I agree with UT on this one. I don't think you can only blame guns for the tragedy. It's a societal issue and considering the fact that it keeps happening, it really needs to be looked at.

According to CNN, Cho started to act strangely at age 8.

His classmates knew him as the boy who never spoke.

Cho may have blown up anyway, but I can't help but wonder...if kids were a little less harsh and this particular kid had assimilated better into American culture, maybe we wouldn't be talking about this.

Wasn't that when he came to the US? Is is because of the culture shock, or just because they can't interview any of his Korean elementary schoolmates?

I haven't been able to assimilate into american culture but I'm not about to rampage either. This man had something deeper wrong with him then just being made fun of by his schoolmates.

Well at least your English is flawless, right?

That is because I've been learning english since I can remember. Many many people in hong kong are fluent in it. In fact my old school had most of it's instruction in english. I think it is still considered one of the official languages there.

So what, you want anarchy? Actually anarchy does have rules but I won't get into it and just use the stereotypical term since I don't know another word that would describe it. Living in a society means that you will give up freedoms and in turn the state will, hopefully, help you. It is like a contract, if you don’t do this and this we will do this and this. I am not for a complete ban on guns anyways.

How so? I am not uncomfortable with a gun and I still haven't completely gotten rid of the idea of owning one myself, it is just that I know a lot of stupid people that don't think before they make decisions and I really don't want them with a tool that is made specifically for killing. For the record, I am not scared of guns or whatever that stupid -phobia is called, I am just scared of some people that are behind the gun using it in ways that put people in harm.

What?

I would like to think so.

You can't put all outcasts in the same group. All of them go through it at different times of their lives with different intensities go home to different support and each have a different ways of handling it.

Anarchy has rules? LOL!

What people keep ignoring is that we are FAR less violent and use guns FAR LESS now than ever before in the US. We just have too much news with nothing to do but over report, nationally, local news stories and focusing on the negative aspects of our nation. You could not get a news service to report on anything positive by holding one of these guns to their heads.

In other words he had something deeper wrong with him. I just can't buy into the blame everybody else for the actions of a nut theory.

I read the Washington Post story about him this morning. He was acting strange since the day he was born. His mother knew there was something wrong with him (not that she ever dreamed it was this wrong but she knew he was damaged goods even as a toddler).

And speaking of gun rights, here's an interesting story I saw today...

Armed Miss America 1944 Stops Intruder

Had she not been armed, however, the headline might have gone something like this:

Miss America 1944 Found Murdered in Home.

Well, glad she didn't actually shoot the guy, or we might be reading:

Miss America 1944 On Trial for Murder.

Maybe they should have put him in prison soon after his birth.

Not if I was on the jury. But I know there are some who would convict an 84 year old for killing someone that broke into her house to either steal her blind or worse. Just not me.

Yeah, it has very strong social norms which are far more powerful than any law. True anarchy would actually have a very low crime rate but no one trys to understand it.

Do you have anything to back this up with even if you could back it up?

Its a combination. That means it isn't just one persons fault.

Do you have anything to back this up with even if you could back it up? I would really like to hear about it. Profess...

Because anarchy is a very left-winged society. It is not a "strongest man wins" thing like most people think of, everyone is considered equal.

For example, if you need a house, the community will work together to build you a house and then in return you will be expected to help out other people within the community. There is very little personal possession since everyone gets what they need so there is no need to steal.

And most anarchists aren't the ones that are fighting police in the streets but are trying to get control of unions.

I didn't do a great job at explaining it since I don't know everything about it but this is some the basic beliefs of most forms of anarchy, yes there is more than one. The term of anarchy has been dragged in the mud and most people don’t do anything to find out what it really is.

I would certainly agree with that. Many younger people seemed to have grasped on a few points of interest of the philosophy such as anti-capitalism or the lack of a central state of authority. Take a look at the WTO protests and I think most people can get a snapshot of what the anarchists of today believe. I would submit the majority holds views which are not very close to the myriad of anarchist philosophies of the classical sense. JMHO.

Those people aren't true anarchists and many of them are just doing it for the title but not all are but I and don't think it is the majority either because many of them work behind the scenes. Anarchism is a beautiful theory and even though I disagree with some points of it, I still hate to see it as just a rebellious "you can't tell me what to do" phase. Those type of people wouldn't fit in to that society just as they don't in our society.

One of the things that's appealing to me about (true) communism is that after the third generation or so, the governmental constructs would disintegrate and it'd evolve into pure anarchy--the whole circular political spectrum thing.

It's too bad neither will likely ever be realized.

mmmm..... that's Socialism.

but then again, as that's a dirty word where you are.....

