Discussion:
We need to ban all handguns in America NOW
(too old to reply)
Gunner
2007-05-01 16:59:30 UTC
Permalink
Oh I certainly see the fantasy world you live in, but it has little
relationship to the real world.
Firearms are used to kill two out of every three homicide victims
in America.. In the first nationally representative study to
examine the relationship between survey measures of household
firearm ownership and state level rates of homicide, researchers
at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that homicide
rates among children, and among women and men of all ages, are
higher in states where more households have guns. The study
appears in the February 2007 issue of Social Science and Medicine.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070111181527.htm
Yes. And?
Whats your point?
Obvious. Guns do not make people safer. The opposite is true.
False.
Ill bet car accidents are higher among those who own cars too.
Same with DUIs.
No, cultist, not just among people who own guns. In states where
people have more guns there are more homicides overall.
Actually not true again. District of Columbia is the first example that
blows your case out of the water..though its not a "state" Murder
capital of the US..with a complete gun ban.
Guns kill people. More guns cause more people to be killed.
Really..the gun grabbed Cho by the hand and dragged him along so they
could shoot people?

Fascinating!
http://www.vdare.com/francis/gun_control.htm
"an independent CDC task force reviewed 51 published studies about the
effectiveness of eight types of gun-control laws. The laws included bans
on specific firearms or ammunition, measures barring felons from buying
guns, and mandatory waiting periods and firearm registration. None of
the studies was done by the federal government. In every case, a CDC
task force found 'insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness.'"
Well, now we have the evidence. I cited it above.
No. Again you presented your interpretation of data sets. And its both
evident and provable that your interpretation was fatally flawed.

You obviously dont use reason logic or rational thought on this subject.
I hope you do better in other endevores.

Gunner

This Message is guaranteed environmentally friendly
Manufactured with 10% post consumer ASCII
Meets all EPA regulations for clean air
Using only naturally occuring fibers
Use the Message with confidance.
(Some settling may occure in transit.)
(Best if Used before May 13, 2009)
nick c
2007-05-01 19:32:44 UTC
Permalink
On 27 Apr 2007 18:59:59 -0700, Too_Many_Tools
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:33:30 -0600, Notan
<snipped>
A ban on weapons isn't the way to go - because there is NO WAY to
enforce such a ban. Increasing the number of LAWS won't really work
either - because the one's we've already got aren't being enforced
either. Basically, we're looking at a Catch-22 = can't win for losing
and can't lose for winning!
You have reached the first level of enlightenment.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe#1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
A ban on weapons isn't the way to go - because there is NO WAY to
enforce such a ban. Increasing the number of LAWS won't really work
either - because the one's we've already got aren't being enforced
either. Basically, we're looking at a Catch-22 = can't win for losing
and can't lose for winning!
This is not what I agreed to.
An enforcement of the existing laws would reduce the number of guns legally
sold.
I fixed it for you.
This enforcement is not happening and part of the blame falls upon the
gun community and the NRA for allowing it to occur.
I'm sure you can find cites for that - what I'm not so sure of is
their impartiality.
It's always easy and comfortable to blame those you don't like.
Instead, maybe you could look into *why* such laws are not enforced as
you think they should be.
Are you perhaps thinkig that the gun community and the NRA file amicus
briefs in all cases in which the accused used a gun?
Considering the number of gun deaths, too many guns are getting into
the wrong hands.
Considering he number of deaths caused by alcohol (pools, knives,
baseball bats, etc., etc.), too many of these things are getting into
the wrong hands.
I am recommending psych tests for ALL gun owners including those who
want to be first time owners.
And, one would presume, voters, drivers, chefs, pool owners, etc.?
Cho is an example of an existing gun owner who should have been tested
and those test results made available to the authorities.
Absolutely.
Isn't hindsight wonderful? Who else would you recommend such tests
for? Seriously? And why should your opinion on such matters be
seriously considered? What are your qualifications for making such
decisions?
It is reasonable to expect that some current gun owners will fail
their psych test and their guns would be confiscated.
It is also reasonable to expect that some drivers, if retested, would
fail their tests and their licenses be revoked.
Do you advocate retesting of all drivers?
Have you condsidered the consequences of your opinions should they be
put into action?
Too bad....
TMT
--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!
The View on Disney-owned ABC dropped Rosie
O'Donnell, even after she agreed to stop
talking about George Bush. The president
has no leverage over ABC. Disney is not a
defense contractor, unless you count the
war rationales we buy from Fantasyland.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
This enforcement is not happening and part of the blame falls upon the
gun community and the NRA for allowing it to occur.
I'm sure you can find cites for that - what I'm not so sure of is
their impartiality.
It's always easy and comfortable to blame those you don't like.
Instead, maybe you could look into *why* such laws are not enforced as
you think they should be.
Are you perhaps thinkig that the gun community and the NRA file amicus
briefs in all cases in which the accused used a gun?
I am a gun owner, a NRA member and an American citizen and I am saying
that the gun community that I am a member of and the NRA who I am a
member of is partially responsible for preventing the enforcement of
current gun laws.
I am a gun owner, a competition shooter, an American citizen, and a
long time member of the NRA. I also say you're nuts. Frankly, IF you
are a member of the NRA you would know the NRA has endorsed laws that
would keep guns out of the hands of criminals. However, the NRA will
not support gun laws that lead to confiscation or prohibit gun
ownership by law abiding citizens.

