Virginia Tech Atrocity

[Vsicks Pathy]

Have you looked at the stats in your own country? Australia all but outlawed guns a few years ago, and look! Your gun crime rate has (IIRC) tripled, along with your homicide rate. Why do you think that is?

 

If guns are the problem, then why does banning them produce the opposite of the desired results?

 

Gee, you'd think you support such an outrageous claim with some facts.

You seem to have missed, I SAY missed, a key word. That word is DECLINE! When you say.... "Your gun crime rate has (IIRC) tripled, along with your homicide rate" try saying like it should be said. Your gun crime DECLINE rate has (IIRC) tripled, along with your homicide rate.

 

I have one for you, a fact that is. One that is backed up too which is more than you afforded anyone else on this board.

Try this.... http://www.medfac.usyd.edu.au/news/features/2006/061214.php

 

 

Think before you type please.

Edited July 1, 2007 by Vsicks Pathy

[Vsicks Pathy]

weapons of any sort have never been the problem, its stupid people that are the problem.

 

Are you saying get rid of the people then? How do you propose doing that? I would have thought that stupid people that didn't have any access to weapons would just be stupid people. How do you suppose they become front page news?

 

Here is something that may interest you... http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/318/7192/1160

 

An excerpt of the article... One common thread throughout all incidents of school shootings is the firearm. With a gun in hand, schoolchildren are capable of mass murder. Without the gun, most children lack the strength, skills, and cunning to plan and execute multiple killings. I think it is safe to assume that the same would apply to adults too.

[GhostPath]

Gee, you'd think you support such an outrageous claim with some facts.

You seem to have missed, I SAY missed, a key word. That word is DECLINE! When you say.... "Your gun crime rate has (IIRC) tripled, along with your homicide rate" try saying like it should be said. Your gun crime DECLINE rate has (IIRC) tripled, along with your homicide rate.

 

I have one for you, a fact that is. One that is backed up too which is more than you afforded anyone else on this board.

Try this.... http://www.medfac.usyd.edu.au/news/features/2006/061214.php

 

 

Think before you type please.

 

I refer you to: http://www.2asisters.org/news/australia.htm

 

Many cites and references there, all from your own government and press. And not from a liberal university. Thank YOU for playing, goodnight.

Edited July 1, 2007 by GhostPath

[GhostPath]

An excerpt of the article... One common thread throughout all incidents of school shootings is the firearm. With a gun in hand, schoolchildren are capable of mass murder. Without the gun, most children lack the strength, skills, and cunning to plan and execute multiple killings. I think it is safe to assume that the same would apply to adults too.

 

One other common thread that appears is that school shootings only stop when someone else with a gun shows up or the perp kills himself. See the Pearl, MS shootings, or the Appalachian School Of Law incident - in both cases, private citizens stopped the slaughter by showing up with lawfully owned firearms.

 

It also remains a fact that the worst school massacre in the United States' history did NOT involve firearms, but explosives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

[Vsicks Pathy]

I refer you to: http://www.2asisters.org/news/australia.htm

 

Many cites and references there, all from your own government and press. And not from a liberal university. Thank YOU for playing, goodnight.

 

 

Could you have found any stats from 1912?

 

Sorry that my stats are current and so up to date. You really do need to look a little deeper into the subject matter before spouting off.

 

The fact of the matter is that "From 1996 to 2003, the total number of gun deaths each year fell from 521 to 289". That is a fact and no matter how you scope the net for obscure events to post here, you can not change FACTS. Another fact is.... that there has not been a single mass murder event since that of Port Arthur.

 

Given what the pro gun lobbyist drivel you posted says or implies that crime rate has gone up so markedly, how come the FACTS don't support it? According to that so called report our gun deaths should be as pathetic as yours. Instead we are faced with this dilemma... "By 2002/03, Australia's rate of 0.27 firearm-related homicides per 100,000 population had dropped to one-fifteenth that of the United States." Curious?

 

Any tosser can take tidbits and highlight single events and bend them to suit their own warped agendas. Unfortunately, as did the pro gun lobby, you underestimate thinking people. The facts speak for themselves and don't need any explaining. And if you can not acknowledge even that, then the point is mute!

