mnealtx 0 #126 April 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteYup...that legally obtained gun warped his mind and MADE him do it... Way to keep trying to blame the tool and not the user... Not blaming the tool at all. The facts show that a person who has been deemed a danger to himself and others is still able to legally obtain guns. In this case it wasn't even due to an oversight from the state. Virginia state law says that only those who are committed in a mental instutute against their will have to be registered in the background system. Apprently Virginia has one of the better systems to do this compared to the other states. I am not blaming the guns at all. I have said many times before that incidents like VT are the price the US as a society pays for the road the embarked on a long time ago. Hence, I don't see it as a problem that needs fixing. Here's Form 4473. Since privacy laws and HIPPA (medical privacy law) prevents patient info from being publicized, this is a FEDERAL issue, not a Virginia issue. Please note question 12f... QuoteHave you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes being adjudicated incompetent to handle your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #127 April 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote What I saw on the news was a madman who gunned down thirty-two unarmed people in a "gun free zone." Yes, shameful, isn't it, that the gun lobby has managed to water down the background checks to the extent that a "madman" can legally buy a gun and ammunition for the purpose of going on a killing spree. Show me a single source that connects the gun lobby to the inability of Virginia's system of background checks to dig up this man's mental health problems. Most of the "gun lobby" types whom I hear talking about this incident on TV support a change in the screening process, to include this type of mental health record. The NRA and its cronies lobby hard against any and all restrictions on the unlimited access to guns by its members. They lobbied against waiting periods, against restrictions on multiple purchases, against restrictions on large capacity magazines (which the VT shooter had and obtained legally), against restrictions on "cop killer" ammo... Really? I only saw note of 15 rd magazines...that's standard capacity for that weapon, not 'large capacity'.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #128 April 25, 2007 Quote isn't ammo that kills a cop by literal definition "cop killing"? since you started the thread, i'll ask you this question, though anyone else please feel free to answer: it appears to me that part of the pro-gun argument is that taking guns away from everyone will only take the guns away from law-abiding citizens, and that criminals will be the only ones to have access. my understanding of this point of view is that since this country afforded people the right to have guns long ago, it went down a path that can no longer be reversed. so my question is: if you were to start your own country, brand spankin new, and you had no worry of your government going all tyrannical on you, would you then still give your citizens the right to have guns? in this hypothetical, no one has guns from the start. Absolutely - and there would be no restrictions on where you could carry, either...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #129 April 25, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote What I saw on the news was a madman who gunned down thirty-two unarmed people in a "gun free zone." Yes, shameful, isn't it, that the gun lobby has managed to water down the background checks to the extent that a "madman" can legally buy a gun and ammunition for the purpose of going on a killing spree. Show me a single source that connects the gun lobby to the inability of Virginia's system of background checks to dig up this man's mental health problems. Most of the "gun lobby" types whom I hear talking about this incident on TV support a change in the screening process, to include this type of mental health record. The NRA and its cronies lobby hard against any and all restrictions on the unlimited access to guns by its members. They lobbied against waiting periods, against restrictions on multiple purchases, against restrictions on large capacity magazines (which the VT shooter had and obtained legally), against restrictions on "cop killer" ammo... Really? I only saw note of 15 rd magazines...that's standard capacity for that weapon, not 'large capacity'. Something to behold isn't itI love the 'cop killer' ammo line too. Ranks right up there with the plastic gun term they (the anti-guners) used years ago. Oh, and of course the NRA wants all listed above ONLY for it's members. Gawd I love this stuff"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #130 April 25, 2007 QuoteIllegally modified? Please expand on this, as it's the first I've heard of it. The scratching off of the serial numbers. If police response had been even slower, he might have gotten away to do a third attack. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #131 April 25, 2007 >The scratching off of the serial numbers. >If police response had been even slower, he might have gotten away >to do a third attack. Under what circumstances would the police be able to catch him normally, but would not be able to catch him with the weapon's serial numbers removed? Indeed, having illegally modified weapons would make it _more_ likely that he would be caught later (if he escaped initially.