their country?

Posted by: Progressive | April 18, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

I can post a dumb idea almost every two minutes. that is why I am a Democrat. no one bothers to notice how silly we Liberals are any more. Watch us find a way to make the shooter a victim. watch us find a way to blame bush. watch us ignore the personal responsibility aspect and favor the village approach. Watch us lose another election.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

To those who think it was the gun stores fault get a brain! He followed all the rules that apply. Now you bleeding hearts might want to make sure that the shooter's mental state and past stalking of women and the setting of fires a school might somehow have been reported and put in his file so that he would have turned down to buy the gun to begin with! This is who I am angry at. These type of records should be on file and a reason to turn down his purchase! And oh yes, I think we have had more and more gun laws enacted since JFK. My question is "How's it working?" If this country does'nt change it's thinking on how to get these nuts, get ready for more because more gun control laws won't cut it!

Posted by: Hummm | April 18, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Not shooting back is suicide.

Posted by: Joe American | April 18, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

"I'm sure this site has been linked to by a gun nut site. This is what happens. The jihadi come out."

It's probably Drudge again. The average IQ of the posters here always drops by about 50 points when he does that.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Rufus, you are one of those mindless dolts I am referring to. You are one of the bandwagon jumpers that I detest so much. You are a part of a machine that is out to stop conservative opinion because the part of the country with half a brain is beginning to realize just how off-the-wall and lunatic the left has become. Jump! Jump! You cannot honestly tell me that because my favorite radio host informs me of things that are going on in the world and with my government, that he is spewing hate! Idiot! Please tell me, who is paying you to repeat the words "hate-speech" in the same sentence as Rush/Coulter, etc over and over again in the hope of subliminally hypnotizing everyone to automatically relate them? I know how you freaks work. Or maybe you are just too stupid to realize you are doing it?
Maybe, because your comments do not belong here. Go back to Media Matters. Like I said before, no common decency.

Posted by: DBS | April 18, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

lylepink, there are some here among us who would put forth the proposition that the assault weapons ban was unconstitutional and should have been allowed to expire.

Posted by: stopmakingsense | April 18, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Canada is very safe, unless you need medical attention.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Wow valerie, impressive research. Who knew there were so many school shootings in Canada. It would appear that Fate may be wrong with the pronouncement of Canada as an "all around safer place to live."

Posted by: stopmakingsense | April 18, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

the whole country is interested in mass suicide. How else would you explain the Democrats stance toward Iraq and Iran?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Right. Now you're guilty of suicide if someone guns you down. As I said, owning a gun makes you insane.

But of course that may be a chicken or egg thing..

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

--You liberals will get my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.---

Long before you pry my gun from my fingers, I will pry a bullet riddled stick from your trembling liberal hand.

Only a liberal would be stupid enough to bring a stick to a gun fight.

Posted by: HowdyDoodie | April 18, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

"Deployed tasers are highly traceable, sending out little tags containing the information of who owns it. Been all over the Taser International website in the last two days for some reason. If misusing a taser were a felony, it would be an easy-to-prove one. If misusing it once meant losing it, even a drunk 18-yr-old would keep it in check. Or lose it. Obviously I'm comparing it to using guns, and not seeing anywhere near the same downside."

Is the movie Animal House available in the parallel universe in which you live? Watch that movie and imagine tasers laying around during any one of the party scenes. I'd agree that even a drunk college student might have second thoughts about using a gun, tasers, fire extinguishers, sex toys, beer bottles, fireworks and anything else not normally considered a murder weapon in polite society WILL be abused (and frequently) on a college campus.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | April 18, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how many of the paranoid gun nut men feel a certain inadequacy about a certain part of their anatomy.

Posted by: John | April 18, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

"... since our military is so short-handed right now, wouldn't it be great if all these folks who clearly already have their own weapons would join the military?"

What a great point. How many of you proud gun toters are willing to join our shorthanded armed forces?

Posted by: MK | April 18, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Not one of those gunned down students, or a bystander, was carrying a weapon of their own!!?? What the hell have we become? Did I just witness a massacre? Or does it look a lot like a mass suicide?

Posted by: Joe American | April 18, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Obama and Hillary - "although I would like to take a principled stand on the gun issue, revealing my true intentions would cost me the election, so instead I will tap dance around it."

So true, but the liberals who complain about their cowardice now will be banging the tom toms for Obama/Hillary in the coming months, the same way the wanted all of the pro gun Dems to win rural congressional districts in 2006.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

In Iraq, 127 people were killed today. Where are their pictures? Their bios? Their special interests, hometowns, majors in college? Let us grieve for the Iraqis as well as the VT victims.

Posted by: DC | April 18, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

--You liberals will get my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.---

I can't wait!


'LOL, I appreciate your concern, but we'll be just fine. And don't worry, should the need arise, we'll defend you as well.'

thanks, but no thanks.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

There is a big differance between free speech and lies and propoganda. The right wing-attack machine is the later. Remember 4 years ago when eveyone who diagreed with you was un-american, they were missguided, or crazy. That time is over. The conservative movment sold us out for $$$ not the democrats. Your reigh of terror against the american people is over. All you have left is fear and hate of yourselves. You can blame me if it helps you, I'm a christian. I'll blame the walrus's who lead you clams to the feast.

Posted by: rufus1133 | April 18, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

January 1: your HANDgun gets you $1000 from Uncle Sam.

June 1: your HANDgun gets you $500.

December 1: your HANDgun gets you locked up.

If you're a hunter/target shooter- fine, NO problem with you or your weapon. If you're law enforcement or similar profession which requires handgun ownership, also fine. But otherwise: get an alarm system, or a canine, or deal with it.
By comparison: VA requires licensing, registration, annual inspection, insurance, proof of title, and annual property taxation of cars... and None of the above for handguns?

Posted by: Solution | April 18, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Liberals want to ban guns, but not violent immigrants.

Posted by: USAamerican | April 18, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Obama and Hillary - "although I would like to take a principled stand on the gun issue, revealing my true intentions would cost me the election, so instead I will tap dance around it."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

'The "assault weapon ban" banned nothing, only the manufacture of certain weapons. "Banned" weapons and clips were manufactured by the thousands right up until the band, and still sold throughout it. The was no time during the "ban" that the weapons "banned" were not available.'

that's because criminals like you made them available...

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Thin Man, I appreciate your insights as well.

LOL, I appreciate your concern, but we'll be just fine. And don't worry, should the need arise, we'll defend you as well.

Posted by: stopmakingsense | April 18, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

'the Germans did when they invaded Lithuania was to confiscate all the registered hunting rifles and shotguns. '

I do so worry about being invaded by Germany..."

Whow, didn't realize the Nazi war machine was so scared of the Lithuanians.

At least 50,000 Lithuanians volunteered for service in the German army, where they performed some of the worst atrocities....

Posted by: Jake | April 18, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Politicians are saying it's "not the time" to discuss changing gun laws. What a cop out! When IS a good time to address Americans concerns? They're probably formulating their thoughts, running them by their campaign donors to make sure they aren't offended. It would be interesting to hear the Democrat "frontrunners" Obama and Clinton actually take a stand on the issue. I won't hold my breath.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

---You liberals will get my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.---

Which I'm sure is what those liberal policemen had to do to get Cho's gun.

Posted by: Fate | April 18, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

lylepink

The "assault weapon ban" banned nothing, only the manufacture of certain weapons. "Banned" weapons and clips were manufactured by the thousands right up until the band, and still sold throughout it. The was no time during the "ban" that the weapons "banned" were not available.

So when you lie your head on your pink pillow and and seek rest, you will have to dream up a different delusion to put yourself to sleep.

Posted by: Razorback | April 18, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Judge Crater: Deployed tasers are highly traceable, sending out little tags containing the information of who owns it. Been all over the Taser International website in the last two days for some reason. If misusing a taser were a felony, it would be an easy-to-prove one. If misusing it once meant losing it, even a drunk 18-yr-old would keep it in check. Or lose it. Obviously I'm comparing it to using guns, and not seeing anywhere near the same downside.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse


'You liberals will get my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.'

you can't imagine how much i will enjoy that

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure this site has been linked to by a gun nut site. This is what happens. The jihadi come out.

Btw, since our military is so short-handed right now, wouldn't it be great if all these folks who clearly already have their own weapons would join the military?

But I guess they're too busy typing and fantasizing.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

You liberals will get my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

Posted by: ImKeepingMine | April 18, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Joan: tasers are a good idea in principle but walking anywhere near a bunch of teenagers armed with tasers and too much spare time (and maybe a beer or seven) strikes me as inadvisable. Maybe the 18- and 19-year olds in your area are much more mature than the ones I deal with.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | April 18, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

C'mon, stopmakingsense, you have no way of knowing that and neither does Keith.

Let's just agree to disagree.

Posted by: Thin Man | April 18, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Gosh man, this weed is so great, dude, and that Valerie sure did pimp out and bust the head of that FREAKIN LIAR that said only the US had gun violence.

Posted by: HeyDude | April 18, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse

---No law imaginable (not even a total gun ban) can prevent highly motivated individual(s) from completing a task that they are hell-bent on completing.---

I'm not advocating a total gun ban but I think if such a ban were in place the killer would not have been able to get his guns, which he bought legally through a gun shop RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET from VT. The above statement is patently false in this particular case.

Posted by: Fate | April 18, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

I would further suggest that Cho was well aware that he had chosen a "soft" target, i.e. one where he was very unlikely to encounter another gun.

Why do I believe this? His chaining of the doors. This could be done to either keep people in, or to keep people (like armed police) out.

His killing was done primarily in class rooms, not hallways near chained doors. This suggests to me that he was trying to keep armed police out, rather than setting up a better killing field near chained doors where people would be impeded from leaving.

Speculation, to be sure. But it fits the facts. Cho self conciously chose a "soft" target, and took steps to keep it soft.

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 18, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

If only killing people were outlawed. I'm calling chuck schumer to look into this.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Thin Man, I have news for you: If Keith has been where he says he has been, then YES, he would have responded immediately and eliminated the threat. Some of us have been tested, and have not been found lacking at the moment of truth. For those who have not, you may continue to speculate as to your own level of personal courage and intestinal fortitude, or to armchair quarterback concerning situations about which you have no direct knowledge. For Keith and others like him, I hope they continue to exercise their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Posted by: stopmakingsense | April 18, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Valier, thanks for the chronology.

It's worth noting that in not one of these instances was the gunman taken down by someone else with a gun.

So much for the bullsh*t bravado of all the combat vets posting here who think they would have stopped Monday's tragedy.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Sense most people here seem to agree that guns solve the problem of violence, why don't we just give a gun to every man, woman and child in Iraq? Then we can being our troops home.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Valerie - stop with the facts, we have no room for them in our ramblings.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

People can't be trusted with guns. They also can't be trusted with freedom of speech. Let's get rid of the first 2 Amendments. They are pesky problems for the goverment to control the feeble-minded and untrustworthy American people. We need more cameras and less privacy. What is your neighbor up to? Report all suspicious citizens to your local goverment authorities ASAP.

Big Brother loves you. Trust him.

(smirk)

Posted by: Citizen Freeman | April 18, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

It's not like you can arm a campus for a pilot project to see if it would help -- before Monday, nothing like this had happened in years, or in decades on a campus, so the unintended consequences are much easier to envision than any protective effect. Drinking rages, post-break-up depression, bad grades, not enough credits to graduate and you don't want to tell your parents -- anything that can really upset a college kid, is worse when the kid has a gun.

The mind goes immediately to tasers. Had a small number of the affected people had tasers within reach, I can't help but think the casualty total would have been much lower. Plus maybe making it highly illegal to do anything at all with the taser but incapacitate an armed attacker. No hazing, brandishing, intimidating, pet-training.

Posted by: Joan | April 18, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Jesus, did the NRA send out a red alert to all its boogy-man fearing members?

Posted by: John | April 18, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

The assualt weapons ban law passed in the 90's was let to expire in 2004, I think, due to the pull the NRA has on Congress. I am in favor of some type of control simular to the machine gun ban, and I think/believe it will have to be done on the makers of these weapons/clips. My comments can be found since Monday on "The Fix" and as of yet, I have found not one serious post that disagrees with me.

Posted by: lylepink | April 18, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/school-shootings/

In Depth
School shootings
Attacks on students and staff
Last Updated April 17, 2007
CBC News

Some prominent school shootings in Canada and around the world.

April 16, 2007:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Va.
In the deadliest campus shooting in U.S. history, at least 33 people were killed and several others wounded after a gunman opened fire at Virginia Tech. There are two separate shootings about two hours apart at opposite ends of the campus of 26,000 students, the first at 7:15 a.m. ET at a residence housing more than 800 students and the second at an engineering building. The suspected gunman is among the dead.

33 dead in 'horrific' campus shooting in Virginia
Oct. 2, 2006:
Amish schoolhouse, Nickel Mines, Pa.
Charles Carl Roberts, a 32-year-old milk-truck driver and father of three children, walks into a single-room Amish schoolhouse in the village of Paradise near Nickel Mines and kills a number of children. The young victims - all girls between the ages of 6 and 13- are lined up against a blackboard and shot execution-style, police report. Earlier, Roberts had ordered the 15 boys in the class, as well as several women with younger children, to go free.

Negotiations with police fail as Roberts turns the gun on himself and commits suicide. Police later speculate Roberts had been nursing a 20-year "grudge" and was exacting revenge for an incident that happened to him when he was 12 years old, but no other details are released to explain why he opened fire. Roberts was not a member of the Amish community he targeted. By the next morning, there is a death toll of five girls, after a seven-year-old and a nine-year-old passed away overnight at different hospitals. Five other girls remained in critical condition.

Sept. 13, 2006:
Dawson College, Montreal
A young man opens fire outside Dawson College, a CEGEP serving about 10,000 students in downtown Montreal, and then continues the rampage inside the school. Witnesses describe seeing a tall skinny youth with a Mohawk haircut walk into the cafeteria shortly before 1 p.m. ET carrying a large gun. The shooter, Kimveer Gill, 25, lived in a borough of Laval north of Montreal. He killed himself in a confrontation with police inside the school. One woman is killed, 18-year-old Anastasia DeSousa, and 19 people are wounded, at least six critically. They range in age from 17 to 48, according to police.

In depth: Dawson College
CBC story: Dawson student remembered for penchant for pink ( Sept. 15, 2006)
March 21, 2005:
Red Lake High School, Red Lake reservation, Minn.
Jeffrey Weise, a 16-year-old student, opens fire at a high school on the Red Lake reservation in northern Minnesota, about 120 kilometres south of the Canadian border. He kills seven people at Red Lake High School: five students, a teacher and a security guard. He also slays two family members. He dies after the shooting.

Sept. 1, 2004:
School Number One, Beslan, Russia
Chechen militants take over School Number One in Beslan, Russia, where more than 1,100 students, teachers and parents become hostages. Three days later, two explosions rock the school and Russian forces launch a chaotic rescue. In total, 333 hostages die.

April 26, 2002:
Johann Gutenberg Gymnasium, Erfurt, Germany
A former student at Johann Gutenberg Gymnasium in Erfurt, Germany, kills 16 people before turning the gun on himself. Most of Robert Steinhauser's victims are teachers.

April 28, 1999:
W. R. Myers High School, Taber, Alta.
A 14-year-old boy opens fire with a .22-calibre rifle inside W. R. Myers High School in Taber, an Alberta town about 200 kilometres southeast of Calgary. The boy, who can't be named because of his age at the time of the crime, kills student Jason Lang, 17. Another student, Shane Christmas, 17, is wounded, but recovers from his injuries. The shooting takes place a week after the Columbine High School massacre.

In depth: Taber tragedy
April 20, 1999:
Columbine High School, Near Littleton, Colo.
Two teenage students arrive at Columbine High School near Littleton, Colo., wearing long black dusters, the trademark of a small clique of outsiders at the school known as the Trenchcoat Mafia. Although Eric Harris, 17, and Dylan Klebold, 18, weren't inside members of the clique, they adopt its look as they carry in an arsenal that includes a semi-automatic rifle, a semi-automatic handgun and a sawed-off shotgun. They first open fire in the school cafeteria and ultimately kill 12 students and a teacher, as well as wounding 24 others. Then they kill themselves. The shooting shocks the world for its ferocity, sparking debates on gun control, school security, goth culture and video-gaming culture. Police in several U.S. towns report foiling attempts to emulate the massacre.

March 24, 1998:
Westside Middle School, Near Jonesboro, Ark.
Two boys go on a rampage at Westside Middle School near northwestern Jonesboro in Arkansas, dressed in camouflaged clothes and carrying seven firearms stolen from one of the boys' grandfathers -- two semi-automatic rifles, one bolt-action rifle and four handguns. Mitchell Johnson, 10 and Andrew Golden, 8, trigger a false fire alarm and open fire from the woods when everyone pours out of the school. They kill four female students and a teacher, as well as wounding nine other students and a teacher. They are sentenced to be confined in a youth facility until their 21st birthdays. In 2005, the two boys are released and their records wiped clean.

Dec. 1, 1997:
Heath High School, West Paducah, Ky.
Michael Carneal, a 14-year-old student at Heath High School in West Paducah, Ky., opens fire shortly after arriving at school, targeting a youth prayer group. Eight people are hit and three die. Carneal surrenders to the school principal. He is sentenced to three concurrent life sentences for murder and an additional 120 years for five counts of attempted murder and burglary.

March 13, 1996:
Dunblane Primary School, Dunblane, Scotland
A 43-year-old unemployed former storeowner, Thomas Hamilton, cuts the telephone lines to Dunblane Primary School in central Scotland and enters, armed with two pistols, two revolvers and more than 700 cartridges. He begins shooting in the school gymnasium, killing a teacher and 16 children many of them under the age of six. Subsequent investigation found that Hamilton had been a former Scout leader who had questioned by police several times after complaints about his behaviour around young children. The controversy surrounding the tragedy led to tighter gun controls.

October 1994:
Brockton High School, Toronto
A student unhappy with his grades shoots two guidance counsellors at Brockton High School in Toronto. Both survive.

Aug. 24, 1992:
Concordia University, Montreal
A professor at Concordia, Valery Fabrikant, fires on his colleagues, killing four and wounding one.

Dec. 6, 1989:
L'École Polytechnique, Montreal
Marc Lépine, 25, walks into a classroom at Montreal's l'École Polytechnique engineering school, separates the men from the women and tells the men to leave. Then he begins shooting from a semi-automatic military weapon, shouting "I want women" as he roams the school's floors. Lépine kills 13 female students and a college employee, and injures 13 others before committing suicide. He had purchased a semi-automatic, a Ruger Mini-14, to carry out his assault. The ease with which he had acquired it and carried out the assault leads to the creation of pressure groups, which eventually forces the federal government to set up a national gun control registry.

CBC Archives: Montreal massacre
In depth: Gun control
October 1978:
Sturgeon Creek School, Winnipeg
A 17-year-old student shoots and kills a 16-year-old at Sturgeon Creek Regional Secondary School in Winnipeg.