They are close but not the same. They are both stateless but one does not have any established rulers.

Socialism is not stateless... not even close.

My bad, Communism is, supposedly, stateless. Got those two confused for a second.

The American school system doesn't do shit to teach us anything about economics and other philosophies so I haven't sorted all of them out yet.

You are not alone. 99% of the communists/socialists can't either... :D

ACTION: Now that Congress is moving to restrict YOUR rights in response to the VA Tech shootings, please make sure to take the following three actions after you read this alert:

1. Urge your Representative to OPPOSE HR 297, the Dingell-McCarthy legislation that is designed to take the Brady Law to new heights, turning it into a law on steroids which could one day keep even YOU from buying a gun. (Contact information and a draft letter to your Representative are provided below.)

2. Gin up the e-mail alert systems in your state and forward this e-mail to as many gun owners as you can.

3. Please stand with Gun Owners of America -- at http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm -- and help us to continue this fight, as right now, we are combating this latest onslaught ALONE in our nation's capital. GOA spokesmen spent all of last week doing radio and TV debates, interviews for newswires, and opinion editorials for newspapers. This week, we begin the battle in Congress to defeat legislation that could block millions of additional, honest gun owners from buying firearms.


Monday, April 23, 2007

The biggest gun battle of the year is about to erupt on Capitol Hill.
Fueled by the recent Virginia Tech shootings, an odd coalition is forming to help expand the number of honest people who now won't be able to buy a gun.

The legislation has been introduced by none other than the Queen of Gun Control herself, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). But she has picked up a key ally, as the bill (HR 297) is being pushed by a powerful gun group in Washington, DC.

On Friday, The Washington Post reported on the strange coalition.
"With the Virginia Tech shootings resurrecting calls for tighter gun controls," the Post said, "the National Rifle Association has begun negotiations with senior Democrats over legislation to bolster the national background-check system."

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), who was once on the NRA Board of Directors but resigned when he supported and voted for the Clinton semi-auto ban in 1994, is reported to be "leading talks with the powerful gun lobby in hopes of producing a deal [soon]," Democratic aides and lawmakers told the newspaper.

Rep. McCarthy admitted to the Post that her "crusades" for more gun control have made her voice "toxic" in gun circles. "So Dingell is handling negotiations with the NRA," the newspaper reported.
"Dingell is also in talks with Sens. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (Wis.), the senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee."

Despite all this bad news, the Post article does go on to explain that there are some potential pitfalls.

First, you will remember that this is the bill you helped kill last year, when an avalanche of postcards was dumped on Congressional desks by thousands upon thousands of GOA activists. That's why the Post says there is one huge obstacle -- the members of Gun Owners of America.

"The NRA must balance its desire to respond to the worst mass shooting by a lone gunman in the nation's history with its competition with the more strident Gun Owners of America, which opposes any restriction on gun purchases," the Post reported.

SO WHAT DOES HR 297 DO?

Well, the rest of this alert will answer this question. This alert is long, but it is important to read it in its entirety. We need to "arm" ourselves with the facts so that we can keep pro-gun Congressmen from being duped into supporting a bill that, as of now, is being unanimously cosponsored by representatives sporting an "F-"
rating by GOA.

HR 297 provides, in the form of grants, about $1 billion to the states to send more names to the FBI for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS]. If you are thinking, "Oh, I've never committed a felony, so this bill won't affect me," then you had better think again. If this bill becomes law, you and your adult children will come closer to losing your gun rights than ever before.

Are you, or is anyone in your family, a veteran who has suffered from Post Traumatic Stress? If so, then you (and they) can probably kiss your gun rights goodbye. In 1999, the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check system. These military veterans -- who are some of the most honorable citizens in our society -- can no longer buy a gun. Why? What was their heinous "crime"?

Their "crime" was suffering from stress-related symptoms that often follow our decent men and women who have served their country overseas and fought the enemy in close combat. For all their patriotism, the Clinton administration deemed them as mentally "incompetent," sent their names for inclusion in the NICS system, and they are now prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4).

HR 297 would make sure that more of these names are included in the NICS system.

But, of course, Representatives Dingell and McCarthy tell us that we need HR 297 to stop future Seung-Hui Chos from getting a gun and to prevent our nation from seeing another shooting like we had on Virginia Tech. Oh really?

Then why, after passing all of their gun control, do countries like Canada and Germany still have school shootings? Even the infamous schoolyard massacre which occurred in Ireland in 1997 took place in a country that, at that time, had far more stringent gun controls than we do.

Where has gun control made people safer? Certainly not in Washington, DC, nor in Great Britain, nor in any other place that has enacted a draconian gun ban.

