scratrat Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 QUOTED FROM DIFFERENT THREAD Legal or illegal carrying a weapon is what contributed to this tragedy. Please, if you want to discuss firearm legislation and the pros and cons of gun control, start a separate thread. This is not for you to spout your beliefs on the second amendment. This thread is to acknowledge and express thoughts/condolences to those affected by this insanity. If you can't show even a modicum of respect, then please just don't say anything at all. Thanks. -be safe QUOTED FROM DIFFERENT THREAD! Legal or illegal carrying a weapon is what contributed to this tragedy?? Um, no. The fact that this guy was nucking futs is what contributed to this tragedy. I don't wanna hear it about how guns kill people. I own a pistol much like the one he used. I would never walk into a school and shoot innocent people. So carrying a weapon does not automatically make you a lunatic who wants to shoot people. I would, however, shoot someone in the chest if I had to protect my family when they break in to my house. I would never carry my gun into a building and start randomly shooting people. I don't even advertise the fact that I have it most times. (To the public eye, as in keep it hidden when in public and don't advertise). I would certainly use it in a heartbeat to protect myself or my family, and you can't take that right away from me. You can scream "guns kill' all you want. The fact remains, they do not. The idiots at the other end do. I have never heard of a story yet where a gun just gets up and shoots someone. There is always someone at the other end making that chain of events happen. I will say that I am all for gun CONTROL. It took me 6 months to get one permit for one handgun. That's not to carry, just to purchase it. I was fingerprinted and researched by the state police. This was in New Jersey. Florida is a lot more laid back, and frankly, it scares me. I like my gun, but I am by far not a fanatic. I would love to see tighter laws restricting the sales. I would also love to legislature that ensures that you do minimum jail time for possessing a weapon without a permit. Right now, in Florida at least, it's mandatory jail time when a firearm is used to commit a crime, even just to threaten. Not necessarily if you are just caught with it. You could get off light for just possession, as long as you were not committing a crime. paraloco wrote: I pro-gun, not anti. I posted this message because of the thread "Texas at it again'. It illustrated why even just one person carrying a concealed gun (legally or illegally) might have made a difference here. Sorry, the way I read it, was to mean the opposite. So now, I'm sorry. And I agree. If each teacher had been licensed for concealed carry, he wouldn't have made it very far. Again, I don't believe every single person deserves the right to carry, but with vigorous background checks like New Jersey does, there is no reason why you can't. At least the teachers anyway.
AZCEP Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 This individual was a legal citizen that followed all of the requirements for legal firearm ownership. Another law would not have changed anything. This was not a failure of firearm legislation. It was a failure of the mental health facilities to recognize that he had a problem. Place the blame where it belongs.
itku2er Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 I agree with AZ on this one, This is failure of our Mental Health Professionals. If someone had taken to heart the red flags this kid was throwing up everywhere this massacre might not have ever happened. This isnt a issue on gun control or even racial issues this is a issue that someone that needed help slipped through the cracks and was not treated when he needed it. Guns dont kill people the person behind the gun kills people, Blaming guns for this massacre is like blaming the price of tea in china on the russia vodka producers........yeah makes sense dont it? Just my two cents worth..... Terri
Just Plain Ruff Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 This just sickens me. Just minutes after the shooting broke we had people spouting off gun control and lock up all the guns. Quick on the heals of this the drive by media and the liberals in america claimed that if we had gun control that this would never have happened. Well people, the university was a gun free zone and that in my opinion is Gun Control. So before all these liberals, conservatives and the drive by media start to spout off and try to take our liberties away, remember that Gun control here was pretty high. NO guns allowed on campus YET two guns got on campus and took out 32 people - I don't count the piece of crap evil person who killed himself and took the cowards way out. The guy was nuts, as we have seen in the past couple days with all that is coming into play about this psychopath. The mental health profession, the university system that refuses to allow the students to protect themselves are to blame.
chbare Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 Perhaps it would be best to hold off on this debate and let people deal with this tragedy, then revisit the topic at a more appropriate time. I have a feeling the finger pointing and search for accountability has not even started. Take care, chbare.
Just Plain Ruff Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 I agree Chbare, what I'd like to see now is the media leave the area and let the people there deal with the tragedy instead of being reminded of it day after day after day after day. the story has been reported, let the students and community heal and get back to normal.
