Gun control

Some people say that gun control would have prevented that shooting. Gun control laws would not have stoped that messed up, deranged, killer from getting a gun. If Cho was willing to kill someone, then he wont mind breaking the law to get a gun. But if, for defense purposes, guns were allowed on that campus and someone else in that building would have had a gun LEGALY. When Cho started shooting in classrooms, a normal person who legaly had a gun could have taken out him before he had a chance to kill 32 innocent people.

but if he never had the gun in the first place then nothing would have happened

and its usually not that easy to steal a gun

so

yes if there were gun control laws it would have at least made it MUCH harder for the killer to get a gun. 

but if he never had the gun in the first place then nothing would have happened

and its usually not that easy to steal a gun

so

yes if there were gun control laws it would have at least made it MUCH harder for the killer to get a gun.

nsj0806

just because it would have been harder for him to get one, if he was that determined to kill that many people then take his own life with that gun. and if i was in that building i would be wishing that i was allowed to have a gun on me so i could have killed him before he had the chance to kill me.

So.....are you saying that people who can legally own guns should carry them on college campuses?

Wasn't the gun used legal?yoshi-lnex

no because they were illegal on campus.

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]Wasn't the gun used legal?FlaminUmpalumpa

no because they were illegal on campus.

So.....are you saying that people who can legally own guns should carry them on college campuses?

 

BranKetra

if it is illegal, which it sould be

Wasn't the gun used legal?yoshi-lnex

what idiot it their right mind would sell a gun to a person who was declared mentally ill

[QUOTE="nsj0806"]

but if he never had the gun in the first place then nothing would have happened

and its usually not that easy to steal a gun

so

yes if there were gun control laws it would have at least made it MUCH harder for the killer to get a gun.

TheJustin

You know nothing of the man who did this. 

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]Wasn't the gun used legal?nsj0806

what idiot it their right mind would sell a gun to a person who was declared mentally ill

[QUOTE="nsj0806"]

but if he never had the gun in the first place then nothing would have happened

and its usually not that easy to steal a gun

so

yes if there were gun control laws it would have at least made it MUCH harder for the killer to get a gun.

TheJustin

its harder to conceal a bomb from your room mates

especially if your room mates are already suspicious of you

and

guns kill more people in America than home made bombs do

He [QUOTE="TheJustin"][QUOTE="nsj0806"]

but if he never had the gun in the first place then nothing would have happened

and its usually not that easy to steal a gun

so

yes if there were gun control laws it would have at least made it MUCH harder for the killer to get a gun.

-Karayan-

You know nothing of the man who did this.

[QUOTE="-Karayan-"]He [QUOTE="TheJustin"][QUOTE="nsj0806"]

but if he never had the gun in the first place then nothing would have happened

and its usually not that easy to steal a gun

so

yes if there were gun control laws it would have at least made it MUCH harder for the killer to get a gun.

TheJustin

You know nothing of the man who did this.

You underlined and made bold that line, which implied such. 

We can't take away our citizens right to carry a gun quite simply because it is a right that we did not create. It is a right that existed before the constitution and even government itself. It is an inalienable right. If we were to take away their right to carry a gun, all other rights then become meaningless.

Plus, it would be very bad to establish strict gun control here in America. Victims use handguns an estimated 1.9 million times each year in self-defense against an attack by another person, according to a survey conducted by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck. Studies have found that robbery and rape victims who resist with a gun cut the risks of injury in half.

In addition, the deterrent effect of concealed handgun laws proved highest in counties with high crime rates. For example, FBI statistics showed that in counties with populations of more than 200,000 (typically the counties with the highest rates of violent crime), laws allowing concealed carry produced a 13 percent drop in the murder rate and a 7 percent decline in rapes.

[QUOTE="TheJustin"][QUOTE="nsj0806"]

but if he never had the gun in the first place then nothing would have happened

and its usually not that easy to steal a gun

so

yes if there were gun control laws it would have at least made it MUCH harder for the killer to get a gun.

nsj0806

its harder to conceal a bomb from your room mates

especially if your room mates are already suspicious of you

and

guns kill more people in America than home made bombs do

[QUOTE="TheJustin"][QUOTE="-Karayan-"]He [QUOTE="TheJustin"][QUOTE="nsj0806"]

but if he never had the gun in the first place then nothing would have happened

and its usually not that easy to steal a gun

so

yes if there were gun control laws it would have at least made it MUCH harder for the killer to get a gun.

-Karayan-

You know nothing of the man who did this.

You underlined and made bold that line, which implied such.

[QUOTE="nsj0806"][QUOTE="TheJustin"][QUOTE="nsj0806"]

but if he never had the gun in the first place then nothing would have happened

and its usually not that easy to steal a gun

so

yes if there were gun control laws it would have at least made it MUCH harder for the killer to get a gun.

