Shooting Rekindles Issues of Gun Rights and Restrictions
 

Shooting Rekindles Issues of Gun Rights and Restrictions

This is an idiotic argument, guns are not allowed on campus. If there were armed people on campus he would have been shot and there would have been fewer dead.
A TRUE shame this was not the case. :(
If it had been harder to purchase guns he would have done what the Columbine kids did and just illegally purchased them... that whole "it's illegal" thing does not weigh heavily on a mass-murders conscience, ya' know.
I wonder if the people who make these kinds of arguments know how silly they sound?:eyebrow:

I am SO SICK of hearing people say that no one should be allowed to have a gun, especially when these people are able-bodied men. I know too many women who have been raped, stalked or assaulted to believe that a just government would just tell them "oh, go take a self-defense class."

I do believe on restrictions on gun ownership such as background checks, waiting periods, safety training, etc. And I don't believe civilians should be allowed to have crazy stuff like AKs. But every time somebody gets shot there's all this "OMG no one should have a gun!" and that rubs me the wrong way.

Why not AKs? I had one, it is not a very powerful weapon, what I own now is far more powerful.
Good beginner gun over-all though. What is your issue with em'?
The "men/women" language in your post concerns me.

I'm right and you're wrong.

The "ugly gun" issue rises to the surface every time something like this happens. Typical. I have a few SKS's, they are fun to shoot. Events such as the shootings at VT just give the gun-grabbers foder to pedal their nonsense.

People should not have guns because they are "fun," they should have them if and because they need them. I don't believe that anyone really needs a fully automatic rifle, who isn't fighting in a war.

And RK, why shouldn't I refer to men and women? This is a feminist issue. People I have argued about this with in the past have said that women being raped is preferable to the risk of shootings, and I believe that that is a concern for those of us who seek to eliminate/reduce sexual assault.

Well I would disagree with you on the first point, because shooting them is actually great fun and a fun hobby. There are many people who shoot just for the shear joy of it. I don't know if you are not familiar with the laws in the US about ownership of "fully automatic rifles", but it is a very difficult thing to do. Don't be fooled by the press or anyone else telling you that if you own an AK/AK variant/ or SKS implies that the rifle is fully automatic, because they are not. They are all semi-automatic. A huge difference.

I didn't write the article, reduce the writer's IQ or social savvy.

What is wrong with shooting guns for fun?

This is in no way a feminist issue. Guns have no sex, anyone can pull a trigger at will for fun or self protection. We often forget that men need that just as much as women. I happen to be very close to a man who has been raped.
Self-defense is self-defense.

The class 3 permit really just takes patience, been thinking about it and going to Knob Creek.
If you are worried about an AK you really don't want to be near my next Christmas present, Barrett M468 assault rifle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIZpCLvXsoM

I know. I have shot guns before, when visiting my fiance's family in Tennessee. His stepfather and uncle are hunters. It was a lot of fun, but I don't believe that the fun is worth the risk of accidents in most cases. I think that people should have guns, if they have them, for practical reasons (hunting and self-defense).

I'd rather see it rekindle awareness of young people at risk.

Is it objectively "idiotic", or do you just disagree with it. Show your work.

I was joking, rephrasing what I had quoted from elsewhere on the internet.

Most feminists are also concerned with preventing sexual assaults against men. Feminism is not just about protecting women, it is about preventing sex and gender from being used to oppress people. When someone uses their sexual organs to perpetrate an assault on a defenseless person of any gender, that is against the philosophy of feminism.

So, you think it is your place to remove target shooting, the cross country skiing with shooting, trap and others from the Olympics and all other shooting sports from the world?
What an elitist.

I don't understand how pointing out that something is dangerous makes me an elitist. I'm sure driving drunk is fun, too.

And of course it isn't "my place," I'm just saying on the internet that I think that's how it should be.

You are comparing skeet shooting & target shooting to drunk driving? Seriously?

I'm saying that both are dangerous.

Honestly, I really don't think we disagree that much. I'm not calling for any new restrictions or laws, just saying that I don't personally feel that people should have a gun just for fun if they don't have a serious use for it.

For God's sake, the main reason I posted was to agree that it's stupid when people respond to this kind of tragedy with a knee-jerk "nobody should have guns!"

You are not being specific. You are not making your point.
What is wrong with it? What is wrong with having a gun to target practice and shoot skeet with, specifically?
If they enjoy it, find it to be a social activity they find beneficial and something they are good at, why not.
I can tell you, that it is something that I have done for many years, and I have never seen anyone shot. So, it is not dangerous when done by sober, responsible people.
What is your definition of "serious"?

I'm sorry, but this argument will not work.

