NRA's Response to Virginia Tech Shootings: Stand Your Ground
| Mon Apr. 16, 2007 6:17 PM PDT
Perhaps the good folks at NRA were just as stunned as the rest of us at the Virginia Tech shootings, what else could account for the story (see below) that's up on their website? (As I write, 7:00 Pacific Time, more than 12 hours since the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history):
Wayne LaPierre: What They Didn't Tell You Today
4/13/2007
Today is one of the most important days of the year for gun owners. The start of the NRA Annual Meetings is both a celebration of freedom and a rally for the Second Amendment, but it's also a show of force by gun owners to the enemies of freedom everywhere.
As tens of thousands of freedom-loving Americans descend on St. Louis, the anti-gunners are doing everything they can to chip away at your rights.
Sarah Brady's sending e-mails to Brady Campaign supporters, hoping to start a Brady Gun Law Defense Fund. Unlike the NRA's Civil Rights Defense Fund, the Brady lawyers will be trying to hurt gun owners, not help them. They're pushing for persecution of the Second Amendment, not protection. But when we gather in St. Louis, we show them we won't be pushed around.
Boston Mayor Tom Menino's calling for a ban on all semi-automatic firearms. Mr. Mayor, we've already seen what that has done for England and crime there. Why would you insist on disarming law-abiding Americans? Menino and his cohort Michael Bloomberg want to turn millions of Americans into instant criminals. But when we gather in St. Louis, we show them we won't be pushed around.
Rebecca Peters of the International Action Network on Small Arms is pushing an arms trade treaty that would gut our Second Amendment freedoms. They're not interested in lobbying Congress or state legislators. Instead, they want to go global, with the help of anti-gun politicians in countries without the Second Amendment. That arms trade treaty, if ratified by Congress or signed by a future president, would mean a global war on your guns the likes of which has never been seen. But when we gather in St. Louis, we show them we won't be pushed around.
In fact, when we gather in St. Louis, we're pushing back. We're pushing for Castle Doctrine laws across the country. We're pushing for legislation that ensures the gun confiscations in New Orleans will never be repeated in this country. We're pushing to protect our rights to protect ourselves, even against anti-gun employers who want to leave you defenseless to and from work. When we gather in St. Louis, we're pushing to protect and promote our freedoms, and we won't stop pushing until we've won.
So originally, I thought they just hadn't updated their site. But the longer I look at it, the more it seems that they just retasked a three-day-old [NRA President] LaPierre speech to be the appropriate response to 33 shooting deaths.
All I can say to that is, wow. I can't wait to see what they put up tomorrow.
But LaPierre's rant provides a clue. So-called "Castle Doctrine" laws are the NRA's latest push. Here's the Wikipedia definition:
In the United States, laws informally referred to as 'castle laws' can sometimes impose an obligation to retreat before using force to defend oneself. The Castle Doctrine provides for an exception to this duty. Provided one is attacked in their own home, vehicle, or place of business, in jurisdictions where 'castle laws' are in force, one may stand their ground against an assailant without fear of prosecution.
As TNR points out, "the new stand-your-ground laws are so frightening because they cover shooters who simply feel at risk."
You can bet this is the strategy the NRA will be rolling out in the days to come: If only some VA Tech student had been packing.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
Submitted by Olivier (not verified) on Wed Apr. 18, 2007 4:32 PM PDT.
@Ben
Man, talk about the most, using your words, «dumb [expletive deleted]» responses.
Let's then follow your so intelligent way of thinking and let's hope that every man and women in your country carries weapons. Why not settle down in a café and be so much secure because nothing will happen to us, because everybody around us are armed. Let us be educated in institutions of higher learning while being secured by the fact that every single people surrounding us are carrying firearms. Let's feel free to go to the bank with our semi-automatic weapon just in case that someone show's up and tries to rob the place.
Talk about an idiotic way of thinking.
Let us put in the hands of our citizens the means to create and to generate more and more violence? the single and only purpose of a firearm being to create violence.
Of course that banning guns cannot prevent such tragedies, but don't you think that there could be at least a little more coercive procedures to obtain such a weapon ?
If you are so bright, and nothing tells me that you are, maybe you can explain to me what use in anyway possible can a 23 year student have in a 9mm semi-automatic and a 22 semi-automatic. Why in the whole world would anybody need such a thing ?
What you're saying is that the more guns people have the more safe they will be. Think of it the opposite way my dear friend. If nobody had guns? the world would be a safer place. Putting instruments of death in the hands of people is one hell of a sure way to know that one day or another, someone will use that instrument not to defend himself, but to take lives that should not have been taken. And come to me with that crap about faith? the only and single purpose of a firearm is to create death, no guns surely means less violence. Coming from a country were 2/3 of the murders involves firearms, maybe you should reconsider the fact that 200 millions guns in circulation will probably affect the natures of the crimes that are being commited.
