33 dead in another random shooting. If you can't even go to university without being gunned down, the whole issue of riding with a gun in the USA is a moot point - I'd be migrating to somewhere safer.....like Somalia.Shades said:
How many of you carry a gun as part of your cycling equipment?
- Thread starter Joe West
- Start date
Something is wrong in this country for sure. Guns are ok for hunting but semi automatic pistols and automatics make no sense to me. The NRA poster childs argue that the 2nd ammendment protects them....right to bear arms. Yes we were given that right when it took 5 minutes to reload your musket which was accurate to about 5-10 feet. The rest of the world laughs at us and our president (Dubya). I heard he had a press conference today to the whole nation....he probably said we are going after this "terrorist" and will find the weapons and go to war. Ooooh sorry that's another war....he actually said and I quote.....
A White House spokesman said President Bush was horrified and offered his prayers to the victims and the people of Virginia. "The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed," spokeswoman Dana Perino said.
A White House spokesman said President Bush was horrified and offered his prayers to the victims and the people of Virginia. "The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed," spokeswoman Dana Perino said.
Sixty shot and over half killed - this is indeed a tragedy of proportions that the US, unlike the UK and AUS, has not had to deal with...ProfTournesol said:
In Virginia, based on 2003 statistics, 2.11% of the population have a legal permit to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense. Last year, however, based on a case from the same Virginia Tech where the shootings occurred, an attempt to change policies and allow permit holders to possess firearms on campus was rejected. So while 1 in 50 may carry firearms for self-defense in VA, not one of the sixty shot could legally possess a gun to defend themselves. In fact, none did.
Not one of the 25,000+ students and staff at VT can legally possess guns for self-defense. The vast majority of some 17 million US college/university students are protected only by policies prohibiting guns on campus, as were the VT students. Armed campus police and SWAT teams, as usual, arrived after the shooter shot himself.
ABC News, in fact, showed a clip of a 2002 campus shooting at The Appalachian School of Law, omitting the fact that a student intervened after retrieving a gun from his car - this is the classic case of media bias against guns presented by John Lott, and is still relevant today it seems.
Unlike AUS, where following the tragic 1996 Port Arthur shootings, the government enacted bans within 12 days, citing 90%+ support in polls, ABC's polls show a 69% supermajority answer: "Do you think this incident is a reason to pass stricter gun control legislation? No. Violent shootings are isolated incidents and it's irresponsible to link them to gun control."
You can't understand that view, I'm sure, but yet you assume to speak for how the US ought regard guns. Why? Can't you be happy riding your bike in AUS (or Somalia) without criticising the US?
For some, a gun is simply an emergency tool, like a tire iron or a pump, a fire extinguisher or burgler alarm - one never hopes to need these tools, but when you do need them, you need them very badly and right away.
I live in Virginia, 33 miles south of Washinton DC, and I do have a "Permit to Carry a Concealed Handgun", except I'm not stupid and as you and many people can see, guns don't kill people, stupid people kill people.
Guy was upset with his girlfriend, kills 30 people, stupid.
Anyhow, I carry my 40cal everywhere that's permited because "IF" something were to happen I will be able to defend myself and perhaps save the life of others.
I go to the mall often with my family and I do remember that kid in Utah that went in the mall and started to kill people at random and he shot himself last but again, guns don't kill people, mine hasn't, yet! but I hope I won't have to use it ever and if the time were to come/happen? I'll certainly use it.
And BTW, all 12 rounds in my 40cal are hallow points.
No, I don't carry my gun when I go cycling, never had since I started in 1993 and never will.
Guy was upset with his girlfriend, kills 30 people, stupid.
Anyhow, I carry my 40cal everywhere that's permited because "IF" something were to happen I will be able to defend myself and perhaps save the life of others.
I go to the mall often with my family and I do remember that kid in Utah that went in the mall and started to kill people at random and he shot himself last but again, guns don't kill people, mine hasn't, yet! but I hope I won't have to use it ever and if the time were to come/happen? I'll certainly use it.
And BTW, all 12 rounds in my 40cal are hallow points.
No, I don't carry my gun when I go cycling, never had since I started in 1993 and never will.
Many elements are involved in such killings. Many elements are involved in the solution.
Let the politicians try and simplify the answer in their rhetoric. We need to know that there is not one simple solution and disturbed violence cannot be eliminated by legislation.
Let the politicians try and simplify the answer in their rhetoric. We need to know that there is not one simple solution and disturbed violence cannot be eliminated by legislation.
Who is immune to not loose his mind? All human beings do stupid things but if one can't control himself? Well, no need to have a handgun, personally I have two and have had them for a long time, yet never considered to commit a "stupid act".BullGod said:
Lot of ignorant people that don't understand the part of having a gun for protection. I own it for that main reason.
If there's a need control of something here, it's those that can't understand a simple fact.
A massacre of greater number happens in every state, every year, on the roads. The tragedy is no less for those involved but they must deal with the carnage quietly on their own. No heroes, no mass feelings of sympathy; just bad luck. Same goes for other forms of violent death like homicide, drownings and suicide - as long as it is in dribs and drabs, what can you do?
It must have something to do with the human psyche: we fear the end of the world much more than the end of our own life; and fear death in a mass killing more than in a single killing. Whatever it is, the media have a lot to answer for.