Oct. 27, 1975:
Saint Pius X School, Ottawa
Robert Poulin, an 18-year-old militia sharpshooter, kills a girl at a youth home, then shoots six people at Saint Pius X school in Ottawa. Poulin then kills himself. One of the wounded students would die more than a month later.

May 1975:
Centennial Secondary School, Brampton, Ont.
Michael Slobodian, 16, shoots and kills a teacher and a student, and wounds 13 others before turning the gun on himself.

Aug. 1, 1966:
University of Texas at Austin
Charles Whitman, an architectural engineering student at UT and former U.S. marine, barricades himself on the observation deck of the Main Building's tower with a sniper rifle. Over the next 96 minutes, he kills 16 people and wounds 31 others. Whitman is later killed by police.

Posted by: valerie | April 18, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Lets outlaw guns and legalize weeeeed man! hold hands, talk it out, embrace the maniacs Weeeed is the answer man!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

So rufus, are we to understand from your comments that you support neither the 1st or 2nd Amendments? Or do you support free speech, but only when it is speech that you agree with?

Ref. the Circuit Court rulings, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. And yes, anonymous blogger, this we will defend!

Posted by: stopmakingsense | April 18, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Let us turn our attention to hating bush - the purpose of this blog. We don't need no stinkin' reason.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

BAGHDAD -- Four large bombs exploded in mostly Shiite areas of Baghdad on Wednesday, killing at least 164 people and wounding scores _ the deadliest day in the city since the start of the U.S.-Iraqi campaign to 'pacify' the capital two months ago.

The U.S. Defense Department called it "a very bad day in Iraq."

In the deadliest of the attacks, a parked car bomb detonated in a crowd of workers at the Sadriyah market in central Baghdad, killing at least 116 people and wounding 145, said Raad Muhsin, an official at Al-Kindi Hospital where the victims were taken.

A police official confirmed the toll, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.

Among the dead were several construction workers who had been rebuilding the mostly Shiite marketplace after a bombing destroyed many shops and killed 137 people there in February, the police official said.'

When is it NOT a bad day in Iraq?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Reading an article that says basically that
views of gun control have not changed in
years is interesting but the comments fol-
lowing the article are more revealing about
the feelings of the electorate in this
country. It is obvious, to me, that people
feel strongly on both sides of the gun control issue. There is very little middle-ground. Both sides make persuasive
arguements although seldom objective. I,
personally, believe that people have a right to protect themselves in legal ways.
If that means the use of guns, so be it.
However I do not see the need for the aver-
age person to own a semi-automatic or auto-
matic weapon. Having seen the damage this
kind of weapon does while serving this Country
in war, I am well aware of the damage these
weapons will cause in the hands of people
who should or should not possess them. I
believe that anyone who buys or own a gun
should be REQUIRED to take classes on the
proper physical and ethical use of these
guns. There are hunter safety courses for
those people and there should be handgun
safety courses for those whose desire is to
simply protect themselves and their loved-
ones. It bothers me to think that somehow
we need to go back to the days when people
found it necessary to carry weapons in a
belt or holster but I see a trend in that
direction. The thought of people constant-ly settling their disagreements with a gun
is a disconcerting thought. It is a fine
line to walk and consensus on the gun
question is always hard to build, but we
must keep trying to find the proper balance
of personal safety and public good.

Posted by: Harold F. Crockett Jr. | April 18, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Great point DavidN . Why are we after Iran or Iraq for that matter if weapons don't kill people. More guns=more killing. Less Guns equal more killings. THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE. Rush/Coulter/Hannity/O'Reilly/Drudge has you people worked up in a fear frenzy. Think for yoursleves. ANyone who would willing call themself a "dittohead" has issues that need to be worked out. Go to see a shrink if you need to. A gun won't solve all your problems. A gun won't make you safe. It is impossible to be safe all the time.

Posted by: rufus1133 | April 18, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Isn't this the Political Fix? Why havn't Obama or Hillary said anything about gun control? Could it be that they have decided they need the votes of all these angry irrational gun types, so they are too cowardly to state their real beliefs?

Even that gas bag Chuck Shumer has been muzzled.

Posted by: Political Fix | April 18, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

---I hear Canada is mighty nice this time of year.---

And all around a safer place to live.

Posted by: Fate | April 18, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

My 2 cents from elsewhere:

"Cho was admitted to Carilion St. Albans Psychiatric Hospital in nearby Radford, Va., on Dec. 13, 2005. Officials said they believe Cho entered the hospital voluntarily. They would not say how much time he spent there, citing privacy rules."

Here's a simple idea: don't let people admitted to psychiatric facilities buy guns unless they've undergone specific testing.

CoryH: "Joe Dowdy, owner of JND Pawnbrokers in Blacksburg, said Cho did not purchase the gun from him but came into his shop to pick it up, probably after buying it on the Internet. Dowdy said he received the gun from another vendor. Cho came into the shop, showed his ID, filled out some paperwork, waited for a background check and paid a $30 fee."

Oooh, he bought it on the Internet! Like a bunch of flowers. To obtain MY driver's license I had to (a) take a driving test in a real car with a real evaluator (about an hour of total time) (b) have my vision checked with a machine (a few minutes) (c) take a written test (about half an hour). Maybe things are different now but when I contrast my experience with Cho's above your comment appears to be the absurd one.

How long does an 'instant' background check take? And why, on earth, doesn't being admitted to a psychiatric facility show up as a disqualifier in these background checks? What the heck constitutes "mental illness" in these checks, anyway? Mass murder? It's scary to think that Virginia is actually selling guns to OTHER people who have been admitted to psychiatric institutions.

Hopefully that's not true and this was a one-time screw up. But if so, in my entirely fake legal estimation I'd be willing to bet that the families of these victims and the surviving victims have utterly fantastic grounds for a $MM lawsuit against both the pawnshops and the great State of Northern Virginia.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | April 18, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Far too many journalists have been committing journalistic malpractice. And they need to face that fact.

The reason blogs and plain old average folks (let's call them subscribers or readers or consumers of your journalistic product, shall we?) are pissed off? Because, as your clients, their needs took a backseat to your own personal need to maintain a happy relationship with your new pals at the Bush White House and in the GOP leadership in Congress. So the tough questions got shoved to the side for far too long and the relationship building became of paramount interest - which served the Bush Administration interests, but left the public out in the cold. It is what the Bushies encouraged because it served their purposes to have a docile media pool who was afraid to ask anything remotely difficult for fear of being shut out of the briefing room. And you fell for it, hook, line and stinker.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

"The same liberals who protest law enforcement activities are the first ones to say "why didn't they prevent it" when there is a tragedy."

Where are you getting this assumption that it is only liberals crying out for prevention?? The fact is many of those students went to class completely unaware that there was a lsose gunman on their campus that had killed two people a few hours earlier. Conservatives and liberals can both agree that these kids should have been better warned.

PS- We all know that people, not guns, kill people. But when a handgun or assault weapon is used to kill another person it serves its purpose. That is why they exist. That is why we buy them, to kill other people. I suppose I personally value the right to live above the right to bear assualt rifles.

Posted by: ASU Student | April 18, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Teach children about s*x and s*x will not become an issue. ' this only works for s*x, all other education of children is pointless. you see liberal children are extremely stupid.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Dan Herbison, the "blather" ignores nothing.

1. The likelihood of encountering an armed victim would be inversely proportional to the likelihood of committing the crime in a given area. No concealed weapons = no deterrent, everybody has a gun = full deterrent. However, in between is a grey area in which it's left up to the attacker's discretion. What proportion of average citizens would need to be carrying concealed weapons in order for the average criminal to be deterred? A quarter? Half? I doubt it would be lower than that, and if you're advocating for 25% of all people to be carrying concealed weapons, you've probably done very little thinking on the issue.

2. Good job. However, to play along, the deterrant here would be the use of the weapon, not its presence. Two distinct concepts.

Posted by: CH | April 18, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

I have read most, if not all of the posts up to this point, and what strikes me the most is that while each person is entitled to their own opinion, we all seem to have little faith in our ability to be responsible.

I keep reading that students are not capable of being responsible with weapons, but let me remind everyone that most of our junior enlisted soldiers (PVT - SPC/CPL) are between the ages of 17 - 22, pretty much the same age as most college students. The ability to be responsible is there.
I myself became a soldier at 17. At 19 I was deployed and expected to be responsible with a weapon and ammunition.
At 22 I participated in the invasion of Iraq and was expected not only to handle my weapon responsibily, but also to ensure that the lives of the soldiers under me were responsibile in all of their actions as well.

If you have not noticed, I call gun weapons, because that is what they are. They are not toys, they are tools, but ultimately anyone who has been in the military will recall that they are always called weapons. Just like a knife can be used as a weapon, a gun can be used as one as well, but the key thing to remember is that the gun should always be used as a detterrent first and only pointed at someone if you are prepared to fire.

Posted by: Marvin | April 18, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

No one could kill 30 people in that short amount of time with a... machete... or a car.

If the gun was not semi-automatic with more than 10 bullets per clip... fewer people would have died.

The right to bear arms need not be taken away at all. Those that are mentally sound and stable enough to safely own a gun would not have anything to worry about. Stricter laws won't prevent ownership but could possibly delay this type of event long enough for other intervention, raise red flags on the intent of the purchaser or at a minimum lesson the fatalities.

Not all gun control supporters want to ban guns outright. All we want are some logical sensical laws that will weed out the mentally unstable or dangerous from buying a hand gun.

Yes, if he couldn't have bought the gun "legally" he could have bought it "illegally". At least it might have slowed the momentum of his intentions. It might have given time for this to have ended up differently.

5 minutes in an interview with this guy would have been enough to think twice about selling him a gun. If his stalking and troubled past were part of determining his gun purchase this wouldn't have happened.

It requires more testing and background checking to DRIVE A CAR than own a gun.

Posted by: jon | April 18, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

No law imaginable (not even a total gun ban) can prevent highly motivated individual(s) from completing a task that they are hell-bent on completing.

For everyone with their heads in the sand, no one else can/is responsible for protecting you. When the SHTF it is up to you to protect yourself and those under your care (family, children). The authorities try, but they can't always make it, so the burden of protection lies with the victim.

In the 21st century the best tools for protection are a sound mindset and a gun. Those not willing/able to bear the responsibility that comes with carrying a gun shouldn't rail against those who are.

To Thin Man and other sheople out there: You should realize that many who have chosen to carry a gun are also protecting you with their lives. WAKE UP!

Posted by: Dorian | April 18, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Wow, LOL, a perfect example of underestimating children. When we have adults like this teaching our kids, it's no wonder we have so many problems.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

I hereby proclaim Loudounian as "Queen of nothing except all girly men and their registered dominatrixes."

Posted by: Razorback | April 18, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Lets outlaw guns and legalize weeeeed man! hold hands, talk it out, embrace the maniacs Weeeed is the answer man!

Posted by: TDK | April 18, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

All I know is that if someone were to bust into my place of business or one of my night time Masters classes with a gun, they would likely be lying on the floor bleeding to death within 30 seconds. I legally carry a loaded .45 (in my laptop bag if I'm not wearing it) and know how to use it. It is my constitutional right to protect myself. If you disagree with that then get out of my country, I hear Canada is mighty nice this time of year.

Posted by: TJ | April 18, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Lets outlaw guns and legalize weeeeed man! hold hands, talk it out, embrace the maniacs Weeeed is the answer man!

Posted by: TDK | April 18, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

' Teach children about gun safety and gun safety will not become an issue. '

Because children listen and obey so well... good luck to yours, buddy. poor kids. Hope they make it.

Posted by: LOL | April 18, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

The same old arguements and emotions. Look, there were 32 killed because the pistols he bought were semi automatic. They were not guns that needed individual bullets loaded exept for the clip, which I'm sure was designed for quick loading. You can listen to the videos where gunfire was heard to hear just how fast this guy was firing. That's why the death toll is so high. Now, it would have been higher had he been allowed to buy, say, an Uzi or something more fully automatic with a larger clip. It would have been lower if he had a single load rifle. The question is not whether guns should be sold or not, the question is what is a weapon of mass destruction. I submit that the two, TWO guns this guy had were WMD. A simple 22 rifle would not have done that much violence. So I'd like to takes this discussion not to the question of the 2nd ammendment but to a more practical level. When is a gun not a gun but a WMD?

And I agree with the other poster who wonders why this nutcase was not on any warning list not to sell a gun to when he had been refered to police as unstable. So much for the patriot act, which it seems did little here but has been abused thousands of times by your friendly republican government.

Posted by: Fate | April 18, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Saying "The most paranoid, angry, delusional men own weapons." is kind of like saying "Only meterosexual girly men who are afraid of their big angry lesbian wives do not own guns."

Perhaps an element of truth in both?

Posted by: MondayMorningQB | April 18, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

The blather about weapons being concealed negating their effectiveness in deterring crime ignores two important facts:

1. The UNCERTAINTY about whether or not I would encounter an armed citizen would deter me from going on a killing rampage. I would choose a place where I was certain that I would not be opposed by an armed citizen, such as a college campus.

2. I would be detered from killing others after I was shot dead by a previously concealed weapon.

The quibble is effectively countered.

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 18, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

CH
"I hope you guys are aware that a CONCEALED weapon will not deter any attacker, because they don't know it's there; unless there's an overwhelming chance that a random person on the street will be carrying a concealed weapon (which there currently is not), concealed weapons won't save you from jack. OPEN carry, on the other hand, will prevent crime."
That is somewhat true. However, if the attackers can pretty much guarantee that a random person on the street (like in the "gun free" zone of Wash DC) does not have a concealed gun, it tends to make their choice to attack you easier.

Posted by: Dave! | April 18, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

stopmakingsense,

I take your point and have no issue with teaching gun safety to young children. Indeed I applaud it.

But I think you would admit that the education you received was the exception and not the rule.

And while I don;t have any stats to back myself up, I do wonder at what age gun accidents like the sort I am referring to happen?

I appreciate your willingness to engage in a sane, calm conversation about this and I hope we can continue it.

Posted by: Thin Man | April 18, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

The most paranoid, angry, delusional men are Liberals, like me.
They seem to be in a continual seething rage.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

I hereby proclaim Razorback "King of the Strawmen"

Posted by: Loudounian | April 18, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

I'm so irritated that the NRA is growing in membership! What "right" do those pesky, law abiding, working class citizens have to be able to join such a group. It's outragious, simply outragious!

Posted by: TDK | April 18, 2007 12:33 PM | Report abuse

seems like all the "gun-rights" supporters wind up resorting to nonsensical posts about banning spoons, because they have no valid arguments.

Posted by: Loudounian | April 18, 2007 12:33 PM | Report abuse


'I have so much knowledge - all of it wrong and valueless. I am an ignorant coward.'

yes, yes, zouk, we know.


'Smoking? No. Marijuana? Yes.' interesting state you live in razorback. you're so mad your 'liberal' strawmen.. do you listen to rush again today?

The thing that's really interesting about this debate is how ANGRY all the gunowners are. And how violently they fantasize. They seem to be in a continual seething rage. No wonder there's so much violence in this country. The most paranoid, angry, delusional men own weapons.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Thin Man, your "toddler finds a gun" argument doesn't hold either. Teach children about gun safety and gun safety will not become an issue. This is best done when cleaning one's weapons. Once the mystery is removed and the lessons taught regarding gun safety, there are no issues. I challenge you to find a case where gun safety was taught and ignored by a child. I have been a gun owner since the age of 5 (first gun was an H&R 4-10). I have been aware of the principles of gun safety since I learned to speak and understand English.

Posted by: stopmakingsense | April 18, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Haha, it is ironic to have these NRA ideologues saying that guns don't kill people -- people kill people. Guns aren't the issue they say. Well the same logic could be applied to Iran and Nuclear weapons. Why ban nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people using them kill people. Oh...maybe it is because nuclear weapons make it easier to kill so many people? Any hypocracy here?

Posted by: DavidN | April 18, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Cho left a note in his dorm in which he railed against "rich kids," "debauchery" and "deceitful charlatans" on the Virginia Tech campus, The Associated Press reported.

When that first came across the tape, I thought I was listening to a John Edwards speech.

Posted by: MondayMorningQB | April 18, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

An open-carry pistol would've been just as effective as a concealed pistol in stopping Mr. Cho... if not more so, since it would probably have been easier to take out and fire.

Posted by: CH | April 18, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Everyone who doesn't agree with me must be zouk. He is that powerful and must be stopped.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Reading the usual canards about how gun control could never work - only criminals would have guns - I wonder how it is that these massacres only seem to happen in the United States. They don't happen in Japan or Ireland or the Czech Republic where someone in a bad mood can't simply plop down cash and arm himself. American exceptionalism, I guess.

Posted by: John | April 18, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Ask the new Orleans residents if they wish they had a gun that week. Liberals on the run, losing the gun debate, losing the abortion debate, losing the war debate. Look for signs of ever more desperation on their part. It will make less and less sense.

Posted by: Sean Penn | April 18, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

I don't think Cho Seung-Hui was much worried about breaking any gun control law.
In the strictest sense he was a homegrown terroist. He hated Americans, he hated students with financial means and most of all he hated himself. He could never get over the jealously of his older brother who graduated from Harvard. Cho Seung-Hui was a loser and a coward. The bottom line is that he should have never been allowed to enter this country to begin with.

Posted by: rufl | April 18, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Keith,

Of course you are.

And so am I.

See how easy it is to hide behind fantasy on the Internet? Keep dreaming.

Posted by: Thin Man | April 18, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

If Cho would have poked his head into a room where there was a CONCEALED weapon, it wouldn't have been concealed for long.

Posted by: Razorback | April 18, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

zouk never actually leaves. he just changes his name. my favorite is that hokey 'sandflea' -- it's at about a third-grade level of sophistication.

Both my husband and father are real men. They have hunting rifles but they are not so terrified of their own shadows that they have to carry a gun.

A nation saturated and OD'd with mindless violence fantasies.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Rufus, didn't you get the memo?

Freedom of speech? Yes, unless you are white and say "ho", because hate isn't allowed.

Second amendment? No way.

French fries? Only if Mayor Bloomberg says they have no trans fat.

Ice Cream? If you are thin yes, fat no.

Smoking? No. Marijuana? Yes.

Run a business and basic economic freedom? Hell no.

When these liberals get through bastardizing freedom, the only thing you will actually be "free" to do is color your hair purple and wear a shirt that says school sucks, unless you are a rap star.

Posted by: Razorback | April 18, 2007 12:25 PM | Report abuse

I have so much knowledge - all of it wrong and valueless. I am an ignorant coward.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 12:25 PM | Report abuse

I hope you guys are aware that a CONCEALED weapon will not deter any attacker, because they don't know it's there; unless there's an overwhelming chance that a random person on the street will be carrying a concealed weapon (which there currently is not), concealed weapons won't save you from jack. OPEN carry, on the other hand, will prevent crime.