I say, one thing to you, and that's just because you insulted me by wishing that one day I get stuck in such a situation and that I will have forever gratitude if someone around me has a weapon? dumb [expletive deleted] to you [expletive deleted] ! Keep on wishing for all your citizens to be armed and let's see what happens to your already so up the road society that generates and produces mass violence not only inside your borders, but everywhere around the world. Keep on shouting for your old and raunchy second amendment if you wish my friend, get yourself a gun and feel safe in your little world and dream on cause what happened in Virginia this week will keep on coming at you like the plague.
So long.
Submitted by Olivier (not verified) on Wed Apr. 18, 2007 4:32 PM PDT.
@Ben
Man, talk about the most, using your words, «dumb [expletive deleted]» responses.
Let's then follow your so intelligent way of thinking and let's hope that every man and women in your country carries weapons. Why not settle down in a café and be so much secure because nothing will happen to us, because everybody around us are armed. Let us be educated in institutions of higher learning while being secured by the fact that every single people surrounding us are carrying firearms. Let's feel free to go to the bank with our semi-automatic weapon just in case that someone show's up and tries to rob the place.
Talk about an idiotic way of thinking.
Let us put in the hands of our citizens the means to create and to generate more and more violence? the single and only purpose of a firearm being to create violence.
Of course that banning guns cannot prevent such tragedies, but don't you think that there could be at least a little more coercive procedures to obtain such a weapon ?
If you are so bright, and nothing tells me that you are, maybe you can explain to me what use in anyway possible can a 23 year student have in a 9mm semi-automatic and a 22 semi-automatic. Why in the whole world would anybody need such a thing ?
What you're saying is that the more guns people have the more safe they will be. Think of it the opposite way my dear friend. If nobody had guns? the world would be a safer place. Putting instruments of death in the hands of people is one hell of a sure way to know that one day or another, someone will use that instrument not to defend himself, but to take lives that should not have been taken. And come to me with that crap about faith? the only and single purpose of a firearm is to create death, no guns surely means less violence. Coming from a country were 2/3 of the murders involves firearms, maybe you should reconsider the fact that 200 millions guns in circulation will probably affect the natures of the crimes that are being commited.
I say, one thing to you, and that's just because you insulted me by wishing that one day I get stuck in such a situation and that I will have forever gratitude if someone around me has a weapon? dumb [expletive deleted] to you [expletive deleted] ! Keep on wishing for all your citizens to be armed and let's see what happens to your already so up the road society that generates and produces mass violence not only inside your borders, but everywhere around the world. Keep on shouting for your old and raunchy second amendment if you wish my friend, get yourself a gun and feel safe in your little world and dream on cause what happened in Virginia this week will keep on coming at you like the plague.
So long.
The statement on the actual website is below the above mentioned webpage was just a gateway, easy mistake
The National Rifle Association joins the entire country in expressing our deepest condolences to the families of Virginia Tech University and everyone else affected by this horrible tragedy.
Our thoughts and prayers are with the families.
We will not have further comment until all the facts are known.
Andrew Arulanandam
Director of Public Affairs
National Rifle Association
Submitted by Bob (not verified) on Mon Apr. 16, 2007 8:33 PM PDT.
i will join joe in expressing my deepest sympathies.
i also believe that the indiviual who committed these murders is at fault, not the inanimate object he used.
just one concealed carry citizen could have ended this insanity much sooner and saved many lives, but this was prohibited because of the "gun free zone". too bad the rule didn't stop the murderer
"just one concealed carry citizen could have ended this insanity much sooner and saved many lives, but this was prohibited because of the "gun free zone". too bad the rule didn't stop the murderer"
great that is Bob, the best way to defeat gun crime is surely to have more guns. I think not. When will some of you people realise that the second amendment was conceived at a time where Americans were under threat from tyranny...you're trying to uphold a principle that is decades, if not now, centuries out of date.
Australia had similar gun laws, a similar crime rate, and culture to America per capita. We had a shocking incident in Tasmania where 35 people were slaughtered by a crazed gunman. This resulted in our Government fazing out, then banning all Automatic weapons and most semi-automatic weapons. It is widely proposed that these amended gun laws have directly effected the gun crime statistics in Australia over the last 10 years.
The argument for the changes was based on a simple premise, weapons that were designed to kill multiple people on mass have no place in Australian society, and if these weapons fall in the hands of the psychotic or criminally unstable it gives these individuals disproportionate power over the public.
In short it is proposed that it takes a lot more effort, planning, time, commitment, and prolonged rage to destroy the same amount of lives without access to automatic weapons.
A readily available automatic weapon in the hands of the criminally insane, psychotic, or extremely violent individual could be picked up and fired in rage impulsively, resulting in horrific fatalities on a scale that can't be match without some kind of prior planning, and time.
I think what James has said makes a lot of sense. Preventing automatic weapon ownership would not prevent gun sportsman or hunters from having guns and it wouldn't even prevent a person from having a gun for defense. I am not for illegalizing guns because I do not believe in prohibitions in general. However, I think controling what kinds of guns are available and how easily we can get them is a lot like saying, 'Hey, you can drink alcohol, but you can only drink so much and then you can't drive.' We do put some controls in place when the well-being of the masses is at stake, in everything from sanitation to drinking and driving, so why does the gun rights community feel the 2nd Amendment should be exempt from these kinds of controls, which come about as a result of sociatel evolution?