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Douva 0 #132 April 25, 2007 Quote isn't ammo that kills a cop by literal definition "cop killing"? Okay, you got me there. Quote since you started the thread, i'll ask you this question, though anyone else please feel free to answer: it appears to me that part of the pro-gun argument is that taking guns away from everyone will only take the guns away from law-abiding citizens, and that criminals will be the only ones to have access. my understanding of this point of view is that since this country afforded people the right to have guns long ago, it went down a path that can no longer be reversed. so my question is: if you were to start your own country, brand spankin new, and you had no worry of your government going all tyrannical on you, would you then still give your citizens the right to have guns? in this hypothetical, no one has guns from the start. Yes, I would still allow firearms. The right to own firearms goes beyond being able to defy a tyrannical government or defend oneself against the hundreds of millions of guns already in circulation in the U.S. The right to own firearms is about the right to not be completely dependent on the actions of a government or its agents for one's own survival. No free country or society should have a public policy of "If we fail, you die." When a man with a meat cleaver breaks into my house at four in the morning, I don't want the government telling me I have to take him on hand-to-hand because only government agents can be trusted with firearms. When global warming causes my city to be ravaged by freak storms, I don't want to have to fight of looters with a baseball bat while I'm waiting for the National Guard to get their butts in gear. When a rogue nation gains control of a few ICBMs and peppers the United States with mushroom clouds, I don't want to have to hunt for food with a spear while I'm waiting for what remains of the federal government to reorganize itself. If there were such thing as a perfectly safe, utopian society, we wouldn't need guns. But since no such society will ever exist, I'm going to have a few firearms close at hand, as one of many safeguards against the unforeseen.I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #133 April 25, 2007 Quote>The scratching off of the serial numbers. >If police response had been even slower, he might have gotten away >to do a third attack. Under what circumstances would the police be able to catch him normally, but would not be able to catch him with the weapon's serial numbers removed? Indeed, having illegally modified weapons would make it _more_ likely that he would be caught later (if he escaped initially.) The circumstances where he might have to ditch the weapons and then walk out like every other student. With the serials, the police would know he bought it the month before and immediately go find him. The removal doesn't change the odds of the police catching him one bit. It would only simplify the charging and holding of him if they suspected him and found the weapons on him. No, the significance of the alteration is that he wasn't set on killing himself in the attack. He managed to cut and run successfully on the first attack. Got in a bit too deep on the second. More reason to give the target population the right to defend itself. As the university itself said, they can't post a cop on every building. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #134 April 25, 2007 QuoteIf there were such thing as a perfectly safe, utopian society, we wouldn't need guns. But since no such society will ever exist, I'm going to have a few firearms close at hand, as one of many safeguards against the unforeseen. just as cities or states in the US can't go gun free so long as the neighbors across the river don't, there can't be a utopian society so long as the rest of the imperfect world still exists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Douva 0 #135 April 25, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote What I saw on the news was a madman who gunned down thirty-two unarmed people in a "gun free zone." Yes, shameful, isn't it, that the gun lobby has managed to water down the background checks to the extent that a "madman" can legally buy a gun and ammunition for the purpose of going on a killing spree. Show me a single source that connects the gun lobby to the inability of Virginia's system of background checks to dig up this man's mental health problems. Most of the "gun lobby" types whom I hear talking about this incident on TV support a change in the screening process, to include this type of mental health record. The NRA and its cronies lobby hard against any and all restrictions on the unlimited access to guns by its members. They lobbied against waiting periods, against restrictions on multiple purchases, against restrictions on large capacity magazines (which the VT shooter had and obtained legally), against restrictions on "cop killer" ammo... Really? I only saw note of 15 rd magazines...that's standard capacity for that weapon, not 'large capacity'. Something to behold isn't itI love the 'cop killer' ammo line too. Ranks right up there with the plastic gun term they (the anti-guners) used years ago. Oh, and of course the NRA wants all listed above ONLY for it's members. Gawd I love this stuff Yeah, the "plastic guns" that can get through metal detectors argument was the pinnacle of anti-gun ignorance. I'd say second place in that category goes to the confusing of "assault weapons" with machine guns. Even CNN ran a piece showing how fully-automatic machine guns would soon be back on the streets if the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to expire. But the "cop killer" bullet frenzy is definitely a strong third place contender.I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Douva 0 #136 April 25, 2007 Quote>The scratching off of the serial numbers. >If police response