A deterrent only works if the attacker knows it's there.

Just commenting.

Posted by: CH | April 18, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

skeptical,

There are many ways to defend one's self and disarm someone without a gun.

I hope you feel the same way when your toddler find your gun in your house and mistakenly kills themself.

"But wait! I keep it hidden and with a trigger lock on it." So when someone breaks into your house you will ahve enough presence of mind to find and unlock your gun and then defend yourself? I seriously doubt it. So much for the self-defense argument.

If you accept certain limitations on the First Amendment such as not crying "Fire!" in a crowd, why then are you so resistant to any limitations on your right to won a gun?

Just wondering...

Posted by: Thin Man | April 18, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Whether or not the 2nd Amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms (I happen to believe that it doesn't but there is a majority of constitutional scholars who believe that it does so I bow to their credentials), the totally erroneous "facts" spouted without citation by the gun nuts in this forum with regard to the adverse affects of gun control would be laughable were the context not such a matter of life and death. Those who base their opinions on facts rather than myths would do well to check out this site:
http://www.guninformation.org/

Posted by: John Ife | April 18, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Thin Man,
I'm a veteran, and have been trained for combat. So, yeah, probably so.

Posted by: Keith | April 18, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

What a sad, sad string. Using the Constitution to make a point is juvenile, as the second amendment had an entirely different purpose and is incredibly outdated in today's society. The Constitution created by this country's founding citizens was created for a society of far fewer people who killed their dinner, traversed wild terrain, and fought against an oppressive king. Today, we live shoulder to shoulder, we buy our food at the corner market, and we are a democratic society with elected officials. How pitiful that we think we need to bear arms in the same way our founders did. We haven't half the integrity of our founders! It's very unfortunate that the second amendment has not been reinterpreted in its more than 200 years; how is is even relevant in our world today?

On another note, it's interesting that so many people think guns are the answer, rather than proactive action. I suppose this is really a debate about what comes first, the chicken or the egg? The easy answer is to arm everyone with guns. And really, if we're going to allow personal firearms, I think we need to consider requiring all citizens to carry them! Hate thy neighbor, isn't that the way it goes? But seriously, why aren't we more proactive? Create more secure communities, focus on secure buildings and homes. Make it morally wrong to bully or stalk or harrass one another. Make each other accountable for how we treat our neighbors, rather than embracing this "mind your own business" mentality that has fragmented our country.

Finally, we can't ignore how special interest groups are able to sway an entire Congress! The NRA has 3 million members, and even though it represents just 1% of Americans, it has much, much more political sway than the remaining 99%. On this matter, guns, our government no longer represents the majority. This is obvious from the orignal piece above. Democrat or Republican, more than half favor some form of tighter control, and yet this is interpreted as apathy?

Once upon a time, Americans were forward thinkers, and that was something to be proud of. Can we say the same about ourselves today? Listen to what people around the world say about us. If we continue to place ourselves in higher regard, on a pedastal as the "greatest", we will become lazy and reactive. We won't be the stronger country for much longer. Ask Rome how this works.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Rich, I don't agree with your opinion. Does the fact that you think you have a right to that opinion mean that you need to stop hiding behind the 1st Amendment?

Posted by: stopmakingsense | April 18, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Thin Man

I dont know where you live at but what about if an armed person breaks into your home while you*re there with your wife and babies? Do you throw yourself on his mercy, beg, plead, offer him money, your wife, or what? You let me know, and I*ll take it into consideration

Posted by: skeptical | April 18, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Apparently, possession of a firearm causes you to lose the ability to reason.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

As a matter of fact, it is proven fact that states that have Concealed Carry have a lower gun crime rate.
BTW, I'm not the one spewing hate here, nor am I the one wanting to take away other's freedom of speech.

Posted by: rufus | April 18, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

So much divisiveness. All of this disagreement and debate. Why can't we all just get along? Lets raise the tone of the conversation. Lets all agree. Lets compromise. Everyone needs to agree to just do it my way.

Gun owners, turn them in. Give them up. Get over it. Because we need to all come together. We are all one people. Lets just compromise and do it all my way.

Posted by: BarackisBack | April 18, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

yeah, I agree with you Jwelch, a lot of "no names" in here talking much smack.

Posted by: John Pridler | April 18, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse


'Your government can not protect you. we will be coming to your kintergardens once the donkeys have surrendered in Iraq. you americans are so soft.'

I see koz is among the idiots that have crawled out from under rocks.

Guns make you feel manly, don't they? Because you aren't.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

I pray that no logic professors are reading today's posts.

Their brains would be on overload from all of the positions purported to be logical, which violate the essential rules of logic.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Keith,

I love your ability to go back in time to recreate events to your own benefit and fulfill a hero fantasy at the same time.

With shots ringing out, people screaming and running around, you would have had the presence to find the shooter and take him down without getting shot yourself?

It's impossible to know that.

I applaud the fact that you took a course administered by law enforcement. But the fact remains that everytime anyone starts talking about better background checks, better classes, etc. the NRA fights it to the very limit of their abilities.

Self-defense is not solely found through the barrel of a gun.

Posted by: Thin Man | April 18, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

For Amazing,
if you are referring to me, I did do my homework baby. ... beyond the constitutional congress, on into World History, 9% of the German population in WWII were designated as the Nazi Party. Gun Control worked great for Hitler. Want me to give more examples? Lots of dictatorships revel in the delight of gun control.

I did post my name, it's actual a real one and not a moniker, like most posted here.

What is funny is that we should worry less about banning guns, and more about banning stupidty, or let's ban maniacs. No maniacs allowed in the world. Wait, now I'm impinging on the rights of maniacs. Damn.

You need to keep the right to bear arms sweetie, you never know when you might need to rally a militia against those who oppose your ideals. So maybe it was an organized Militia (and let's really reflect on the term ORGANIZED) when we refer to the Revolutionary War, however most people were armed, for the fact they needed to garner food. For example, what if big bad gun owning "Christian" Right Facist group organized and decide that liberals need to be silenced for ever. (Oh yea we elected that group). Gonna hand em a flower, smile and hope for the best? Good Luck. To pretend that America is not changing, to pretend that we may not face another revolution in our own lifetime, would be silly. Let's hope we can rest on our laurels and say things are just gonna be fine because we leave everything up to Congress and the White House, and we can make change through policy. That is not necessarily true. We are not wiser than our Constitutional Forfathers, we should be we are more "informed" and more "global" but again, another tidbit of history, democracies tend to fall every two hundred years. We're due.

Again. Banning guns is not going to stop a maniac. And everyone posted above has valid points, reflect on Mexico, England, and DC. DC murder captial of the US for many years until, well until New Orleans circa 2006 to present. Here's another hint, organized groups of criminals, like gangs and other syndications, do not register their weapons, if they did, they might get caught.

You have your right to not own a gun. You have your right to not shoot. That is your right. I don't personaly own a gun, I don't plan to, however, don't tell me I can't have one, and that preventing me from having one is going to stop a psychotic from commiting crime. That's ridiculous. I hope no one ever takes away your rights, because maybe no one will be able to defend you against that.

Posted by: Jwelch | April 18, 2007 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Keith Keith Keith. If soemone like you, armed republican, was on every corner your telling me there would be LESS shootings? The right-wing pundits are feeding you hate all day everyday. Combine that with weapons and you have a BAAAAAD combonation. I'll give you all guns if you give me the hate off the air. That's the deal. Pull Rush/Coulter/Hannity/O'Reilly/Savage from the airwaves and any other hate-spweing propogandist and you have a deal

Posted by: rufus1133 | April 18, 2007 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Welcome back Zouk. We should have known you were here when Parker v. DC was cited.

An obvious red herring.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

I find it interesting that shooting like this seldom happen at police stations, shooting ranges, or other places where the people are likely to be armed. The shooter likely would not have gone on this rampage if he thought he would meet armed resistance.
BTW, read up on the Pearl, MS school shooting. The Vice Principal stooped the shooter by going to his pickup and getting a gun, which was technically illegal, but he prevented the tragedy from gettting worse.

Posted by: Keith | April 18, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

I remember a time when men could defend themselves with their bodies -- only sissies carried guns for self-defense.

A naiton of bedwetting sissies, obviously.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Parker v DC is just one ruling in one of 12 Circuits and applies only to the District of Columbia (and not even yet).

The case will be heard again before the full Circuit, not just a three-judge panel.

And eventually, the opposing opinions move up from the Circuit Courts to the Supreme Court, for a decision which will apply across the entire country.

That should have you a litte bit worried. It's not the slam dunk, you've probably always believed it was.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Thin Man
I have a concealed weapons license. In order to recieve this license I had to be trained. I was trained by law enforcement officers in my state of Louisiana, in an NRA designed training course. If someone like me, and armed citizen, would have been in that classroom, chances are the shooter could have been stopped.

Posted by: Keith | April 18, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Your government can not protect you. we will be coming to your kintergardens once the donkeys have surrendered in Iraq. you americans are so soft.

Posted by: Sand flea | April 18, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

I will be joining the NRA as well(this week!!)

Posted by: John Pridler | April 18, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Rufus said: "The right-wing pundits aren't helping matters with their hate speech. Getting Rush/Coulter/Hannity/O'Reill/Savage off the air is the first step"

Hey Rufus, how about getting Air America off the air first?

Oh wait...

Posted by: JD | April 18, 2007 12:07 PM | Report abuse

I will be joining the NRA as well(this week!!)

Posted by: JP | April 18, 2007 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Gee, I was wondering when someone would get around to blaming Bush for this. I find it disgusting how people jump so quickly on the bandwagon of blame, trying to figure out who is responsible! Common sense (something that is almost completely lost in this country) would dictate that the one using the gun is responsible. Strange concept? Such hideous opinions and rantings here. To take a horrible incident and use it as a platform for whatever agenda or political opinion you have portrays a lack of common decency. The media is a pack of bloodthirsty wolves. They sensationalize and over-dramatize, they crawl through every crack available to provide an increasingly de-sensitized audience with enough over-analysis and dirt from as far back as his high-school days to keep them watching. They have dissected every aspect of this man's life, and they are still digging. I have not watched the news in two days. I makes me sick. It was a horrible incident, deal with it and move on. Leave those involved alone and let them mourn.
The politicians disgust me, hearing that parents are already setting up lawsuits disgusts me, and the fact that people in here actually eat this crap up really disgusts me. I am now convinced that most of the people in these blogs are mindless dolts.
Over 500,000 gun-owners used their gun to stop or prevent a criminal assault or offense. I say hooray to that! The student body of Virginia Tech said hooray! to the passing of a no-gun zone. They felt safer. Apparently they hadn't learned yet that crime and criminals pay no attention to laws and "zones"? The sad thing is that this incident has provided the loonies in this country with the ammo (pun IS intended) to start harping on about gun control. Yes, Virginia, I do think that common decency no longer exists in this country.

Posted by: DBS | April 18, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

What did the VA Tech management misjudge? Imagine if the perp was a politically correct minority. (Asians don't count as minorities because they test too well.) The liberals would start shouting profiling had the cops rousted anyone. Read the Consitution, they would have screamed if the cops told everyone they had to stay inside. What would they have said if an immigrant got arrested for writing a play?

The same liberals who protest law enforcement activities are the first ones to say "why didn't they prevent it" when there is a tragedy.

Posted by: MondayMorningQB | April 18, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

You say semi auto, and auto guns should not be sold to the public. You don't think people cant do as much damage with a shotgun. It boils down to this, it was a tragedy. But matters could have been prevented. C.C. on campus would allowed others to have the chance to take him out. Also if this guy was executing people why didn't anyone rush him to take him down. Tighten up the law on who can carry only legal US Citizens should. There is no permanent resolution to situations like this. One last thing what about the Salt Lake City Mall Shooting, if an off duty police officer carrying his weapon not been there matters would have been worse.
The gun doesn't have a mind of its own, someone had to pull that trigger and that someone was in a mental health facility in 2005

Posted by: kyboy | April 18, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

"courts find that the interpretation of the "well regulated militia" phrase of the 2nd Amendment is the controlling phrase?"

See the recent Parker vs. DC

It is an individual right!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

I doubt gun control is going to do anything against events like these from happening again. If someone wanted a gun so bad I'm sure they would find a way to get one, legally or illegally. Gun control won't stop a mentally unstable person from making a bomb or finding an illegal arms dealer either.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

My 2 cents...

The right and the left... On one side we have things like detention centers where people are disappeared for suspected terrorism, on the other we have people banning words from use in major cities. On one side we have things like the patriot act, and the other we have things like banning smoking cigarettes in public places. Where will we all be when both these sides are done? Crushed like a piece of garbage in a trash compactor.

Between what the liberals are doing and what the conservatives are doing, we the people will find ourselves with no freedoms left. We'll have to have a permit to fart for crying out loud.

the problem we face here is our social condition. In that sense i totally agree, a gun can do nothing on its own, it needs a human hand to do anything other than collect dust. and to do something like what happened at Viginia tech, thats a seriously deranged mind holding that weapon. Again though, how do we proceed? Do we lock up those on the fringe? Those with poetry some may call disturbing? Maybe we should lock up Stephen King, I mean, most of his books describe killing in a multitude of ways - he's obviously about to pop lets lock him up? You see where this leads, a slippery slope indeed.

fix the problem, not the blame. It isn't video games. It isn't TV. It isn't music. Its the social condition we all live in that needs to be fixed and/or changed.

Posted by: Modius | April 18, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Ryan Rowley,

The fact that you think of yourself as "defenseless" in a classroom sadly shows that you are just as warped and paraniod as Cho.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

What are all of you posters who are so adamant about your inalienable gun ownership rights under the 2nd Amendment going to do if the courts find that the interpretation of the "well regulated militia" phrase of the 2nd Amendment is the controlling phrase?

I take it that many of you are not really aware than a whole bunch of Circuit Courts of Appeal have ruled that way, while others have ruled in favor of the individual's right to bear arms.

You should know that your "right to bear arms" philosphy is not absolute or as well founded as you may think it is.

So what will you do if the courts eventually rule in favor of the "well regulated militia" philosphy?

Rebel? (which would make you criminal outlaws.)

Move to Canada? Make that Mexico?

Or accept the judgment of the courts as being the Law of the Land?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Facts are Facts (from above).

"4. The only practical reason why anybody needs a Glock 9mm semi-automatic with an expanded clip is to kill large numbers of people. Weapons of that kind would not be needed to protect yourself against a murderous nut-job or hunt overpopulated deer (and good riddance there)."

That is an opinion, not a fact.

If anything a weapon of that kind would be needed to protect yourself from a group of murderous nut-jobs.

Please forgive me if this was previously stated but there are non-lethal methods of protecting against the horror of what we saw at VT. The item that comes immediately to mind is mace or pepper spray. Not the kind that resides on a keychain and fits nicely in your pocket or purse. I'm talking about the 12oz aresols that will stop a grizzly bear at a distance of 20' or so. Would it be asking too much for each teacher, prof, busdriver, stewardess, etc. to have one on hand?

Posted by: Enrico Semprini | April 18, 2007 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Wow Jeff. That sure is a lot of people killed by guns a year. I love how conservatives love to try and tie in subjects like they're related. "People die from obesity, let's outlaw spoons." how about cancer? What about drowning, people drown too. The point is let's talk about what is not rationalize bad behavior forever. The future is now. The right-wing pundits aren't helping matters with their hate speech. Getting Rush/Coulter/Hannity/O'Reill/Savage off the air is the first step

Posted by: rufus1133 | April 18, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Hey, pants allow people to conceal these guns we want to ban, let's ban pants. He had a vest with pockets on it that he put extra magazines in so we gotta ban vests too. Never mind the fact that a semi intelligent, motivated individual who wants to commit a crime will do so regardless of bans, or what laws are in place.

Laws do not prevent crime; they merely punish those that break the law. As someone said there are laws in place making murder a crime, yet 32 people were murdered?? How can that be if there are laws making it illegal? Wake up people!

It is impossible to take guns out of the hands of criminals, period. So rather then giving them an unarmed populace, why don't we make them think twice about violent crime by expanding carry laws?

9/11 could have been prevented by a concealed carry holder on the flights. The Luby's massacre in Killeen, TX could have been prevented by a CHL holder. Columbine could have been prevented by a CHL holder. And now VT could have been prevented by a CHL holder. (And no I'm not saying give high school students and below guns as they are too young to even own one, but teachers and administration are old enough, and should be able to defend the students under their "protection". College students that are old enough, and possess a CHL, should be allowed to defend themselves, period.)

Carrying a gun for protection is like wearing a seatbelt. You pray you never need it, but if something happens and you do, you thank God that you had it. The alternative either way is the loss of your life.

I'm currently in the military. I've been to Baghdad. I am a CHL holder. I am as responsible a person with a gun as you can be. I am going to school right now, and am defenseless when I am in class. If I were allowed to carry in class I could ensure the safety of myself and my entire class, and my class mates wouldn't even know it. What is so wrong with that?

Maybe you like the idea of not being able to defend your friends and family, but don't take away my right to defend mine.

Posted by: Ryan Rowley | April 18, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse

see?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse

The all-American paranoia revolving around gun ownership also explains our hysterical reaction to 9/11 and our enthusiasm in following Bush over the cliff in Iraq - an Arab is an Arab is a terrorist and they might be under the shrubbery waiting to kill my children.

Posted by: John | April 18, 2007 11:56 AM | Report abuse

people should be at least patrially informed or familiar with the subject they are writting about in the comments they make. in one, they reference semiautomatic rifles and include 9mm pistols. rifles and pistols are not the same. pistols are handguns not rifles. just shows how valid the comment is and how knowing the writter is on the subject.

Posted by: wyobo | April 18, 2007 11:55 AM | Report abuse

seems like all the "gun-control" supporters wind up resorting to personal attacks, because they have no valid arguments.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 11:54 AM | Report abuse

"Sure are a lot of terrified men out there."

Men terrified that more civil liberties will be taken from us.

Protect the freedoms you have you can't get them back once their gone.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Everyone keeps talking about their rights--well when a criminal acts--he is violating my rights, and yet I still have to follow the law to protect his rights after he has committed a crime and then he gets out free because soemone made a technical error. So--if I can enact my rights, I would just as soon shoot him first when he points that gun at my family and tries to harm us. Then it's over.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse


Imagine that this kind of massacre happened every day. Imagine a police force that was far too small to even respond to most of them. Imagine this occurring repeatedly for years until the perpetrators and their accomplices became the de facto power-brokers throughout the land. Imagine the shootings also being accompanied by the brutal torture of victims. Imagine families never having finality on whether their own siblings or parents or children have been murdered or not.

"This is Iraq today. Now think of the justified rage many feel at the VT campus police chief and university president for misjudgments. Now imagine them presiding over several more massacres in the same place. Ask yourself: why do we not feel as enraged by those responsible for security in Iraq? Are those victims not human beings too? Are they not children and mothers and fathers and sons? Are we not ultimately responsible for them, having destroyed the institutions of order in their country?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

"We sanction law enforcement as the only element in society allowed to use force."