TheJustin

That isn't nessicarily true. Some one who is mentally sick like that will find a way. Maybe he wouldn't have killed as many as 32 people. Or maybe he would resort to making a bomb instead and kill way more than 32. These are Lose-Lose scenarios and arguments. Fact is, to stop someone who is ill like that, "taking all of the guns away" probably won't do jack ****. It will just make them find another way. A safer way, or a more dangerous way.

its harder to conceal a bomb from your room mates

especially if your room mates are already suspicious of you

and

guns kill more people in America than home made bombs do

but it would help to outlaw guns because we KNOW that they kill people

we cant stop people from doing things like beating people up (because we cant take away peoples fists)

but at least if we outlawed guns it would make it harder and more expensive to kill people 

lets say that guns were illegal. if someone who had no reguard for the law and illegaly got a gun. remember he didn't care how hard or illegal it was for him to have a gun without anyone knowing. If I was in a situation where a building that i was in was getting attacked by this person and all the law abiding people in the building with me didn't have a guns. were all helpless to attack.

but if it wasnt illegal to have a gun it would have been easier for that crazy person to have a gun. BUT you can believe i will have a gun when i get out of the military, and i would have that gun to defend myself and everyone else in that building. And I have a ribbon as a marksman with the 9mm pistol. so i will take him down before he can take me down.

We can't take away our citizens right to carry a gun quite simply because it is a right that we did not create. It is a right that existed before the constitution and even government itself. It is an inalienable right. If we were to take away their right to carry a gun, all other rights then become meaningless.

Plus, it would be very bad to establish strict gun control here in America. Victims use handguns an estimated 1.9 million times each year in self-defense against an attack by another person, according to a survey conducted by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck. Studies have found that robbery and rape victims who resist with a gun cut the risks of injury in half.

In addition, the deterrent effect of concealed handgun laws proved highest in counties with high crime rates. For example, FBI statistics showed that in counties with populations of more than 200,000 (typically the counties with the highest rates of violent crime), laws allowing concealed carry produced a 13 percent drop in the murder rate and a 7 percent decline in rapes.

Mizener445

SO?

the negative effects of guns STRONGLY out weigh the benefits of civilian gun ownership

and

a 13% drop in murder rate

thats probably because the people with the guns have already killed everyone, so DUH

theres no one left to kill 

Some people say that gun control would have prevented that shooting. Gun control laws would not have stoped that messed up, deranged, killer from getting a gun. If Cho was willing to kill someone, then he wont mind breaking the law to get a gun. But if, for defense purposes, guns were allowed on that campus and someone else in that building would have had a gun LEGALY. When Cho started shooting in classrooms, a normal person who legaly had a gun could have taken out him before he had a chance to kill 32 innocent people.

FlaminUmpalumpa

This is the dumbest **** I have ever heard so you are saying that anyone should be allowed to have a gun on campus for "defense purposes." Anyone could say I need a gun for defense purposes, and then everyone would have a gun. No one should be allowed to  buy a gun unless you have a hunting license. By the way whoever sold that gun to Cho is in deep ****.

SO?

the negative effects of guns STRONGLY out weigh the benefits of civilian gun ownership

and

a 13% drop in murder rate

thats probably because the people with the guns have already killed everyone, so DUH

theres no one left to kill 

 

nsj0806

your an idiot dude.

[QUOTE="TheJustin"][QUOTE="nsj0806"][QUOTE="TheJustin"][QUOTE="nsj0806"]

but if he never had the gun in the first place then nothing would have happened

and its usually not that easy to steal a gun

so

yes if there were gun control laws it would have at least made it MUCH harder for the killer to get a gun.

nsj0806

That isn't nessicarily true. Some one who is mentally sick like that will find a way. Maybe he wouldn't have killed as many as 32 people. Or maybe he would resort to making a bomb instead and kill way more than 32. These are Lose-Lose scenarios and arguments. Fact is, to stop someone who is ill like that, "taking all of the guns away" probably won't do jack ****. It will just make them find another way. A safer way, or a more dangerous way.

its harder to conceal a bomb from your room mates

especially if your room mates are already suspicious of you

and

guns kill more people in America than home made bombs do

but it would help to outlaw guns because we KNOW that they kill people

we cant stop people from doing things like beating people up (because we cant take away peoples fists)

but at least if we outlawed guns it would make it harder and more expensive to kill people

[QUOTE="FlaminUmpalumpa"]

Some people say that gun control would have prevented that shooting. Gun control laws would not have stoped that messed up, deranged, killer from getting a gun. If Cho was willing to kill someone, then he wont mind breaking the law to get a gun. But if, for defense purposes, guns were allowed on that campus and someone else in that building would have had a gun LEGALY. When Cho started shooting in classrooms, a normal person who legaly had a gun could have taken out him before he had a chance to kill 32 innocent people.

brickbazooka05

This is the dumbest **** I have ever heard so you are saying that anyone should be allowed to have a gun on campus for "defense purposes." Anyone could say I need a gun for defense purposes, and then everyone would have a gun. No one should be allowed to buy a gun unless you have a hunting license. By the way whoever sold that gun to Cho is in deep ****.