There must be thousands upon thousands of Federal, State, and local
guns laws that directly affect gun ownership. Against what gun laws
has the NRA taken action to prevent their enforcement?

It has been an old trick of anti-gunners to either claim they are NRA
members and speak out against the NRA or actually become members of
the NRA and speak out against the NRA. Which one category do you fall
under.
Considering the number of gun deaths, too many guns are getting into
the wrong hands.
Considering he number of deaths caused by alcohol (pools, knives,
baseball bats, etc., etc.), too many of these things are getting into
the wrong hands.
Please stay on subject...and quit making excuses for 32 more gun
deaths.
It is reasonable to expect that some current gun owners will fail
their psych test and their guns would be confiscated.
It is also reasonable to expect that some drivers, if retested, would
fail their tests and their licenses be revoked.
Do you advocate retesting of all drivers?
Have you condsidered the consequences of your opinions should they be
put into action?
Again trying to change the subject.
If you take an approved test and fail, you should not have access to
the product.
Would you fly on an airplane whose pilot flunked his pilot test for
insanity?
As a gun owner, NRA member and American citizen, I will be happy to be
the first to take the psych test....and you can be the next one after
me.
TMT
Dan
2007-05-01 20:18:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:40:38 -0600, Notan
On 27 Apr 2007 09:25:01 -0700, Too_Many_Tools
How many more tragedies is it going to take before we wake up? We have
a serious gun problem in this country and it's time to take a stand.
Let the farmers and hunters keep the rifles and shotguns. Get rid of
the pistols and the assault rifles unless you want to go over and
fight in Iraq.
While I would not go that far, I do believe that requiring psych
testing as a requirement for gun ownership and purchase would serve to
solve the problem we now have.
The right to own guns is a constitutionally protected right.
While the right to own a gun is protected, does the store *have to* sell
a gun to someone they feel is unstable?
Don't they have a "We reserve the right..." clause, just like virtually
every business?
They'd be exposed to a lawsuit. The right to associate was eliminated by
the communist in congress in the 1960s and 70s, via the "civil rights"
laws which outlawed many constitutionally recognized rights, like the
right to free association.
If they had refused to sell to Cho, he could have sued as being
discriminated against because he was Korean. History shows he would have
won this case.
OK, to take it to an extreme...
Someone enters a gun store, screaming threats, jumping up and down, etc.
Did Cho do that?
Does the store have the right to refuse to sell the person a gun?
It does. Then Cho would have bought in the unregulated
market. Result = no different from what happened.
"Would have?"

You know that for a fact? Man, you are good! I, myself, find it hard
to read a dead man's mind...