IMPORTANT TALKING POINTS FOR CAPITOL HILL

Regarding Cho's evil actions last Monday at Virginia Tech, your Representative needs to understand three things:

1. If a criminal is a danger to himself and society, then he should not be on the street. If he is, then there's no law (or background check for that matter) that will stop him from getting a gun and acting out the evil that is in his heart. (Remember that Washington, DC and England have not stopped bad guys from getting guns!) So why wasn't Cho in the criminal justice system? Why was he allowed to intermix with other college students? The justice system frequently passes off thugs to psychologists who then let them slip through their fingers and back into society -- where they are free to rape, rob and murder.

2. Background checks DO NOT ULTIMATELY STOP criminals and mental wackos from getting guns. This means that people who are initially denied firearms at a gun store can still buy one illegally and commit murder if they are so inclined -- such as Benjamin Smith did in 1999 (when he left the gun store where he was denied a firearm, bought guns on the street, and then committed his racist rampage less than a week later).

NOTE: In the first five years that the Brady Law was in existence, there were reportedly only three illegal gun buyers who were sent to jail. That is why in 1997, a training manual produced by Handgun Control, Inc., guided its activists in how to answer a question regarding the low number of convictions under the Brady Law. The manual basically says, when you are asked why so few people are being sent to jail under Brady, just ignore the question and go on the attack. [See http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm -- GOF's Gun Control Fact Sheet.]

3. Background checks threaten to prevent INNOCENT Americans like you from exercising your right to own a gun for self-defense. No doubt you are familiar with the countless number of times that the NICS system has erroneously blocked honest Americans from buying a gun, or have heard about the times that the NICS computer system has crashed for days at a time, thus preventing all sales nationwide -- and effectively shutting down every weekend gun show.

Perhaps the most pernicious way of denying the rights of law-abiding gun owners is to continuously add more and more gun owners' names onto the roles of prohibited persons. Clinton did this with many military veterans in 1999. And Congress did this in 1996, when Sen.
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) successfully pushed a gun ban for people who have committed very minor offenses that include pushing, shoving or merely yelling at a family member. Because of the Lautenberg gun ban, millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans can never again own guns for self-defense. HR 297 will make it easier for the FBI to find out who these people are and to deny firearms to them.

GOA has documented other problems with this bill in the past. In our January alert on HR 297 we pointed out how this bill will easily lend itself to bureaucratic "fishing expeditions" into your private records, including your financial, employment, and hospital records.

HR 297 takes us the wrong direction. The anti-gun Rep. Dingell is trying to sell the bill to the gun owning public as an improvement in the Brady Law. But don't be fooled! The best improvement would be to repeal the law and end the "gun free zones" that keep everyone defenseless and disarmed -- except for the bad guys.


CONTACT INFORMATION: You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative the pre-written e-mail message below. And, you can call your Representative toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.

Cry me a river. PTSD is a mental disorder. If you have a mental disorder or a history of mental disorder, I don't see why you should have full rights to owning a gun. I'm sorry if it's somehow insulting to tell these people that their mental disorder is--gasp--a mental disorder, but it is. Certainly not their fault for having it, but it's not a schizophrenic's fault that he has schizophrenia either.

My only comment is that it is an over used diagnosis.

While reading this thread I began to wonder about where firearms fell in the list of leading causes of death in the US. This table compares causes in 1990 and 2000: http://www.csdp.org/research/1238.pdf (page 3)

Actual Cause No. (%) in 1990* No. (%) in 2000
Tobacco 400 000 (19) 435 000 (18.1)
Poor diet and physical inactivity 300 000 (14) 400 000 (16.6)
Alcohol consumption 100 000 (5) 85 000 (3.5)
Microbial agents 90 000 (4) 75 000 (3.1)
Toxic agents 60 000 (3) 55 000 (2.3)
Motor vehicle 25 000 (1) 43 000 (1.8)
Firearms 35 000 (2) 29 000 (1.2)
Sexual behavior 30 000 (1) 20 000 (0.8)
Illicit drug use 20 000 (<1) 17 000 (0.7)
Total 1 060 000 (50) 1 159 000 (48.2)
*Data are from McGinnis and Foege.1 The percentages are for all deaths.

Sorry about the format, I couldn't figure out how to make the table appear correctly. The first column is cause, the second column is number of deaths from that cause in 1990 then the (percentage), followed by the same information in 2000.

Note that firearms deaths decreased by almost 20% in that time, while motor vehicle deaths increased by over 70%, despite advances in vehicle design and safety (ABS, air bags, traction control, etc.).