No he's not, he didn't do anything illegal. He ran a background check and i came back clean so he sold him the gun. Although I am surprised that he's talking to the media, I thought he'd want to stay under the radar; people are probably make death threats against him.

Edit: underlined the part of the quote I was responding to (I realized it wasn't clear)

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]Wasn't the gun used legal?nsj0806

what idiot it their right mind would sell a gun to a person who was declared mentally ill

[QUOTE="-Karayan-"][QUOTE="TheJustin"][QUOTE="-Karayan-"]He [QUOTE="TheJustin"][QUOTE="nsj0806"]

but if he never had the gun in the first place then nothing would have happened

and its usually not that easy to steal a gun

so

yes if there were gun control laws it would have at least made it MUCH harder for the killer to get a gun.

TheJustin

You know nothing of the man who did this.

You underlined and made bold that line, which implied such.

You don't know what his mental state was when he bought that gun.

[QUOTE="FlaminUmpalumpa"]

Some people say that gun control would have prevented that shooting. Gun control laws would not have stoped that messed up, deranged, killer from getting a gun. If Cho was willing to kill someone, then he wont mind breaking the law to get a gun. But if, for defense purposes, guns were allowed on that campus and someone else in that building would have had a gun LEGALY. When Cho started shooting in classrooms, a normal person who legaly had a gun could have taken out him before he had a chance to kill 32 innocent people.

brickbazooka05

This is the dumbest **** I have ever heard so you are saying that anyone should be allowed to have a gun on campus for "defense purposes." Anyone could say I need a gun for defense purposes, and then everyone would have a gun. No one should be allowed to buy a gun unless you have a hunting license. By the way whoever sold that gun to Cho is in deep ****.

[QUOTE="TheJustin"][QUOTE="-Karayan-"][QUOTE="TheJustin"][QUOTE="-Karayan-"]He [QUOTE="TheJustin"][QUOTE="nsj0806"]

but if he never had the gun in the first place then nothing would have happened

and its usually not that easy to steal a gun

so

yes if there were gun control laws it would have at least made it MUCH harder for the killer to get a gun.

-Karayan-

You know nothing of the man who did this.

You underlined and made bold that line, which implied such.

You don't know what his mental state was when he bought that gun.

[QUOTE="TheJustin"][QUOTE="-Karayan-"][QUOTE="TheJustin"][QUOTE="-Karayan-"]He [QUOTE="TheJustin"][QUOTE="nsj0806"]

but if he never had the gun in the first place then nothing would have happened

and its usually not that easy to steal a gun

so

yes if there were gun control laws it would have at least made it MUCH harder for the killer to get a gun.

-Karayan-

You know nothing of the man who did this.

You underlined and made bold that line, which implied such.

You don't know what his mental state was when he bought that gun.

I'm not saying that. Buying the gun wasn't wrong or mental, but Killing the 32 people was and it's at that point in time that I am Referring to.TheJustin

There is no point to that argument. The point still stands that with stricter gun laws this would not have happened, because he was likely in a sane state of mind when he bought the gun. 

According to the gunshop owner, he said he looked like a normal college kid. Nothing too odd about him, but you can't gauge mental state from just looks.
MattUD1

Don't they do a check up on you when you want to buy one? 

If all guns were outlawed the problem would be solved.

Just like with illegal drugs.  :roll:

If all guns were outlawed the problem would be solved.

Just like with illegal drugs.  :roll:

StephenKing_1

No. He could have still gotten it illegaly.

You know they had a huge discussion about this yesterday on 770 AM when I was coming home from the Yankee game

[QUOTE="TheJustin"]
I'm not saying that. Buying the gun wasn't wrong or mental, but Killing the 32 people was and it's at that point in time that I am Referring to.-Karayan-

There is no point to that argument. The point still stands that with stricter gun laws this would not have happened, because he was likely in a sane state of mind when he bought the gun.

OK, you know what? Screw everyone jumping on this gun control issue.

Though gun control activists and pro-gun advocates have already started blaming each other for the massacre, Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine said that debate should be put off for another day.
"People who want to take this within 24 hours of the event and use it as a political hobbyhorse -- I only have loathing for them," Mr. Kaine said in an evening press conference yesterday. "To those who want to make this into some sort of crusade, I say take this elsewhere."

