Douva

The cop was armed because the man was armed. The cop was in a special armed response squad. The cop chose to take exceptional risks in the line of his special duties to protect others. Guns are necessary tools, they are RARE in the UK but the balance is at best on the side of too restrictive if you've ever lived rurally. It would be untenable to ban weapons of the sort used in this case, they are already well controlled and have significant utility. Given that guns have a legitimate role in society we need armed police volunteers like this man to go in and deal with the situation as he'd done on several occasions. I think you're missing the point of my post. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Okay, I'll start by admitting that I got bored and skimmed the posts on the last half of this page. These gun debates tend to get a little repetitive and hung up on semantics. You gun rights advocates who can't accept that the officer probably died because he was armed, find some way to deal with it. Guns don't ALWAYS make you safer, so if that was your argument for gun rights, find a new argument. You gun control advocates who think every firearm related death is a call for more laws, I suggest you wake up and smell the reality. As someone already stated quite eloquently, "Shit happens." Sometimes it happens with a gun; sometimes it happens with a car; sometimes it happens with a golf club. We can't create a utopian world where nobody ever gets hurt, through either negligence or malice, so come to grips with it and move on. If this had happened in America, proponents of gun control would have argued that it proves the inherent danger of America's lax gun laws. But it didn't happen in America. It happened in a country with relatively stringent gun laws. If this had happened with an illegally obtained weapon, proponents of gun rights would have argued that it proves that gun control doesn't work. But it didn't happen with an illegally obtained weapon. The assailant had a legal right to possess the weapon he used to kill the police officer. If it had happened with an "assault weapon," proponents of gun control would have argued that it proves the danger of assault weapons. But it didn't happen with an "assault weapon," a "sniper rifle," or "cop killer bullets." It happened with a small caliber hunting rifle, using standard ammunition. If the same man had used the gun to defend himself against an armed intruder, proponents of gun rights would have argued that it proves the merits of being armed for personal protection. But he didn't use the gun to defend himself. He used the gun to kill a police officer. So what is my point? My point is that, although isolated incidents like this offer useful case studies to both sides of the debate, this type of incident doesn't PROVE anything we didn't already know. The only thing this case proves is that guns can be used to kill people. And as pundits on both side will probably agree, sometimes that's a good thing, and sometimes it's a bad thing. If, tomorrow, a man chooses to drive his SUV through a crowd of children on the playground, what does that really prove? What new laws should be implemented as a result of that action? And if, a week later, somebody walks into a college classroom with a garden sprayer full of kerosene and a soldering torch, what will that prove? What laws should be implemented as a result of that action? Surely concrete barriers around playgrounds and bag searches at the entrances to campus buildings could prevent those types of tragedies. What if a family dies because their car stalled on the railroad tracks? Shouldn't there be some sort of emergency car moving device in place at all railroad crossings? And shouldn't cars be equipped with emergency flotation devices that inflate and keep them afloat if they go off a bridge and into water? And shouldn't nail guns require registration, background checks, and waiting periods? In fact, should we even let people under the age of twenty-one into Home Depot? WD-40 is like napalm if you light it, so why is that shit still legal? A foul ball can kill someone, so why aren't our little leaguers using Nerf equipment? Actually, wouldn't the world be safer if EVERYTHING was coated in foam rubber? If the world is overpopulated and AIDS and rape are both worldwide epidemics, why don't we require all boys to make periodic sperm bank deposits, between the ages of thirteen and fourteen, and then castrate them when they turn fourteen? Wouldn't many of the terrorist threats we currently face simply go away if we all just adopted our enemies' religious beliefs? There are lots of ways to save lives, so why are so many of you so hung up on guns? I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

The officer was shot with a relatively small caliber hunting rifle, so if you want a ban that would encompass the gun used to kill that police officer, you'll have to implement an outright ban on all firearms. Good luck. Sometimes bad stuff happens to good people. When it does, it's not always a sign that we need more laws. Sometimes that's just the way life is. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I generally fill up about twice a month. Of course, I drive a Chevy Tahoe, so a fill-up is about 25 gallons. Working from home is a great way to reduce gas consumption. Unfortunately, it's not an option for most people. Of course, later this month my dad and I are driving to Vegas for a convention, so my monthly consumption will be up a little bit. Flying might be more ecologically friendly, but it's just too much of a pain in the ass these days. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I usually reply with a virtual bitch slap to anyone who forwards me this crap. Of course, the last person to forward it to me was my grandmother, so I do make exceptions. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Haven't we had politicians and infants denied boarding passes at airports because their names matched names on the terrorist watch list? From what the news media keeps telling us, it sounds like the government is pretty indiscriminate in the selecting of "suspects." If the government is going to tell somebody he or she can't purchase a firearm, it needs to offer a better explanation than "You're on a list." I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

