woiyo wrote:parados wrote:One of the signs was an obsession with guns and violence.
Does that mean we can or should intervene with those that are obsessed with guns?
You said guns AND VIOLENCE. So the direct answer, especially if a STUDENT is known to have these tendencies, would be YES!
Guns by their nature are violent. So your answer would be YES to anyone obsessed with guns?
maporsche wrote:.......
That's obvious by the number of lives that are lost due to speeding and automobile accidents.....yet nobody is taking up those causes.........
That statement is untrue. That "cause" is being addressed right now. NOW.
I will it clear. I am pro-gun, pro-wiretapping and pro President Bush.
Simple as that.
There still is the problem of what society (us, the people) are going to do to try and curtail the problem if possible with these rampant shootings.
I don't think being put under observation over a weekend for threatening to commit suicide really counts as an involuntarily commitment.
TTH wrote:I will it clear. I am pro-gun, pro-wiretapping and pro President Bush.
Simple as that.
There still is the problem of what society (us, the people) are going to do to try and curtail the problem if possible with these rampant shootings.
That should have read I will make it clear. I left "make" out.
parados wrote:I don't think being put under observation over a weekend for threatening to commit suicide really counts as an involuntarily commitment.
No? What would you call it when the police show up at your door and force you to go stay in a mental health facility for ~48 hours for evaluation?
fishin wrote:parados wrote:I don't think being put under observation over a weekend for threatening to commit suicide really counts as an involuntarily commitment.
No? What would you call it when the police show up at your door and force you to go stay in a mental health facility for ~48 hours for evaluation?
It may be a forced observation period but no court ordered commitment occurred. There is a legal procedure in place for commitments. I am not going to look up VA's but I doubt any state allows for commitment without a court ruling if the person objects. If they don't object than it isn't involuntary.
Re: Student Newspaper
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:oralloy wrote:Hmm.... Several more gun rights type posts I need to respond to a little later.
Well, in the interests of those who want this board for information about the incident itself, NPR this morning said that the website of Virginia Tech's student newspaper has become a good early source of breaking news.
I'll go hunt up the link to their website and either edit it into this post or post it in a reply.
Oralloy, thanks for ceasing to subvert this thread about dead and wounded students.
BBB
Unfortunately I think it's futile.
I'll try to limit my responses and only cover the more reasoned arguments though, and maybe I'll combine several responses into one post.
TTH wrote:I will it clear. I am pro-gun, pro-wiretapping and pro President Bush.
Simple as that.
There still is the problem of what society (us, the people) are going to do to try and curtail the problem if possible with these rampant shootings.
Pro gun but also pro wiretapping......inconsistent from a freedom standpoint.
I will point out that I am VERY MUCH anti-Bush. His presidency is the reason I became a gun-advocate.
Amish school shooting
The Virginia Tech shootings remind me of the Amish school shootings. Cho appears to have hated the women who rejected him. ---BBB
Amish school shooting
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Amish school shooting occurred on the morning of Monday, October 2, 2006, when a gunman took hostages and eventually killed five girls (aged 7-13) and then killed himself at West Nickel Mines School, a one-room Amish schoolhouse in Nickel Mines, a village in Bart Township of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, United States.[1][2][3][4][5] Police report that the gunman was Charles Carl Roberts IV,[5][6] a 32-year-old milk-tank truck driver who lived nearby.
Shooting
Wikinews has news related to:
Fatal shooting at school in Pennsylvania, USARoberts entered the school at approximately 9:51 a.m. EDT with a shotgun, a handgun, wires, chains, nails, and flexible plastic ties which he used to bind the arms and legs of the hostages, and several stout wooden boards which he used to barricade himself inside.[7] Police found a length of two-by-six wooden board with ten pairs of metal eyehooks, presumably to secure the ten hostages. Provisions for an extended overnight stay, such as candles, toilet tissue, and a change of clothes were found at the scene. Two tubes of sexual lubricant were also later discovered at the scene, and Roberts indicated to his wife over the phone that he had dreams about molesting children, but police have found no signs that any molestation occurred[5].
