HAVE U LESS RIGHT TO DEFEND YOUR LIFE IF U R STUDYING ?

I haven't read this whole thread, so forgive me if I'm repeating something. But it seems very obvious to me that with tight enough gun control, Virginia Tech wouldn't ever have happened. It's not very easy to murder 32 people in just a few hours with a knife. In the UK we just don't get massacres like this. Why do you think that is? Maybe because we don't have any guns.

Which is better:

Cho murders those two people, then two hours later he starts shooting up the school, wounding or killing a few more, and then the students pull our their handguns and shoot him down.

OR

Cho can't get hold of a gun. Cho shoots nobody.

During my childhood,
the kids in my neighborhood
( including me ) were armed to the teeth
with commercially manufactured guns ( Smith & Wesson, Colt, etc. )
That fact did not stop us from MAKING our own guns
because IT WAS FUN, quick and e z.
The neighborhood abounded in amateur gunsmiths,
of varying degrees of quality, depending on talent
and willingness to put a little more time & attention into it.

The English press has recorded a massive increase
in crimes of violence including use of guns in England.
A few years ago, one of your retired police officers
told of how he had been ordered to cook the books,
for record keeping purposes, regarding statistics
of crimes of armed violence, to conceal the increase,
for political purposes.

Guns were among the world's first machines with moving parts,
(tho more easily made now with modern "know-how").
Guns were not new to Columbus nor to his grandfather.
They are simple machines, easily made.
(The M-1 Carbine was invented by a prisoner, David Williams, in prison for moonshining;
convicts have secretly made pistols [including fully functional submachineguns] in prison workshops.)

The accumulated knowledge of the gunsmith is not secret;
it is among the world's freely available engineering data.
If criminals had no guns, they'd arm themselves using that information
and access to the hardware stores of America;
thus the FUTILITY of "gun control" philosophy:
the disarmament of criminals is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE.

BANISHMENT of violently felonious recidivists can reduce misconduct.
Crime comes from bad people, not from their tools.
Should umbrellas be blamed for rain? pens for forgery? spoons for obesity?


Repressionists want to remove guns, saying they are sometimes used to facilitate crime.
They fail to understand that the actual weapon is the HUMAN MIND,
whose cleverness has not been controlled nor restrained (even in prison).
This mind expresses itself perseveringly, into the manifestation of its felt needs
or desires, and it has FOREVER to do the job that it selects
(e.g., the art of the gunsmith/merchant). Prohibition is futile.
David

Ah David, you're back again...and you still haven't attempted to explain how more deaths = (in your view) a safer place (ie. Australia, as per your assertions).

David, not much of what you said has any relevance to my post. But it does raise the following question:

If it is so easy to make a gun, then why do so many people in my country, where you can't just go out and buy a gun, use knives instead?

I know that it would be impossible to get rid of guns altogether. But it's a hell of a lot easier to buy a gun than it is to make one. Cho bought his gun from a shop, he didn't make it. Perhaps he would have been able to find out how to make a gun for himself, but it would have taken a lot more effort and he would have been less likely to go through with his plan.

I'm not talking about eradicating violent crime, I'm talking about reducing it. And not necessarily reducing the actual number of crimes, but rather their severity and the ease with which they are committed. It's harder to do the same level of damage as a gun if you use a knife, and when people can't buy guns, fewer people use them. Okay, maybe some people can build their own, but a hell of a lot of them just use knives instead. And Cho could not have killed 32 people with a knife.

A few more things I wanted to say...



Yes, but if you give 'bad people' access to sophisticated tools such as guns, then they commit sophisticated crimes. They kill a lot of innocent people, instead of just a few.

Crime might come from bad people, but if bad people only have ineffective tools then they commit ineffective crimes. If you ban guns, then the criminals who aren't smart enough to build their own guns have to use something less effective like a knife.



An umbrella is not a tool for making it rain, it's a tool for sheltering yourself from rain. A pen is a tool for writing in general, not just for forgery. A spoon is a tool for feeding oneself, and can be used for eating both healthy foods and unhealthy foods.

A loaded gun (loaded with real bullets, not blanks) is a tool for killing or injuring living things. It has no other function. Handguns are not as effective for killing animals, so the primary function of a loaded handgun is to kill or injure a human being.

Should umbrellas be blamed for dry heads? In a sense, yes.
Should pens be blamed for writing? Yes.
Should spoons be blamed for eating? Yes.
Should handguns be blamed for killing and injuring people? Yes.