The question of what is and isn't necessary is very subjective. While some people consider a single death by a legally owned firearm to be one too man, others accept such tragedies as part of the cost of living in a "free" society. Therefore, absent any real in depth study into existing firearms laws, both in the United States and abroad, and their effect on both society as we know it and possible future variations on society as we know it, all you're question is going to get you is a lot of emotional responses based on limited personal experiences. The only thing about which you'll get EVERYONE to agree is that violent crime is wrong. Beyond that, there is no universal common ground in the debate about gun control. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Interestingly, Douva, many of these people with indecent exposure charges, also have histories of other sex offenses. My point was that there is indecent exposure, and then there is indecent exposure--It's not always comparing apples to apples. If a guy got caught showing his junk to kids on the play ground; that's one thing, but if a couple gets caught having sex in a secluded area of a public park, that's something else. Having sex in a public park may show poor judgment, but I don't think it shows an inclination toward sexual assault or molestation or anything like that. Also, since when do we punish people for what they may do? The fact that someone has a statistically higher probability of committing a crime isn't the same as if that person had committed that crime. We're talking about prohibiting people from ever having any chance at a normal life, so I think there needs to be some judicial discretion here, as well as a solid appeals process. I don't want to see someone who got caught streaking treated the same as someone who raped a ten-year-old girl. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I don't know how accurate the reports were, but I've read of instances of people getting put on these lists for things like an "indecent exposure" charge, from getting caught having sex with another consenting adult in public. Judges should definiteliy have some discretion in deciding who ends up these lists and who doesn't. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

How about just not letting people who are carrying to drink? For one thing, it puts the license holder in an awkward position. If an armed license holder is out with friends who know he normally drinks, he either has to announce he's carrying a gun or make excuses why he's not drinking, if he doesn't want to break the law. Also, the overall percentage of people who go to bars but don't drink is pretty low--And this is coming from someone who's often in that low percentage--So I'm not sure to whom such an amendment to the current laws would cater. Also, there is currently no legal prohibition against carrying while drinking; there is only a prohibition against carrying while intoxicated. This allows someone to legally have some wine or a beer with dinner, while carrying. I think a "no drinking while carrying" law might catch more flack than the "no carrying in bars" law. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Tell you what - when you find a state that gives felony convictions to people going 15mph over the limit, I'll spend time proving the obvious - Chicago has crime problems. The claim, which you seem to have forgotten, was a comparison with Houston. No one denies that there is crime in Chicago. I haven't been following this thread, so I'm not sure what the debate is about, but if you're looking at 2005 or 2006 crime statistics for Houston, you should remember that Houston suffered a spike in crime, due to the influx of Katrina evacuees. At least that's what was reported in the news media--I haven't actually seen the numbers to back it up. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Sorry, but you're also going to have to get rid of nuclear arms, warring nations, natural disasters, and every other factor that has previously been known to or currently has the potential to both turn previously law abiding citizens into violent gangs of thieves, burglars, rapists, and murderers and to cut off the supply of food to my local grocery store, before I'll give up my gun. I don't want to be using a baseball bat to defend my supplies, my shelter, my daughter's honor, and my life against a hoard of axe wielding maniacs, and I don't want to be hunting for food with a spear, if the proverbial shit ever hits the proverbial fan. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

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. 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.

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.

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 it I 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.

Okay, you got me there. 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.

