V TEch shooting

[Dave M]

I can't believe that most of the people who have posted on this topic are not completely against guns, but actually for them. Usually, groups like this are rather liberal and tend to like the idea of banning guns, which will not solve anything. Thanks!
Ryan

I can tell you from experience this is a very conservative board. I consider myself a libertarian more than anything else, but I don't agree with the national libertarian party on many things. I like to consider myself a common sense libertarian.

[DHolmes]

Guns dont kill,people do! If guns are outlawed ,the criminals will still be able to get them as easy as before,and the people that need protection won't!If there wasn't guns a person will use knifes,bombs ,pioson , it doesn't matter,Guns are needed for protection againest sick people like this korean dude , Im a strong republican and come from a strong republican Family,It's ur right to own a gun! later

[Black97]

It's not guns we have to worry about....... It's the nuts.

I disagree, it's the guns in the hands of nuts that we have to worry about!

I know most of you guys here are happy gun carriers. I used to like guns and ever since I had to join the army I hate them.

I wonder how many people that got killed there had guns at home? So all of you guys that say you have a gun for protection have it with you at all the time, so if something like this happens you can protect yourself / shoot back?

Maybe as the next measure they have to implement psycological screening before you can buy a gun.

[97LT1Z28]

I agree. The key is recognizing the signs before they kill. On July 18 1984, James Oliver Huberty loaded a rifle and told his wife "I'm going to hunt humans." Less than an hour later, he shot and killed 21 people in a San Isidro McDonalds. His wife should have called the police but chose to "avoid the conflict." When Jeffry Domner was a child, his parents would often catch him collecting road kill and on one occasion, found him playing with an animal's entrails. His parents should have taken him in but they pretended he was fine until he moved out. They might have been thinking "Not our problem anymore...." In almost every case, there will be signs that people recognize but ignore because it's easier to do so. People should do the right thing even it consumes their life - so that they may prevent something much worse.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

I disagree, it's the guns in the hands of nuts that we have to worry about!

It's not just the guns. It's the knives in the hands of nuts. It's the swords in the hands of nuts. It's the ice picks in the hands of nuts. It's the hammer in the hands of nuts. Some guy with a hammer went into an elementary school in Gwinnett county here in Georgia and sunk the claw end of a hammer into a 1st graders head. She survived but just barely. If you could take all of the guns in the world away the nuts would find another means to be what they are, nuts. Taking the guns away is like treating the symptom not the problem. You can't take everything away that could possibly hurt someone. Heck cars kill way more people than guns do. You'd have to take them away too. They can kill someone. Heck they can kill easier than a gun. They certainly contain more energy than a gun. You drive down the road every day passing people within a couple of feet of each other. If both cars are traveling at 50 mph that's 100 mph closing speed. Both cars veer 2 feet to the left and both drivers could die. It's like taking target practice at a range with someone standing a couple of feet to the side of a target. It's only skill that keeps people from being killed. Some people aren't so skilled. It takes practice.

I wonder how many people that got killed there had guns at home? So all of you guys that say you have a gun for protection have it with you at all the time, so if something like this happens you can protect yourself / shoot back?

I bet if anyone did they wished they had it with them. If they did a lot of victims at VT could be alive today. What a shame they didn't. At least they would have had a fighting chance.

As far as I am concerned it is my job as a husband and father to protect my family from nuts.

Maybe as the next measure they have to implement psychological screening before you can buy a gun.

That's not a bad idea. Maybe they should.

Here in Georgia there is a 3 day period to buy a handgun if you don't have a concealed weapons permit. I don't have a problem with that at all. In the case at VT that wouldn't have helped though. But it appears that guy had bomb making material too. Taking the gun away would not have stopped him. He would have found another way because he is nuts.

[Steel2686]

I'm a right-leaning Independant. I have a permit, and do carry from time to time, all depending on where I'm going. Granted, no one would have carried a gun into a school for protection, but it has saved people in the past.