Dan
Dan
2007-05-01 20:20:47 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:47:26 -0600, Notan
<snip>
Correct.....psych testing of gun owners and want to be owners would
weed out those who should not have gunes....as the case of Cho
definitely shows.
And creating new laws that take mental health in consideration before
any sale is allowed to occur are required.
To say no new laws are needed is foolish...we have 32 more reasons why
they are required.
News laws? Maybe not.
How 'bout getting institutions, like the American Psychiatric
Association,
to better document their findings?
Or getting rid of institutions, like the ACLU, that fight for the privacy
of citizens whose private lives shouldn't be private!
Sounds good... we'll let them start with your life.
I'm quite capable of representing myself.
Are you here for nothing more than an argument?
Representing? OK.
I know very few people over the age of 10 who would like to have their
lives scrutinized in court.
Are you one of the very few?
Huh?
I said the ACLU fights for the rights of citizens, but I'm quite capable
of fighting for my own rights. IOW, when it comes to the ACLU, stay the
fuck out of *my* business.
"I'm quite capable of representing myself."
Oddly enough though..the ONLY portion of the Constitution the ACLU
refuses to address...is the 2nd Amendment. And they admit this publicly.
Perhaps because it has been interpreted by so many in so many different
ways (and nearly all of them incorrect, according to its text).

Dan
Dan
2007-05-01 20:26:27 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 20:32:40 -0700, Dan
The right to own guns is a constitutionally protected right.
It is?
Perhaps you could point out the section or Amendment that covers owning
a gun.
Hint: I have read the Second Amendment and fail to find a word
approximating "buy" or "own" in the text, so obviously you mean
somewhere else).
The right to keep and bear arms, but not the right to buy
and own arms. Welcome to Bizarro World, where you have the
right to keep and bear something you do not have the right
to buy and own.
--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
Yep, that's what it says! (Similar to Switzerland, in fact).

Your attempt to ridicule demonstrates your ignorance.

See Article I, Section 8, Para 16 for a refresher of the applicable
text. I won't hold my breath for an apology.

Dan
Dan
2007-05-01 20:29:32 UTC
Permalink
OK, to take it to an extreme...
Someone enters a gun store, screaming threats, jumping up and down, etc.
Does the store have the right to refuse to sell the person a gun?
Oh yes..and the moral duty to not sell. However..the store may well be
sued out of business for NOT selling the weapon to the individual
I don't think the store could be successfully sued for this.
In fact, the store would be entirely within its rights to call the
police.
I also don't think the ACLU would get involved in this particular
case.
If a minority member came in, and something didnt ring right..though he
passed all the background or Instachecks..and the store owner refused to
sell...he could (and such has happened) get sued for discrimination.
Its happened in the South on a number of occasions.
Well, it certainly would have been caught on video.

Not saying someone will not sue, but the chances of winning are slim to
none (juries do strange things), and he certainly would gather a decent
slush fund to defend himself when the news broke nationally...

We are talking demonstrably unstable behavior, here, no matter the race.

Dan
AirRaid
2007-05-01 20:31:00 UTC
Permalink
How many more tragedies is it going to take before we wake up? We have
a serious gun problem in this country and it's time to take a stand.
Let the farmers and hunters keep the rifles and shotguns. Get rid of
the pistols and the assault rifles unless you want to go over and
fight in Iraq.
YOU'RE A GUN-GRABBING GLOBALIST, OR GLOBALIST-SUPPORTING CUNT FROM
HELL!

SHUT THE FUCK UP!
George Kerby
2007-05-01 20:53:33 UTC
Permalink
On 5/1/07 3:31 PM, in article
Post by AirRaid
How many more tragedies is it going to take before we wake up? We have
a serious gun problem in this country and it's time to take a stand.
Let the farmers and hunters keep the rifles and shotguns. Get rid of
the pistols and the assault rifles unless you want to go over and
fight in Iraq.
YOU'RE A GUN-GRABBING GLOBALIST, OR GLOBALIST-SUPPORTING CUNT FROM
HELL!
SHUT THE FUCK UP!
Why don't you just open up and tell us how you *really* feel?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
l***@cs.com
2007-05-01 21:10:25 UTC
Permalink
How many more tragedies is it going to take before we wake up? We have
a serious gun problem in this country and it's time to take a stand.
Let the farmers and hunters keep the rifles and shotguns. Get rid of
the pistols and the assault rifles unless you want to go over and
fight in Iraq.
The only problem here is sentiments like yours.. which are anti-
Constitutional (for any US citizen) to make.