Bizarre and deeply upsetting watching this story from the safe haven of the UK, where only the police have the right to bear arms in public, and few of them do. How on earth do you allow your constitution to be hijacked by the archaic notion that citizens must defend themselves againt state tyranny? Let democracy take care of tyranny. Let the furnaces take care of your guns....
I have the most heartfelt sorrow for those who have experienced loss in this horrible event. I won't get into the "if a student was packing this could have been stopped sooner" scenarios, but I do feel it is quite dishonest to only partially report what the NRA has posted on their website as they have a public statement specifically concerning the VA Tech shootings as I have quoted below. The text you pasted was something that was already up concerning the NRA yearly meetings which are about to commence.
quote:
"The National Rifle Association joins the entire country in expressing our deepest condolences to the families of Virginia Tech University and everyone else affected by this horrible tragedy.
Our thoughts and prayers are with the families.
We will not have further comment until all the facts are known.
Andrew Arulanandam
Director of Public Affairs
National Rifle Association"
the nra can bully the american people all it wants.I repeat for emphasis.
YOU have no 'gun rights' whatever.
The STATE has a right to a Militi.
The first half of the 2nd amendmont is the ONLY example of a right granted that comes with a declared limitation and allowable purpose. The U.S. Suprem Court agrees with ME, the right to keep a well-regulated Militi belongs to the STATE!
Too bad about that legal ignorance of yours.
Maybe you could help yourself if you put down the bottle nra thugs.
eve TS oulton says: "Bizarre and deeply upsetting watching this story from the safe haven of the UK, where only the police have the right to bear arms in public, and few of them do. How on earth do you allow your constitution to be hijacked by the archaic notion that citizens must defend themselves againt state tyranny? Let democracy take care of tyranny. Let the furnaces take care of your guns...."
You mean the type of government "tyranny" that first bans guns then institutes one CCTV camera per 14 people, fingerprinting of children, mandatory ID cards, world's largest DNA database, proposed tracking of every vehicle everywhere in the country by satellite, removal of habeas corpus, right to face accusers by grand jury, rights to trial by jury, yada yada yada. I'm afraid it's a "safe haven" that many Americans would rather avoid.
Me, when faced with an armed madman, would rather have the chance to fight back rather than cower and wait for the inevitable.
Yeah, there's an idea.
Armed teachers.
So next time an unruly student irritates the overworked, underpaid, out of pocket spending teacher, s/he can just pop the little bugger.
Oh, and that nasty bit about guns killing the owners far more often than the owners kill 'bad' guys?
Too bad I guess. There is a better answer.
Outlaw the private possession of firearms.
Don't tell me it can't work, Britian forbids in-home possession of even shotguns, and lo, they DON'T have Columbines and the like.
If we haven't the guts to try to stop the things from being sold, why not open up all the stops and let in nuclear weapons for every psycho?
We keep ignoring the fact that the criminals with records CAN BE STOPPED if there is no ilicit source for weapons, because said weapons are banned.
Now think it through.
No private possession of weapons.
No black market for arms. You aren't going to risk prison for 2 or 3 years in order to go around armed looking for a target of opportunity.
Since Amendment II, unlike ALL THE OTHERS, qualifies it's grant of right by declaring to what purpose the right may be legitimately put, no, "YOU" have no gun rights whatever.
The states do. Umm, yes!
Every SINGLE TIME the contest has come down to "personal right to arms" v. "State right to well regulated militia" the Supreme Court has ruled for State Right.
EVERY SINGLE TIME!
THEREFORE cannot be protected!
If everyone on the campus had a gun, the gun man wouldn't have stod a chance. Guns for everybody, if every child under 12 had a gun, we wouldnt have the trouble with child abuse. Go NRA go... guns for everyone is the answer to all of our problems. I hope everyone that reads this picks up sarcasm. GET RID OF THE DEATH WEAPONS. GUNS ONLY HAVE ONE PURPOSE, TO KILL!!!!! Anyone who thinks that an armed society, either live in a small town bubble, removed from mainstream society, OR they are just not very intelligent. No crime is stopped by people with guns IN COMPARISON, to the amount of death, destruction, pain and lost caused by people with guns. These NRA people, are playing politics with American lives!!!
I have always loved Mother Jones, but this is a disgraceful attempt to make the NRA look untouched by the shootings.
Gun Control does NOT take guns out of the hands of criminals, it proved yesterday in my home state of Virginia, that such strict gun laws are totally ineffective. If law abiding, campus security, staff and students had not been banned from having firearms on any campus in Virginia... Yesterday the lone shooter would have been stopped long before 32 innocent people had to die.