Speak for yourself.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Sure are a lot of terrified men out there.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

For those who opose the use of guns to defend yourself...

If you had been in one of those classrooms in VT where the killings happened, would you have rather have a gun with you to save your life or not?

Get back to your senses!

Posted by: Isaac R | April 18, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

These types of occurrences are so rare it is really not that dangerous to people as a whole. You can't stop someone who is commited to destruction until after he acts and it happens so rarely it will not affect 99.999% of the poplulation. It makes good news and blogging though.

Posted by: Random Acts | April 18, 2007 11:49 AM | Report abuse

I wonder how many of the gun nuts posting here wear crucifixes and talk about how much they love Jesus, the prince of piece. What a screwed up country.

Posted by: John | April 18, 2007 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Razorback
"It is impossible to stab 30 people to death, not if they have anything to do with it."

You better ban boxcutters then, because another handful of foreign nutjobs killed almost 3000 people with them.

Banning guns is not the answer, better screening for troubled youths are.

Posted by: Bob | April 18, 2007 11:48 AM | Report abuse

it goes without saying that a society without any guns would be safer than one where everyone owned one. The question becomes: what is the proper balance between those two extremes that would still insure the safety of the greatest number of people? Our country is at one end of the scale while many others, where private gun ownership is practically unheard of, are at the other end. Regrettably, from my point of view, American society is perfectly satisfied with the trade-offs of easy access to guns. What that tells me is that Va. Tech is just another record waiting to be broken.

Posted by: ralph | April 18, 2007 11:47 AM | Report abuse

JD and stopmakingsense, I'm generally agnostic on the point of gun ownership. The laws we have right now seem to work adequately, and I don't claim to have studied the issue enough to advocate for changes one way or the other. I'm merely trying to demonstrate the foolishness of the self-defense argument. Having the right to defend yourself is not the same as having the right to own a handgun. They are distinct concepts, and equating them just clouds the argument.

Having the right to own a handgun involves several underlying rights: the right to own an offensive, as well as a defensive, weapon; the right to judge for yourself when deadly force is necessary; the right to defend yourself in a manner based simple on choice, not efficacy or practicality. All of these issues need to be examined, by both sides of the debate.

Also, for every home invasion or rape that concealed weapons prevent, how many times does the attacker take the gun from the victim and use it against them? How many times does the weapon misfire? How many times do the kids find their parents' gun and take it to show their friends? More issues to think about. No issue is black and white.

Posted by: CH | April 18, 2007 11:46 AM | Report abuse

"So a policeman will be better able to defend himself and others if he does not have a gun? Your position implies such." - D. Herbison

Police are not part of the 2 Amendment equation. We sanction law enforcement as the only element in society allowed to use force. Part of that is carrying and using weapons. We also understand that they are properly trained, which is regularly reinforced. That are called into situations where they may need to use the weapons in the performance of their duties. And that they are also trained to be far more aware of their surroundings and be able to sense dangerous situations that the ordinary person is oblivious to.

The "myth" is that John and Jane Doe are safer walking through the park or down the street. Police are a totally different matter.

You may think that comment about "proving too much" makes some type of sense, but it's no more than a "gotcha" saying. It makes no logical sense. If you can't realize that in everyday life the "self defense" myth is just pure B.S. then you are only deluding yourself.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 11:45 AM | Report abuse

26,000 americans are killed by guns a year

112,000 people are "killed" by obesity each year in the USA, IT MUST BE THE SPOONS !!!!

I have a great idea, let's outlaw spoons

this twisted idiot waited over 30 days to purchase the second handgun, following the "gun control" laws. The 30 waiting period did nothing to deture him, and if handguns were outlawed, he would have purchased them on the black market and done the same thing. If he couldnt find a gun he would have ran a car into a crowd, made a bomb, etc.

The year before, 2 people were shot on the same campus and 2 other gun owners ran to thier cars, retrieved thier handguns and returned to stop any further killings

had one of those students been exercising his right to bear arms on monday the death toll could have been "Cho", not the 32 innocent bystanders

Posted by: Jeff | April 18, 2007 11:45 AM | Report abuse

What I don't understand is when the first gun was purchased why didn't a red flag go up? The professors at Tech and fellow students brought concerns of his behavior to the VA Tech police department earlier in the year. What happened to the national directive to share information within the various police agencies?

Posted by: Bryan | April 18, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Common Sense

Following your logic maybe we should "update" the first Ammendment. After all nowdays one can offend millions with their statements instead of only those within earshot.

Following your logic maybe the U.S. Government should have shipped Imus off to a reeducation camp.

Posted by: Bob | April 18, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Dagostino,

I hope you feel the same way when your toddler find your gun in your house and mistakenly kills themself.

"But wait! I keep it hidden and with a trigger lock on it." So when someone breaks into your house you will ahve enough presence of mind to find and unlock your gun and then defend yourself? I seriously doubt it. So much for the self-defense argument.

If you accept certain limitations on the First Amendment such as not crying "Fire!" in a crowd, why then are you so resistant to any limitations on your right to won a gun?

Just wondering...

Posted by: Thin Man | April 18, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

One legally licensed, responsible gun owner carrying that day could have stopped the entire episode in it's tracks.

Had teachers, administrators, ANYONE been allowed to possess firearms on campus, 30+ people MIGHT NOT BE DEAD.

Yet everyone screams "ban guns, ban guns!!!" while they constantly ignore the FACT that the cities with the highest crime and murder rates in the nation always have the most laws AGAINST guns ALREADY... When people HAVE no means to defend themselves against the scum that walks this earth (like it or not, they will ALWAYS be here) they are nothing but targets of opportunity FOR those scum who would rob, rape and murder them for a lousy pocket full of change.

Wake up people and pull your heads out of the sand. England has some of the most outrageously restrictive gun laws, yet their crime and murder rates continue to climb. But wait... That doesn't make sense, does it ????

When you HAVE no way TO defend yourself, you are nothing but a target waiting to be robbed, raped, murdered, etc etc etc... Criminals aren't stupid. They may be scum, but they are NOT stupid.

All around the world, oppressive governments have disarmed the populace and bar none, every single time those same disarmed people become subject to the worst crimes humanity can conceive of. Why, you ask ? Because they HAVE no way to defend themselves. But "the government, the military and the police will protect them" you say ? What happens when the government, police, et al ARE the predators ??? The Russians who disagreed with Stalin can tell you. Oh wait, no they can't... They're all rotting away in mass graves, put there BY the people who were supposed to "protect them".

The USSR, Viet Nam, North Korea, Rwanda, China, Cambodia, Iran, Turkey, Cuba, etc etc etc... They have ALL disarmed their people at one time or another yet where's all the peace and safety ???

It's a myth and a fallacy. It does not exist. All the utopian dreams in the world about happy people, helping each other, living their lives in peace and safety are just that; Dreams...

Wake up people. Criminals don't care about laws. They don't care about gun control. They don't care about human rights. They don't care about the intrinsic value of human life. They DO care about the possibility that THEY might be the ones on the receiving end of a firearm used by their intended prey FOR self defense.

They're going to go look for an easier target. Helpless, disarmed people... Period.

You think the police will protect you ? Think again. The courts of law in this country have ruled that the police have NO obligation to protect individuals. They are law enforcement. They enforce laws. That is their job. Sure, many have prevented scumbags from hurting innocent people in the past and they will most certainly continue to do so.

Can YOU wait for however long it takes a cop to show up when you call 911 (IF you ever even GET the chance) while you're being brutally raped, savagely beaten to death or god only knows what ?

I can't... And I WON'T. And neither should you. Thousands of people die every single year because they HAD no way to protect themselves. Will you be next ? You don't have to be... Will your wife, mother or child be next ? Don't you love them enough to do everything you possibly can to protect them from all the evil garbage in this world ?

One single person could have stopped the insane murderous rampage at Virginia Tech. One single person could have stopped the insane murderous rampage at Columbine. One single person could have stopped the insane murderous rampage at every single place like these.

But the 'Law" won't let them... So many innocent children might still be alive this very day if ONE SINGLE PERSON nearby was legally carrying a firearm for self-defense.

One single person...

One


But that can't possibly be the solution. Lets just make more useless laws and take away the God given right to life and the protection of it from more people.

After all, without more laws to create, what would politicians DO ?

Lets just do that then since it's easier to bury our heads in the sand than face reality and admit we live in an ugly violent world that will NEVER change no matter how many feel-good laws we drum up. It's just easier isn't it ? Why take responsibility for your own safety and that of the people you love when you can deny reality and pretend you're safe and evil is caused by inanimate objects. Banning things always makes me feel better, after all... It's sure a hell of a lot easier than waking up one day to find out someone killed my loved one and they couldn't do anything to protect themselves.

I love my family enough to do anything I possibly can and WILL do EVERYTHING I possibly can to protect them from the scumbags in this world. I own guns. I was raised by parents who owned guns. They were raised by parents who owned guns. Somehow though, those evil guns never made me into a sick depraved person running around killing people because someone hurt my feelings.

As long as there are human beings on the face of this earth, there will be filth that preys on them. If you're not willing to do anything to protect them and yourselves, why do you act so surprised when bad people do bad things to them ?

Is your life worth so little that you're willing to give up what may be the last chance you have to defend it ?

Mine sure isn't, and neither are the lives of those I love.

One single person could have stopped this...

One

- a man who protects himself and those he loves... By ANY means necessary.

Posted by: JB | April 18, 2007 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Sit down and shut up liberals. You compromised, you sold out, you surrendered. You gave up your position on gun control so that you could compete in rural congressional districts and took control of Congress. You made your decision, now live with it.

Posted by: Razorback | April 18, 2007 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Tougher gun controls law and proper enforcement thereof will not be a miraculous solution to violence, but they will most certainly ensure that no incident like Virgina Tech happens again. What other developed nations, save our glorious Land of the Free can boast of such dismal record of school shootings? (Not bombings, but shootings, so the chemical stores are off the hook for now.) It is impossible to stab 30 people to death, not if they have anything to do with it.

Constitutional right to bear arms is an anachronism. The same infallible constitution implictly condoned slavery and disenfranchised women. It was admittedly wrong on those counts, so it is on the issue of arming the populace.

Also semi-automatic weapons are not very effective against tanks and fighter jets, available to potentially tyrannical governments which are incidentally voted in by barely half the legal voters. Before picking up a gun, perhaps a trip to the ballot box could be in order.

What if one of the students carried a gun? Or rather what if Cho couldn't just walk into a gun store in Virgina get a gun and a box of ammo like a pack of chewing gum. Then we would not be going through these what ifs, and how comes, and there certainly would be a lot less dead bodies.


Posted by: sensible | April 18, 2007 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Like a lot of laws, I feel the 2nd amendment needs to be reviewed and clarified based on modern times. In the technology field there is always the issue of laws not keeping up to date with current technologies and I feel this is the case with the 2nd amendment. I believe its original intent, the right to bear arms in order to prevent the government from suppressing its own citizens, is just not a realistic possibility in America today. Now I know there will be some out there who disagree, but really what chance do people have with their little guns going against fighter planes, tanks, cruise missiles, etc. These are things the forefathers could not have foreseen and I don't believe they would want every citizen to own a tank for the cause of securing a free state.

As a society we've progressively moved on from the days of the wild wild west. Slowly the establishment of police forces have become the means of providing protection and order rather than John Smith down the road with his shotgun. While I wish it would happen, I know it is unrealistic to ban guns nationwide but we can make it harder for people to obtain. Even if a gun is purchased by a normal legal citizen, we all have the ability to 'snap'. If I had a choice I would rather that person have a bat or knife than a semi-automatic pistol.

Posted by: Common Sense | April 18, 2007 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Given these two facts-people who commit crimes usually obtain guns illegally and therefore no amount of laws will prevent criminals from obtaining and using guns. Additionally, that 75% of felons interviewed stated their number one fear is an armed victim-not the police (look at the reduction of crime in Florida after carry laws were passed), I don't see how any legislation on the restriction of guns will prevent criminals from obtain and using them.
Lastly, the Second Amendment grants me the right to own firearms and the Brady law ensures I obtain them legally. Until the Second Amendment is repealed I will continue to own and carry my firearm.

Posted by: Matt Dagostino | April 18, 2007 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Gun Control means - hitting what I am aiming at.

Posted by: Dave | April 18, 2007 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Stopmaking, your post was as eloquent a response as I've ever seen on this issue.

Posted by: JD | April 18, 2007 11:38 AM | Report abuse

CH, you seem reasonable and I didn't meant to intro a strawman - the example I used was the one you made up, which is why I responded to it.

The point is, you don't know when you'll be in a situation where you need one (my exmaple, the 1 or 2 bad guys attack my family) until pretty much you're in it. So, why not give people the right (actually, they already have the right) to arm themselves with a weapon likely to do the job?

Sure, I agree it's possible for most to find a makeshift weapon in a pinch, sometimes. This might work, might not. But if I were a 100 lb woman, and a 225lb man just broke into my house, I'd love to have had the option.

Posted by: JD | April 18, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

By writing that you shuld be able to arm yourself in any way you deem appropriate you've already negated your own point.

Posted by: Still unanswered questions | April 18, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people - without a
handgun.

Posted by: SemperFi | April 18, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Afam212 said it simple and plain. Why should "normal" everyday people give up certain rights because of a few wack jobs. Tragedies
will occur no matter how many laws we instate to try to prevent bad things from happening.
It is good to see so many people posting here are against gun control. Don't allow the government to screw us more than they already do.

Posted by: Don | April 18, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

CH, no one said that one would be defenseless without a gun. What we are saying is that we have a right to defend ourselves with guns, as enshrined in the Constitution. If you don't want to own a gun for self-defense, that's your call. I can guarantee you that anyone with criminal intent who comes to my house uninvited will immediately and forcefully be shown a clear demonstration of the letter and intent of the 2nd Amendment. You have a perfect right, under the 1st Amendment, to your opinion regarding gun ownership. You have no right, thanks to the 2nd Amendment, to limit my gun ownership.

Posted by: stopmakingsense | April 18, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Gun control is an issue where the majority of Americans are on the liberal side but our government doesn't follow. Along with protection of the environment, gay rights, maintaing Roe, sex education -the list goes on. It doesn't matter because we also have an impassioned yahoo population that opposes all of it and they vote based on it.

Posted by: John | April 18, 2007 11:35 AM | Report abuse

stopmakingsense,

I guess I don't see the correlation between limitng the Second Amendment and endangering the First Amendment. We already accept limitations on our freedom of speech (you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater, etc.) so I don;t think it unreasonable to accept certain limitations on the Second Amendment.

Are there other things that should be banned long before guns? Yes. I agree 100%. But I think the tragedy at VA Tech offers an opportunity to have a calm, reasoable discussion about guns right now.

Self-denfense does not solely come from the barrel of a gun. When someone is breaking down your door, there are few people who will have the presence to pick up and aim their handgun.

Posted by: Thin Man | April 18, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Mental illness IS the problem. Our network of organizations, public & private, are overloaded and understaffed to deal with this problem, and severely restrained by legal forces. Individuals with possible or known mental illness often refuse advice and treatment, and far more continue to walk among us unidentified. Organizations like the ACLU often times make it worse by fighting to preserve the 'freedoms' for dangerous people to stay in the population. Teachers, co-workers, employers usually choose not to take ANY action of attention for mentally ill students, etc., for fear of lawsuits and other expensive and possibly repercussive action. It's not guns, knives, or pipe bombs that are the problem; they are just tools (and anything can be a tool). Mental illness IS the problem. Identification, treatment, and possible isolation can effectively address the real problem if we reduce the legal barriers.

Posted by: Brian Kennedy | April 18, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

jaa3 makes an excellent and well-informed point. When you get right down to it, rights are imaginary; they only matter so far as you maintain the social contract between government and governed. If the government is no longer valid in the eyes of the people, then any ban of guns enacted by said invalid government would also be invalid, and thus ignored.

Posted by: CH | April 18, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Self-defense does not come solely from the barrel of a gun.

While that is correct, I do feel it is my right, and the right of my fellow citizens to arm themselves for self defense as they deem appropriate.

Posted by: Answered questions. | April 18, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

The Republicans got congress in 1994, not because of the NRA or Newt's contract, but simply because of the 1994 crime bill.

Speaker Tom Foley lost his re election, and he did not even vote for the bill.

Gun control is not a money issue, it is votes issue. Most people want more gun control, but many more voters are single issue pro gun than single issue anti gun.

I don't think the Democrats want to throw away control of congress again for something so unimportant to the voters.

Posted by: Clark | April 18, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Speaking as a mother and as one who has had family members victimized by a gun weilding aggressor--how dare those of you to think that just because a family member has been attacked --that we should support strict gun control. Even more so--it makes me want even more to have a gun. And to teach my children respect and the PROPER uses of a gun. Yes, I do think I am entitled to defend myself and my family against whomever I need to. The criminal doesn't care if he gets his gun legally or not. Also--- guess what---I am not even a Republican! Why do so many people try to categorize everyone. Please, don't even try to put my ideas and choices in a box-that's why I like being an American, because I don't have to agree with my neighbor! I have a choice to stand up and have my own opinions and ideas. Stop speaking for people you don't even understand and probably have never even talked to!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 11:31 AM | Report abuse

On "gun control", I just have one comment - Free people do not need to ask for permission.

Posted by: Stand Tall | April 18, 2007 11:31 AM | Report abuse

An armed and angry government can overthrow a populace. Look at the U.S.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 11:30 AM | Report abuse

You want to contemplate what could happen if we were unable to bear arms? VA Tech on a much larger scale. Personally I want to have my gun in my hand when one nut goes off and tries to kill everyone in sight. If anything, everyone should be encouraged to learn about guns, how to use guns wisely, and understand the power of a gun. If one other person had been in possession of a gun at the dorm on Monday, they could have ended this before it hit 3 killed. But the government has made it too easy for one person with a gun to cause this much damage.

Posted by: M. Hall | April 18, 2007 11:30 AM | Report abuse

I've been reading some of the jurisprudence/legal history surrounding the 2nd Ammendment and, aside from the standard arguments about what "to bear arms" means or what "militia" means, etc, and what stikes me most is the self-defeating nature of the ammendment.

A lot of the arguments in favor of guns posted here go something like "we need guns in case our government becomes tyrannical/oppressive", but I wonder this:

If our government ever becomes this way, wouldn't this invalidate the WHOLE constitution anyway and give us the license to do whatever we wanted with guns? I mean, doens't the need for a militia to defend oneself from one's own government imply that that government has already broken the social contract?

Posted by: jaa3 | April 18, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

An armed and angry populace can overthrow a government. Look at Iraq.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 11:28 AM | Report abuse

"Anyone Smart enough to handle a weapon should be smart enough to know when the time is right." - Donald

Agreed, but remember there is no intelligence test required to own a weapon. And, if it is truly a "right," there can't be one.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 11:28 AM | Report abuse

To Unanswerd Questions:

The answer is so obvious, even you should be able to see it. To defend yourself against wackos like Cho, who also have guns.