This site has leading cause of death data broken down by age group: http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html and includes a table of accidental deaths.

The point of all this is just to try to get some perspective on firearm deaths in the US, relative to all other causes. Note that tobacco and poor diet contribute about 30 times more to the death rate than do firearms. In terms of accidental deaths, firearms rank fairly low, but in terms of intentional deaths (of which I have not seen statistics) I would assume they would rank fairly high.

Edit: The text of the first paper indicates that "In 2000, 16586 deaths were due to intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms (ICD-10 codes X72-X74). Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms (ICD-10 codes X93-X95) resulted in 10801 deaths. Unintentional discharge of firearms (ICD-10 codes W32-W34) resulted in 776 deaths, while discharge of firearms, undetermined intent (ICD-10 codes Y22-Y24), resulted in 230 deaths. The remaining 270 deaths were due to legal intervention (ICD-10 code Y35)."

I wouldn't convict her either, or even want her to go to trial...but she'd probably have to, if she hadn't been such a good shot.

This doesn't have anything to do with the argument. Does a parent cry any harder if his or her kid dies from malpractice then from a bullet? They are still deaths and if we can lower any death number for reasonable reasons than it is worth doing.

These numbers are skewed anyways. Physicians perform a lot more operations than guns shoot bullets a year. Most cases that physicians are performing surgery; something can go wrong and kill someone. Most cases where someone fires a gun, they are in no danger to anyone else.

Also, accidental gunshot deaths aren't what we should concentrate on but homicidal gunshot deaths.

Once again, the point of doctors is to save and help people while the points of guns are to kill people.

Those statistics assume a lot. For instance, that the only deaths where guns are involved are accidental. Surely you'd agree this is not the case.

Also, is that the number of guns, or the number of gun owners? My stepfather owns at least 100 guns and his is a small collection compared to some.

It's also assumed every single one of those 80,000,000 gun owners--if this is indeed what they meant--uses the guns regularly. But I'm sure you would also agree that a percentage of gun owners own them for show and novelty with no intent to ever use them, if they even own ammunition for the guns.

If people could buy doctors, load them with ammunition, and fire them at animals for sport or at people, that quote would have a lot more credence. As it stands, I have to think to myself, "Why the hell did this get posted?"

Duh.. it's a joke. look at the numbers, they're bogus.

Congressional Leaders Moving To Pass Gun Control Without A Vote!
-- McCarthy bill would treat gun owners even worse than terrorists

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm

"Another gun rights group, the Gun Owners of America, is adamantly opposed to the [McCarthy-Dingell] legislation. It said the measure would allow the government to trample privacy rights by compiling reams of personal information and potentially bar mentally stable people from buying guns." -- Associated Press, April 24, 2007

Thursday, April 26, 2007

This is going to be a knock-down, drag-out fight. GOA continues to stand alone in the trenches, defending the rights of gun owners around the country. It's not going to be easy.

Gun control supporters want to pass gun control within the next couple of weeks. And that's why, even if you took action earlier this week, you need to do so once again.

All the gun haters (who have been keeping silent for a while) are now coming out of the closet and into the open. Take the notoriously anti-gun senator from New York -- Chuck Schumer. He has been very, very excited this week. Recent events have given him a platform, and the excuse, to push legislation that he had sponsored years ago -- legislation that never got through Congress.

You see, Senator Chuck Schumer has been, in past years, the Senate sponsor of the McCarthy bill (HR 297). And the recent murders at Virginia Tech have given Senator Schumer the pretext he has been looking for. Appearing on the Bill O'Reilly show earlier this week, Schumer did his best to make a reasonable-sounding pitch for more gun control.

He told O'Reilly on Monday that while he and Rep. McCarthy had previously worked together on this legislation, he now wants Congress to take up HR 297 quickly. "The Brady Law is a reasonable limitation," Schumer said. "Some might disagree with me, but I think certain kinds of licensing and registration is a reasonable limitation. We do it for cars."

Get the picture? First, he wants the Brady Law strengthened with the McCarthy-Dingell-Schumer legislation. Then it's off to pass more gun control -- treating guns like cars, where all gun owners are licensed and where bureaucrats will have a wonderful confiscation list.

In the O'Reilly interview, Schumer showed his hand when he revealed the strategy for this bill. Because it could become such a hot potato -- thanks to your efforts -- Senator Schumer is pushing to get this bill passed by Unanimous Consent in the Senate, which basically means that the bill would get passed WITHOUT A VOTE.

This is a perfect way to pass gun control without anyone getting blamed... or so they think. We need to tell every Senator that if this bill passes without a vote, then we hold ALL OF THEM responsible. (Be looking for a future GOA alert aimed at your
Senators.)