 You know what he's saying? He's saying that anyone who is jumping on this political issue so soon is selfish. And he's 100% correct. Why hasn't it occured to people how fast the media and politics groups were to jump on this issue? The corpses are still warm, and already, everyone is on the gun control case.

 People were WAITING for an incident like this happen. Sounds convienent hmm? I guess political agendas, no matter how supposedly "righteous" always come before lives right?

EDIT: The point is, it's too ****ing soon to pin it on any individual problem. Yet everyone is talking like their a ****ing expert on everything. News flash, 99% of what the media is reporting is sensationalist crap as always.

Wasn't the gun used legal?yoshi-lnex

these gun store owners should have the permission to see your records (no not your credit card number,etc.) its to see like if somebody is mentally ill. I believe we all have some sort of "permanent record" i think the gun sellers should be able to access some sort of that.xtn702

these gun store owners should have the permission to see your records (no not your credit card number,etc.) its to see like if somebody is mentally ill. I believe we all have some sort of "permanent record" i think the gun sellers should be able to access some sort of that.xtn702

Technically, they are supposed to. In VA, the gun store owners just don't care as much, I guess...

[QUOTE="-Karayan-"]

[QUOTE="TheJustin"]
I'm not saying that. Buying the gun wasn't wrong or mental, but Killing the 32 people was and it's at that point in time that I am Referring to.TheJustin

There is no point to that argument. The point still stands that with stricter gun laws this would not have happened, because he was likely in a sane state of mind when he bought the gun.

Check your first post.

The line you underlined and your first line. 

OK, you know what? Screw everyone jumping on this gun control issue.

Though gun control activists and pro-gun advocates have already started blaming each other for the massacre, Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine said that debate should be put off for another day.
"People who want to take this within 24 hours of the event and use it as a political hobbyhorse -- I only have loathing for them," Mr. Kaine said in an evening press conference yesterday. "To those who want to make this into some sort of crusade, I say take this elsewhere." CaptHawkeye

You know what he's saying? He's saying that anyone who is jumping on this political issue so soon is selfish. And he's 100% correct. Why hasn't it occured to people how fast the media and politics groups were to jump on this issue? The corpses are still warm, and already, everyone is on the gun control case.

People were WAITING for an incident like this happen. Sounds convienent hmm? I guess political agendas, no matter how supposedly "righteous" always come before lives right?

EDIT: The point is, it's too ****ing soon to pin it on any individual problem. Yet everyone is talking like their a ****ing expert on everything. News flash, 99% of what the media is reporting is sensationalist crap as always.

I disagree, it's always there, and people always have the opinion, why would we cower from using real life events, are they not what should define the laws, lest these events happen again. 

[QUOTE="FlaminUmpalumpa"]

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]Wasn't the gun used legal?yoshi-lnex

no because they were illegal on campus.

Yes

[QUOTE="TheJustin"][QUOTE="-Karayan-"]

[QUOTE="TheJustin"]
I'm not saying that. Buying the gun wasn't wrong or mental, but Killing the 32 people was and it's at that point in time that I am Referring to.-Karayan-

There is no point to that argument. The point still stands that with stricter gun laws this would not have happened, because he was likely in a sane state of mind when he bought the gun.

Check your first post.

The line you underlined and your first line.-Karayan-

Some people say that gun control would have prevented that shooting. Gun control laws would not have stoped that messed up, deranged, killer from getting a gun. If Cho was willing to kill someone, then he wont mind breaking the law to get a gun. But if, for defense purposes, guns were allowed on that campus and someone else in that building would have had a gun LEGALY. When Cho started shooting in classrooms, a normal person who legaly had a gun could have taken out him before he had a chance to kill 32 innocent people.

FlaminUmpalumpa

Thank you for understanding that, most average people can't grasp that concept, people who are going to use a gun don't care about laws. A different school shooting was stopped last year, somewhere I can't remember because a bystander had a gun and stopped the man!

Edit: And it makes it easier for innocent people to carry a gun to defend themselves, there is little more that scares a burglar/murder than a bystander who stands up to them with a revolver, it was a in a poll. I wish I had a link to it.

As tragic as this event was, it's important to not lose perspective.

The right to bear arms was made the second amendment because next to freedom of speech, it's the most important right we have. The ability of the people to bear arms acts as a check against governmental powers. As long as we are able to bear arms, then we will be able to effectively resist ( in theory anyway ) any attempt of the government to form into a dictatorship.

We are one of the freest countries in the world. However, those same freedoms occassionally allow people the ability to do terrible things. It cannot be prevented without seriously changing the way in which we live our day to day lives.

As Benjamin Frankin once said "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."