There is no way you can prevent this from happening even if you are allowed to have guns on campus. Do you know how big these campuses are? You would need over 500 people with guns to even get close to stopping this. Then what would happen if a shootout occured and students got caught in the crossfire? Since it was in a building, it would take to long to get there and what would happen if the guy with the gun got shot and now this killer has even more ammunition?

The chances of someone stopping this by legalizing guns on campus is one in a million.

The only way to prevent this is to make tougher restrictions on getting handguns. This guy was obviously mentally sick to begin with and should never have been sold a gun in the first place.

Again, Columbine... it was illegal for them to own, posses or carry handguns and for guns to be carried on the campus they did the shootings on as well as this campus we are discussing. You point is invalid.
Making it harder for citizens to posses handguns legally is just punishing innocent people for the crimes of criminals which have NOTHING to do with them.
Red herring to try to get your agenda validated.

Funny, you state earlier in your post that you would not stop it from happening, then that you should stop selling handguns... feel-good politics is just stealing from taxpayers and freedom.

Yes, cause a philosophy called FEMINism sounds really gender-neutral and equal to me.

Feminism is just as bad as Misogyny. Feminism holds women over men. (I'll admit that I'm somewhat guilty of thinking women are better, but thats only cause they dont try to act all macho, which I loathe... not actually because of any like, inherent things.)

Everything and everyone should be utterly gender-neutral if you ask me. Gender should never be any sort of issue whatsoever (unless you're about to hop in bed with someone, but even then... I'm against it!). Holding men and women to a different standard is discriminatory and stupid, always.


(Realism? What's that?)

C'mon, you use argument tactics like that and call my argument invalid? I never said I want to ban guns but if you want to put words in my mouth fine, it just makes you look bad. This guy (VT) just went out and bought some guns, doesn't it seem a little to easy to get something that only reason of being made is to kill? It obviously won't stop all crime but it will make it a lot harder to get guns for malevolent reasons. For prevention, a stun gun shaped like a real gun that makes a gun shot noise when fired will accomplish the same thing.

That is life. I think I should I am responsible enough to drink and carry firearms but there are people that aren’t' responsible enough to do those things. I really have no problem with it but when they start putting other people in danger is when you have to draw the line.

If someone wants to shoot up a school they will do it no matter what but it could prevent it from happening.

Also, how do tough restrictions on getting guns affect your freedom? You can still get them if you put in the work and show that you are mentally healthy enough and responsible to own one. The ban on campuses should stay no matter what. The majority of campuses are extremely safe and they do have more than just "learn self-defense" to protect you if you don't feel comfortable walking alone including escorts and stations that call police immediately.

Ok, be specific, what do you want to happen?
How are you going to stop criminals from using guns while protecting legal gun owners rights?

There are many more gun owners than there are accidents. Accidents are rare when compared to the number of gun owners.

Ibram, feminism in the sense it was created for DOES NOT hold women over men in any way. You might need to do a little more research on the topic.

Edit: That being said, there will always be people who misrepresent themselves as feminists when what they really are is something similar to what you've suggested.

I want a training course and a test, just like to be able to get a drivers license.

You have to wait two weeks after you buy a gun before you can receive it.

You have to renew it every year up to three then it comes every third year with a short renewal course.

No previous criminal activity, within reason, to be able to own a gun.

I'm not set on these I'm just throwing down some suggestions.

Ok, I have no issue with reasonable training. Three days is fine for a waiting period, more than that will cause logistic problems with people who move around a lot or have busy schedules, have shooting events that call for new guns. Renewal for what? You already can't buy a gun with a violent felony or violent mental illness.

Driving a car is a privilege, owning a gun is a Right. Like it or not that is the way the law goes. A waiting period would not be effective in preventing events like that which went on at VT. It was completely pre-meditated. The waiting period would only prevent crimes of passion and in some documented cases have prevented women from protecting themselves from an impending murder by an estranged husband or boy friend. Courses are available, but you can make people take a course for something they have a right to own, however you can do so for privileges. It would be difficult to standardize the testing without making it a joke, pretty much as the driving tests are today. You pretty much have to be an idiot not to be able to pass one.

Showing proficiency at a shooting gallery and a written exam should exempt someone from training.

The two options are as follows:
Control guns more tightly and risk denying them to those that sorely need them, or
Control guns more loosely and risk giving them to people who will use them for ill.


While I loathe guns and personally, emotionally, non-rationally want them to be completely controlled in every way...

I have to go with the second one. I believe in always picking the freedom over the control. Just as I'd rather a thousand criminals go free than one innocent be put in prison, I'd rather a thousand criminals buy guns than one person in need of one be denied it.

...Okay maybe thats a little extreme, if it was a thousand-to-one ratio I might be in stronger favor of control, but its more the opposite, isn't it?