If, however, you come from some commie country, your lack of respect
for any (other) person's right to undertake responsibility for their
own well-being is also insulting and demeaning. And unnacceptable.

I don't think that your unarmed opinion would count for much in places
like Darfur or Iraq. Or New Orleans.
You are a hopeless dreamer whose main adversaries are reality and
paranoia - that is, if you are not a paid shill or enemy agent.
Dan
2007-05-02 01:41:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@cs.com
How many more tragedies is it going to take before we wake up? We have
a serious gun problem in this country and it's time to take a stand.
Let the farmers and hunters keep the rifles and shotguns. Get rid of
the pistols and the assault rifles unless you want to go over and
fight in Iraq.
The only problem here is sentiments like yours.. which are anti-
Constitutional (for any US citizen) to make.
How so?

Dan
Ray Fischer
2007-05-02 04:21:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Oh I certainly see the fantasy world you live in, but it has little
relationship to the real world.
Firearms are used to kill two out of every three homicide victims
in America.. In the first nationally representative study to
examine the relationship between survey measures of household
firearm ownership and state level rates of homicide, researchers
at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that homicide
rates among children, and among women and men of all ages, are
higher in states where more households have guns. The study
appears in the February 2007 issue of Social Science and Medicine.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070111181527.htm
Yes. And?
Whats your point?
Obvious. Guns do not make people safer. The opposite is true.
False.
The irrational bullshit of a cultist doesn't rate higher than
the cited objective research.

You lose, cultist.
--
Ray Fischer
***@sonic.net
Gunner
2007-05-02 10:13:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Fischer
Post by Gunner
Whats your point?
Obvious. Guns do not make people safer. The opposite is true.
False.
The irrational bullshit of a cultist doesn't rate higher than
the cited objective research.
Thank you for admitting you lost.

Gunner

"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it commits suicide"
- James Burnham
The Bobert
2007-05-02 19:14:54 UTC
Permalink
Whats your point?
An armed society is a polite society
--
There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved through a
suitable application of high explosives.

Bob in Central CA
Ray Fischer
2007-05-03 03:33:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bobert
Whats your point?
An armed society is a polite society
Which is why 30,000 Americans are killed by guns each year.
--
Ray Fischer
***@sonic.net
Bob Brock
2007-05-03 03:50:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Fischer
Post by The Bobert
Whats your point?
An armed society is a polite society
Which is why 30,000 Americans are killed by guns each year.
That would be what, 6000 less than die from the flu in the US on average?
BTW, you do know that more than half of the gun related deaths are suicides?
Do you really think that denying someone suicidal a gun will stop them from
killing themselves?
Roger (K8RI)
2007-05-05 05:33:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Ray Fischer
Post by The Bobert
Whats your point?
An armed society is a polite society
Which is why 30,000 Americans are killed by guns each year.
That would be what, 6000 less than die from the flu in the US on average?
BTW, you do know that more than half of the gun related deaths are suicides?
Do you really think that denying someone suicidal a gun will stop them from
killing themselves?
We kill off 43 to 45 thousand on the highways each year and no one
even gets upset.
Tim May
2007-05-05 05:48:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger (K8RI)
We kill off 43 to 45 thousand on the highways each year and no one
even gets upset.
I'm not arguing for gun control (in fact, gun grabbers should be
tortured to death, or at least blown up), but using language like "we
kill off..." is grossly misleading.

While some drivers kill other drivers, even pedestrians, and certainly
their passengers, "we" don't kill anyone.

Even if by "we" you meant you and your family, you could only kill off
a few per year, not tens of thousands.