Without umbrellas, pens, spoons and handguns, people would still keep their heads dry somehow, they'd still write, eat and kill or injure people. But they'd find it more difficult.

Raincoats are fairly effective but you can't share them with friends who haven't brought raincoats out with them. You can write with pencils but it's harder to read, and typing is no good if you just want to jot something down.

Try eating soup with a fork... it's really hard. And try massacring 32 people at a busy university in daylight with a knife, or a big clumsy chainsaw. That's hard too.

agrote, i liked your examples. very fitting i think.

david, i have to call bullsh!t on the idea that you were an 8y.o. making guns. at least, making an effective one at any rate. i'm sure it was about as accurate as a handful of rocks.

it's been said that switzerland requires guns and it is for that reason that there is less gun crime. there is of course no way to prove that whatsoever. it is also true that historically, they have been a much less aggressive and crime-ridden society than ours. it could very well be they are just not as blood hungry as the us.

crime goes down in cold winters

agrote, in a land where firearms are common how would you prevent criminal from obtaining a firearm? please note that the US already has alot of firearms legislation.

handguns have sporting purposes. there are national teams that compete in the olympics with handguns. handguns can be used to fire at electronic and paper targets. bullseye competitions which competitors shoot at targets at 25yards to 50 yards.

a person could use a tennis racket to beat up a person or just play tennis.

handguns are used to deter crime, every day.
carry a handgun will make a criminal think twice about , robbing, raping, assaulting, murdering.

in countries such as great britain and austrailia were guns are outlawed in the entire country.

in the US this is not so, criminals are known to attack places that are gun free zones, like VA Tech and other schools. i would go to say that 90% of such massacres are in gun free zones. another sad thing is that these so called gun free zones have low security. if something does happen, you cant protect yourself and whoever is in charge wont protect you.

it is common for gun free zones to use security guards that are not armed. if a maniac like cho were attack the place the security guard will be helpless to defend you.

the handgun i carry is peace of mind, that if no one can protect me, i still have the means to protect myself.

i am tired of people calling college students "kids". college students are responsible well adjusted adults. these are people that have taken responsibility for their future, by pursuing an education.

i dont see, a disadvantage in students carrying concealed during a class.

i dont why students that have met all the requirements for carrying concealed in the public should be restricted in carrying to school.

in VA you have to be 21 years old, pass a national background check, recieve training in firearms.

i also find that it is Hypocritical of VA Tech to forbid faculty and students from carrying concealed, while visitors can carry firearms. i believe that VA tech is a public place therefore they cant regulate visitors.

people like cho obviously don't care about the possibility of other people having guns - he shot himself. so the idea of death as a deterrent doesn't really affect that situation.

and while va tech may be a "public" university - its buildings are *not* public and they may enforce whatever rules they see fit.

Here's an admittedly ad hominem anecdote:

Turtle 1, Armed Man 0

drewdad
why would anyone eat a snapping turtle?

you must be anti selfdefense, if you are comparing VA Tech students and concealed carry permit holders to these guys.

usafhokie80

i always thought of cho as a cowardly in the fact that he shot himself only as police were starting to reach his position, so he would not feel any pain or have deal with the aftermath. the police would have been the only challenge to him.

i think the police did nothing wrong. they responded in the correct manner.
they responded in a reasonable amount of time.

in this case there are no other solutions other than to fight back or try to barricade the door. fighting back will be hard to do as your comrades will be frozen from shock.

in this case i dont think door locks are a good idea. cho could have locked/ barricaded himself with a bunch students in a classroom.

locks are a feel good measure. you dont gain any real results.
you sacrifice a classroom full of students to keep the others safe.

i feel they need to better monitor the building for noise and suspicius activity.

they need to let CC permit holding students carry guns on campus.
who will sue the college? they would only be complying with state law.

let a student carry a gun, these are the people who will be your doctor, or engineer a future roadway millions will travel one day.

if you cant trust them with a handgun, how can you entrust them with the future of the free world.

Yeah, I'm aware that banning guns altogether is a remote possibility in the US at the moment. But your country should aim slowly towards that goal. Just imagine it... imagine if the likelihood of anyone you came across carrying a firearm was so small that you just didn't need to worry about it.

You wouldn't need a gun, because nobody else would have one. That's basically what it's like in the UK. Some inner-city areas are the exception to the rule, but generally-speaking you'd have to be crazy to worry about other people carrying guns in my country. I know it won't happen any time soon, but wouldn't you prefer the USA to be like that?