He ordered the hostages to line up against the chalkboard, and sent away from the classroom a pregnant woman, three parents with infants and all fifteen male students. One female student escaped: nine-year-old Emma Fisher (whose two older sisters stayed inside).[8] The nine-year old, who had just started to learn English, left with the male students because she did not understand the gunman's orders. She had been sitting beside her brother and followed him out when he left.
The gunman, a father of three children (two boys and a girl), remained inside the school house with the remaining ten female students. The school teacher, Emma Mae Zook,[9] contacted the police upon escaping at approximately 10:36 a.m.[7] The first police officers arrived approximately nine minutes later and attempted to communicate with Roberts via the PA system in their cruisers.[7] The 911 call transcript shows Roberts ordered the police that if they didn't pull back within two seconds, the children would be dead and he began firing when they did not comply.[10]
Police broke in through the windows when shots were heard.[2] The gunman killed five girls and himself. The oldest girl, 13-year-old Marian Fisher, appealed to Roberts to shoot her first, in an effort to spare the younger girls, according to her younger sister who survived. The younger sister, Barbie, appealed to him to shoot her next. She received 9mm bullet wounds in the hand, leg, and shoulder.[11] Three died at the scene and two more died early the next morning, with five more girls left in critical condition.
Three girls were admitted to Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, four to Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and one to Christiana Hospital in Newark, Delaware, state police said.[12] At least five girls remain hospitalized, three in critical condition and two upgraded to serious condition as of Tuesday, October 3, 2006.[13][5]
Reports have stated that most of the girls were shot "execution-style" in the back of the head.[12][14] One student was shot in the back and the shoulder; she is expected to recover.[citation needed] The ages of the victims ranged from six to thirteen.[5]
Roberts was last seen by his wife at 8:45 a.m. when they walked their children to the bus stop before leaving. When his wife returned home at 11:00 a.m., she discovered four suicide notes ?- one addressed to his wife, and one to each of his children. Roberts reportedly contacted his wife while still in the schoolhouse and stated that he had molested two young female relatives (between the ages of 3 and 5) twenty years ago, and had been daydreaming about molesting again.
One note Roberts left indicated his despondency over his daughter who died shortly (roughly 20 minutes) after birth nine years earlier, and cryptically stated that he had "been having dreams for the past couple of years about doing what he did 20 years ago and he has dreams of doing them again", according to State Police Commissioner Colonel Jeffrey B. Miller, apparently alluding to his later phone admission to sexually molesting two family members when he was younger.
On October 4, 2006, the two relatives whom Roberts said he molested 20 years ago told police that no such abuse had ever happened, throwing a new layer of mystery over the gunman's motive and mental state during the shooting.[15]
Miller said there was no evidence any of the Amish children had been molested.[16]
Roberts was a resident of nearby Georgetown, another unincorporated area of Bart Township.[17]
On October 12, 2006, the West Nickel Mines School fell to the bulldozer; the school had been boarded up since the shooting occurred. The Amish plan to leave a quiet pasture where the schoolhouse once stood. [18]
According to the Washington Post, Police and coroner accounts of the children's wounds differed dramatically. Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Jeffrey Miller said Roberts shot his victims in the head at close range, with 17 or 18 shots fired in all, including the one he used to take his own life as police stormed into the school through the windows. But Janice Ballenger, deputy coroner in Lancaster County, Pa., told The Washington Post in an interview that she counted at least two dozen bullet wounds in one child alone before asking a colleague to continue for her.
Inside the school, Ballenger said, "there was not one desk, not one chair, in the whole schoolroom that was not splattered with either blood or glass. There were bullet holes everywhere, everywhere." When questioned, a state police spokeswoman said that she could not immediately explain the discrepancy.
parados wrote:fishin wrote:parados wrote:I don't think being put under observation over a weekend for threatening to commit suicide really counts as an involuntarily commitment.