Or to oppose tyrrany. Those that do not believe an armed populace can effectively resist a tyrranical government should review the history of the Afgans opposing the Russians.

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 18, 2007 11:27 AM | Report abuse

This entire issue should be dropped. Now is the time for mourning. Many families have been devastated. Every politician and person using the murders at VT to back their agenda should be ashamed of themselves and the politicians should be voted out of office. Truely unethical on all counts.

Posted by: John E. | April 18, 2007 11:27 AM | Report abuse

I can't help but think that if the kid's girlfriend, or somebody else in the dorm, had been armed there would have been many fewer deaths.

The right to bear arms is of a piece with the right of self-defense. In fact, it's more than a right - it is a duty. If someone had taken him out early, perhaps 30 people would still be alive.

Gun control kills.

Posted by: R Kling | April 18, 2007 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Most Americans have no problem with hunting rifles and shotguns, but seme-auto and automatic weapons should not be sold to the public. A 9mm hand gun that holds 15 rounds in a clip and can be fired as fast as one can squeeze trigger is ridiculous. I can not think of one reason to own a gun with this destructive power. This is not the 1700's where people are actually going to be able to over throw a government backed by a modern military. Did the two guns commit this crime? No, but these weapons make it a lot easier and are way to accessible to nut jobs and even resident aliens. He could have used a bomb or other means but he chose hand guns. Why because they are easy to posess and little know how on how to use. An idiot can point and shoot and squeeze off tens of rounds in a minute with a 9mm and kill 31 students. They same student might not have the know how to do something a little more elaborate like build a bomb. You want to hunt buy a rifle or shotgun but get over the others and stop hiding behind the 2nd ammendment.

Posted by: Rich | April 18, 2007 11:27 AM | Report abuse

"Self-defense does not come solely from the barrel of a gun."

It does come from the barrel of a gun if you are phyically smaller than your attackers. If you are a woman or disabled or elderly, then chances are you aren't going to be on an equal playing field against a 240 lbs crackhead intent on robbery or rape. A gun can equalize the playing field for victim and attacker.

Keep those less strong than others safe, protect your right to own a gun.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Facts are facts.

1. Countries with strict gun control laws have far less gun violence. Gun control laws clearly work better than the right to bear arms when it comes to stopping gun violence.

2. None of the gun-control countries have been over-run by fascist hordes that they could otherwise have fought off.

3. As with every other constitutional right, there already exists every protection anyone needs against excessive laws. That means it is not against the spirit of the Constitution or the will of the founders to restrict guns as heavily as the Constitution allows. We do not even come close right now.

4. The only practical reason why anybody needs a Glock 9mm semi-automatic with an expanded clip is to kill large numbers of people. Weapons of that kind would not be needed to protect yourself against a murderous nut-job or hunt overpopulated deer (and good riddance there).

Hence, this opinion: Guns are by far the easiest method available to kill a targeted person. They permit murders as to which people would otherwise have time to rethink or lack sufficient will to overcome the higher barriers. They are by far the weapon of choice for murderous nuts. The only practical question is whether we have already foolishly allowed so many guns to flood our economy that strict gun control would be closing the barn door after the cows have escaped. Otherwise, gun control is the logical choice.

Posted by: Nomo Stew | April 18, 2007 11:26 AM | Report abuse

To those who question the concept that Teenagers and weapons don't mix.

Think about why states now have the minimum legal drinking age at 21. The rational decision making process of most teenagers is just a few years short of what is expected in society.

When the state I grew up in lowered the drinking age from 21 to 18, Friday and Saturday nights became hell for bar owners. Fights and brawls increased dramatically. The only variabkle factor in the equation was the increase in teenage patrons. When the minimum age went back to 21, the fights and brawls returned to their previous levels.

21 sounds good to me for drinking and weapons purchasing.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Although I generally believe that all "gun-control" legislation tramples on the rights of law-abiding citizens, why on Earth are we allowing non-US-citizens to purchase firearms in this country? Kinda defeats the point of, you know, having a country.

Posted by: scotch | April 18, 2007 11:25 AM | Report abuse

"The Self-Defense Myth: Carrying a gun makes you safer."

There are times when not to attempt to reach for a gun; but there may also be opperatunity if the robbers attention is diverted or in the College shooting the shooter has left the room and might come back.

Anyone Smart enough to handle a weapon should be smart enough to know when the time is right.

Posted by: Donald | April 18, 2007 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Do we need even more unenforceable gun laws, or do we need to look at our mental health system, our lax immigration policies, and our enabling "right to privacy" laws.

This rampaging shooter could have been stopped, when his professor reported to the university authorities, and to the police, that she had a mentally disturbed and potentially dangerous student. She reported this not once, but many times. And, no one acted.

Outlaw guns, and pathological killers will use other means.... like airplanes or explosives.

We don't need more laws, we need a more common sense approach.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | April 18, 2007 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Why don't we enforce the laws that we have? Did Cho Seung-Hui get his guns legally?

We don't need more laws (lawyers do), we need better, stricter enforcement of the laws we already have. If you break the law you get X as your punishment, period.

People need to understand that with each new law comes one less freedom.

Posted by: Always looking for answers | April 18, 2007 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Thin Man, while I respect your right to your opinion, I find it quite ridiculous. Getting rid of the 2nd Amendment is the first step toward getting rid of the 1st. As for gun control, see my earlier post. Using your logic, there are a few things that should be banned long before we get to guns.

Posted by: stopmakingsense | April 18, 2007 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Cowardly author of "Self Defense Myth..."

So a policeman will be better able to defend himself and others if he does not have a gun? Your position implies such.

That that proves "too much", proves nothing.

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 18, 2007 11:24 AM | Report abuse

If someone could explain to me why anyone needs a gun beyond target practice or hunting, I'll be glad to change my position.

Self-defense does not come solely from the barrel of a gun.

Posted by: Unaswered questions | April 18, 2007 11:20 AM | Report abuse

None of this has anything to do with gun control....because even if you can control them ....the people that SHOULDN'T have them or be able to get them ...still will...!

Posted by: Rick | April 18, 2007 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Ban guns and you will see home invasions skyrocket. Ban them and then you will learn to live in a new kind of fear.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 11:19 AM | Report abuse

JD, good job resorting to the typical internet debate tactic of setting up straw men. Slick. :-)

One against 30 were the odds at VT. That's why I said it.

You will always have your body with which to defend yourself. I'm not actually pro-gun-control; I think the laws we have now are fine. I don't oppose your right to own a gun. I do, however, oppose the logic that says without a gun, you're defenseless; that equates owning a gun to self-defense. Self-defense is not a right that a governmeny can grant or take away. It's a feature inherent to physical form. Nobody can ever stop you from defending yourself, unless you're tied up with ropes.

What makes you think that an armed student would've been brave enough to use their gun on Mr. Cho?

And, while maybe the presence of firearms in the student body would've aborted this single tragic event, and maybe arming everybody would prevent a mass murder like this from happening, how many more single murders would take place? Accidental shootings? Crimes of passion? You need to take the good with the bad.

Don't delude yourself into thinking that everybody who isn't a crazed lunatic or a gun-toting gang-banger is innocent of mind and pure of heart. While the number of people killed in massive events like this one would drop, the number killed randomly throughout daily life would spike dramatically, even through accidents alone.

Posted by: CH | April 18, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Strongly linked to the conservative fringe of the Republican Party, the NRA spent $400,000 a day to prevent the election of the Democratic candidate John Kerry during the 2004 presidential elections.

The NRA got what it paid for: Geroge Bush, a killer.

Posted by: T. J. Laughlin | April 18, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

There are few of these mass shootings in police stations or on military bases. While there may be various reasons for this, I believe one reason is that they are not considered "soft" targets by those that may be motivated to kill lots of others.

If I wanted to kill a lot of people (for whatever reason), I would choose somewhere I believed there would not be others with guns to stop me. Universities are one of those places, because of their ill advised gun restrictions. Thus, these regulations make college campuses less safe, by marking them as soft targets.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes: I have spent most of my adult life on college campuses, as professor and research staff. There are already guns on college campuses. They are carried by the scofflaws that won't obey existing or new and improved gun regulations. The question for you is, "Are these the ONLY people you want to have guns on campus?" Your daughter will be better protected by there being a larger number of reasonable, rational, trained, law abiding gun owners with their guns with them to respond when the occasional wacko goes postal.

To all those wanting "tougher" gun laws: Write a detailed set of regulations that is consistent with the Second Amendment, and would have prevented the VT shootings.... I don't believe you can. And if you do think you can, tell us how you will make sure these regulations were followed by Cho?

Posted by: Dan Herbison | April 18, 2007 11:17 AM | Report abuse

"If you want people to be able to defend themselves against armed aggressors," - JD

Weren't the armed aggressors contemplated by the 2nd Amendment actually the representatives of a government which was no longer supported by the general population?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 11:17 AM | Report abuse

The right to own a gun is just that, a RIGHT!

While you weep for the lack of rights for Gitmo detainees, you just as soon strip the rights of 80 million Americans as quickly as Stalin and Hitler did when they took away the firearms of their populaces in the 1930s.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 11:16 AM | Report abuse

In China a single person killed 8 and wounded 4 students in their dorm room with a knife.

Ban kitchen knives.

Posted by: Donald | April 18, 2007 11:16 AM | Report abuse

One day: Thrity three die at Virgnia Tech - a national tragedy.

Next day: One hundred and twenty seven die in Badhdad - a news item.

The terror IS George Bush.

Posted by: Marisa Delgado | April 18, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

The Self-Defense Myth: Carrying a gun makes you safer.

UHowever, that presumes that the you will be in a position to confront the attacker, get the weapon (remember it's not in a hloster like in the cowboy movies) and use it.

That's fine for the attackers we see in the movies.

However, most attackers are predators. Predators attack their prey in a manner which gives them the highest chance of success. From behind, from the side, always by surprise and usually at close range.

If the you are attacked and are able to immediately overcome the shock of the surprise and somehow get your weapon into a firing position before the attackers uses whatever weapon they have, then you just might be saved.

But, all the odds are on the side of the attacker.

DW - Your cousin may feel safer, and good for her. But, the reality is that she is no more safe, and maybe a little more vulnerable if she is ever attacked again. Why? Because once she realizes she's being attacked and she's fumbling trying to get to that gun, all of the advantage is on the side of the attacker, and they may just use their weapon during that time.

Having looked down the barrel of a handgun used in an armed robbery led me to think long and hard about that. Having a gun would not have helped me one bit.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Twisted logic: more guns will limit gun crime.

Posted by: AJ | April 18, 2007 11:13 AM | Report abuse

All the talk about the NRA is BS. Most gun owners do not belong to the NRA.

There are more than 80 million gun owners in the US and NRA membership is about 4 million.

Call us the silent majority but we speak our minds at the polls on election day.

Posted by: Donald | April 18, 2007 11:12 AM | Report abuse

America is shocked by its 33 dead. Once every few years a bunch of students get killed, and it's a "disaster".

But just today, 157 Iraqiis got blown away, and tomorrow a bunch again, and the day after tomorrow, and so on.

Things are not seen in perspective, I would say.

And yeah, let's control guns with even more guns, great idea!

Posted by: Manok | April 18, 2007 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Guns don't kill people, George Bush does.

Posted by: Joe Tealson | April 18, 2007 11:12 AM | Report abuse

donbcivil,

If you think the only way you could have defended your family from some drunk idiots is with a gun, then I weep for you and your family.

If someone could explain to me why anyone needs a gun beyond target practice or hunting, I'll be glad to change my position.

Self-defense? Hah! Self-defense does not come solely from the barrel of a gun.

Posted by: Thin Man | April 18, 2007 11:12 AM | Report abuse

anon posters, if you want a response sign your name, otherwise it will get ignored and you will look 'fraidy scared.

CH, you can't be serious. If you want people to be able to defend themselves against armed aggressors, you can't expect them to do so without a decent weapon. You say it's one against 30...how do you know that? The next time it might be one against one, or one against 5 (my family for example). The next incident isn't likely to be at a school, it could be anywhere, a hospital, a metro station, a park, without easy access to the lethality inherent in a desk or chair. :-)

Or do you think people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves?

Posted by: JD | April 18, 2007 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Thin Man, why are you basing your observations on a movie? Reality is typically different.

Posted by: Big Man | April 18, 2007 11:10 AM | Report abuse

If more of the civilian population had been armed on the VTech campus, perhaps someone could have stopped this massacre before it became one. But hey, feel free to just rely on the police, who couldn't find the guy for HOURS after he began his massacre. Just imagine if he hadn't started shooting up another hall on campus. How long do you think it would have taken them to find this individual? A gun in the hand is worth a swat team on the phone.

Posted by: Jesse | April 18, 2007 11:10 AM | Report abuse

It's been nice reading from some other Democrats here who aren't interested in attacking gun rights. "Standing up to the NRA" makes as much sense as "standing up to the ACLU/NARAL".

I left the party in 1994 because of the gun control lunacy but since the party isn't pushing gun control and supports sensible (to me) ideas like equal rights for LGBT folks, I may be voting for more Democrats.

As for the "guns are bad" drivel...I've been in a hotel room with my wife and our infant wondering if the drunk thugs outside, talking about breaking into a room, would pick ours. I had a handgun with me but we managed to bug out without violence. Gun control is the notion that it would have been better for us to be helpless just in case the rare nut won't end up killing people.

Posted by: donbcivil | April 18, 2007 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Also, the "degredation of society" argument is hilarious. Society has been degrading in the eyes of high-minded blowhards since Zoroaster wrote the Gathas; truth is, there have always been murderers, rapists, drunks, addicts, liars, cheaters, and finger-pointers, and there always will be, in similar numbers to those currently extant. Society is not crumbling. It's always been this ugly. Deal with it.

Posted by: CH | April 18, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

To the Europeans who have already posted and to those who will post in the future, this comment is especially for you:

If you take away crime committed by blacks and Latinos, the US has a crime rate lower than that of the UK and Italy.

1) You do not have close to 40 million blacks (approx 14% of population according to 2000 census). But in Europe you are starting to see what happens when third (turd?) world minorities start to congregate in cities.

France, UK, Italy, all of Western Europe, better start waking up!

If you think I am being "racist" I invite you to come to the United States and stay in a hotel in a black area. May I suggest NYC's Bronx or Brooklyn, Newark, East St. Louis, New Orleans, Cleveland, Miami.

2)You do not have at LEAST 36 million Latinos (and the number is much much higher b/c of illegal immigration, probably closer to 50+ million. Latinos have little desire to climb the social ladder and the recent ones are illiterate, many of them criminals, and they pop out babies every 2 years. They do not learn English.

3) Italy, Germany, Spain, Portugal, all ex-USSR countries, Northern Ireland: what do they have in common? Dictatorships and police states in the 20th century.

Asia: every single country: the same

South America: the same

Africa: LOL. The only countries run by whites, Rhodesia(now Zimbabwe) and South Africa, are now nightmarish places now that the whites have been removed from power.

USA: no dictatorships (and please don't talk about civil rights. Blacks here have it better than any blacks on earth).

ANd you want to take away our firearms? Ha!

-To the poster talking about tanks and jets and the US Army and blah blah blah. If there is a revolution, it will be GUERILLA warfare. Just like in Iraq. Just like Afghanistan. Just like Chechnya. See how effective it can be? Get it? No one is ever going to "invade" the US, unless its Red China...I'm kidding, kind of.

Posted by: Ex-Liberal | April 18, 2007 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Are you Americans that stupid to see that your gun totting attitudes are taking the finest and the best in your society. When will the next, happen in days we all expect. It is the right to bear arms and use them - you cant use them to eat or build things. Their only function is to destroy. The world weeps with you again and again - get rid of those vile instruments - PLEASE!!!

Posted by: Harold Sampson | April 18, 2007 11:05 AM | Report abuse

More gun controls? How about more controls on crazies that write horror stories in schools? It seems that these nut cases always give a hint of what "they might do" through their writings and conduct. The problem is that many people probably had an idea that one day that kook would kill someone....and they did nothing!

How about Stephen King? How many people has he "inspired" to kill people through the trash he's written? You're tellin' me that's stuff's good to see and think about?

A long time ago....a good man once said, "the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart".

Posted by: Charles Martel | April 18, 2007 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Stricter gun control laws are not the answer. If someone is deranged and wants to hurt someone, the individual will find a way.

Posted by: afam212 | April 18, 2007 11:01 AM | Report abuse

"....amendment - and I doubt they would approve of the NRA's justification of automatic weapons - in 1791 they used muzzle loaders, didn't they?"

Excuse me, Amazed, but your ignorance is showing. The pistol that the maniac used at VT was a "Semi-Automatic" pistol. Semi-automatic means that it fires once for each time the trigger is pulled. Automatic means that it fires continuously for as long as the trigger is depressed, or until it runs out of ammo, which happens very quickly. Full automatic is nothing more than a way to waste a lot of amunition, with little or no accuracy.

Posted by: SPR | April 18, 2007 11:01 AM | Report abuse

If we allow concealed weapons we're going to need HAT CONTROL laws! Good guys with guns wear white hats, bad guys wear black hats. How else can responding SWAT teams sort out who to target when there's a shootout at the OK Corral?

Posted by: Fredd Spoonz | April 18, 2007 11:01 AM | Report abuse



Enlarge
Tengku Bahar
World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz at a 2006 press conference during the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank annual meetings in Singapore. AFP/Getty Images


Morning Edition, April 18, 2007 · World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz's bid to keep his job is becoming increasingly difficult amid new allegations related to work his girlfriend, bank employee Shaha Riza, did for a private contractor as the United States was preparing to invade Iraq.

In March of 2003, Pentagon contractor Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) hired Riza -- while she still worked at the World Bank -- for month-long assignment that included travel to Iraq. Officials at SAIC say they were told by the Defense Department to hire her.

At the time, Wolfowitz was deputy secretary of defense for the U.S.

Riza's supervisor, World Bank Vice President Jean-Louis Sarbib, says the circumstances surrounding the SAIC job were not transparent.

"I thought she had done this on a volunteer basis on her own time. I did not know anything about a contract with that firm," Sarbib, who is responsible for the Bank's Middle East and North Africa Region, said. "This was unusual and not above board."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 11:00 AM | Report abuse

If students carried guns...

then there would be a lot of dead professors over bad grades, etc.

You can't regulate beahvior, so it makes sense to regulate the way in which that behavior (i.e. shooting someone) is carried out.

If someone could explain to me why anyone needs a gun beyond target practice or hunting, I'll be glad to change my position.

Self-defense? Bullsh*t. As someone above pointed out, the passengers on United 93 didn;t have a gun and they could fight back, so don;t try to con me into thinking you need a gun to defend yourself.

Posted by: Thin Man | April 18, 2007 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Cho was seen by mental health counselors two years before purchasing his Glock. One of the questions on the purchase document asks about mental health issues.