I think that the US should gradually phase out guns altogether (excluding the military or special police forces). The whole country should be a gun-free zone. Some people would still obtain guns, but nowhere near as many. Shootings would still occur, but they'd be few and far between.



There's no need to use handguns with deadly bullets in sporting competitions. Or if it would ruin the sport to not use deadly bullets, then the sport should be banned - the lives saved by banning guns in the long-term would be worth depriving yourselves of one sport.



That's one way of looking at it. Here's how I see it: handguns are used to threaten criminals with death. Threatening criminals with death has the effect of deterring them from crime, but the direct purpose of the handgun is simply to threaten the person with death.



Don't call it defence. A gun is a weapon of offence. Tools of defence are things like shields. What you really means is that the security guard would be helpless to attack the maniac.



What you mean is: "if no one can attack those who threaten me, I still have the means to attack them myself."



Why not?! Cho was a student too, remember? What you're proposing is that the US make it easier for people like Cho to commit massacres.

1. I have no idea.
2. I'm anti-armed idiot, and I thought the story was amusing.
3. I did not make such a comparison and, in fact, pointed out two flaws if one were to try to do so.

agrote, that is a VERY good point you make about guns not being a defensive device.

"Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more. "
-George S. Patton

agrote

in the last fifty years US has more firearms legislation passed, dollars spent, workhours spent, than any other country trying to control firearms
the only legislation that has proved to deter crime is.....

you guessed it, concealed carry.
every state/city/ county that has passed shall issue legislation has seen crime drop.

places that are anti gun usually have high crime rates.
washington d.c., new york city, los angeles for example are terrible in regards to gun violence. but they have all the legislation in the world that prohibits guns.

while the one place that requires by law that you own a gun have ammo and and keep the gun in good condition, has no crime at all.
if there is any place more pro gun and safe than kennesaw, georgia i would like to know about it/ move there.

about american people
americans will never support any firearms legisation that would ban the general populace from having access to firearms. it is against the constitution, the supreme law of the land. we americans are fond of equality and dont like being dealt a disadvantage, as citizens we feel it is in best interest to deal with our life liberty and property as we please.

lastly, gun legislation is ususally proposed by hypocrites. a millionare politician says you dont need a gun, but why would you need a gun, if you had ten armed guards guarding you 24hrs a day. i saw on the news the other week an anti-gun politican illegally carrying concealed, amazing.
one politician tried to ban a barrel shroud from a shotgun, didnt even know what it was, didnt know it was a safety feature.

about antigun organizations in america
antigun organizations like to prey on peoples fears. that is the reason for their continued success. they do not rely on reason, they take abvantage of your emotions. the brady campaign wanted to collect money from their members right after the VA Tech Massacre. that really made me angry, and made me realize they just do it for money. they are not about saving lives, they are about making $$$.




what you are suggesting is that.....
no "law abiding" people will have guns.
law abiding people that turn in guns late will be treated as criminals.
all the unregistered guns will not get taken.

do i feel any safer? NO!!!
i would rather have guns in the hands Good Law Abiding Citizens.

there will always be guns in the US.
any would be "successful" criminal will get his hands on a gun, no matter how difficult it may be.

first guns then knives, you guys really let the bad guy have the upper hand.

you have to learn the first rule.

#1 Criminals do not follow rules

then you must learn the other rules

#2 Criminals use the law against you.
#3 Criminals do not Care about punishment, criminals do not think they will be caught.
#4 Criminals do not have to follow any moral codes.
#5 Criminals look for oppurtunities.

what we will get in the long run is a more brazen criminals that will attack in greater frequency.

in making the country a gun free zone you in fact are opening up areas of convenience for criminals to attack.


a concealed, enclosed, or holstered gun should not be threatening to anyone. if you are threatened by an inactive/concealed gun, you are either are a criminal or a hoplophobe.

i am not worryed about a man carrying a gun.
i do not fear guns, i do not fear knives. i don't judge a person because they carry a gun, i judge him by his actions.

if the law was passed,
in this case, the other students or faculty would not have known that a student was carrying a gun. the student would be carrying concealed and not in plain view.



in my opinion sometimes the best defense is a good offence.

if the security guard is attacking the criminal is he not in effect shielding/defending you from attack.

i do not iniatiate the attack the attacker does, i react to his attack which makes me the defender.

if i prevent further attack, would that not be the ultimate defence.

did you forget that students were murdered too... without effective means to defend themselves from a single attacker.