So Mary Jo....left wing college professors are to blame for this. Are you an idiot? I went to university (you obviously didn't) and I don't ever recall one professor telling me I should hate America. Also, one can't blame the NRA for this although they do tend to show a lack heart when shootings like this occur. Remember, they held their national conference in Denver just days after the Columbine tragedy. I agree with the poster who said the writers of the second ammendment were in a different time and a different place and didn't have automatic weapons in mind when they established the law. They had single shot muskets that took all day to reload. As an American living in Europe I must say I do feel a hell of a lot safer knowing I am not going to get shot walking down the street.
Nobody gets murdered in Europe??? You get a different source for news than I get. This was a tragedy perpetrated by someone who already broke multiple gun laws.
Tyranny? Think Armenia and the Turks, think Rome: the road to Rome was lined with crosses, think Japan and their overrunning of China- UGLY. How about Herzogovnia?
Iraq? The Mongols? The list is long. How about sex slavery of young girls going on today in Asia?
I read some of the above comments and I think their head is buried in the mud. Can't they learn from history? How about Nazi Germany? They had some of the strictest gun control laws ever enacted in the history of the world up to that date. How many million died? You think it can't happen in this country? Try Ruby Ridge, or Waco. They were both incredible acts of violence perpetrated by our own government.
There historically have been far, far more people murdered by tyrannous governments than by any total of disadvantaged psychopaths, no matter how many guns the individuals had.
It is sad and unfortunate that these people died. Guns are RELATIVELY safe. No one can guarantee you complete and absolute safety. Life has risks. But if you give up your right to own a gun, you also give up your ability to even try to protect yourself against a tyrannical and self serving government. No Republic in the history of the world has managed to survive more than a few hundred years. How long will it be before 'your' government begins to come for your neighbors. And then you? Ask the Armenians what they did. You can read the book- "Forgotten Fire" by Adam Bagdasarian. Or do you truly not really care other than a knee jerk reaction?
The United States militia was enacted to prevent despotic governments (including our own) from doing things like stealing your private property, housing soldiers in private homes, and even worse things like the English law of Prima Nochta.
Study history, people; you'll insist on having these gun rights.
Is there a danger? Absolutely.
Are you safer with them than without them? Absolutely.
Of course people get murdered in Europe. I never said they didn't. But do they get murdered to the same extent that they do in the USA? Hardly. There were over 30,000 gun related deaths in the US alone last year. There were less than 10 in Germany. Even when comparing all of Europe, which has a similar population to that of the US, the numbers are not even comparable. Your suggestion that history tells us that people need to be armed to protect themselves from tyrranical governments makes little or no sense. Give me one example where an armed society brought down a tyranical government or stopped one from forming for that matter? I am trying to think myself. In the Balkans one could openly buy an AK-47 and other weapons at markets on the streets. Look what happened there...ethnic cleasing and neighbor on neighbor violence. Everyone armed themselves and thousands still died. Nazi Germany is a poor example of gun control because its important to remember that the Nazis were legally elected to power by the people. Furthermore it wasn't the Nazis who created german gun laws, it was the Weimar government. The Nazis just didn't change them....why would they? And if you are referring to the Holocaust, the Jews only made up less than 2% of German population. Any armed resistance would have only strengthened the support for the Nazi and their propaganda campaign against the Jewish population. And by the time the Germans realized that supporting the Nazis was propbably a bad idea, the government was basically finished. And I don't see how sex slavery in Asia and the possession of a gun have any connection. Are you suggesting arming all the 8 year old orphans in Asia? And to answer your question...no Americans do not learn from history because they are completely ignorant of it. Mention the Turks and Armenians in the same sentence and 99% of Americans will have no idea what you are talking about. Most won't even be able to find either country on a map. America has a culture of violence. Take Canada for instance. They have more gun owners per capita than the US but a fraction of the gun crime. Why? Why is it that they can live with guns peacefully and Americans cannot? And what gun laws did that nutter for VT break when he walked into a gun shop, they performed the 30 second background check, he paid for the gun and ammo and walked out? No law was broken. I find it remarkable that any Tom, Dick or Harry can walk into a gun shop, buy a semi-automatic pistol without any license or certificate that proves they know how to use one safely. One needs a license to show they can safely drive a car....why not a gun? Would it be that difficult? But in reality its too late for gun control in the US. The damage has been done.
Gun control will never happen in America because:
Crazy people with guns kill people.
Murders create fear, ergo you need police.
Police (and you?)need guns to shoot the "bad people".
Gun companies profit from the precarious situation.
Enormous amounts of this money are lobbied to politicians.
These politicians ensure their constituents continue to do business.(and get reelected).
Politicians who want to ban guns lose red state votes and lose funding.
No election= no new laws enacting prohibition of firearms.
Go back to top of page: Crazy people with guns kill people...
Its a tragedy what happened. Even more so that we won't see an end to this cycle within our lifetime.
"Give me one example where an armed society brought down a tyranical government or stopped one from forming for that matter? I am trying to think myself"
I believe a perfect example of stopping a tyrannical government would be the struggle for Independance from Great Britian by The United States of America in the 1770's. It was a successful fight that couldn't have happened without an armed civilian population.