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... The VT killer waited the required thirty days between purchases; it didn't seem to have any deterrent effect on his killing spree. There's nothing to indicate that spending two seconds reloading between every three victims would have lead to the loss of any less lives than spending two seconds reloading between every five victims. Do you even know what "cop killer" ammo is? Can you name a single case where a cop was killed by "cop killer" ammo? I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

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. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Nope--They have metal detectors. Nope--They have metal detectors. Yep--They don't have metal detectors, and it's legal to do so. As a friend of mine who is an officer with the Lexington, Kentucky, Police Department explained, “If you have a concealed carry [license], then you should be allowed to carry anywhere there are not metal detectors. Saying you cannot carry in certain places, like schools, only makes the people that obey the law stop carrying, not the criminals. Criminals don't see the sign and think, 'Gee, I better not shoot there.'” When metal detectors and armed guards are in place, the government has made reasonable compensation for removing my ability to protect myself. When metal detectors and armed guards are not in place, it has not made reasonable compensation; therefore, I should be allowed the ability to protect myself. Metal detectors and armed guard cannot be placed at the entrance to every school and business or on every sidewalk and street corner; therefore, my ability to protect myself should not be limited in those situations. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Yeah!! Because, you know, that happens ALL THE TIME with concealed carry holders... that's why the Brady folks keep going on about "blood in the streets". What *is* it with the anti-gunners and projection, anyway? Those "kids" you refer to, btw, are legal adults over the age of 21 and responsible for their actions. I suppose next you'll say that 21-year old college students aren't mature enough to vote, either? Maybe you should attend a few more frat parties. That they're legal adults means diddly squat. And the more gung-ho the kid is, the LESS likely he is to be of any value in a crisis. (I suspect that applies to a lot of DZ.COMers too.) I would only feel comfortable with arming campus kids who have had some serious tactical training. The Rambo wannabees are the least likely to be of any help at all. And there it comes out--You're biased. Your disdain for the kids you've spent a lifetime teaching skews your judgment. I've seen some pretty crazy skydiving parties. Maybe skydivers shouldn't be allowed to carry firearms, either. That, of course, ignores the fact that those crazy parties often involve a few police officers and both active and retired military personnel, but they get crazy at parties, so obviously they're not mature enough in their day-to-day lives to carry firearms. And all of your "gung-ho" and "Rambo" comments are based on nothing more than your own disdain for gun owners. How many years of intensive experience with college kids do you have? When it exceeds 35, get back to me. In case you missed the news, the biggest massacre in recent US history was perpetrated by a college kid with guns. If personal experience is the criteria for posting, how many years of hands-on experience do you have with firearms? Perhaps nobody should criticize George W. Bush unless he or she has experience running the United States of America--Is that how your logic works? What I saw on the news was a madman who gunned down thirty-two unarmed people in a "gun free zone." I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Yeah!! Because, you know, that happens ALL THE TIME with concealed carry holders... that's why the Brady folks keep going on about "blood in the streets". What *is* it with the anti-gunners and projection, anyway? Those "kids" you refer to, btw, are legal adults over the age of 21 and responsible for their actions. I suppose next you'll say that 21-year old college students aren't mature enough to vote, either? Maybe you should attend a few more frat parties. That they're legal adults means diddly squat. And the more gung-ho the kid is, the LESS likely he is to be of any value in a crisis. (I suspect that applies to a lot of DZ.COMers too.) I would only feel comfortable with arming campus kids who have had some serious tactical training. The Rambo wannabees are the least likely to be of any help at all. And there it comes out--You're biased. Your disdain for the kids you've spent a lifetime teaching skews your judgment. I've seen some pretty crazy skydiving parties. Maybe skydivers shouldn't be allowed to carry firearms, either. That, of course, ignores the fact that those crazy parties often involve a few police officers and both active and retired military personnel, but they get crazy at parties, so obviously they're not mature enough in their day-to-day lives to carry firearms. And all of your "gung-ho" and "Rambo" comments are based on nothing more than your own disdain for gun owners. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

In Texas, it's just the campus buildings that are affected. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I agree that there are college activities where people have no business having guns. Hell, I've seen college hunting trips where people had no business having guns. But those activities do not pertain to the question at hand. The question is not whether or not college students should be allowed to have guns; the question is whether or not college students who are licensed to carry a gun everywhere else should also be allowed to carry a gun on campus. 1. Most wild college parties happen off campus. 2. There are already laws in place prohibiting the posession of a firearm while intoxicated and/or in a bar. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

The VT killer had ammunition left over, so I don't see how your "unlimited ammo" theory applies here. I'm not concerned with the deterent factor; I'm concerned with giving people the option to do more than hide under their desks waiting to die. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

You do undestand that we're talking about legalizing carry ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES, right? It's already legal for college students to carry almost everywhere else, and it's already illegal for anyone to carry while intoxicated or in a bar, so how does your argument about drinking in college apply to allowing properly licensed college students to carry their concealed handguns ON CAMPUS? I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.