On the House side, the Associated Press reported this past Monday that "House Democratic leaders are working with the National Rifle Association to bolster existing laws blocking" certain prohibited persons from buying guns. Of course, there are at least three problems with this approach:

1. It's morally and constitutionally wrong to require law-abiding citizens to first prove their innocence to the government before they can exercise their rights -- whether it's Second Amendment rights, First Amendment rights, or any other right. Doing that gives bureaucrats the opportunity to abuse their power and illegitimately prevent honest gun owners from buying guns.

2. Bureaucrats have already used the Brady Law to illegitimately deny the Second Amendment rights of innocent Americans. Americans have been prevented from buying guns because of outstanding traffic tickets, because of errors, because the NICS computer system has crashed -- and don't forget returning veterans because of combat-related stress. You give an anti-gun bureaucrat an inch, he'll take a mile -- which we have already seen as GOA has documented numerous instances of the abuses mentioned above.

3. Finally, all the background checks in the world will NOT stop bad guys from getting firearms. As we mentioned in the previous alert, severe restrictions in Washington, DC, England, Canada, Germany and other places have not stopped evil people from using guns to commit murder. (Correction: In our previous alert, we incorrectly identified Ireland as the location of the infamous schoolyard massacre. In fact, it took place in Dunblane, Scotland in 1996 -- a country which at the time had even more stringent laws than we have
here.)

McCARTHY BILL TREATING GUN OWNERS WORSE THAN TERRORISTS

HR 297 would require the states to turn over mountains of personal data (on people like you) to the FBI -- any information which according to the Attorney General, in his or her unilateral discretion, would be useful in ascertaining who is or is not a "prohibited person."

Liberal support for this bill points out an interesting hypocrisy in their loyalties: For six years, congressional Democrats have complained about the Bush administration's efforts to obtain personal information on suspected terrorists WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.

And yet, this bill would allow the FBI to obtain massive amounts of information -- information which dwarfs any records obtained from warrantless searches (or wiretaps) that have been conducted by the Bush Administration on known or suspected terrorists operating in the country.

In fact, HR 297 would allow the FBI to get this information on honest Americans (like you) even though the required data is much more private and personal than any information obtained thus far by the Bush administration on terrorists.

And all of these personal records would be obtained by the FBI with no warrant or judicial or Congressional oversight whatsoever!!!

Get the picture? Spying on terrorists is bad... but spying on honest gun owners is good. After all, this horrific intrusion on the private lives of all Americans is presumed to be "okay"
because it's
only being used to bash guns, not to go after terrorists and criminals who are trying to kill us.

As indicated in earlier alerts, this information could include your medical, psychological, financial, education, employment, traffic, state tax records and more. We don't even know the full extent of what could be included because HR 297 -- which can be viewed at http://thomas.loc.gov by typing in the bill number -- is so open-ended. It requires states to provide the NICS system with ALL RECORDS that the Attorney General believes will help the FBI determine who is and who is not a prohibited person. Certainly, an anti-gun AG like Janet Reno would want as many types of records in the system as possible.

The provision that would probably lead to the greatest number of 'fishing expeditions' is that related to illegal aliens. Federal law prohibits illegal aliens from owning guns. The bill requires all "relevant" data related to who is in this country illegally. But what records pertaining to illegal aliens from the states would be relevant? Perhaps a better question would be, what records are not relevant?

ACTION:

1. Please take a moment to communicate your opposition to HR 297 -- even if you already sent your Representative a note earlier this week. We have provided a new letter (below) which provides updated information relating to the battle we are fighting.

House leaders are talking about bringing up this bill soon. And Sen.
Schumer (in his interview with O'Reilly) even hinted at the fact that the bill could come up WITHOUT the ability to offer pro-gun amendments -- such as a repeal of the DC gun ban or reciprocity for concealed carry holders -- provisions that could potentially serve as killer amendments.

Also -- oh yeah, this is going to upset you -- Senator Schumer told O'Reilly, "I got to tell you, a lot of NRA people, they support this." Can you believe that? Senator Schumer is claiming to speak for you! That's why it's so important that you once again tell your congressman that Schumer is wrong... that you're a supporter of gun rights who OPPOSES the anti-gun McCarthy-Dingell bill.

2. Please circulate this e-mail and forward it to as many gun owners as you can.

CONTACT INFORMATION: You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative the pre-written e-mail message below. And, you can call your Representative toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.

I'm tired of hearing everyone complain that people are using the VTech tragedy to support their political agenda. Both sides are doing it and Republicans have done it just as many times as Democrats have. Both sides are hypocritical and blind to it.