[Vsicks Pathy]

One other common thread that appears is that school shootings only stop when someone else with a gun shows up or the perp kills himself. See the Pearl, MS shootings, or the Appalachian School Of Law incident - in both cases, private citizens stopped the slaughter by showing up with lawfully owned firearms.

 

It also remains a fact that the worst school massacre in the United States' history did NOT involve firearms, but explosives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

 

I would have thought that private citizens started the shooting too. How did they get those weapons again?

 

Are explosives illegal or something?? Is that why you don't have bombs going off all of the time??

Are you suggesting that because it is so hard to get explosives that the death rate by bombing or being blown up is just about nil. How come the same wouldn't apply to guns then? Hmmmmmm. You seem to have just defeated your own twisted argument right here and right now. Seems that way to me at least.

[sammyb33]

Are explosives illegal or something?? Is that why you don't have bombs going off all of the time??

Are you suggesting that because it is so hard to get explosives that the death rate by bombing or being blown up is just about nil. How come the same wouldn't apply to guns then? Hmmmmmm. You seem to have just defeated your own twisted argument right here and right now. Seems that way to me at least.

 

very good point. sarcastic but well taken

[sammyb33]

im so glad your back around Vsicks, i love these conversations

[Vsicks Pathy]

im so glad your back around Vsicks, i love these conversations

 

Thank you on both counts sammy.

[hoohaa]

Well put Vsicks.

I personally believe in a stricter gun control idea. It pains me to hear people spout off this BS saying that if more people were allowed to carry we would have less crazies shooting up schools. ARE YOU KIDDING?

 

Absolutely not. I am dead serious. I carry everywhere I am legally allowed to with my CWP in Virginia. I am required to leave my handgun in the car or at home when I have to enter a college or university. If I had been on the scene of that crime and had been allowed my constitutional right to keep and bear arms, you had better believe fewer people would have died. I believe that there are MANY others out there just like me in all of this. I know of quite a few folks at Virginia Tech who would carry if they were allowed to.

 

So if more people have access to guns you are trying to tell me that the crime rate would go down?

 

That is precisely what I am saying. You could not have said it any clearer.

 

That does not make any sense to me at all. It would just allow more people (who might not be mentally stable to actually own a gun themselves..) who did not previously have access to guns get one, and then do something horrible. No matter what the answer is not more guns, it should be less guns.

 

Sure, "less guns" (it would have been more correct to say "fewer guns", but this thread is not about grammar, is it?) sounds like a good idea. I actually agree with you there. Here's where we differ. People like you tend to think "let's make guns illegal" when asked for a solution. It's a knee-jerk sort of response that is not often thought through. The problem with this sort of thinking is that it only disarms law abiding citizens. Think about it. If the cops say "turn in your guns tomorrow or else", who is going to be there turning in his/her weapons? Only good, law abiding folks. Who will not be there? Bad guys of all types. You are creating a really nice environment for non-law abiding people by removing their victim's right to defend themselves.

 

Another point that seems to be overlooked by folks holding your line of reasoning is that outlawing any item almost always creates a black market. Think of the thriving drug trade. "Outlawing" drugs sure doesn't seem to keep drugs out of the hands of people who want them does it? Anyone could drive a couple minutes and pick up a dime bag here in Dallas anytime, but the drugs are illegal. I wonder what's wrong there? Maybe we should make drugs "extra illegal". Maybe we should have legislators hurl extra laws at the drug dealers. I'm sure that would make them stop.

 

In the case of drugs making them legal is not the answer, but I wanted to point out the glaring fallacy in your thinking.

 

Sure, "less guns" would be nice. How do you propose we do that? Unless you know of some sort of magical fairy police squadron that will disarm the bad guys along with the good guys, I don't think you have an answer. At least not a good one.

 

I respect the people who get their concealed weapons permit and carry permits because they are the responsible ones (usually) and have no problem with them, dont get me wrong.

 

BS. You are advocating strict gun control and then telling me you have no problem with CWP holders? HA! Those "respectable ones" holding CWPs would be the FIRST to have to turn in their firearms if (more like "when") our government totally revokes our right to keep and bear arms.

 

I just dont understand how people can say that if there were more guns the VT shooting would have been stopped earlier, whos to say the victims (if they had been "packing") where crack shots? whos to say they would have missed, and then hit an innocent person? It just doesn't make sense to me at all.