MedicNorth Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 Also agreed - I have a rather strong opinion on this matter, and would love to debate it rationally. It would be inappropriate to do so at a time when the major issue is the grief and losses suffered in Virginia. When the time comes, I'll be here.
Lone Star Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 This individual was a legal citizen that followed all of the requirements for legal firearm ownership. Another law would not have changed anything. This was not a failure of firearm legislation. It was a failure of the mental health facilities to recognize that he had a problem. Place the blame where it belongs. First off, I offer my condolences and sympathies to the families of th victims here. Second, I have one statement, the rest of this whole debate can continue at a more appropriate time. The gun shop where Cho got the gun from has been linked to guns used in 5 mass shootings, and when interviewed on television, the owner made the comment that 'a legal alien with a credit card MUST be a 'good person' (as seen on CNN) tells me that he must not be following ALL the BATF/State gun laws for sale of firearms! Cho had been hospitalized on at least one occasion for 'mental problems' before he got the guns! He was sent to New River Community Services, a counseling center off campus, and then was detained at St. Alban's, a mental health center near Radford, Va. Police said they don't know details of his treatment at New River, and on Wednesday they applied for a search warrant for his medical records. The officials didn't say how long he was treated there, but his roommates have said in interviews that he was gone for one to two nights. If his detention was involuntarily, it should have shown up on background checks when he bought two guns in the 10 weeks before the shooting, officials said. ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18175525/ ) Now, before people start blaming Glock and Walther for the manufacture of the guns, it doesn't apply. That's like blaming Ford, General Motors or Daimler-Chrysler for someone getting killed while racing. The manufacturers CANNOT reasonably control the use of their product by the 'end user/purchaser'!
paramedicmike Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 Those are my words quoted at the very beginning of this thread and thank you so much for reading things that aren't there. I find it amazing that you were able to pull so much out of the first sentence. Especially when there was no other comment regarding guns, gun control and their role in this particular incident. Legal or illegal, if this guy didn't have a gun he wouldn't have killed 33 people. I'm not saying the gun killed the people. The guy pulling the trigger killed the people. I don't think there's any question about that. Again, don't read things that aren't there. If current Virginia gun laws had been followed, he wouldn't have been allowed to purchase a handgun (he'd been involuntarily committed for psychiatric evaluation. In Virginia, an involuntary commitment for psychiatric evaluation is a barrier to anyone wanting to buy a handgun.). So, whether it was legally obtained/possessed is a separate issue. The mere fact that he had the weapon contributed to his ability to walk through a university campus and use it to kill so many people. Would he have found another way to do it if he didn't have the weapon? Possibly. I don't know. But you can't deny that the weapon itself was used as an accessory to murder Please, if you need clarification on something I wrote, ask me. Don't ASSume if the gist of my words don't quite make sense to you. Thanks. -be safe
Asysin2leads Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 Guns don't kill people. That's a fact. Glock is no more responsible for this tragedy than the people who failed to see the warning signs for this person. That is also true. Its also an indisputable fact that a modern firearm makes it extremely easy for a single person to inflict a horrendous amount of damage in a very short period of time. This is why I have the stance on guns that I do. If law abiding citizens want to own guns, fine, so long as they are fully cognizant of the risks, and they take responsibility for their actions. However, I will always be a firm believer in the fact that owning a modern firearm is a privelege, not a fundamental right, and if we have to place restricitions like increased penalities on gun vendors for infractions, increased waiting periods for purchases, and increased scrutiny on the purchaser, than I say SO BE IT. My question to gun proponents is this. How far does the right to carry a firearm extend? Does it extend to high capacity magazines for pistols? If a person is only going to use a firearm for self defense, does one need a magazine that carries an excessive number off rounds? I don't think restricting civilian ownership of high capacity magazines will have a particular effect on crime or shootings or pervent tragedies like this. I do question, however, why people vehemently defend things like high capacity magazines and high powered semi automatic rifles in the name of self defense. To me, it seems like asking for trouble. Unless you regularly travel through, say, Mogadishu, the need for a handgun with 33 rounds in the clip or a semi auto with 7.62mm ammunition seems to elude my grasp.
Recommended Posts