The Virginia massacre was perpetrated by a man. He chose a tool to carry out the deed. To blame the tool is admitting that nothing will be done to prevent a recurrence. Blame the man, then the tool becomes irrelevant and something can be done to prevent a recurrence.
It must have something to do with the human psyche: we fear the end of the world much more than the end of our own life; and fear death in a mass killing more than in a single killing. Whatever it is, the media have a lot to answer for.
The Virginia massacre was perpetrated by a man. He chose a tool to carry out the deed. To blame the tool is admitting that nothing will be done to prevent a recurrence. Blame the man, then the tool becomes irrelevant and something can be done to prevent a recurrence.
In all possible ways the perpetrator of such crimes is to blame, but I feel infinitely safer living in a land where the paranoid, the insane, the psychotic, the careless, the frustrated etc don't have easy access to dangerous firearms. Personally I don't really trust anyone to own a firearm, and an ideal world would be one in which these weapons simply didn't exist.Akadat said:
I see in the US media that this incident has provoked very little response as far as increasing gun controls is concerned. In Europe the reaction is near universal that such awful incidents could certainly be reduced by restricting the availability of guns.
sogood said:
Actually there have been many. The potental killers have been quickly neutalized and the event gets less press since the "killing rampage' never occurs.
I am not advocating anything by my comment,it is just fact that it happens.
If it were possible to eliminate firearms from the person with a criminal mind, (and it's not) don't you think they'd find other ways to commit their offences?BullGod said:
Maybe you'd prefer they used a bomb (they're illegal), or poison. How about if they drive their car into a crowd. Then we could make cars illegal. That would make lots of people happy. I could easily come up with a hundred other ways the insane or criminal could kill people, and I'm not a deranged indiviual with a motive. Imagine what a person with desire could come up with if they thought about it for awhile.
In the end, you can disarm the good people, but you cannot prevent the evil person from getting a weapon. Make guns illegal, and the underground market for guns will simply grow larger than it is. Making guns illegal will not prevent these types of acts of violence. If a few of the students or teachers at VT could have been armed, a life or ten may have been saved.
Several points:sogood said:
1. In almost all cases, mass shootings have occurred in venues where concealed carry of firearms has been prohibited by private property owners (in most workplaces, shopping malls, etc) or by law (in schools, colleges, universities). So would you have expected a legal CCW permit holder to violate such prohibitions to make adequate examples for you?
2. The average CCW rate is only about 1 person out of 100 (ranging from 0 to ~8% per state), and most mass shootings occur in relatively isolated areas, such as a room, building floor, hallway, etc. So the odds of anyone in a room of a few people to a few dozen people actually having a CCW on them are not great. BUT the odds of a CCW permit holder having a firearm when personally attacked by another person whose intent is to cause fatal/grievous harm are much, much higher. Such incidents happen almost every day and are tabulated by various blogs on the net.
3. As private citizens, CCW holders are not charged with the obligation to run toward the sound of shooting and engage the shooter. CCW permits are provided for personal protection. It's the police that are charged with heading toward the shooting - and even with the campus aswarm with police investigationg the first 2 shootings at VT, the shooter killed 30 more before the police got close, and then killed himself.
4. My example of the incident at The Appalachain Law School, mentioned above, is detailed at http://johnrlott.tripod.com/postsbyday/topic-appalachianlawschool.html
Here in Finland you wouldn't probably even be allowed to carry a gun with you even if you had the need to do so. We have strict laws for selling and using guns and we use them mainly for hunting.
This kind of a question makes me wonder how are things in the US if you REALLY need to carry a gun with you when you go riding. Is it really necessary or is it just because you feel safer with a gun?
The news of the school shootings in the US are very sad to hear about
This kind of a question makes me wonder how are things in the US if you REALLY need to carry a gun with you when you go riding. Is it really necessary or is it just because you feel safer with a gun?
The news of the school shootings in the US are very sad to hear about
If one of those students had not had such easy access to such an efficient method of killing, thirty-three lives may have been saved.McSpin said:
The Virginia Tech murders were committed by a legal shooter with no criminal record, armed with two legally bought pistols. Legally, he could not have been disarmed until he actually began threatening and killing others.
The individual's right to own a lethal weapon was more important than the rights of thirty-two other people to continue living.
The gunman at the Appalachian School of Law was apprehended by an unarmed student after he had run out of ammunition. The gunman placed the gun on the ground and put his hands in the air...the position he was in when the armed off-duty officers arrived at the scene.cbjesseeNH said:
The guns of the off-duty officers prevented nothing.Lott is lying again.
Or, he may have killed many more with a different weapon. The weapon is not the issue. It's the bad guy that's the problem. Would you prefer he used a bomb and blew up the whole building?stevebaby said:
Do you really think he could have been disarmed by making guns illegal? I believe he still would easily obtain a gun if he wanted or he would simply turn to another deadly weapon.
Liberty come with a price as does any other alternative. I'll take liberty.
Well it's much harder to make a bomb than it is to take a gun from your drawer. Atleast here where we have tight laws when it comes to selling and keeping guns it would be quite hard to get hold of a hand gun. Of course many people have hunting guns but they have to have permissions for every gun and keep them locked away when they're not using them. And it's quite hard to carry a hunting gun without people noticing that.McSpin said:
We have the liberty to buy guns for hunting for example so I don't see how my liberties would have been limited because of more strict laws. I don't see what other reasons I could have for possessing a gun (I don't understand very much about them though
)Similar threads