Exactly, don't like guns... don't buy them.

How is driving a privilege and owning a gun a right? Driving actually has a purpose that can not be successfully duplicated in another way while there are other ways to protect yourself. Both guns and cars can be good when used correctly or horrific when used incorrectly. If you get into it, guns are much worse than cars. The main purpose of a car is transportation while the main, and only, purpose of a gun is to kill, whether for protection or not. So it is your right for everyone to possess something thats main purpose is to kill but it is a privilege to use something that can transport people but can result in injury and death if used incorrectly? I find this kind of backwards.

Who says it is your right to own a gun anyways? I'm sorry but the founding fathers is not a valid source. The times were so much different back then you can't even begin to compare. There weren't 31,000 fatal injuries from firearms in one year. There weren't semi-automatic handguns back then. An average joe could buy a weapon that could actually stand up to a well trained army. Not to mention the fact that dueling was a common practice back then and the founding fathers, Jefferson at least, were racist.

Who sorely needs a gun? There are other ways to protect yourself and you could easily make very effective methods of protecting yourself without a gun out on the streets. If you instate restrictions the people who want guns can still get them, it just makes them harder to get.

Freedom is a funny thing because a freedom can affect two different people two completely different ways. Is it my right to drink and drive? Yes it is, but our society has decided to give up that freedom to protect innocent people. Is it my right to own someone else? Who says I can't? Society does so we take away that freedom to own someone else.

The constitution says owning a gun is a right.
I have "sorely needed a gun" many times. Who said streets? "back then" is irrelevant to the technology, the right is not.
Driving a car is a privilege based on ability, access and conduct. It is the law.

Because the law and consititution is always right.....
I already said why I don't think the consititution is not valid for this argument, no reply?

Did you soley needed a gun or some form of protection?

I expect massive hatred and rage from this but I am starting to believe that owning a gun is not about freedom but power.

If you don't agree with the foundation of the US then it does not matter, you should not argue at all about our laws and way of life.
No, they are good for shooting hobbies as well. I have had two jobs where I used a side-arm.
Freedom and power are the same thing... that is the idea, to be empowered.
Power is not a bad thing, unless one lives in fear of others, disliking other's ability to say, write, do as they like.
The opposite of the power of freedom is fear of self and others.

Isn't this why many people buy guns in the first place. A fear of being attacked or robbed?

Once again, this is why I don't like the power that comes with guns.

Please go on. Owning a gun for a job is much different than owning a gun for personal reasons.

Not fear, we just don't want not to be able to defend ourselves. Not the same as fear at all. It could be, but the two are not and, in no way have to be the same thing. I have rarely met anyone that stated they had a weapon because they feared.

Most, whom are not compulsive, do not go through the process of deciding if they are afraid of being robbed today while locking their doors. It is just a precaution. Not out of fear, just necessity.
Some are just more cautious or in different situations than others. They have guns, mace, more locks, etc. That is all.

While some are content to practice the common option when they differ with another, do not participate in an activity.
Some decide that is not enough... they think they must FORCE everyone to be like them.
Why? I don't know. I am a fairly secure individual and of the first ilk. If I don't like something I just don't do it.

If you don't like the power that comes with guns... don't buy one. Problem solved. Though I don't get it... s-like saying you don't like a college education.
No, owning one for personal reasons and one for a job is no different. I have been in both situations more than once and know.
I am correct.

It is just a tool, a piece of metal, that is all it is, all it will ever be, all it can be. Job, no job, hobby, protection, art, etc... just a tool, nothing more. Never bad, never good, nothing other than a metal tool.

You don't get to cherry pick what you want from the Bill of Rights. So you don't think the Constitution is valid for this agrument? Give us a break. This is about the Constitutional right. The courts have continually upheld this right, as recently as March 2007:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17538139/

If there is someone with a gun accosting you, are you more or less likely to get shot, if you are also armed?

Personal force fields
Cutting off the trigger finger of anyone who uses a gun illegally
Giant magnets
Chris Rock's "expensive bullets" plan
Employing criminals with more than a "subsistence income" to reduce the motivation to commit crime.
Reduce the wealth gap
Legalize drugs

The right to bear arms is an important one, and I support it strongly. But like anything, I think our rights have limits. But I don't know where the cut-off line should be.

Ibram, feminism is about equality. It's about trying to create a world where NO ONE is harassed, oppressed or assaulted because of their gender or sexuality. Meaning that women shouldn't have to be sex objects and men shouldn't have to be macho warriors, either. Unless they want to be.

The idea that feminism is about female supremacy is one that has been created by the reactionary elements in the media. Always better to get these things from the source.

Situational. If you do not have a gun, you are always at a disadvantage.
However, not the case if you are armed.