As long as Americans are armed (in homes that want them), the temptation to overthrow our democracy will remain low. We're going to have set backs and issues. Our history shows us that what makes us great is how we change, sometimes slow, sometimes quick. But we do change.
Also, drugs are illegal and lots of people will still sell, buy, and use them; even knowing the consequences. The laws against drugs are not deterents. To stop murders by making guns illegal will not work. We have to change how people think and act towards each other.
It's profundly depressing that so many Americans react with blind helplessness to the notion that a gun-obsessed culture might cause events like Virginia Tech. But it's almost as bad that so many like molotov above (fascinating choice of name, by the way) have a sincere, if lunatic, belief that the rest of the developed world lives in an Orwellian tyranny of permanent surveillance which can only be resisted by the threat of civilian armed mayhem, NRA-style. Adjust to the 21st century, for pity's sake. King George is long gone. Surveillance cameras protect more than they snoop. But accept this, too... that every time you use the digital world - internet search engines, email, cellphones, satnav and credit cards - you leave traces which carry just as much potential for tyrannical misuse. Are you going to kiss them all goodbye to keep the ghosts of King George at bay? Of course not, you're going to shoot first and ask questions later. Best of luck, mate.
This notion of "the 2nd amendment is outdated" is crap. Once you go down that road, you leave room for people to say "habeas corpus is outdated" and trash like that.
The fact is, if Virgina had decent gun laws, the lunatic FOREIGN STUDENT would never have been able to legally buy a guy and therefore it would have likely prevented the horrible crime.
And if you think arming everyone is the solution, you're an idiot too. This kind of thing happens once every 30 years or so, so what happens in between when everyone has guns? How many people get shot accidentally/intentionally out of rage? What kind of lunatic thinks giving students guns is a good idea? Morons... And if everyone was armed and there was even one gun incident on campus, then the rule would certainly have been changed directly after again leaving a huge hole in your argument.
Submitted by Olivier (not verified) on Wed Apr. 18, 2007 2:26 PM PDT.
Coming from Canada, i think that the people in your country who think that having more guns and facilitating even more the acces to firearms are complete idiots. The second amendment of your constitution is clearly out of date and the folks at the NRA... well sorry for saying, but they are total jerks that are building political capital for their own private little lives on the lives of others. Violence leads to violence and putting guns in the hands of every citizen will eventually resume in more violence and more fear. Wake up !
"Bizarre and deeply upsetting watching this story from the safe haven of the UK, where only the police have the right to bear arms in public, and few of them do. How on earth do you allow your constitution to be hijacked by the archaic notion that citizens must defend themselves againt state tyranny? Let democracy take care of tyranny. Let the furnaces take care of your guns...." Eve TS Oulton
Yes that's a brilliant plan, lets put our future in the hands of a bunch of democrats and destroy the only things we have to defend ourselves with. God you smart, you should try running in the next presidential election.
Chris, Bigbenr, David, common sense, Eric, and Olivier, where do dumb [expletive deleted] like you come from? Ok picture this some nutcase wants to go into a building and kill a bunch of people. In building A everyone has guns. In building B no one has guns. Which building is the shooter going to walk into hmm? Blaming guns on shootings like this is like blaming spoons for making people fat. Even if we "banned" guns it wouldn't keep them away from criminals. Do laws keep people from doing drugs? Let me answer that for you-NO-. Do you think a law would keep a criminal from getting a gun? Here I'll help you out -NO-. So yes let's ban all guns and take them away from the law abiding citizens so they can no longer defend themselves while at the same time criminals will buy them anyways. Here is another scenario for you. A robber walks into a bank and pulls out a gun and says "everyone on the floor" everone gets on the floor and he succeeds. Now if everyone had a gun when the robber walks in the bank and says "everyone on the floor" instantly he has 80 guns pointed at him. No sir you get on the floor. Personaly I hope all you anti-gun moronic idiots are in a building one day when some nutcase walks in and decides he wants to kill everyone. I also hope that a few civilians in the same area have concealed weapons licenses with them and you can see how valuable the 2nd amendment really is.
Submitted by Olivier (not verified) on Wed Apr. 18, 2007 4:32 PM PDT.
@Ben
Man, talk about the most, using your words, «dumb [expletive deleted]» responses.
Let's then follow your so intelligent way of thinking and let's hope that every man and women in your country carries weapons. Why not settle down in a café and be so much secure because nothing will happen to us, because everybody around us are armed. Let us be educated in institutions of higher learning while being secured by the fact that every single people surrounding us are carrying firearms. Let's feel free to go to the bank with our semi-automatic weapon just in case that someone show's up and tries to rob the place.
Talk about an idiotic way of thinking.
Let us put in the hands of our citizens the means to create and to generate more and more violence the single and only purpose of a firearm being to create violence.
Of course that banning guns cannot prevent such tragedies, but don't you think that there could be at least a little more coercive procedures to obtain such a weapon ?