i do not believe cho was a concealed carry permit holder. the law that was voted down in the va general assembly only let concealed carry permit holders, carry concealed in college. permit holders could not carry in the open even if the law passed.
cho would still be breaking the law.
cho broke many laws including but not limited to....
murder
premeditated murder
manslaughter
assault with firearm
assault with a deadly weapon
brandishing a firearm in the public
carrying concealed in the public without a permit.
erasure/removal/filing of firearm serial numbers.

cho broke the most serious laws our society has. if he was caught alive he would have lifetime sentences, with no possibilities for parole, or the death penalty. as you said he wanted to die. there would be no punishment so severe to have stopped his actions.

i dont think any law could have stopped him.
there were no police to enforce the law.
what is a citizen to do? do we uphold the law by arming ourselves against deadly threats?
do we wait for help?
what would a british/canadian/australian citizen do?

since viktorr provided a hypothetical situation i will provide one as well.

imagine this
you are in a classroom full of your friends, family, significant other.
cho walks in and open fires on everything. everybody hits the deck.
some take cover behind a desk, others get shot and fall to the ground lifeless. your professor screams for help, your eyes look towards the door. hoping for help to come through, maybe for a chance to escape.
you see your friends and family bleeding. a couple of your friends are dead. this must be a dream, no gun law would allow this to happen. time to wake up. cho shoots you, in the arm. blood pours out and you feel such intense pain that you fell to your knees. cho is about to shoot you again. time freezes. you look down at your bloody arm and then to your other hand. a gun appears in your hand. in that single moment in time, all you had to do was disengage the safety. would you slay cho to save yourself and the rest of your family and friends?

I'm not going to get through to you am I.

Cho acquired his gun legally. 'Law-abiding citizens' do not always remain law-abiding.

If you ban ALL guns, then there are no armed criminals for you to need protection from. It's as simple as that. It might take a thousand years, but if the USA could get there eventually.

Would you prefer a society where absolutely everybody has a gun, or a society where absolutely nobody has a gun? Which do you think would
be safer? Think about it.

In the former society, anybody with a death wish (like Cho) could shoot somebody at any time.

In a society with no guns AT ALL, it's impossible for anybody to shoot anybody. The UK is almost like this... there are of course exceptions, but generally speaking it's almost unheard of for somebody to carry or own a gun.

So it's possible to have a gun-free society. And it's a hell of a lot safer than a gun-rich society. Wouldn't it make logical sense for the USA to take steps to gradually phase guns out of the country?

(For example, instead of encouraging citizens to arm themselves, they could make the streets safer by employing more police to patrol them. That's just a suggestion.)

I'm afraid I've ignored most of your post. You painted a very prejudiced picture of anti-gun campaigners, and I don't think it applies to me at all, so I'm not interested in hearing it.

A COUNTERattack can be defensive.
Patton knew that.
David

agrote

ti was my intention to show you a view of the american people that you may not see in the UK.

it was not my intention to offend you in any way, if i did i am truly sorry.

i wished that you would have answered my hypothetical question.

i was really curious if you would have slayed cho if given that circumstance.

feel free to change
type of people
total strangers
enemies/ people you dont like
people you care about

or how you obtain the gun
from the holster of a fallen police officer
from a fallen permit holder
from your own holster.
from a struggle with cho

of course there will be no gun violence if there is no gun. the problem lies with controlling the criminal mind. other sources for violence will gain popularity. has your country banned knives and tools from carry?

the biggest, if not only, problem with laws/ legislation is the fact that you have to enforce them. how many people speed, drive drunk, the never get caught? nobody knows? herein lies the problem, good citizens follow the law, how will the government know someone is illegally owning a firearm.

how will the government find out unless they violate your right to privacy?
what will you let the government do to you before you "feel safe"?

agrote

i never said that everbody should carry a gun.
that would be a personal decision for an individual to take.

in my opinion your personal safety is up to you.
in america carrying a firearm is a right, not a privilege.
that is why our two countries have differing views on firearms ownership.

i said that concealed carry permit holders, who can carry concealed in the public concealed from plain view be allowed the same opportunity in a university.

my philosophy is that you are responsible for your own safety, if the establishment does not provide same level of safety, the establishment should not prevent you from providing for you own safety.

va tech did just that, they threatened with expulsion that you could not use your concealed carry permit, but didn't provide localized security in the building.

many of the other places that prohibit concealed carry are high security
airports and courthouses for example.


i feel this was unacceptable, am i wrong in thinking this way?