 

No one is saying that. At least not in this thread. We are saying that those victims had no way to legally defend themselves against the shooter. There is a problem with that. Gun control proponents often spout off things like "guns should only be in the hands of the police and military", as if the police are an omnipresent force always there to protect us. Where were the police at VT? Why did all those people die if the police can provide the protection people like you claim they can?

 

About being a "crack shot" or the chance of hitting an innocent person, just slow down and think about it. Who were ALL of the victims? Innocent people. Are you going to let fear deter you from defending human life? I hear lots of fear mongering come from folks arguing your points. Fear of innocent people getting caught up in the huge gunfights that are sure to happen if we loosen gun control laws, fear from little babies being shot accidentally when playing with firearms, and other such nonsense. I choose not to live in fear. Yes, I would have put a couple right in that guy's chest and then a couple right in his head just for good measure. If I killed and innocent bystander in the process (not likely)? So be it. It's a risk that had to be taken. Would you really argue that I should not shoot at the guy because I might accidentally hit someone as he is mowing down crowds of people with gunfire? Are you kidding? Please THINK.

[Vsicks Pathy]

Absolutely not. I am dead serious. I carry everywhere I am legally allowed to with my CWP in Virginia. I am required to leave my handgun in the car or at home when I have to enter a college or university. If I had been on the scene of that crime and had been allowed my constitutional right to keep and bear arms, you had better believe fewer people would have died. I believe that there are MANY others out there just like me in all of this. I know of quite a few folks at Virginia Tech who would carry if they were allowed to.

 

 

 

That is precisely what I am saying. You could not have said it any clearer.

 

 

 

Sure, "less guns" (it would have been more correct to say "fewer guns", but this thread is not about grammar, is it?) sounds like a good idea. I actually agree with you there. Here's where we differ. People like you tend to think "let's make guns illegal" when asked for a solution. It's a knee-jerk sort of response that is not often thought through. The problem with this sort of thinking is that it only disarms law abiding citizens. Think about it. If the cops say "turn in your guns tomorrow or else", who is going to be there turning in his/her weapons? Only good, law abiding folks. Who will not be there? Bad guys of all types. You are creating a really nice environment for non-law abiding people by removing their victim's right to defend themselves.

 

Another point that seems to be overlooked by folks holding your line of reasoning is that outlawing any item almost always creates a black market. Think of the thriving drug trade. "Outlawing" drugs sure doesn't seem to keep drugs out of the hands of people who want them does it? Anyone could drive a couple minutes and pick up a dime bag here in Dallas anytime, but the drugs are illegal. I wonder what's wrong there? Maybe we should make drugs "extra illegal". Maybe we should have legislators hurl extra laws at the drug dealers. I'm sure that would make them stop.

 

In the case of drugs making them legal is not the answer, but I wanted to point out the glaring fallacy in your thinking.

 

Sure, "less guns" would be nice. How do you propose we do that? Unless you know of some sort of magical fairy police squadron that will disarm the bad guys along with the good guys, I don't think you have an answer. At least not a good one.

 

 

 

BS. You are advocating strict gun control and then telling me you have no problem with CWP holders? HA! Those "respectable ones" holding CWPs would be the FIRST to have to turn in their firearms if (more like "when") our government totally revokes our right to keep and bear arms.

 

 

 

No one is saying that. At least not in this thread. We are saying that those victims had no way to legally defend themselves against the shooter. There is a problem with that. Gun control proponents often spout off things like "guns should only be in the hands of the police and military", as if the police are an omnipresent force always there to protect us. Where were the police at VT? Why did all those people die if the police can provide the protection people like you claim they can?

 

About being a "crack shot" or the chance of hitting an innocent person, just slow down and think about it. Who were ALL of the victims? Innocent people. Are you going to let fear deter you from defending human life? I hear lots of fear mongering come from folks arguing your points. Fear of innocent people getting caught up in the huge gunfights that are sure to happen if we loosen gun control laws, fear from little babies being shot accidentally when playing with firearms, and other such nonsense. I choose not to live in fear. Yes, I would have put a couple right in that guy's chest and then a couple right in his head just for good measure. If I killed and innocent bystander in the process (not likely)? So be it. It's a risk that had to be taken. Would you really argue that I should not shoot at the guy because I might accidentally hit someone as he is mowing down crowds of people with gunfire? Are you kidding? Please THINK.