If you are so bright, and nothing tells me that you are, maybe you can explain to me what use in anyway possible can a 23 year student have in a 9mm semi-automatic and a 22 semi-automatic. Why in the whole world would anybody need such a thing ?
What you're saying is that the more guns people have the more safe they will be. Think of it the opposite way my dear friend. If nobody had guns the world would be a safer place. Putting instruments of death in the hands of people is one hell of a sure way to know that one day or another, someone will use that instrument not to defend himself, but to take lives that should not have been taken. And come to me with that crap about faith the only and single purpose of a firearm is to create death, no guns surely means less violence. Coming from a country were 2/3 of the murders involves firearms, maybe you should reconsider the fact that 200 millions guns in circulation will probably affect the natures of the crimes that are being commited.
I say, one thing to you, and that's just because you insulted me by wishing that one day I get stuck in such a situation and that I will have forever gratitude if someone around me has a weapon dumb [expletive deleted] to you [expletive deleted] ! Keep on wishing for all your citizens to be armed and let's see what happens to your already so up the road society that generates and produces mass violence not only inside your borders, but everywhere around the world. Keep on shouting for your old and raunchy second amendment if you wish my friend, get yourself a gun and feel safe in your little world and dream on cause what happened in Virginia this week will keep on coming at you like the plague.
So long.
Thanks Ben...so I am a 'Dumb [expletive deleted]'. Real intelligent language. I can see what type of individual I am dealing with here. But I'll bite. What does it say about a society where everyone needs a gun to defend themselves? That is not a society that should be proud. I detest people like you who hide behind the second ammendment. Let me ask you this. Do you walk around everywhere with a gun tucked into your belt? Somehow I doubt it so you are basically just blowing smoke. The problem here is that a mojority of Americans are stupid people. They believe everything people tell them. Its a country that lives and breeds in fear. The government keeps you afraid with their ridiculous color coded terror chart, every other word out of dickhead Bush's mouth is terror and the media gobbles it up and spews it out to all of you. I have an idea, maybe it should be REQUIRED for all Americans to keep and carry a firearm with them at all times. Now that would be interesting.
Actually that should have said 'lives and breathes' in fear. Ooops....not sure a lot of people should breed. Oh and by the way Ben. If I am a dumb [expletive deleted], then what is Mary Jo with her brilliant comments. Those are some real whoppers. Hopefully they'll enact a law that says all morons can't own guns. She'll never get one.
Alright Chris I will agree with you that guns are made for killing. But if you think that there is a way to get rid of EVERY gun on earth then you've got something else coming. Since criminals aren't going to hand over their guns then why take away law abiding citizens weapons and their ability to defend themselves hmm?
Hitler said "One man with a gun can control 100 without one" Not saying I like the man or anything but he does have a point...
As for your little cafe' scenario, Olivier, one of my friends is serving in the US army in Afganistan. When he came back on a break he personaly told me that if you go into any bar over there every single person will have a FULLY AUTOMATIC gun with the(and you guys are complaining about semi-autos....). They are also all getting drunk and gambling etc. at the same time. He said that in the two years that he has been over there, not A SINGLE PERSON has been killed in one of these bars. Would you like to know why? If some guy gets mad and pulls out his AK-47 and decides he is gonna shoot someone hes dead in about as long as it takes the guy next to him to pull out his own gun. Trying to shoot someone in that type of environment would simply be suicide and any person with a brain in their head could figure that out.
And for the "why would a 23 yr old student need a 9mm semi-auto and a .22 semi-auto" I can't tell you what he would need them for but I can tell you what I use mine for. I have killed hundreds of ground squirels with my .22. I do this because they dig holes an cattle break their legs in them. Fewer squirels=fewer holes=less broken legs. I don't have a 9mm but I do have a little Walther .380 which is pretty dang close. It is small and I can hide it anywhere on my person in case some nutjob decides he is gonna start killing people.Then at least I can defend myself. I own a 7mm-08 for big game hunting, a 12 gauge for bird hunting, a .357 for hunting, two .22s (a semi-auto and a pistol) for shooting for fun and hunting small game, the .380 for self defence against two legged predators, and a .44 mag for defence against the four legged kind.
And Olivier as for my little situation at the end of my last post, what if the gunman had a gun pointed at your head and was going to pull the trigger when somone else took him out? Don't tell me you wouldn't be grateful to that person.
And Chris I don't "live and breath in fear" wanna know why? Cuz I can own firearms and if someone wanted to kill me then at least I would have a sporting chance. I live in Northern Idaho. On opening day of hunting season I can walk into a store with a pistol on my hip and a rifle across my back and no one will give me a second glance. I've done it numerous times. You wanna know what would happen if someone decided to rob the place while I was there? It would be the last thing he ever decided to do. My grandpa used to go to school every day with a rifle which he would put in his locker and nobody said a thing about it. He said you could walk outside and in the parkinglot there would be a gun in half the vehicles outside and all the doors were unlocked and school shootings were unheard of.