had been even slower, he might have gotten away >to do a third attack. Under what circumstances would the police be able to catch him normally, but would not be able to catch him with the weapon's serial numbers removed? Indeed, having illegally modified weapons would make it _more_ likely that he would be caught later (if he escaped initially.) I agree. This is a silly argument by gun rights advocates stretching for a way to declare the guns "illegal." What most intelligent gun rights advocates, including the NRA, are focusing on is the fact that Cho's previous adjudication as "a danger to himself and others" was enough to legally prevent him from buying the guns in the first place, but the current criminal databases fell short of including that kind of information.I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #137 April 25, 2007 "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." - Robert A. Heinlein Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Douva 0 #138 April 25, 2007 QuoteQuote>The scratching off of the serial numbers. >If police response had been even slower, he might have gotten away >to do a third attack. Under what circumstances would the police be able to catch him normally, but would not be able to catch him with the weapon's serial numbers removed? Indeed, having illegally modified weapons would make it _more_ likely that he would be caught later (if he escaped initially.) The circumstances where he might have to ditch the weapons and then walk out like every other student. With the serials, the police would know he bought it the month before and immediately go find him. The removal doesn't change the odds of the police catching him one bit. It would only simplify the charging and holding of him if they suspected him and found the weapons on him. Unless he killed all of the witnesses, I think walking out with everybody else might have been a little tricky. QuoteNo, the significance of the alteration is that he wasn't set on killing himself in the attack. He managed to cut and run successfully on the first attack. Got in a bit too deep on the second. More reason to give the target population the right to defend itself. As the university itself said, they can't post a cop on every building. On this point you are correct--There aren't enough cops around to defend everybody at once. In fact, it's been ruled by, I believe, the Supreme Court that police have a duty to protect the people as a whole but not any person individually.I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #139 April 25, 2007 QuoteQuotewould you then still give your citizens the right to have guns? in this hypothetical, no one has guns from the start. Yes, I would still allow firearms. I would acknowledge that 'my' government does not have the power to "give" rights to anyone. They already have human rights - the expression, privacy and ownership (of themselves and property). I would not Take Away the right to private property or self determination or self defense, in my country. It wouldn't be a very healthy country if that was policy. The whole idea that a government owns our rights and doles them out as we see fit is abhorrent. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #140 April 25, 2007 QuoteThis event, and the many similiar in the past, is a primary reason to explain why you should end legal gun ownership. It's just not worth it. Often, what may make logical sense to some, doesn't play out the way you think it will. I've not seen any hard data to make me think that taking away citizen's guns will stop violence. In fact, didn't I see something recently about gun crime rates in England continuing to rise a decade after the citizens' guns were confiscated? Yes, I'm sure you did - but we haven't had a school massacre since, or a Hungerford type disaster. Sure, there are various (and becoming numerous) isolated shootings by criminals. The ethnicity and legitimate status of the actual criminals in question certainly raises a few questions. Also, much of US popular culture rubs off onto British society such as your tooled up gangsta rapper type arsehole. Other elements of our organised criminal gun users such as the Yardies will always operate outside the law. But this is a different issue altogether. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,426 #141 April 25, 2007 >The circumstances where he might have to ditch the weapons and >then walk out like every other student. With the serials, the police would >know he bought it the month before and immediately go find him. OK, I can see that. So I can see reasons that removing the serial numbers would help him escape (if he ditched the weapons and they found them) and I can see reasons that NOT altering them would help him retain them afterwards (since they would not be confiscated if, a year later, they were discovered during a search.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #142 April 25, 2007 QuoteOK, I can see that. So I can see reasons that removing the serial numbers would help him escape (if he ditched the weapons and they found them) and I can see reasons that NOT altering them would help him retain them afterwards (since they would not be confiscated if, a year later, they were discovered during a search.) Presuming rational behavior, which may or may not be appropriate in these scenarios. Afterwards, you lose the weapons. Disassemble the gun, and scatter the pieces. Confiscation is the least of the problems should you be found with them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,426 #143 April 25, 2007 >Presuming rational behavior, which may or may not be appropriate in these scenarios. Agreed. Although in this case, the level of pre-planning suggests rational, premeditated behavior. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,644 #144 April 25, 2007 Quote"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." - Robert A. Heinlein Yes, the VT killer found that out. He died too.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,644 #145 April 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuotewould you then still give your citizens the right to have guns? in this hypothetical, no one has guns from the start. Yes, I would still allow firearms. I would acknowledge that 'my' government does not have the power to "give" rights to anyone. They already have human rights - the expression, privacy and ownership (of themselves and property). I would not Take Away the right to private property or self determination or self defense, in my country. It wouldn't be a very healthy country if that was policy. The whole idea that a government owns our rights and doles them out as we see fit is abhorrent. You don't seem to have any problem when GWB violates people's rights to a trial by a jury of peers, or taps phones without a warrant, or makes a signing statement that condones torture. You are VERY selective about which rights you support.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #146 April 25, 2007 You are VERY selective about which rights you support. No, you are the one doing that as you misrepresent exactly what is going on here."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #141 April 25, 2007 >The circumstances where he might have to ditch the weapons and >then walk out like every other student. With the serials, the police would >know he bought it the month before and immediately go find him. OK, I can see that. So I can see reasons that removing the serial numbers would help him escape (if he ditched the weapons and they found them) and I can see reasons that NOT altering them would help him retain them afterwards (since they would not be confiscated if, a year later, they were discovered during a search.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #142 April 25, 2007 QuoteOK, I can see that. So I can see reasons that removing the serial numbers would help him escape (if he ditched the weapons and they found them) and I can see reasons that NOT altering them would help him retain them afterwards (since they would not be confiscated if, a year later, they were discovered during a search.) Presuming rational behavior, which may or may not be appropriate in these scenarios. Afterwards, you lose the weapons. Disassemble the gun, and scatter the pieces. Confiscation is the least of the problems should you be found with them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #143 April 25, 2007 >Presuming rational behavior, which may or may not be appropriate in these scenarios. Agreed. Although in this case, the level of pre-planning suggests rational, premeditated behavior. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #144 April 25, 2007 Quote"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." - Robert A. Heinlein Yes, the VT killer found that out. He died too.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #145 April 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuotewould you then still give your citizens the right to have guns? in this hypothetical, no one has guns from the start. Yes, I would still allow firearms. I would acknowledge that 'my' government does not have the power to "give" rights to anyone. They already have human rights - the expression, privacy and ownership (of themselves and property). I would not Take Away the right to private property or self determination or self defense, in my country. It wouldn't be a very healthy country if that was policy. The whole idea that a government owns our rights and doles them out as we see fit is abhorrent. You don't seem to have any problem when GWB violates people's rights to a trial by a jury of peers, or taps phones without a warrant, or makes a signing statement that condones torture. You are VERY selective about which rights you support.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #146 April 25, 2007 You are VERY selective about which rights you support. No, you are the one doing that as you misrepresent exactly what is going on here."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #147 April 25, 2007 >No, you are the one doing that The "I know you are but what am I" defense makes its inevitable appearance. The Chewbacca Defense would have surely been more entertaining, although the "I'm rubber, you're glue" angle has some merits as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #148 April 25, 2007 Quote>No, you are the one doing that The "I know you are but what am I" defense makes its inevitable appearance. The Chewbacca Defense would have surely been more entertaining, although the "I'm rubber, you're glue" angle has some merits as well. You can make it look that way if you only choose to post part of the line."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #149 April 25, 2007 >You can make it look that way if you only choose to post part of the line. Ah, a disappointing volley. The "you misquoted me" claim, on a board where the previous post is one entry above on the screen, is never a crowd-pleaser. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #150 April 26, 2007 Quote>You can make it look that way if you only choose to post part of the line. Ah, a disappointing volley. The "you misquoted me" claim, on a board where the previous post is one entry above on the screen, is never a crowd-pleaser. Sorry you have been disapointed even though you are the one going down a different and misleading path. Again I am sorry........"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