 

You are a fool. And a big one at that. You finish by asking us to "please THINK" when you obviously can not. Laugh! I nearly wet my pants.

 

I thank you for not even trying to debunk anything I said.

 

I especially like this quote, not that anything else you say has any basis in truth either..... "fear from little babies being shot accidentally when playing with firearms, and other such nonsense". My dear boy, one thinks that you do not have the capacity to read a news paper.

Try just a sample of what's actually been happening in the REAL world of America.

http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=6702364 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...750C0A9669C8B63

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn41...18/ai_n17153968

http://www.all-creatures.org/cash/taah-sh-20051230-3.html

http://halldor2.wordpress.com/2006/05/27/c...girl-in-grozny/

Here's one to scrutinise. You can say I TOLD YOU SO WITH THIS ONE! http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/76530/7...ousin_With_Guns

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn41...09/ai_n16351231

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/20.../child-hit.html

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2...hot_by_son.html

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f01_1182348051&c=1

It was just a BB gun. RIGHT! http://thetandd.com/articles/2007/04/24/ne...5a098241877.txt RIGHT!!!!! http://www.cearleylawfirm.com/news-article...ticle.asp?id=39

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/n...61227/boy.shtml

http://www.klewtv.com/news/local/8175547.html

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1,1249,635183305,00.html

http://www.star-telegram.com/state_news/story/148051.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn42...06/ai_n10180020

Sick sh!t like this.... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1742807/posts

 

All "nonsense" isn't it. http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=cap

 

If I wanted to fill this page with your "nonsense" I could do it easily. But these are just FACTS aren't they. And facts mean nothing to a gun toting redneck like your good self.

I was just wondering.. If you leave your gun in your car and someone just happens to break into it or steal it. Hmmm? Best to be safe rather than sorry though, isn't it? There, happy now? I just wet myself!

[hoohaa]

You are a fool. And a big one at that. You finish by asking us to "please THINK" when you obviously can not. Laugh! I nearly wet my pants.

 

I thank you for not even trying to debunk anything I said.

 

I especially like this quote, not that anything else you say has any basis in truth either..... "fear from little babies being shot accidentally when playing with firearms, and other such nonsense". My dear boy, one thinks that you do not have the capacity to read a news paper.

Try just a sample of what's actually been happening in the REAL world of America.

http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=6702364 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...750C0A9669C8B63

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn41...18/ai_n17153968

http://www.all-creatures.org/cash/taah-sh-20051230-3.html

http://halldor2.wordpress.com/2006/05/27/c...girl-in-grozny/

Here's one to scrutinise. You can say I TOLD YOU SO WITH THIS ONE! http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/76530/7...ousin_With_Guns

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn41...09/ai_n16351231

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/20.../child-hit.html

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2...hot_by_son.html

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f01_1182348051&c=1

It was just a BB gun. RIGHT! http://thetandd.com/articles/2007/04/24/ne...5a098241877.txt RIGHT!!!!! http://www.cearleylawfirm.com/news-article...ticle.asp?id=39

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/n...61227/boy.shtml

http://www.klewtv.com/news/local/8175547.html

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1,1249,635183305,00.html

http://www.star-telegram.com/state_news/story/148051.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn42...06/ai_n10180020

Sick sh!t like this.... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1742807/posts

 

All "nonsense" isn't it. http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=cap

 

If I wanted to fill this page with your "nonsense" I could do it easily. But these are just FACTS aren't they. And facts mean nothing to a gun toting redneck like your good self.

I was just wondering.. If you leave your gun in your car and someone just happens to break into it or steal it. Hmmm? Best to be safe rather than sorry though, isn't it? There, happy now? I just wet myself!

 

You have not responded to a single one of my arguments. You have resorted to name calling and more fear mongering.

[vengeful]

Boys. I am putting this petty, childish argument to a rest. There is to be no further arguing on this topic in this thread, or you will ALL receive time-outs. Name-Calling and low-blows are NOT acceptable here, and will NOT be tolerated. This thread was not started as a means for people to argue about gun control! If you want to argue about that, please do so on another forum, or in another thread, in a respectful, and polite manner.

 

This thread was started as a means of bringing to attention the glaring mishandling of the VT Situation. It has NOTHING to do with gun control. Get this thread back on topic, and back to a polite, and respectful discussion, not the petty, childish, immature argument you have made it.