This doesn't make any sense at all. Is it situational, or are you always at a disadvantage without a gun? If you are always, regardless of the situation, at a disadvantage without a gun, then it isn't situational.

That is not what I wrote at all.
It is situational. Sometimes you may be at a disadvantage or you may be able to kill the offender... it depends on the situation.
If you do not have a gun, you will NEVER be able to protect yourself from someone with a gun.
How did you read what you wrote out of my post?

You said "always". You even put it in bold. Do you know what "always" means? Now you are saying "sometimes" and "it depends on the situation." Which is it?

The debate isn't and never has been about why we should be able to own guns. There are a lot of people - reasonable, normal, Constitution-loving citizens- that are just never going to be comfortable with that right. On that, we just have to find a way to get along.

There are an endless number of anecdotal justifications supporting gun ownership and for undermining it. Its not about who can whip out the bestest, mostest ones for the side they like.

Can you read at all?
I said if you do not have a gun you are always at a disadvantage against someone with a gun.

If you have a gun you may be able to kill the perp.

I would much rather be in the latter category.


Beestie... then they should not buy a gun, problem solved.

Here are a few instances where your "always" categorical imperative can be debunked: if the person with the gun is blind, mentally challenged, asleep, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated.

I honestly don't see the use for personal handguns for protection when there are non-lethal alternatives readily available.

Name one that is as effective as a gun at distance. BTW, I am one of the three-to-five percent that can withstand a standard commercial tazer. If you had tried me before I became too ill I would have broken your neck. When I was a bouncer it was the fastest way to meet Mr. Floor in a hurry.

I have, repeatedly, stated that if you do not like guns that you should not buy one.

The question was about the likelihood of getting shot, not about being at a disadvantage or being the victim of a crime. Simply getting shot.

If someone wants to kill you, they will shoot you pre-emptively. You'll have no chance to "protect"yourself with your gun unless you have your weapon ready, safety off, identify the threat, and are faster on the draw than your attacker. If your attacker wants anything else, why would they kill you if you're unarmed? Unless, of course, you pose a threat to him by packing heat.

Have you been in the situation? I have, you always don't get hit the first time. They don't always shoot you and back down when they realize you have similar force and they may die (most often scenario). Also, it is not always human, I have been charged by animals and had to save my life with my side-arm, more than once.
No choice, no chance for hesitation and no other option available other than a side-arm (a rifle would not have been possible in the situation). Many would have wanted me to die in that instance.
Also, you don't always wait for them to shoot first.

Again, don't like em', don't buy em'.

This is why I think we should all go back to using swords and shields and things like that.

I have no problem with guns, I just don't like irresponsible people with guns. Not buying a gun doesn't help me keep me and everyone around me safe.

Oh, so we are talking about you forcing your opinions on others and turning them into rules?
If you are uncomfortable with a gun, you not buying one is, absolutely, keeping those around you safe.

Sure, as long as you are ok with getting rid of all technology that is capable of making a gun as well.
Say good-bye to your car and surgery.
Because I can make a gun and would as soon as mine was stolen by the fascists if it came to that.
It is quite simple and my family has the plans, the milling equipment, the brass and loading materials for a lifetime for all of us... as well as plenty to sell and trade to live off-of.

Wait, so you're going to post this, then a few posts later write that if someone fires a gun at you, it's not guaranteed that you'll be hit? Which is it. . . weapons like tazers are useless because guns are so much more effective at range, or chances are your assailant won't hit you anyway, so having a concealed gun is going to enhance your odds of survival in the event the guy misses his first shot and you're able to shoot him before he manages to fire a second shot? If this were the case, guns wouldn't be needed for protection, would they? If it's not, then what good is having a gun going to be if you're unexpectedly attacked?

Either way, the only way I'd try tazering you if I carried one for personal protection is if you seemed to be a threat to me. So, what's that have to do with you having been a bouncer or you breaking my neck?

I don't like guns and I don't buy them. That doesn't make me feel any better about the fact that it's exceedingly easy for just about anyone to buy a gun, and in some cases (if I've read this right about the incident in Virginia) be able to walk out with it without waiting for a background check. I'd be crazy to stay in places where I feel a sidearm or other weapon might be necessary to protect myself. That has nothing to do with my opinion of guns or if I buy them or not.

You never know where you may need a side arm.

This makes no sense to me... perhaps it is your wording.

Again for VT. It as illegal for him to carry a gun where he was carrying it. Illustrating that guns laws are ineffective. Columbine, also, clearly showed that.
People who want to commit mass murder, VERY illegal, don't care about laws.

Taxers have very limited range. I am talking about non-lethal weapons that you can use that compare to a gun.

Maybe he was actually a Negro??