No? What would you call it when the police show up at your door and force you to go stay in a mental health facility for ~48 hours for evaluation?
It may be a forced observation period but no court ordered commitment occurred. There is a legal procedure in place for commitments. I am not going to look up VA's but I doubt any state allows for commitment without a court ruling if the person objects. If they don't object than it isn't involuntary.
I would have to agree with you here...I can't imagine being involuntarily committed w/o a court order.
revel wrote:oralloy wrote:revel wrote:The crazy part was not really the key word. I meant it would have been just been a lot worse had a bunch of people with no prior training to just start shooting back with all those other people around. We have professionals trained who know what to do in dangerous situations like that. I don't believe the idea has been thought out too well.
That would seem to be more of an argument for adequate training before a gun is carried, rather than an argument against people carrying a gun at all.
I'd be agreeable with such training requirements. (And in many cases, concealed carry permits already require training.)
It should also be noted that civilian self defense is much different from a police shooting and is generally less complicated. Usually when a civilian shoots in self defense, their attacker is directly in front of them and facing them head on, and they are only shooting the person who is directly attacking them. A police officer might be called on to take offensive action against someone who is attacking a third party, with a much different angle to shoot from.
If someone is intent on causing harm with a lethal weapon all situations are unknowable in advance and all kinds of things can go wrong even in the situation you describe in the last paragraph of your post. A hostage crisis could quickly develop if the attacker starts to panic.
True. Something can always go wrong no mater what is done. But the possibility of something going wrong exists in nearly every situation.
revel wrote:I will go along with the idea of people being able to carry concealed weapons on government property if they are completely trained and their background completely checked out before getting a permit.
I am not sure I understand what you view as "complete" training. I could fully agree or fully disagree with you, depending on the details of this one nuance.
revel wrote:I draw the line at getting permits for any reason for machine gun type weapons as there is no need for them in either a defensive situation or hunting. (I am ignorant on pacific names and types) If a situation develops in which those types of weapons are called for then we should wait for law enforcement.
This is getting more into the freedom issue. If people have the right to have them (which is another discussion in itself) then there doesn't have to be any "need" in order for people to have them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wandeljw wrote:Enforcement of existing laws or maybe new legislation should be aimed at reducing the easy availability of guns and ammunition.
Unconstitutional.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Setanta wrote:maporsche wrote:I have yet to see a gun control advocate who had a rational, detailed plan for disarming the "criminals," either. Your plan of removing ALL guns is not rational and is not detailed, and worse than all it would not be effective.
I didn't say ALL guns. I specified handguns. Handguns can only have two purpose--target shooting, and you don't need a .44 magnum for that, and killing people, which is the only thing a .44 magnum is good for. As long as people make reference to vague things like disarming "criminals," while claiming that armed "law-abiding citizens" can protect us from crazy shooters, you're not advocating anything practical, either.
Some handguns are also good for hunting. The .44 magnum is one of those handguns.
I am not sure that a .44 magnum is particularly good for anti-personnel use. Something with less recoil for more rapid shooting would seem better suited to that task.
Also, guns designed to kill people have a legitimate place in the hands of civilians, because in some cases (like self defense) lethal force is a legitimate civilian activity.
Wilso wrote:Bigoted diatribe removed
scroll scroll scroll.....
BumbleBeeBoogie
Your post is sad about the Amish school shooting. Unfortunately, it will probably happen again. Look at the original post of the thread. I notice it appears to be guys for the most part who do this.
oralloy wrote:Some handguns are also good for hunting. The .44 magnum is one of those handguns.
A handgun is not necessary for hunting, and handguns were never designed for hunting. Running deer down with a pickup truck can be very effective, too--that doesn't mean that a pickup truck is or ought to be the weapon of choice for deer hunting.
Quote:I am not sure that a .44 magnum is particularly good for anti-personnel use. Something with less recoil for more rapid shooting would seem better suited to that task.