 

Besides...Gun control is using both hands.

[Vsicks Pathy]

You have not responded to a single one of my arguments. You have resorted to name calling and more fear mongering.

 

 

Nice comeback. You arguments??? And what would they be?

That you are John Wayne perhaps? Two in the head! PLEASE!

That you don't care if innocent bystanders get shot by you? What did you say again? "So be it!"

 

That little kids are killed to the tune of 3365 per year? FEAR MONGERING? I think not. Didn't you look at any of the links I put up? The facts are there. They all counter your idealogical perverted view on gun laws and control.

 

An excerpt from a link you couldn't be bothered reading.

 

# The firearm death rate among children 0-14 years old is nearly 12 times higher in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized nations combined.

# In 1999, 3,365 young people were killed by firearms - 9 young lives lost a day.

# Firearms are the second-leading cause of death (after motor vehicle accidents) for young people 19 and under in the U.S.

# For every child killed by gunfire, at least 4 are wounded.

 

Another..

 

* In 1999, an American youth committed suicide with a firearm every 8 hours.

* In 1999, an American youth was murdered with a firearm every 4-1/2 hours.

* The suicide rate for children 0-14 years old is twice as high in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. There is no difference in the non-firearm suicide rate between the U.S. and the 25 other countries. Virtually all the difference is attributable to suicides being committed with guns in the U.S.

* While the non-firearm-related homicide rate for children 0-14 years old in the U.S. is nearly four times the rate of the 25 other countries combined, the firearm-related homicide rate is nearly 16 times higher in the U.S. than in these same countries combined.

* During 1999, 52% of all murders of those under age 18 in the U.S. involved firearms. In 1986, guns were involved in 38% of such offenses.

 

Are you taking any of this in at all?

 

I like that facts are now called fear mongering too. These little tidbits are just child deaths too. CHILD ONLY!!! The "nonsense" you spoke about remember.

 

Got anything else for us? You certainly didn't have an answer to any of this did you!

 

I see you lame points. I like your comparison to illegal firearms and the drug trade. In the one sentence you defeated your own argument. You of course don't realise this though do you? Shell we look at that sentence and leave out your bloodymindedness? Here it is for those who fell asleep when reading his drivel first time round and didn't get this far...

 

Another point that seems to be overlooked by folks holding your line of reasoning is that outlawing any item almost always creates a black market. Think of the thriving drug trade. "Outlawing" drugs sure doesn't seem to keep drugs out of the hands of people who want them does it? Anyone could drive a couple minutes and pick up a dime bag here in Dallas anytime, but the drugs are illegal. I wonder what's wrong there? Maybe we should make drugs "extra illegal". Maybe we should have legislators hurl extra laws at the drug dealers. I'm sure that would make them stop.

 

Seems that you are suggesting that gun ownership is an addiction. You compare illegal guns to how the drug trade is thriving. You don't say why the drug trade is thriving though do you? Can I again suggest something? Too late!

 

* The drug trade thrives because people have ADDICTIONS!

*It thrives because drugs are CHEAP!

*It thrives because anyone can make or grow them.

 

Lets brake this down into guns ownership now shall we?

 

Does my first point apply to gun ownership? Yes or no?

Does my second point apply to gun ownership? Yes or no?

Does my third point apply to gun ownership? Yes or no? Please, I know it is easy to make a single shot gun with a very limited range and almost 0 accuracy. When (if) you answer this question have some common sense and answer in context.

 

I will give you another fact that you seem to ignore. To buy a hand gun here in Australia on the black market expect a minimal outlay of around $5000.00+. For that you aint getting anything flash. 10 to 20k is more the norm for the better guns. How many people can afford a hand gun now? As easy to get as drugs? Perhaps. But show me the money! Keep that in mind when (if) you answer any of my arguments.

 

Your arguments have been answered with facts. They were answered before you even put your point(s) across. You just didn't take the time to look, or you ignored them. You certainly haven't answered anything and as usual, I will not hold my breath waiting. Your mate Ghostpath got out when the facts couldn't be denied, best you do the same I think.

 

PS. I just broke into your car and I now have an illegal weapon... THANKS man!

[vengeful]

This thread is done...

 

LOCKED.