I'm all for psychological screening before a permit is allowed. I have no problem with that. Taking guns away all together would be suicide.

Just to add to Jeff's point above... Imagine if he didn't have guns. What kind of damage and/or body count would that bomb have caused? Could be less, but I'd bet it would be higher.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Yea the bad thing about the gun "discussion" is getting statistics. You can easily make a statistic as to how many people are killed by a gun but you can't make a statistic as to how many people are saved by guns. How do you know how many people would have been killed until they are killed then it's on the other statistic.

[Black97]

In regards on the gun discussion, I think todays cartoon in the USA Today has it right on.

[wolfdogs]

Thank goodness for the NRA.

I've been around a long long time, as many of you know... and ive lived all over the world... both as a kid and during my military service.... and all over the states during my fed. govt service. ive also had a concealled carry pemit since 1986...

if somebody wants to get a gun to commit a crime. they will get one. just a like if somebody wants to get drugs they will get them.... legal or not legal.

i refuse to be a victim and will what i can not to be one. I stand by the 2nd Amendment.

end of my comment.

[Joe 1320]

I'm going to comment on something that I ususally don't like to comment on.

More people have been killed by people than have been killed by guns. That's the bottom line. Now that doesn't mean I am for guns, it doesn't mean that I'm against guns. All that it means is that folks should look real hard at the true issue. Instability in people. If guns didn't exist, nutcases will simply use the next readly available tool that could be used to kill. A hammer, a screwdriver, a knife, a spear, a rock....... bare hands...... how much further would we have to go back to show tools of destruction? The stone age had murders too.

It is supposed to be the education and enlightenment of society that elevates modern man from his primative beginnings. The problem is that there will alsway be individuals who aren't capable of such growth.

[FroSSty]

Thank goodness for the NRA.

That is funny. I just made my membership pledges the other day...

Im all for guns except for friggin assault rifles.

I hope we all understand what assault rifles are.

"Examples of assault rifles include the M16 rifle and the AK-47. Semi-automatic rifles, including commercial versions of the AR-15, and "automatic" rifles limited to firing single shots are not assault rifles as they are not selective fire."(i.e. Semi-Automatic AK-47s)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

[Jeff_in_Atl]

I have a Ruger mini 14 which is classified as an assault riffle. The only reason it was is because you could get a clip for it that was larger than 10 rounds. It's nickname is the ranch rifle. It was designed for someone who owns a farm to go out and kill varmints around his ranch. The stigma that goes with "assault riffle" compared to what the government classified as an assault riffle is ridiculous. The term "assault riffle" is a made up phrase meant to scare people. Now for the fun part. The mini 14 shoots the same cartridge as a M16. You can easily find 30 round clips for both. Why should a M16 be classified as an "assault rifle" and the mini 14 is not (hypothetical because it is)? My only point is the term "Assault riffle" is ridiculous. Any automatic is something that you can use for an assault just like at Virginia Tech.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

That is funny. I just made my membership pledges the other day...



I hope we all understand what assault rifles are.

"Examples of assault rifles include the M16 rifle and the AK-47. Semi-automatic rifles, including commercial versions of the AR-15, and "automatic" rifles limited to firing single shots are not assault rifles as they are not selective fire."(i.e. Semi-Automatic AK-47s)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

That's exactly right. "Assault riffles" are capable out of the factory of fully automatic firing. The definition that the US federal government has taken is wrong.

[wolfdogs]

oh...and for the record... every single day in the U.S., 113 people die in auto accidents.......... "every day"....folks.

wanna save lives? drive with caution and obey the laws of the road, and educate others to do so as well.

[Joe 1320]

oh...and for the record... every single day in the U.S., 113 people die in auto accidents.......... "every day"....folks.

wanna save lives? drive with caution and obey the laws of the road, and educate others to do so as well.

The God's honest truth right there. I narrowly missed checking out of this world less than two months ago because of some other moron who, in my opinion, should have gone to jail.