--Tim May
Roger (K8RI)
2007-05-06 06:47:56 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 04 May 2007 22:48:02 -0700, Tim May
Post by Tim May
Post by Roger (K8RI)
We kill off 43 to 45 thousand on the highways each year and no one
even gets upset.
I'm not arguing for gun control (in fact, gun grabbers should be
tortured to death, or at least blown up), but using language like "we
kill off..." is grossly misleading.
While some drivers kill other drivers, even pedestrians, and certainly
their passengers, "we" don't kill anyone.
We do as it is condoned by default. Few people even get upset unless
those killed are family or friends.
Post by Tim May
Even if by "we" you meant you and your family, you could only kill off
a few per year, not tens of thousands.
I mean the collective "We" as in the American driving public. By that
I mean virtually all drives are guilty by, or through apathy.
Post by Tim May
--Tim May
Robert Sturgeon
2007-05-06 14:51:11 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 06 May 2007 02:47:56 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)"
Post by Roger (K8RI)
On Fri, 04 May 2007 22:48:02 -0700, Tim May
Post by Tim May
Post by Roger (K8RI)
We kill off 43 to 45 thousand on the highways each year and no one
even gets upset.
I'm not arguing for gun control (in fact, gun grabbers should be
tortured to death, or at least blown up), but using language like "we
kill off..." is grossly misleading.
While some drivers kill other drivers, even pedestrians, and certainly
their passengers, "we" don't kill anyone.
We do as it is condoned by default. Few people even get upset unless
those killed are family or friends.
Post by Tim May
Even if by "we" you meant you and your family, you could only kill off
a few per year, not tens of thousands.
I mean the collective "We" as in the American driving public. By that
I mean virtually all drives are guilty by, or through apathy.
I plead "not guilty." Apathy is not guilt. I am apathetic
about the starving people of Africa. I am not causing them
to starve.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
Gunner
2007-05-03 10:30:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Fischer
Post by The Bobert
Whats your point?
An armed society is a polite society
Which is why 30,000 Americans are killed by guns each year.
And a pretty fair number of them were legally killed by police and
citzens in self defense.

But Ray wants no one to be able to shoot a criminal. He wants to make
sure he has safe working conditions.


Gunner

"If thy pride is sorely vexed when others disparage your offering, be
as lamb's wool is to cold rain and the Gore-tex of Odin's raiment
is to gullshit in the gale, for thy angst shall vex them not at
all. Yea, they shall scorn thee all the more. Rejoice in
sharing what you have to share without expectation of adoration,
knowing that sharing your treasure does not diminish your treasure
but enriches it."

- Onni 1:33
Bob Brock
2007-05-03 12:42:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by Ray Fischer
Post by The Bobert
Whats your point?
An armed society is a polite society
Which is why 30,000 Americans are killed by guns each year.
And a pretty fair number of them were legally killed by police and
citzens in self defense.
But Ray wants no one to be able to shoot a criminal. He wants to make
sure he has safe working conditions.
Oddly enough, it appears that nearly three times as many people die from
doctor's boo-boos.
Roger (K8RI)
2007-05-05 05:32:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Fischer
Post by Gunner
Oh I certainly see the fantasy world you live in, but it has little
relationship to the real world.
Firearms are used to kill two out of every three homicide victims
in America.. In the first nationally representative study to
examine the relationship between survey measures of household
firearm ownership and state level rates of homicide, researchers
at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that homicide
rates among children, and among women and men of all ages, are
higher in states where more households have guns. The study
appears in the February 2007 issue of Social Science and Medicine.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070111181527.htm
Yes. And?
Whats your point?
Obvious. Guns do not make people safer. The opposite is true.
False.
The irrational bullshit of a cultist doesn't rate higher than
the cited objective research.
You lose, cultist.
Not to inject some data here, but in almost ALL states that have
passed "right to carry" laws, violent crime has gone down.
Joe
2007-05-03 22:07:25 UTC
Permalink
On 19 Apr 2007 02:46:27 -0700,
How many more tragedies is it going to take before we wake up? We have
a serious gun problem in this country and it's time to take a stand.
Let the farmers and hunters keep the rifles and shotguns. Get rid of
the pistols and the assault rifles unless you want to go over and
fight in Iraq.
We certainly have a serious problem. That problem is the creation of
disarmament zones like VT, where people aren't allowed to defend
themselves. We need to stop doing that *now* before more people die.
Imagine an upright student-citizen ignored the VT ban, carried
illegally, and brought Cho down early in the rampage.
Hero or Villian?
To his fellow students? A hero. To the mainstream news
media? A villain.
How would the media portray him/her? Certainly the DA would prosecute.
That's the why of the saying -- Better to be judged by 12
than carried by 6.
--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Why is this thread being posted to rec.photo.digital...this is way off
topic.