There needs to be a mechanism where anyone picked up for M.H. issues is red flagged to prevent weapon purchases. That is the ONLY change to firearms laws I would support. I will train our adult children how to use a weapons in self defense following this incident.

Posted by: Steve Willis | April 18, 2007 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Dan W: Your cousin is one of the lucky ones. She was able to over come her horrific ordeal. How about those who have been murdered at the hands of a rapiest weilding a gun to their victim. How about our children that are kidnapped, raped and murdered. What is the solution for them?

Please no offense here.
While I applaud your cousins courage and I am truly happy for the outcome, I ask that you look at the larger picture.

Posted by: Hayze | April 18, 2007 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Guns kill people!

Guns don't kill people, people kill people! !

Actually people, it's the bullets which kill people.

Some states recognize that, and have tried to take some action, but it's likely to have little effect.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 10:59 AM | Report abuse

I did my research - I read the constitution, did you? (no name - too cowardly to own up?)

The "Militia" were, and are, regular citizens - in organized, controlled groups like the Army and Navy - do your homework! - Oh and please give some references to your claims that crime rates are lower in places with guns. Peer reviewed published data please.

Posted by: Amazing | April 18, 2007 10:59 AM | Report abuse

If students carried guns...

But the tradeoff is that instead of worrying about a single incident perpetrated by a deranged individual, parents might worry about multiple events participated in by just about anybody. It is one thing to think the man sitting next to you in a cafeteria might be armed and able to stop a mass killer before he gets to you. It is another to think about almost anybody at a university being armed, including the drunken frat-party reveler and the angry, jilted lover. Most people in college are on the brink of mature adulthood, not over its threshold.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 10:58 AM | Report abuse

If someone could explain to me why anyone needs a gun beyond target practice or hunting, I'll be glad to change my position.

Self-defense? Bullsh*t. As someone above pointed out, the passengers on United 93 didn;t have a gun and they could fight back, so don;t try to con me into thinking you need a gun to defend yourself.

Posted by: Thin Man | April 18, 2007 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Lets take guns away from everyone so only the bad guys will have them. It works great in Mexico!

Posted by: Austin | April 18, 2007 10:58 AM | Report abuse

If there would have been more law-abiding citizens in posession of deadly force on the campus, instead of unarmed; the gunman would not have been nearly as successful. Anyone not convicted of a felony, or violent crime should be encouraged to arm themselves to defend GOOD people from the EVIL that a culture of death can produce. How many 7-11's would get held up if most of the people inside were armed? I do belive there are more GOOD people than EVIL in the world. Unfortunately, those good people are encouraged to trust military and law enforcement officials to secure their safety on a 24/7 basis, and this is not possible (shooter was well aware of that) without drastically expanding the number of "deputized" citizens who carry a sidearm. It sounds crazy, but it's undeniable that the shooter would not have had near as many victims if he himself was under fire; and the incident would have been over in minutes instead 2 hours.

Posted by: justajunglist | April 18, 2007 10:57 AM | Report abuse

gun control is the dumbest argument. its not even possible in this country. crime would skyrocket just like in england, canada and austrailia. the democratic party just dosnt get it, criminals dont care if their guns are legal and they will smuggle them in if they have too, so when all the bad people will have guns what are the rest of us to do when us responsible citizens try to defend our selfs bring a knife to a gun fight yeah that will end well. guns are here to stay in this country, the second amendment isnt going anywhere, and as a police officer ill be keeping all my guns and fighting for others right to do the same, because its my job to defend all the laws of this country

Posted by: david | April 18, 2007 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Specter84, how about DC where guns have been essentially outright banned?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 10:56 AM | Report abuse

There should be stricter controls on South Korean stundents coming into this country!!! This sounds absurb doesn't it..it's meant too. The same rational that is argued for stricter gun control could easily be argued against imigration. "A gun was involved...so it must be the guns fault...a South Korean citizen was involved...so it must be South Korea's fault and all other imigrants..legal and illegal." Yes...a gun was used to in this terrible tradegy, there's not question about that, but a gun did not commit the crime, a person did.

What sad is that Virgina is a state that allows law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons, however not on school grounds or university grounds. This left all 20K plus students and faculty (the population of a small city) unarmed and defenseless, so let's go ahead and add the state lawmakers on the list of defendents on the quest to blame all other parties...and not on student that committed the crime.

Posted by: Kevin -- Ohio | April 18, 2007 10:56 AM | Report abuse

For you JD, take it to the next Chamber of Commerce meeting...

The move by Adm. Thad W. Allen, the Coast Guard commandant, is a major embarrassment for the contractors, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, which had formed a partnership to oversee the delivery of 91 new ships and more than 240 new or rebuilt aircraft.

All three major classes of ships that Lockheed and Northrop have worked on since winning the contract in 2002 have had serious problems. Admiral Allen said Tuesday that eight renovated 123-foot patrol boats were so unseaworthy they would be permanently retired.

The setbacks have undermined earlier assertions that private contractors, not the government, are best suited to manage such a complex project.

"We understand all too well what has been ailing us within Deepwater for the past five years," Admiral Allen said Tuesday. "We've relied too much on contractors to do the work of government as a result of tightening budgets."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Criminals love gun control.

Just take a nice night walk through downtown Washington DC (the strictest gun control in the country) and see how safe you feel.

Leave our civil liberties alone!!
Leave our rights alone!!
Gun ownership is an American freedom.

Posted by: Bob | April 18, 2007 10:55 AM | Report abuse

JD, was your post a joke? Do you seriously think that if somebody is attacking you with a gun, and you don't have one, you're defenseless?

You will use whatever you have handy to defend yourself. If you have a gun, you might use it, but if you don't, is a desk really such a bad weapon? A formica desk can stop .22 pistol rounds. A chair is heavy enough to stun somebody. Just because these items don't spit fire and make a loud "BANG" when you use them doesn't make them ineffective.

And one gunman vs. one knife in a fight might be lopsided, but one gunman vs. 30 knives? I'll take the knives.

Posted by: CH | April 18, 2007 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Hayze: "ASK THEM HOW IT FEELS. Ask them how their lives have changed." My cousin was raped at gunpoint. How did she get past it - She got a gun, learned to use it and yes, she carries. Rather than being a broken terrifeid girl who cringes at every shadow, she is a confident woman aware of her surroundings and capable of defending herself.

Posted by: Dan W | April 18, 2007 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Sadly, a tragedy like this has removed the focus from the real issue. First, as a staunch democrat, I oppose gun control. YES THAT'S RIGHT I OPPOSE GUN CONTROL. Let's try reading the constitution and sticking to it. You have a right to bear arms for a reason. History is repeating itself folks because we refuse to recognize it.

Two, this tragedy could not have been prevented by gun control. The young man fantasized about killing people with chainsaws and hammers. He felt isolated and combined that issue with terrible mental illness that may or may not have been treated. Do you really think gun control was going to stop him?

Three, let's not blame the University for the warning system. Let's think about this...how many of the Universities in the US are linked together for a warning system. Here's your answer..NONE. Most monies at a university are delegated to athletics, which in turn help pay for the university.

Nobody expected something terrible like this, the police did their best. The university their best. You can't communicate to 20,000 in transit students; and even more disturbing, had this just been and isolated domestic dispute with two murders instead of thirty two, the university would probably have been admonished for shutting down the school... So where's the standard practice? And what about using an Amber Alert type system that interrupts broadcasts to warn of crazed armed gunmen? Probably that would not work either...considering the time constraints of verification that an actual armed gunman was actually gunning people down. Because if you profile or accuse someone incorrectly, well you know what happens... What if an alarm system were used, like a siren that sounds off in the local boroughs to alert the fire department to check in. A way of alerting the student body that they are in danger?

We can spend many hours trying to mince these details, and plan for what was a tragic anomaly.

We have to reflect on that and wonder why that is considering the "homeland" security focus we take since 9/11. Apparently, it's not working. I would think those students were their own best warning system, with cell phones and emails. That is sad America. Really sad. I wonder what the homeland security grants to this State were used for.

This young man, like many others, suffered from a combination of what seemed like a severe mental disorder, and isolation, and possibly mocking and ridicule to stoke the brew of danger forthcoming. Sounds a lot like the kids in Columbine as well. It is horrible what has happened. Inexcusable. Unfortunately it is not a reflection of the easy answer of Gun Ownership. It should be a reflection on the images we find acceptable in society, and the actions we take toward other humans. For example, the disgusting things this young man allegedly wrote were abhorrent in his English class, yet, he probably was able to further extend these fantasies and images through video games and movies. No, censorship is not the answer either, but when movie previews give you nightmares, what do you think it is doing to the psyche?

Maybe one way to start is thinking about what we dismiss and desensitize ourselves to for the sake of others and consider how we treat one another. We have tried so hard not to step on freedoms and feelings that we have created a catch 22. Possibly the professors warnings should have been acknowledged in a different manner. But as always hindsight bias is always 20/20 what is truly evident is...the media and culture will always play the blame game. Let's acknowledge this person was really mentally a mess. He is to blame for this tragedy. There are several more out there. What to do with the next generation? And by the way, there will always be mentally ill people, now matter how nice and pc and accepting we are, it just used to be that they stood out more and were generally designated more quickly in society.

All that said, those poor victims and their families. No one deserved this, no one should have to suffer this. We all should try to learn from this. What a horrific nightmare.

Posted by: JWelch | April 18, 2007 10:53 AM | Report abuse


The move by Adm. Thad W. Allen, the Coast Guard commandant, is a major embarrassment for the contractors, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, which had formed a partnership to oversee the delivery of 91 new ships and more than 240 new or rebuilt aircraft.

All three major classes of ships that Lockheed and Northrop have worked on since winning the contract in 2002 have had serious problems. Admiral Allen said Tuesday that eight renovated 123-foot patrol boats were so unseaworthy they would be permanently retired.

The setbacks have undermined earlier assertions that private contractors, not the government, are best suited to manage such a complex project.

"We understand all too well what has been ailing us within Deepwater for the past five years," Admiral Allen said Tuesday. "We've relied too much on contractors to do the work of government as a result of tightening budgets."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 10:52 AM | Report abuse


I believe that if you bother to look, college campuses, where guns are outright banned, are safer than just about anywhere else in this country. In fact, the murder rate per capita on college campuses has historically been about 33 times less than in the general population.

All college campuses that I know of have a ban on guns.

Posted by: Specter84 | April 18, 2007 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people with fertilizer, diesel fuel, and a Ryder truck. What kind of control prevents this? I don't remember a single shot being fired either.

Posted by: C Gunther | April 18, 2007 10:52 AM | Report abuse

JD - How is it that you so easily fall for the Chamber of Commerce and NRA propaganda.

"At the end of the day, the NRA is only as strong as their voting membership, which is significant. So the politicians are reflecting the will of a big chunk of the people."

The strength of the NRA time and again has been the effectiveness of Wayne LaPierre and his lobbyists in crafting components within the membership. The membership as a whole wields little power. When LaPierre can break it down into campaign contribution and voting components for specific lawmakers he has influence.

The country as a whole could be in favor of "X" law which the NRA opposes, but LaPierre has the NRA's efforts so well crafted that all his lobbyists have to do is lobby certain critical politicians. The broadbased membership is good for propaganda. It's the use of components within the membership which are the source of the power.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes, yes I have been on a college campus (and attended college). Have you ever sought a CCW permit? A CCW permit is a fairly decent screening process in most states. Really though that was just a suggestion I made because it is something currently in place.

Personally I think the screening process (to buy a firearm, not just to have one on a campus) should entail not just a background check but also a psychological evaluation. Then, I think CCW permits should be available to all who can purchase a handgun (unlike in Maryland where you have to first be assaulted to apply), but they should add fairly rigorous accuracy requirements to the current requirements (say under 3" group 20 yards with a pistol).

Bans that limit the types of weapons/size of clips that a person can purchase don't accomplish much, but enough weapons in enough of the right hands I think can.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 10:51 AM | Report abuse

I am tired of the Europeans bad mouthing America over our gun control laws. No one seems to understand that we are dealing with a different environment with Mexico south of the border. We cannot dictate Mexico's gun laws and they sure do not respect ours.
I can foresee that gun smuggling would be just as bad as the drug smuggling is and our government is too inept to make sure that Americans are protected from thugs who do the jobs that Americans will not do.

Posted by: valerie | April 18, 2007 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Most gun crime occuring in countries with tight gun laws, e.g. Canada, is occuring thanks guns purchased in the US. Your gun laws are a joke.

Posted by: Jim | April 18, 2007 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Unfortunately,

I believe that the answer is to provide additional plain clothes officers at schools along with uniformed ones. Plainclothes officers would blend in to the student population better and be able to respond quickly. Arming students with weapons is asking for additional trouble. Will this cost money? You bet, the cost of getting a degree just doubled.

Posted by: No end in sight | April 18, 2007 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Look on the liberal east or west coast you may be able to pass gun control laws but in the south and west it will never happen. Many people here would rather revolt than have you take away there guns

Posted by: mac | April 18, 2007 10:50 AM | Report abuse

"No, Larry Hincker was RIGHT. Guns and teenagers don't mix well. Jilted lovers, drunken fights, failed tests, depression, Russian Roulette are likely bad outcomes of guns on campuses."

Hincker was wrong. Even if some comments are correct re students carrying weapons, why can't the teachers, administrators and other college personnel? A gun in even one instructors desk would have been a help, or could have been.

Posted by: geedsm | April 18, 2007 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Wrong Amazing... the founders "Militia" at the time were regular citizens. Do some research before you post please.

And check crime rates in locales where carry permits are issued. Like Tennessee. You will find gun crime to be lower than in Cities like NY where it is impossible for an average citizen to carry a weapon. Only the criminals have guns in NYC.. so they know they are safe.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 10:49 AM | Report abuse

BTW: No one on flight 93 had guns. The terrorists were only armed with boxcutters. So the ability of people to fught back against someone illegally armed with a boxcutter does not relate to their ability against someone illegally armed with a gun.

Posted by: Dan W | April 18, 2007 10:49 AM | Report abuse

'After months of criticism and setbacks, the Coast Guard announced Tuesday that it was taking over the management of its $24 billion fleet modernization project, curtailing the role of two military contractors that had been hired to run the job.'

This is what privatization leads to. billions of taxpayer dollars down the drain.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Lets be realistic here. The GOP plays on the fact that card carrying NRA members want guns.

Fine... Have your guns. Take your guns.. I don't care that you have guns.

What I do care about is the senseless killing PEOPLE do with GUNS. Guns don't kill, people do.

Why can't we have stricter guns provisions with out jeopardizing your 2nd Ammendment rights?

Anybody who reads this think about what I'm about to say:
If your family, friends, friends family, working associates, their friends and their family have ever been a victim of a violent act where a gun was used,

ASK THEM HOW IT FEELS. Ask them how their lives have changed. Their mental perception of walking into a grocery store, driving with your car window down, walking down the street with a child in a stroller or in a wagon.

ASK THEM if we should have stricter gun laws.

Not the manufactures, NOT the NRA, NOT the hunters, the gun lobby, congress or the President.

ASK THE VICTIMS. ASK those in the Amish community, ask those in Colorado and now Blacksburg, VA.

That's where your answer lies. We have every race, Black, White, Yellow, Red.... killing one another. Killing for Drugs, for greed, for revenge and for love. Violent gun crimes transend all ethnic types. Bring back the Brady law, Re-enact the ban on assult weapons.

WIll this stop the killing. NO

But maybe innocent childre in schools and their families across this great country will take solice in knowing someone is doing SOMETHING and that maybe our elected officialss CARE about them and not POWER.

Posted by: Hayze | April 18, 2007 10:48 AM | Report abuse

CH, was your post a joke? Are you suggesting that, to defend oneself or family against an armed (with a GUN) attacker, that it's perfectly reasonable to tell folks to use a chair or desk as a comparable weapon?

This almost sounds like the punchline to that famous joke, 'don't bring a knife to a gunfight'

Posted by: JD | April 18, 2007 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Keith,

SO who trains them? Who registers them?

Everytime we go down that road the NRA starts screaming about government intrusion.

Posted by: Thin Man | April 18, 2007 10:48 AM | Report abuse

If more guns are the answer, then why do we have such a high gun crime rate?

There are more guns/capita in the United States than any other civilized country in the world, and yet we also have the highest gun crime rate - surely if guns prevent crime, then we should have the lowest gun crime rate!

The 2nd Amendment says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infinged." Seems to me our founding fathers intended the gun bearers to be in the militia - I would bet BIG money they did not envisage what has happened under the guise of this amendment - and I doubt they would approve of the NRA's justification of automatic weapons - in 1791 they used muzzle loaders, didn't they?

Posted by: Amazing | April 18, 2007 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Rob and "O".. you are both correct. We already have all the laws on the books that are needed. Probably too many.

Gary.. you are correct also about the laws making more criminals...... If you own a .22 Cal Glenfield Model 60 rifle in NJ... you own an illegal "Assault Weapon"... why? because the magazine that came with it when Sears and other retailers sold it over the last 30 years held about 16 rounds. Therefore it is considered by NJ law to be "AN ASSUALT WEAPON". It's laughable that a 22 cal target shooting rifle is considered by NJ's liberal state senate to be an "assualt rifle"... if you have one in your NJ closet or gun rack... you'd better order a NJ magazine... or your going to jail... ridiculous .. isn't it?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 10:46 AM | Report abuse

The fact that gun control proponents are missing is that making something illeagal doesn't stop it from happening, it just creates a black market. Take alcohol prohibition or narcotics as an example.
The fact is, this shooter did break the law by carrying these guns on campus, proving that laws don't matter to the criminal. As on 9-11, one trained individual with a legally registered concealed weapon could have ended this as soon as it started.

Posted by: keith | April 18, 2007 10:46 AM | Report abuse

JD, so full of respect for other people's opinions. Typical.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Just look at the facts. The states with the strictest gun control laws have the highest crime rates. States that have passed concealed carry laws (with responsible prerequisites and training required) have had dramatic decreases in violent crime. Criminals LOVE gun control! it makes their job much safer. Don't remove the means for honest, trained, responsible citizens to protect themselves from animals like this "student." Come down hard on violators and criminals. To do otherwise is like saying a spoon made Rosie O'Donnell fat.

Posted by: M Kolendo | April 18, 2007 10:45 AM | Report abuse

So we should ban guns, knives, swords, baseball bats, tools, cars, glass bottles, gun powder or any other kind of explosives etc... Until all we're left with is rocks.

Can we ban rocks too?

Posted by: MC | April 18, 2007 10:45 AM | Report abuse

If someone could explain to me why anyone needs a gun beyond target practice or hunting, I'll be glad to change my position.

Self-defense? Bullsh*t. As someone above pointed out, the passengers on United 93 didn;t have a gun and they could fight back, so don;t try to con me into thinking you need a gun to defend yourself.

