quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer
You are awaken in the night by a criminal in your home, they are comming down the hallway headed towards your childs room, police response time is 10 minutes. You want a gun at that moment? Or would you rather risk it unarmed?

quote:

I had a horrified fear in the pit of my stomach the moment I read this story. I suspected the reason that this slaughter would could on for so long. And a partial answer is found in the fate of a piece of legislation in the Virginia legislature known as HB 1572. You no doubt haven’t heard about it.

The legislation went to the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. And the vote was a quick one. The process was over almost before it began. A spokesman for Virginia Tech was thrilled at the results. He said: “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 campus.” Wonderful!

People at Virginia Tech were going to feel safe on campus. The legislation in question didn’t pass. It failed. It failed the first hurdle in the legislature. It was legislation that would have allowed students and faculty at Virginia Tech and other universities to carry firearms if they had a valid concealed handgun permit.

Virginia Tech was famous for being a “gun free zone”. In June of 2005 a student, who had a gun permit, had a firearm on him when he went onto campus. He was disciplined as a result. At that time the governing board of the university approved another policy which made things loud and clear, they would never allow employees or students to carry firearms for self defense. The governing board openly, publicly, loudly, announced to the world they had disarmed every person on the campus.

Every person except, of course, any person who didn’t mind violating the law because he was going to break far more laws that day. And that is precisely what happened. When a person is intent on murder then violating a gun free zone is of little consequence to them. It will not and can not stop that person. It is of major consequence to the law abiding students and faculty, people who have no intentions to harm anyone and want to live peacefully with one another. The ramifications of violating the rules can be high for them. They could lose their job or be expelled.

So they abide the law and disarm. They are stripped of the ability to defend themselves and must rely on the state and the state alone. That the gunman was able to walk back on campus two hours after his first shooting spree tells you something about relying on the state for your safety.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Have you ever lived in a country where there is reasonable gun control?

 

No. I have only lived in the US and the way they have tried to control guns with respect to the Second Amendment is not only unreasonable, it's constitutionally impermissible.

quote:

Enough said right there. The right to bear arms is not the same thing as the right to bear whatever weapon you feel like, in whatever circumstances. One thing I've always wondered about the pro-gun people is exactly where they'd stop. Do you think it would be all right for people to walk around with private nuclear weapons just because the Consitution mentions the right to bear arms?

quote:


Also, according to your logic, people would be safer on airplanes if they could freely bring their firearms on board. That way, if anyone tries to hijack the plane, everyone else could just whip out their Glocks and blow him away. Do you really believe that? And if you don't, then why do you support gun control on airplanes if you don't support it in everyday society?

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn
I don't have to make a case for a law that already exists.

Artfully evasivie. 

You get your vote, and I get mine. For every statistic one side can throw out, the other can throw out one with a contrary opinion. I could make a ten page post, and all that would get me is a nasty note from a moderator.

quote:

I agree this tragedy did not occur because of guns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

I agree this tragedy did not occur because of guns.

The guns helped, though, didn't they? It's hard to picture his killing so many people so quickly with another weapon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

I agree this tragedy did not occur because of guns.

The guns helped, though, didn't they? It's hard to picture his killing so many people so quickly with another weapon.

So a more lingering method of killing people is preferable?

Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

I agree this tragedy did not occur because of guns.

The guns helped, though, didn't they? It's hard to picture his killing so many people so quickly with another weapon.

So a more lingering method of killing people is preferable?

Sinergy

Had it taken him longer to dispatch people, others might have had a greater chance of (a) escaping and (b) calling for help.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Enough said right there.  The right to bear arms is not the same thing as the right to bear whatever weapon you feel like, in whatever circumstances.  One thing I've always wondered about the pro-gun people is exactly where they'd stop.  Do you think it would be all right for people to walk around with private nuclear weapons just because the Consitution mentions the right to bear arms?  A nice concealed nerve gas capsule?  There has to be a line SOMEWHERE--and I'm very curious to know where your line is.  (Not to mention your reasoning for drawing that line: if people should have free access to guns, why not anything else too?)

Also, according to your logic, people would be safer on airplanes if they could freely bring their firearms on board.  That way, if anyone tries to hijack the plane, everyone else could just whip out their Glocks and blow him away.  Do you really believe that?  And if you don't, then why do you support gun control on airplanes if you don't support it in everyday society?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Have you ever lived in a country where there is reasonable gun control?

 

No. I have only lived in the US and the way they have tried to control guns with respect to the Second Amendment is not only unreasonable, it's constitutionally impermissible.

quote:

And, you used to be able to order a Thompson submachinegun in the Sears catalogue. What happenned with that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

And, you used to be able to order a Thompson submachinegun in the Sears catalogue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

And, you used to be able to order a Thompson submachinegun in the Sears catalogue. What happenned with that?

They're on back-order.