That doesn't alter the fact that the weapon was designed for shooting people, and not for hunting or for target shootin.
Quote:Also, guns designed to kill people have a legitimate place in the hands of civilians, because in some cases (like self defense) lethal force is a legitimate civilian activity.
That is a matter of opinion, and another matter of opinion is my opinion with regard to the opinion you have just expressed. Attitudes such as you have expressed are exemplary of why the problem cannot be solved.
dadpad wrote:Watching this debate with interest.
The arguments both for and against gun control presented here are exactly those that were presented when we (Aust) had this debate.
The argument that guns dont kill people, people kill people doesn't wash.
People with guns kill people.
The vast majority of these types of incidents are perpetrated not by crooks but by ordinary people that go over the edge. Additionally crims get guns that are stolen from ordinary peoples homes.
If you remove the guns from ordinary peoples homes both these problems are reduced.
They are not reduced by any significant amount. Thus the argument that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" does in fact wash.
dadpad wrote:No-one needs an automatic weapon for hunting, farm, or hobby (target shooting) use.
Here we're getting into the freedom issue. It doesn't matter whether or not someone "needs" it if they are a free person who has the right to have it.
And for some types of target shooting, they would indeed need it.
dadpad wrote:The bottom line is that gun control and enforcement does not make these problems go away completely it does however reduce the potential.
Not really. If people switched from shooting to bombing it might make matters worse.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dlowan wrote:Luckily, we didn't have a very well organised and scary gun lobby...though the nuts we did have were scary enough.... to hamstring sensible legislation.
The nuts in the US spread their poison all over, though.
Hehehe...we even had our nuts importing their drivel direct from the NRA....with the nonsense about our (nonexistent) second amendment, or whatever the hell it is, intact!
Too dumb to know they were not living under the same system as the US.
If you dislike freedom advocates, that is your prerogative, but please cut back on the bigoted language.
And while you guys did not have Constitutional protections for your rights -- allowing your government to easily repeal your freedom, the gun rights advocates were correct. You did indeed have that same gun rights that we do in America.
Unless I am mistaken and your legal system is not in fact based on English Common Law.....
parados wrote:fishin wrote:parados wrote:I don't think being put under observation over a weekend for threatening to commit suicide really counts as an involuntarily commitment.
No? What would you call it when the police show up at your door and force you to go stay in a mental health facility for ~48 hours for evaluation?
It may be a forced observation period but no court ordered commitment occurred. There is a legal procedure in place for commitments. I am not going to look up VA's but I doubt any state allows for commitment without a court ruling if the person objects. If they don't object than it isn't involuntary.
Was this gunman subject to all of this?
I stated earlier I didn't read the entire thread.
oralloy wrote:Unless I am mistaken and your legal system is not in fact based on English Common Law..... (a reference to Miss Wabbit's comments on gun control in Australia)
The English common law has never guaranteed anyone's right to own a handgun.
parados wrote:woiyo wrote:parados wrote:One of the signs was an obsession with guns and violence.
Does that mean we can or should intervene with those that are obsessed with guns?
You said guns AND VIOLENCE. So the direct answer, especially if a STUDENT is known to have these tendencies, would be YES!
Guns by their nature are violent. So your answer would be YES to anyone obsessed with guns?
Guns are "violent". Violence is an emotion. Guns have no emotion. Therefore, your opinion must be ignored as you are NUTS.
oralloy wrote:
Some handguns are also good for hunting. The .44 magnum is one of those handguns.
A handgun is not necessary for hunting, and handguns were never designed for hunting. Running deer down with a pickup truck can be very effective, too--that doesn't mean that a pickup truck is or ought to be the weapon of choice for deer hunting.
Agree Set. I NEVER been with anyone who used a handgun for hunting, especially a .44. It would not be a smart thing to do to use such a high caliber weapon for hunting.
Note: I am pro 2nd amendment and a rifle owner (several). Yet some of the srguments from the "pro gun" sect are just dumb.