Posted by: Thin Man | April 18, 2007 10:44 AM | Report abuse

We must never forget that firearms are inanimate objects. They don't cause harm unless someone pulls the trigger. The person who pulls that trigger is going to be in a mindset to cause harm whether they are armed with a firearm or some other weapon or object. Guns aren't the problem here...the problem is with the criminals who use them improperly to harm innocent people, and that problem is based on the deeper issue of the ever faltering morality in our society.

Most guns that commit crimes are obtained illegally. It just so happens, the ones that committed the horrible acts of Monday were obtained legally. Even if they had been purchased in a state that had stronger firearms laws, they very likely still would have been obtained in this case.

This is but a further demonstration of the need for an armed citizenry and the education of proper use. Gun control only serves to prevent lawful firearm users from protecting themselves and their homes and engaging in sport. The only other solution would be to fix the underlying societal problems that lead to such tragedies, which is unlikely, if not impossible, because of the rampant liberal immorality we are suffered to endure.

Posted by: Brandon S. | April 18, 2007 10:44 AM | Report abuse

AGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Insurgent bombers launched a series of attacks across Baghdad on Wednesday and killed at least 157 people and wounded scores -- a particularly violent day in a bloody capital city enduring sectarian warfare and an aggressive government crackdown against insurgents.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 10:43 AM | Report abuse

OK Blarg you're off the hook. Jane was the only whackjob poster I was referring to.

CitizenW, maybe you should re-post, this time in English please.

Posted by: JD | April 18, 2007 10:43 AM | Report abuse

"How many of you know PBS was just forced to pull a special on WWII veterans because its producer saw nothing wrong with the fact no Latinos were included in the documentary?" - Bobby W-C

Does this mean you approve of censorship, Bobby?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Teenagers can not get a CCW permit. Most states have a minimum ager of 21.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 10:41 AM | Report abuse

DG - How the heck one incident 37 years ago at Kent State prove anything? Other than what specifically happened at Kent State.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 10:40 AM | Report abuse

People kill people. Doesn't matter what object was used to kill--anything is a potential object of destruction. Why is the crime worse when a gun is used--only because now other people can give the killer an excuse for his own choice--to use a gun to committ acts of extreme violence. If you ask me--using a gun is a sissy's way to kill. It is the most detached and easy way to get rid of your percieved enemy. What happened to openly confronting the issues and dealing with them like a man. A yeah- forgot the other defense for guns-the internet/computers has caused people to behave that way because no one has to have physical contact anymore to communicate--and don't forget the violent video games where it's okay to kill people--they just come back to life! Stop making excuses for people who have made the choice to kill. They killed because they wanted to kill. Period!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 10:40 AM | Report abuse

As a foriegner, i dont get why a college student in a dorm need a gun. Why, defend against who? Unless you have super -reflexes and super heroic power, u will most porbably be dead before u take out our gun from your pocket( in normal circumstances). Murder rates and violence are significantly lower in European countries. Unfortunetly guns are soooo ingrained in the culture, it is almost impossible for american to be objective around this issue.

Posted by: Darrell | April 18, 2007 10:40 AM | Report abuse

There are so many options available that can kill it is impossible to control. Gun control will never eliminate tragedies like this. Products that we use in everyday life can be made in to effective killing tools. There are no rules or laws that will stop people from killing others when they are willing to die themselves.

Posted by: Steve | April 18, 2007 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Though I'm saddened by what happened at Virginia Tech, I'm not sure there's anything that can be done about gun control short of either repealing or/and clarifying the 2nd amendment itself. I heard the gunman bought the weapons he used in the attacks legally and he didn't have any prior issues with the law before. Worse, these guns were semi-automatics, which mostly aren't banned. I fear that this is the "Dark Side" to the famous NRA slogan "Guns don't kill people, People do."

Posted by: Gerald Shields | April 18, 2007 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Yes! That's it! Give all teenagers [who are known for their stable, responsible behavior, after all] weapons -- and then see what happens to mom and dad next time they don't hand over the car keys...

Christ, what a nation of lunatics.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 10:39 AM | Report abuse

YOU DEMOCRATS,LIBERALS & DRIVEBY MEDIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GET OFF OF THIS!! TO SELL YOUR MEDIA AND POLITICAL AGENDA
As for this situation it is a sad sad event! GOD BLESS AND LOVE TO ALL OF THE FAMILIES IMPACTED BY THIS! MY LOVE AND HEART BREAKS FOR YOU ALSO!!!! Tighter guns laws are not going to help!!!!

Posted by: chris | April 18, 2007 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Murder is illegal. Making more things to do with guns illegal isn't going to deter people who intend to commit Murder, Rape , Robbery. I would think that's obvious, but I suppose those with closed minds will never learn. The only people who follow gun control laws are only the good guys! guns cause a drop in crime proven. No guns cause killing fields such as a campus or inner city. You embolden criminals with such laws against freedom and the god given right to protect yourself and others. Its not students to be afraid of with guns it's crazy people and you can thank your state for freeing them from institutions to the street where they can buy illegal guns or just not caring to treat them. wouldn't you act and treat others with respect if you knew they could have a gun....road rage would end pronto and gangs would hide off the streets. Its crime that needs control and plea bargaining should stop and more jails and prisons built especially if the borders remain open. Maybe we should ban foreign students instead of guns?

Posted by: Yup | April 18, 2007 10:37 AM | Report abuse

I really like how anti-gun-control people always equate the right to carry a concealed weapon with the right to self-defense. They are not the same thing! There was nothing stopping the students at Virginia Tech from defending themselves, rushing the gunman, using the tools they had available (desks, chairs, strength in numbers) to fight back... nothing but perfectly natural terror and fear for their lives. What makes you think that somebody carrying a pistol would've been brave enough to use it, when these dozens of people could've subdued the attacker with their bare hands, but didn't?

Guns are not the only way to fight guns. "Unarmed" human beings are not flimsy, helpless little things. Humans are astounding in their capacity to inflict violence on one another, and if you want to defend yourself but you don't have a gun, I guarantee you, you'll find a way to do it.

Remember United flight 93? They were unarmed, but fought back, and they prevented a terrible situation from getting much, much worse. Guns are tools, nothing more, nothing less; they can make things easier, like any tool, but in the end, it's the people using them that make the difference.

Want to defend yourself and your family? Get a bat, get a knife, put locks on your doors, and let the police handle the firearms.

Posted by: CH | April 18, 2007 10:36 AM | Report abuse

The UK still has an average of 11,000 gun incidents a year, and guns have been illegal there for ages. You cant control bad people.

Posted by: Gene | April 18, 2007 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Taking away the freedoms that millions of Americans enjoy because of a foreign nutjob is madness. Might as well ban airplanes since foreigners killed thousands back on 9/11. The Virgina police screwed up giving Cho a 2 hour window. If a student or teacher had been armed they could have stopped this tragety. When you advertise a place as being a "Gun-Free Zone" you are putting out a welcome sign to crazies like Cho.

Posted by: Bob | April 18, 2007 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Quote: "Roanoke Firearms, the store where Seung-Hui Cho bought the murder weapon he would use in his Virginia Tech rampage, has a history of selling guns which have ended up being involved in murders.

John Markell, the owner of the gun shop, told ABC News it is the fifth time a gun sold in his store has been used in a homicide"

This gun store sold more than 7500 guns over a three year period. Of all of those sales, 32 were involved in crimes, which equals 0.0043 percent. There is a higher percentage of felonies commited by our Congress men and women than that, so your bias should be pointed in that direction rather than at this gun store.

Posted by: Wayne | April 18, 2007 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Even though the majority of Americans support stricter gun laws, there is one major problem. The people spending all of the money on the issue are the gun companies. Those of us the want tighter controls, don't care enough to put our money into the issue.

Posted by: Matt Hall - Auburn, AL | April 18, 2007 10:33 AM | Report abuse

JD, it would be nice if you actually read my posts before replying to them. I didn't say anything about the NRA in either of my two posts on this thread. I'd really appreciate it if you stopped attributing other peoples' opinions to me.

Bobby, maybe you should hit the history books too. Remember the Civil War? That was a large-scale armed rebellion, and it was defeated. Or, for a more recent and more relevant example, look at Waco. Those people were armed to the teeth, and they still got crushed. Unless you're advocating that all good citizens start collecting RPGs and anti-tank missiles, there's no way that we'll be able to protect ourselves from the US military. I'd rather make efforts to prevent a revolution from being necessary, instead of buying a pistol so I can take part in it.

Posted by: Blarg | April 18, 2007 10:33 AM | Report abuse

'Who would you blame if Cho would have made homemade bombs instead of a firearm and killed even more people'

But he didn't. Shooting someone is just so much easier, and obviously, for a lot of people very sexy. Manly, you know.

My daughter [who's in college] thinks the answer is metal detectors outside the classrom. She's really scared of the idea of people carrying concealed weapons... because she says boys her age are too impulsive and emotional.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 10:33 AM | Report abuse

The Constitution is clear that my right to bear arms "shall not be infringed".

If those that want tougher guns laws REALLY WANT THEM -- they need to change the Constitution. By the way, I will vote against any change -- like a previous writer, I carried a weapon for 28 years in the Army -- who are you to tell me I'm unfit to carry one now?

Posted by: Killer of Giants | April 18, 2007 10:33 AM | Report abuse

The sad thing about this whole situation is how the anti-gunners approach it. They figure that what is necessary are more laws to prevent honest law-abiding people from breaking the law. If guns were the problem then you'd find these sorts of murders taking place at firing ranges, NRA conventions, and gun shows. Instead the common place where they occuer are in places that prohibit firearms! When will the anti-gunners realize that criminals ignore the law! Is it really that hard to grasp the fact that an armed law-abiding citizen is the best "first responder" rather than waiting for a guard or police officer? The anti-gunners just don't get it. They'd rather see more laws making innocent people unarmed. To them it's okay that criminals don't need to follow the law. It's worse in their minds for a trained law-abiding citizen to have a gun than it is to risk the chance of a criminal obtaining one. Laws don't stop murder, theft, massacre, or rape. Armed law-abiding citizens do.

Posted by: O | April 18, 2007 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Get over it, more Gun Laws only Apply for to Law Biding Citizens, these are not the People who should suffer, we need to Enforce the Laws we have now, and then Worry about making new ones, if you don't like Guns, don't own one, but Stop trying to take the rights away of others. end of Story.

Posted by: Rob | April 18, 2007 10:31 AM | Report abuse

All gun control can do is make more citizens criminals. Thus giving our government the power to control it's citizens. More laws more criminals, big brother will protect you. Obvious as it is that's not working.

Posted by: Gary Strain | April 18, 2007 10:30 AM | Report abuse

If guns kill people, pencils cause misspelled words.

Posted by: Hammer | April 18, 2007 10:30 AM | Report abuse

People who want or plan to go on shooying rampages or killing sprees will get firearms. They will buy them legally or off the street. Gun control isnt the issue. its better security and police need to start policing and stop worriing about tinted windows or minor violations!

Posted by: Brandon | April 18, 2007 10:29 AM | Report abuse

I currently serve in the US Army. Our government has issued me a rifle to use as the government sees fit. Who among you will say that when I leave the Army I will be unfit to posses a firearm?

Don't you see how dangerous it is when the only time you are allowed to carry a weapon is when the government allows it?

Two words, Kent State.

Posted by: DG | April 18, 2007 10:28 AM | Report abuse

There are laws in all 50 times banning cocaine, marihuana and heroin. Yet you can buy those substances in ANY US jurisdiction. So what makes the gun grabbers believe that banning guns will be any different?!?!?!?!?

Posted by: Contumacious | April 18, 2007 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Outlaw all guns. That way it will become easier to spot criminals, as they will be the only ones armed. Then we can just round them up and put them in . . . ooooh, that's right. . . if the bad guys have all the guns, it would become more difficult to reign them in. Hmmmm. . . Okay, how's this? We require EVERYONE to carry a gun, but you only get one bullet per year. . .

Posted by: ME | April 18, 2007 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Maybe we should also ban passenger airliners to prevent a repeat of 9/11.

Posted by: Jim | April 18, 2007 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Maybe stricter gun control is not the answer. Maybe we should encourage people to carry weapons. If some of the students were armed, things would have turned out differently. Even an crazy person is going to think twice before he walks into a room full of armed people and starts shooting.

I used to be opposed to guns but the reality is that people who want guns are going to get them, regardless of the laws that are imposed. Trying to keep guns out of the hands of these people is impossible. With that in mind, the only option is to find a way to keep them from actually using them. Educating people in the use of guns and then allowing them to carry is the only way to stop people from using them. Even that will not be 100% effective, but it will save lives.

Posted by: Dave | April 18, 2007 10:25 AM | Report abuse

It's now happened so many times, I've lost count...

In 1999 it was 12. Last year it was 6. Now 32 more sets of parents get to wail unmercifully into the night over the utterly undeserved, frivolous loss of their children... When will the insanity of guns end in America?

Once again, the "guns-rightists" ("wrong-ists"?) are claiming the way to have avoided a horrible massacre like Virginia Tech would have been to have "one armed individual" present.

For argument's sake, let's take that to its logical end... Not just "one person" can be armed... All people must become armed... because you never know who will become a threat, right? Then, at what age and ability does this horrific logic stop? Can you imagine all high-school kids or retirees "packing" guns to "protect themselves" from threats? Maybe... How about middle-schoolers or those feebly pushing walkers? Uh, well... Grade-schoolers or the blind? No...!!

But if we need to "protect ourselves" from "anyone" at "anytime", then "everyone" should have a gun, and "know how to use it", right?

But then soon, every disagreement or fear, no matter how trivial, will be resolved by guns... Some kid steals some other kid's lunch money, and someone ends up dead. Some elderly spinster shoots the lost pizza-delivery driver because she "wasn't expecting anyone at her door" that day. And don't even start thinking about "road rage" death increases... Let's hear the guns-rights-advocates logically describe how we'd avoid this in their fairytale "guns-freedom" society?

It makes me nauseous to think anyone can believe this is the "better world" we should all live in...

It's time to take the guns away, and throw them away... for good. As a maturing culture, we need to "grow up" and change the course of this terrible "disease" in our nation... no other country in the civilized world "chooses" to suffer as we do with gun violence on the innocent.

We need to do it for the sake of those Columbine parents, those Amish parents, and now these Virginia Tech parents... for the sake of America... and for the sake of humanity.

Posted by: For Consciousness | April 18, 2007 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Just because a right exists doesn't mean that it has to be execised to its fullest extent.

I am rabidly anti-gun. In my mind, there shold be a complete a total ban on handguns and assault weapons in this country. If you want to own a gun for target shooting, then it has to be kept at the shooting range.

With that said, nothing would have stopped this kid at VA Tech. He was a loner and would ahve found some way to act out. Were there signs of trouble? Yes, but the fault for not acting does not lie with the school. GW just settled a suit with a student who they expelled because he was suicidal.

We can talk all we want about who is to blame, where the system failed, etc. Just as the incident with Imus offers an opportunity to discuss how we communicate with eachother, this offers an opportunity to discuss guns. Tragically, you can be certain that the NRA will do everything in its power to warp this discussion.

Posted by: Thin Man | April 18, 2007 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Number of people killed annually in the U.S. by medical malpractice: 98,000.

Number of people killed annually in the U.S. in car accidents: 43,450.

Number of people killed annually in the U.S. by breast cancer: 42,300.

Number of people killed annually in the U.S. by AIDS: 16,400.

Number of people killed annually in the U.S. by gun violence: 10,130.

Using the pro-gun control crowd's logic, it would seem that we should first ban doctors, automobiles, natural breasts and sex (leads to AIDS) before we worry about more gun control laws. Preposterous, you say? Precisely.

Sources: Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, To Err is Human, Building a Safer Health System (National Academy Press, 1999); US Dept. of Justice Fact Sheet, "Project Safe Neighborhoods: America's Network Against Gun Violence," May 13, 2003.

Posted by: stopmakingsense | April 18, 2007 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Prohibition has never worked in the USA and it never will, unless we MASSIVELY increase the power of government. Whether we're talking about guns, drugs, alcohol, abortion, or the 55 MPH national speed limit (yes, I'm showing my age), We The People speak rather loudly: we want our freedom, and we're willing to pay the sometimes terrible price for it. The price of safety (if even achievable) is far, far higher. That is no consolation to the victims or their families, I know, and -- as much as I can -- I grieve with them. But, as a nation, we make this choice, and we make it over and over again. I do wonder, however, how much longer we'll be willing to do that...

Posted by: Don Wolford | April 18, 2007 10:24 AM | Report abuse

If people were allowed to carry weapons on campus and general society more freely, there would have been someone with pistol in that class, and they could have shot that psycho in the head and saved a lot of lives.

Furthermore, if people carried guns more, and such a trend was common knowledge, then potential gunmen would think twice before going on a rampage. Deep down they're all cowards, they wouldn't think of such a rampage if they knew people were prepared to defend themselves.

Posted by: Eye Heart Snow | April 18, 2007 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Liberals hate guns... they should hate criminals. What's next... bring back prohibition? Ban knives? While you're at it.. ban motor vehicles.... right? What about matches and lighter fluid... Give me a break.. and don't lecture me on drivers licenses.

The reactionary Left doesn't get it... never will.

Posted by: None | April 18, 2007 10:22 AM | Report abuse

[ [ [No, Larry Hincker was RIGHT. Guns and teenagers don't mix well. ] ] ]

So I take that your progeny was not a victim in the massacre.

Therefore, In your view, those students do not have a right to life and to defend the same. Their lives should be sacrificed in the altar of "gun control".

Posted by: Contumacious | April 18, 2007 10:22 AM | Report abuse

"The Consent of the Governed, being necessary to the legitimacy of a free society's governance, the right of the people to vote and be represented, shall not be infringed."

Posted by: CitizenW | April 18, 2007 10:22 AM | Report abuse

It is funny, no actually ridiculous, that Rosie O wants guns banned, but not for her body guards...... hmmmmm, nothing like a double standard.

Posted by: ronmca | April 18, 2007 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Why is it that people who hate guns think that creating more gun laws will work? We have over 30,00 gun related laws on the books and are they working, NO! Why? Becuase criminals don't follow the law. Is that so hard to understand!

Posted by: Dean | April 18, 2007 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Please please, I really want the democrats to come out in force to demand stronger gun control laws. Lets have the million moms march again. Mobolize the activist and push the Democrats and the media to demand stronger gun control...

Because if they do, they will again lose a lot of seats, just like they did at the time of the million moms march. National polling for gun control is meaningless, you have to see where there are democrats in states that are very pro-gun. States like west virginia and other states. Remember Al Gore lost West Virginia because of his gun control stances and environmental stances.

Posted by: niceday | April 18, 2007 10:21 AM | Report abuse

"No, Larry Hincker was RIGHT. Guns and teenagers don't mix well. Jilted lovers, drunken fights, failed tests, depression, Russian Roulette are likely bad outcomes of guns on campuses."