Personaly, I believe that "Gun control" meens "Taking aim."
and Olivier, as for unanswered questions, do you think someone will go into a building where he knows there are people with guns or the one without, if he is gonna try to kill people? As for more laws whoopie, the students at Columbine broke 18 gun laws when they killed all those people, do you think two more would have stopped them?
hmm...didn't post my last comment but it put the unanswered question one up...
Alright Chris, I will agree with you that guns are made for one reason which is to kill. But if you think that criminals are going to turn over their guns because we pass a new law then you've got something else coming. So why take guns away from law abiding citizens and their ability to defend themselves?
Hitler said "One man with a gun can control 100 without one" I'm not saying I like the man be he does make a valid point.....
Oblivier, I can't tell you what a 23 year old student needs a semi-auto 9mm and .22 for but I can tell you what I use them for. I use my semi-auto .22 to kill ground squirels. I have killed hundreds of them because they dig holes in which cattle break there legs. Fewer squirels=fewer holes=less broken legs. I don't have a 9mm but I do have a Walther .380 which is pretty close. I use it to protect myself against two-legged predators since it is easy to hide on my person. I also have a 7mm-08 wich I use for hunting, a .357 mag used for the same thing, a 12 gauge for bird hunting, a .44 mag for defence against four-legged predators, and another .22 which I use for plinking and hunting.
I live in Northern Idaho. On opening day of season I can walk into a store with a gun on my hip and a rifle on my back and no one will give me a second look.
As for the cafe' scenario, one of my friends is in Afganistan working in the US army. He has told me that in the bars over there everyone brings FULLY AUTOMATIC guns with them (and you guys are complaining about semi-autos...) and in the two years hes been over there he has not seen a single person shot in a bar (and he spends quite a bit of time in them). That is because every person in there knows if he pulls his gun out hes gonna be dead in about as long as it takes the guy next to him to pull his out and shoot. My grandpa used to take guns to school with him and no one cared. In the school parkinglot there were guns in half the vehicles out there and the doors were unlocked. School shootings were unheard of.
Personaly, I believe that "Gun control" meens "Taking aim."
Afghanistan? Now there's a society we'd all be proud to model ourselves on. Speaking of pride... how the gun lobby's hearts must have swelled up today just looking at Cho Seung-hui, proudly exercising his constitutional right to bear arms. Breaks my heart to live in a culture where the annual number of gun deaths in a population of 60 million is roughly twice the total Cho killed in a single morning. God Bless America!
Submitted by Olivier (not verified) on Thu Apr. 19, 2007 6:27 AM PDT.
Wow Ben, you're an army on your own ! I'll just say one thing about your stupid comparaison with Afghanistan... you're talking about a country that has been at war for at least 30 years with ennemys from abroad and inside their own borders. I don't even understand how in a single way you can compare the reality in Afghanistan with the one in the US. Moving on...
for your knowledge, i come from Canada, specifically Quebec, a french speaking province in the north east where there's a farely well implanted hunting culture. A lot of people own firearms for hunting but nobody values guns as an embly of freedom or liberty. The fact is that with almost the same proportion of guns per people in Canada then in the US, there are twice as much firearms murders in the US then in Canada.
We have a national gun registry, automatic weapons are banned, and having acces to pistols and semi-automatic weapons are restricted. Sure that people will get a gun if they want to have one, but restricting more means that less people can gain easy acces to firearms.
We had a crazy guy in Montreal september 13 2006 who went in Dawson College and fired at students, he killed one and injured twenty. He would have killed many more if there not have been a police car a couple of meters away where he started shooting, the guy had an arsenal. But the police response was so quick that his plan got beat and he got shot in the leg before turning the weapon on himself. He bought his guns legally, even though he was a deranged person and those things will happen. But the more you try to take guns away from people, the more you prevent them from using guns in the first place.
There is no single way possible for me to admit that guns are a solution to anything... no way. They're one of these things that i wish we could disenvent.
And as far has you're comment on the fact that if everybody was armed, no one would go in and start shooting because he knows he would be dead in a second. Look around the world man, what do people do when they want to kill people, they kill people no matter what and they find means to do so... like blowing themselves up in the middle of a crowd and the fact that people are armed doesnt change a single little thing about that.
Keep on dreaming cause violence is never the answer no matter what you say.
"What does it say about a society where everyone needs a gun to defend themselves?"
Wrong question. What does it say about a society where everyone is willing to defend themselves and others? That's a better question to ask and I say speaks positive of that society.
"Keep on dreaming cause violence is never the answer no matter what you say"
The author of that statement assumes that anyone and everyone who would bear arms in defense of themselves is committed to acting violently when the facts bear the opposite. Look at the incarceration rates for concealed weapons holders. They are much lower than society's average. Oh and by the way, there are hundreds of thousands of concealed weapons holders in the US. Where is all of the crime that these folks are committing?
So I guess you're saying the answer is to line up and get murdered execution style. That's not an answer I agree with.
Submitted by Olivier (not verified) on Thu Apr. 19, 2007 8:15 AM PDT.
« The author of that statement assumes that anyone and everyone who would bear arms in defense of themselves is committed to acting violently when the facts bear the opposite. Look at the incarceration rates for concealed weapons holders.»
Yeah, and incarceration rates in your country being one the highest in the world doesn't change the fact that you also have one the highest crime rates in the world. Come on dude, your telling me that gun owners are better citizens than the rest because they carry ? Wow, guns are actually instruments of good ? I'm stuned !
Maybe you need to educate a little more instead of preaching on your rights to bear arms that results in the fact that some states laws are so weak that any crazy [expletive deleted] can come in a store to buy a handgun.
And by the way, my answer is not for everybody to get shot execution style, i'm not a fatalist and i'm certainly not an idiot like you who believes that arming en entire population is the solution to violence.
Submitted by jynxisfly (not verified) on Thu Apr. 19, 2007 10:08 AM PDT.
More gun laws will solve nothing. Here's a brilliant idea. Enforce the laws we already have. A gun ban will do one thing, make the millions of law abiding American citizens who own firearms criminals. Yes, it is easy to get a gun in America. It's easy to get a car to. More people are killed in car accidents each year than are killed by guns. Why not make cars illegal, they're obviously more dangerous, right? How about tobacco products? Where will it end. I don't want to sound like a cheeseball here, but if you saw the movie "V is for Vendetta", those poor bastards readily gave up all their freedoms under the guise that it was for their protection. What happens when the government says that gays are spreading AIDS to much and decides to imprison all gays? Or that a certain piece of music may incite violence, and bans it? Or that a piece of historical art is offensive to certain groups and has it destroyed? Or that you must follow a government mandated curfew because certain crimes occur after certain hours? What then? HOw much control do you want your government to have? I personally would like the RIGHT to defend myself, with lethal force if necessary. I want the RIGHT to listen to whatever music I want to, view art from ages past, smoke a cigar while sipping aged whiskey and not have to worry that "the man" is looking over my shoulder. Democrat or Republican or Independent...the government should look protect the RIGHTS of the people, no matter how outdated or archaic they may seem. Our founding fathers were smart to give us the 2nd amendment. It made sense then, and it sill makes sense in these chaotic times.
Know why the U.S.A has never been invaded? Probably because there's a few million private citizens with guns and the will to defend their country, family, and self from the threat of tyranny. A little extreme, I know. But, think about it. You declaw the cat, it can't fight back very well, can it?
Back to what I said at the begining though. You want a few more criminals with guns in the U.S.A, ban them, and you'll have your wish granted.
Submitted by Olivier (not verified) on Thu Apr. 19, 2007 12:13 PM PDT.
« More people are killed in car accidents each year than are killed by guns. Why not make cars illegal, they're obviously more dangerous, right? »
Right, following your logic then, why not make fast food illegal, cause that one definitely kills more than guns and i know something that kills more people than guns... President Bush's foreign policy, you sould make that one illegal !
It's the same first grade logic as saying : « Bears have hair, i have hair, so i'm a bear ! » Idiot !!!
Guns are made to kill people... it's their only and single purpose, not like cars, fast food, baseball bats or whatever thing you can come up with that kills more than guns.
Olivier, don't even try to tell me that if someone had a gun to your head and was going to shoot you and a civilian killed him you wouldn't be grateful. The simple fact is, is that there is no way to destroy every gun on the earth. Criminals will keep them regardless of what the law says. So why compromise the rights of law abiding citizens and their right to own a gun? As for your little murder statistics, in places like Australia where guns have been banned, rape, and armed robbery have sky rocketed. Would you like to know why? Because every criminal that has a gun can figure out that their prey cannot defend themselves.
Submitted by Olivier (not verified) on Thu Apr. 19, 2007 12:46 PM PDT.
Yeah Ben i would be very grateful if somebody shot the guy pointing a gun to my head... i'd also be gratefull to a guy saving me from drowning or burning ! That still doesn't change the fact that if the guy doesn't have a gun and that more than enough was made to ensure that he doesn't have one... well the chances are that a guy actually pointing a gun to my head are very low wich is the case where i live. Sure you cannot destroy all the guns on the planet, but you can at least hope that things are done to ensure that less guns are available to a majority of people... not the opposite.
Submitted by jynxisfly (not verified) on Thu Apr. 19, 2007 12:53 PM PDT.
Okay, "common sense" and "oliver"
I obviously did not get thru to either one of you. First off "common sense" I did not swear at anyone or use insulting words to get my point across.
But chew on this: Yes, people with guns will kill people. Take the guns away, and those who wish to kill people and wish to purchase a gun, will do so illegaly.So, your gun ban laws will accomplish nothing. Zip.
I find it typical of people with your mindset. Run and hide, maybe the bad guy won't hurt me if I cower low enough.
You don't want ANYBODY to have guns just so YOU can sleep better at night.
Selfish. Typical liberal, cowardly mindset.
You, it seems, would rather live on your knees.
I would rather die on my feet.