You are wrong. Just because there are some idiotic, immature college students that make the news, don't assume that all college students fit into this mold. VT has a ROTC program with some very mature and properly trained students. Just one of them with a sidearm could have stopped this maniac.

Posted by: SPR | April 18, 2007 10:21 AM | Report abuse

"License to gun is literally license to kill."

What??????? My 7 year old has better logic...

Posted by: ronmac | April 18, 2007 10:19 AM | Report abuse

You are all wrong. Aliens run the government. We are going to need our guns to overthrow the oppresive alien regime one day. Until then, they will continue to tell us that we are safer without them. Those wily extra terrestials!!! Elvis is their leader and he lives in George Washington's nose on Mt. Rushmore. BEWARE!!!

Posted by: ME | April 18, 2007 10:18 AM | Report abuse

License to gun is literally license to kill.

Posted by: Ria | April 18, 2007 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Quick tip for anyone wanting to fix this problem:
Join the NRA! It costs $35 and then YOU get to vote. Simple, easy. Got to: https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp?CampaignID=default.
I just did.
Paul Thomas

Posted by: Paul Thomas | April 18, 2007 10:16 AM | Report abuse

I have to agree with the comment above, if just one person was armed with a concealed weapon alot of this could have been prevented. As far as stricter gun controls, we all know that is not the problem. The problem is the legal system will not prosecute to the fullest extent of the law when a gun is used in a crime. I am a gun owner and enjoy pistol matches and competitions. I live in Illinois where we have to live under the rules set forth by Chicago political machine and Mayor Daley. I will give up my gun when he has all of his personal protection detail give up theirs, what make him more important than the citizens of Illinois. I believe that every state should have a right to carry permit, the tradgey at Virginia Tech might have been prevented. I am in favor of stricter background checks. Only citizens of the United States should get permits to purchase or carry. The illegeals and those in this country on visa's should not be allowed to purchase a weapon. The constitution grants us the right to keep and bear arms. This applies to citizens of the USA not anyone else. So lets change the laws and if those that are here in this country don't like it go home we don't need you here anyhow.
Lastly if you take the guns from law-abiding citizens then you can bet only the criminals will have them. Look at England and Australia they have taken away the guns from their people and they have a real problem with violent crime.

Posted by: Michael Weis | April 18, 2007 10:16 AM | Report abuse

"Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

PS Was Larry Hincker WRONG or was he WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"___

No, Larry Hincker was RIGHT. Guns and teenagers don't mix well. Jilted lovers, drunken fights, failed tests, depression, Russian Roulette are likely bad outcomes of guns on campuses. The difference is that these cases won't make the world news. That in this one case guns might have been helpful is like using the example of a lottery winner to prove that investing in the lottery makes financial sense.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Murder is also illegal. Making more things to do with guns illegal isn't going to deter people who intend to commit murder. I would think that's be obvious, but I suppose not. The only people who follow gun control laws are the good guys!

Posted by: What | April 18, 2007 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Let me get this straight:

The Second Amendment protects the right of a resident alien (non-citizen) to keep and bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia, which is neccessary for the security of a free state.

But native-born Americans resident in the nation's capital are not allowed to vote, because they do not live in a "state" (free or otherwise). (Actually, I would argue they live in a state of subjugation.)

Franz Kafka would be intrigued.

A "more perfect Union", indeed.

Posted by: CitizenW | April 18, 2007 10:14 AM | Report abuse

I am surprised the gun control folks don't hold a trial for the 9mm and .22 used in the massacre. From the language used, it was the gun that killed them not the person. Obviously the guns are demonic entities just waiting to possess the person who makes the mistake of picking one up. The gun is responsible not the person who used it.

Please use the logic and intelligence you have to make a cogent argument. The nonsense being demonstrated by the gun control people is not a proper argument. If we are going to have a debate, then come up with a good argument. Even better come up with a way to get the guns out of the criminal hands. If there were only 100 guns left in America, more than half would be owned by criminals and they would use them to intimidate and opress everyone.

Posted by: Dave | April 18, 2007 10:14 AM | Report abuse

the biggest probelm the north american people has , is the lack of values in their culture
the noth american pepole ( USA) need to focus in values , family , respect. I feel so sorry for the masacre in viginia , but you need to focus in family values

Posted by: Diana Schott | April 18, 2007 10:13 AM | Report abuse

The tragedy of this school shooting is a prime example of why gun laws don't work. Gun laws take away the right of an individual to defend themself. It has already be decided in the supreme court that it is not the duty of a police officer to defend a persons life, so who has the responsibility to defend life? If just one of the victims had a permit to carry a concealed weapon on the school grounds this Cho Seung-Hui could have been stopped a little sooner and there would be less people killed. All the people shot were obeying the gun laws

Posted by: John Taylor | April 18, 2007 10:13 AM | Report abuse

We have 300 million people in this country. That's more than enough to make the odds certain we have nutcases among us. 9 million would be enough. Let us not warp our legal system over extreme cases.

The mayor of Nagasaki was just shot to death. Japan banns private gun ownership. Should the Japanese ban guns *again*?

Posted by: Bob | April 18, 2007 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Gun contol laws will do nothing to stop gun violence in this country. Those people who get guns to commit crimes do not care whether their guns are legally purchased or bought on the street. Stricker gun control laws only affect law abiding people who want guns for legal uses. Why do people not understand that?

Posted by: Matthew | April 18, 2007 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Ten to one that if anyone had attempted to act on the "warning signs", the ACLU's attack lawyers would have been all over them.

Posted by: What | April 18, 2007 10:10 AM | Report abuse

The thing that needs to be looked into more is the fact that this individual disturbed the VT staff so much that at one point a professor was asked if he/she needed protection from this student.

The warning signs were there, and apparently no one acted on them.

Posted by: MC | April 18, 2007 10:09 AM | Report abuse

'We are fast becoming a nation of enforced victimhood' -- oh please. The entire con movement is based on vectimhood and whining... shut up for christ sake.

This whole discussiion is making me sick. CC, why don't you talk about something that jdoesn't bring all the fantasy-addicted loons out of the woodwork?

'Bill Richardson's staffing up in Iowa, says the Des Moines Register's political blog. Robert Becker, who ran Bill Bradley's 2000 Presidential campaign regionally, will run Richardson's Iowa effort, while Tom Reynolds, a former press secretary for Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, will be Iowa communications director. Richardson's also hitting Iowa in the next few days, with stops in Denison on Thursday and in Cedar Rapids, Pella and Cedar Falls on Friday.'

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Blarg - you need to read history - many of revolutions have been on guns - the Vietnamese kicked our butts although we were bombing the hell out of their ports and Hanoi

Have you hear of Iraq where all of our advanced weapons have our military impotent

hey Blarg - you plan for the oppressive government - I will plan for the people

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | April 18, 2007 10:08 AM | Report abuse

It's far easier to blame an inert metal object than it is to blame a criminal for having criminal intent. One wonders what the hue and cry would be had he used a machete instead.

Guns do not shoot themselves. Bad people will get guns, (they do in the UK, where they're BANNED) and when they do, the only thing that can stop them is a good person with a gun. Period.

Posted by: Realism | April 18, 2007 10:08 AM | Report abuse

School shootings are on the increase. Is it due to a loosening of gun laws, or something else? If it's something else, then will tightening gun laws be a remedy for that something else?

What drives a young person to solve their problems with a lethal weapon? Couldn't this person just have easily have run down fellow students with an automobile?

I think focusing on gun control is missing the big picture by a wide margin. We could go ahead and change the laws or enforce the laws we have to a greater extent, but who honestly believes that a young person will not find the means to kill his fellow students once they've chosen to do so?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 10:07 AM | Report abuse

I love how people talk about the NRA like it is a faceless monster.

The reason it is so powerful is because of the many, many people who are members.

I'm disgusted that these adults, old enough to vote or carry a gun in the name of the country are not allowed to have the tools to defend themselves just because they want to learn.

Some blood is on the hand of the Virginia legislature for denying the right to defend oneself at universities.

Posted by: Dave | April 18, 2007 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Ohhhhhh, those bad guns!!!!! When are we ever going to quit blaming the devices used and start focusing on real issues like the mental illness of such individuals. Why not draw some attention to the violence on TV and video games. They are much more responsible than a piece of metal... People kill people. There is your problem. Now dwell on that and find a solution!

Posted by: ronmac | April 18, 2007 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Blarg and Jane, I think you give the NRA far more credit than they deserve, wrt buying the influence of politicians. At the end of the day, the NRA is only as strong as their voting membership, which is significant. So the politicians are reflecting the will of a big chunk of the people.

And I'd LOVE to see a list that ranks political spending on 527s by organization - my guess is that George Soros has spent an order of magnitude more on lefty groups (of course maybe I'm mistaken). Does anyone know of such a list, published by an objective source (not CBP, moveon, heritage or cato, pls).

The other thing to understand is that there is only so much that can be legally done to restrict gun availability while still staying within the framework of the constitution...as DC found out a couple weeks ago.

Posted by: JD | April 18, 2007 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Do keep in mind Katrina, when people were told "the police cannot come". When the government couldn't help.

What happens when your civilized suburb comes crashing down, as happened then, there's looters down the street, and you're told the police can't come?

Answer: You defend your family, or you become a victim.

Posted by: Where did America go | April 18, 2007 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Gun bill gets shot down by panel

HB 1572, which would have allowed handguns on college campuses, died in subcommittee.

A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.

House Bill 1572 didn't get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.


Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

PS Was Larry Hincker WRONG or was he WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Contumacious | April 18, 2007 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Who would you blame if Cho would have made homemade bombs instead of a firearm and killed even more people. Interestingly,the police rushed the scene without even a hint of that at Virginia Tech. We could call for banning over-the-counter household chemicals be proposed by Congress. How do you ban bon-a-fide psychopaths and criminals like the Tech shooter? How do you ban crime?

Gun ownership is too ingrained in the American mentality to be taken seriously: it is not going to happen. This guy was known to be mentality disturbed by people of authority at Tech for along time. Some people tried to steer him towards getting help but were thwarted.

Banning guns isn't the answer and additional gun relegation will go no where quick. In America, we must balance liberty with conformity, rights with restrictions. We have gone as far as we can go with gun relegation without banning.

Danny L. McDaniel

Posted by: Danny L. McDaniel | April 18, 2007 10:04 AM | Report abuse

'the Germans did when they invaded Lithuania was to confiscate all the registered hunting rifles and shotguns. '

I do so worry about being invaded by Germany...

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Despite polls showing most Americans support gun control, nothing will happen. Not because the NRA has bought Congress, but because those who oppose gun control really, really care about that and vote accordingly. Gun control supporters think it is a good idea, but vote based on other issues.

Posted by: Jim S | April 18, 2007 10:03 AM | Report abuse

The comments posted here make me rather ill. Many of the victims were not merely shot, they were EXECUTED. The killer was unopposed. Everyone was victims. Helpless. Why? Because university policy dictated that they could not carry on campus, even if they were licensed to do so. Thus, they were all helpless.

We are fast becoming a nation of enforced victimhood brought about by mewling, cringing, fearful voters, where the only people who will be armed will be the Blackwater mercenaries...who can do as they please.

The founding fathers would be horrified.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen | April 18, 2007 10:02 AM | Report abuse

The only realistic way to prevent or to limit the effectiveness of the senseless outrages against innocent people is to encourage more people to be legally armed and to have Concealed Carry permits.

Posted by: Sam Rodgers | April 18, 2007 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Our constitutional right to carry arms is limited to US Citizens isn't it? That is where we should begin.

Posted by: Dale | April 18, 2007 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Bobby, how does having guns make it possible to rebel against the government? The government has more guns than you could ever have. They also have tanks, bombers, aircraft carriers, and a military consisting of several hundred thousand well-trained soldiers. Whether or not you have a shotgun, you're going to lose that fight.

Posted by: Blarg | April 18, 2007 10:02 AM | Report abuse

I remember my parents telling me that in WWII the first things the Germans did when they invaded Lithuania was to confiscate all the registered hunting rifles and shotguns. It was very easy for them to identify who had a gun.
Some day if the liberals get their way, we maybe in the same position. Helpless!

Posted by: DRDAHM | April 18, 2007 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Roanoke Firearms, the store where Seung-Hui Cho bought the murder weapon he would use in his Virginia Tech rampage, has a history of selling guns which have ended up being involved in murders.

John Markell, the owner of the gun shop, told ABC News it is the fifth time a gun sold in his store has been used in a homicide.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 9:59 AM | Report abuse

From http://www.solidpolitics.com

Change of heart.... When a gunman shot seven people on the observation deck of the Empire State Building, Rudy Giuliani called for federal gun control.... When a gunman killed 32 people on the campus of Virginia Tech, Rudy Giuliani says never mind....

Posted by: William | April 18, 2007 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Ignoring calls for his ouster over the firing of several U.S. attorneys, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is set to testify before Congress tomorrow. It's a move experts say could rescue his political career, or cost him his job -- even send him to jail.

"It's suicidal," said Stanley Brand, one of the top ethics defense lawyers in Washington, D.C. Given the conflicting stories from Gonzales, his aides and top Justice Department officials about why eight U.S. attorneys were fired, and to what extent Gonzales was involved in the process, the attorney general puts himself in criminal jeopardy by testifying under oath, Brand said.'

Posted by: hehheh | April 18, 2007 9:57 AM | Report abuse

answer to gun violence -- more guns!

answer to promiscuity -- more sex!

answer to obesity -- more food!

answer to stupidity -- more stupidity!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 9:56 AM | Report abuse

CCW permit holders on campus - not where my child goes - are you nuts - so a student under extreme stress gets an "F and decides he is going to loose it - and he/she has a CCW permit - are you nuts?- have you never been on a university campus

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | April 18, 2007 9:54 AM | Report abuse


High capacity ammo clips became widely available for sale when Congress failed last year to renew a law that banned assault weapons.

Web sites now advertise overnight UPS delivery of the clips, which carry up to 40 rounds for both semi-automatic rifles, including 9mm pistols, and handguns.

"High capacity magazines read extreme firepower and gusto. Stock Up!" is the headline of one of many gun shop Web sites.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 9:53 AM | Report abuse

How would stricter gun laws have solved anything? Cho purchased his two guns over a period of two months, and since this was something that stayed with him over time, he could have gotten guns illegaly had he not been allowed to purchase them. The solution Brian Malte is quoted as promoting in "Weapons Purchases Aroused No Suspicion" - smaller clips - would not have proven effective. Reports indicate that there were pauses while Cho reloaded, yet those opportunities were not used to stop him as Malte says the pauses would allow (not to mention if a person carries several clips with them, reloads can be done in only a few seconds). The only way to shorten such a spree would be to allow CCW permit holders to posses firearms on college grounds, and admittedly even that solution can only work if there is a CCW permit holder nearby.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 9:51 AM | Report abuse

'BAGHDAD Apr 18, 2007 (AP)-- Four large bombs exploded across Baghdad on Wednesday, killing at least 127 people and wounding scores as violence climbed past levels seen before the U.S.-Iraqi campaign to pacify the capital began two months ago.

In the deadliest of the attacks, a parked car bomb detonated in a crowd of workers at the Sadriyah market in a mostly Shiite area of central Baghdad, killing at least 82 people and wounding 94, said Raad Muhsin, an official at Al-Kindi Hospital where the victims were taken.'

Posted by: i read the news today oh boy | April 18, 2007 9:50 AM | Report abuse

It has nothing to do with what people want, Blarg. It's simply that, because of our campaign finance system, the gun lobby is too powerful.. and they own Congress.

Congress does not represent citizens. It represents multi-national corporations -- and of course, very wealthy individuals, many of whom have a net worth bigger than that of entire countries.

This is one of the reasons that even Lincoln, while he was president, said that the republic had more to fear from corporations than from the Civil War.

Posted by: Jane | April 18, 2007 9:48 AM | Report abuse

I can be jaded and say Liviu Librescu survived Nazi Germany but not America's gun laws. This is the type headline people will use on each side of the argument to get their point across.

The right of American's to own guns is more than a mere right - it is an essential component of our revolution. Jefferson reasoned that it is an absolute right of the people to throw off a government which has become destructed of the ends of government.

The day our right to own guns is taken away is the day we lose the ability to rebel against an oppressive government.

Am I saying the American people have a need to rebel at this time - no - but someday we as a people may choose to exercise that right and without guns we become slaves to an oppressive government.

I know my idea is someone radical - but it is based on our history - to my critics I ask - if for some reason we some day reach the point we need to rebel because the government has become truly oppressive - how do we defend our rights against an oppressive government without guns?

For the record - I do not own a gun and will not allow a gun in my home - that is just me - I hate guns

Maybe we need to get off of this topic which we all know will go no where and reflect on real issues such as the racism which still permeates every corner of American life.

How many of you know PBS was just forced to pull a special on WWII veterans because its producer saw nothing wrong with the fact no Latinos were included in the documentary?

http://balancingtheissues.com/pbslatino.htm

Bobby Wighhtman-Cervnates

Posted by: Bobby WIghtman-Cervantes | April 18, 2007 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Interesting trend...

'Contra Costa Times reports:

Lifelong Republican, Marine veteran and former congressman Pete McCloskey has left the GOP and registered with the Democratic Party.

McCloskey says he is disgusted with the "succession of ethical scandals, congressmen taking bribes and abuse of power by both the Republican House leadership and the highest appointees of the White House."

"A pox on (Republicans) and their values," he wrote.'

Posted by: Jane | April 18, 2007 9:42 AM | Report abuse

"Since 1989, an average of 63 percent have expressed support for stricter gun laws -- regardless of external events."
"Pro-gun-control lawmakers may argue that the Virginia Tech killings -- the worst in modern American history -- were so awful that public opinion will almost certainly swing toward tougher gun laws. A decade's worth of polling, however, suggests they are still likely to face an uphill struggle."

Huh? Polls show that people support tougher gun laws. How is that evidence that it will be difficult to get tougher gun laws passed?

Posted by: Blarg | April 18, 2007 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Hagel Mocks McCain's Trip To Iraq: 'We Did No Shopping While We Were Here'

Over the weekend, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) visited Iraq, his fifth visit to the country. He held a press conference yesterday where he reminded reporters that the U.S. commitment was never intended to be "open-ended," adding, "We can't continue to stay in Iraq the way we are."

Hagel also took a jab at the recent trip by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) and Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC), stating, "We did no shopping while we were here." Watch it:

In a press conference after his Baghdad tour, McCain told a reporter that his visit to the market was proof that you could indeed "walk freely" in some areas of Baghdad. Graham noted that he "bought five rugs for five bucks" and Pence said the Shorja market "was just like any open-air market in Indiana in the summertime."

CNN's John Roberts summed up Hagel's dig at McCain: "I didn't go to the Shorja market with 100 soldiers around me and helicopters overhead and snipers on the roof."

Posted by: hilarious | April 18, 2007 9:25 AM | Report abuse

The NRA , along with other powerful lobbyists, owns this country. Bought and paid for.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2007 9:24 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company