Please remove rec.photo.digital from all future posts.

Joe
h***@hotmail.com
2007-05-18 23:34:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On 19 Apr 2007 02:46:27 -0700,
How many more tragedies is it going to take before we wake up? We have
a serious gun problem in this country and it's time to take a stand.
Let the farmers and hunters keep the rifles and shotguns. Get rid of
the pistols and the assault rifles unless you want to go over and
fight in Iraq.
We certainly have a serious problem. That problem is the creation of
disarmament zones like VT, where people aren't allowed to defend
themselves. We need to stop doing that *now* before more people die.
Imagine an upright student-citizen ignored the VT ban, carried
illegally, and brought Cho down early in the rampage.
Hero or Villian?
To his fellow students? A hero. To the mainstream news
media? A villain.
How would the media portray him/her? Certainly the DA would prosecute.
That's the why of the saying -- Better to be judged by 12
than carried by 6.
--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/-Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Why is this thread being posted to rec.photo.digital...this is way off
topic.
Please remove rec.photo.digital from all future posts.
Will do. Thanks for the suggestion.
Dan
2007-05-19 01:27:00 UTC
Permalink
On 19 Apr 2007 02:46:27 -0700,
How many more tragedies is it going to take before we wake up? We have
a serious gun problem in this country and it's time to take a stand.
Let the farmers and hunters keep the rifles and shotguns. Get rid of
the pistols and the assault rifles unless you want to go over and
fight in Iraq.
We certainly have a serious problem. That problem is the creation of
disarmament zones like VT, where people aren't allowed to defend
themselves. We need to stop doing that *now* before more people die.
Imagine an upright student-citizen ignored the VT ban, carried
illegally, and brought Cho down early in the rampage.
Hero or Villian?
To his fellow students? A hero. To the mainstream news
media? A villain.
Opinion noted. News? Definitely. Edgy story, pushing the
"controversy?" Most likely. Villain? Nah.

Dan

chaser48
2007-05-08 16:53:40 UTC
Permalink
exactly, and that is the problem, because, a Virginia judge in
December 2005 deemed Cho "an imminent danger to himself because of
mental illness" and ordered outpatient treatment for him, according to
court documents, and Cho was still legally entitled to buy them, we
need better laws so this does not happen anymore..
= actually...no..CHo was NOT legally entitled to buy them.
RICHMOND, Va. - Virginia Tech senior Seung-Hui Cho walked into a
Roanoke gun shop five weeks ago, put down a credit card and walked out
with a Glock 19 handgun and a box of ammunition. He paid $571.
The Glock was one of two guns found with Cho's fingerprints after he
fatally shot 32 people and then himself at the university in the
deadliest shooting rampage in modern U.S. history.
RoanokeFirearmsowner John Markell said his shop sold the Glock to
Cho in March. The serial number had been scratched off, but federal
agents traced it to the store using a receipt found in Cho's backpack.
"It was a very unremarkable sale," said Markell, who did not handle
the sale personally. "He was a nice, clean-cut college kid. We won't
sell a gun if we have any idea at all that a purchase is suspicious."
Markell said it's not unusual for college students to make purchases
at his shop as long as they are old enough.
Cho held a green card, meaning he was a legal, permanent resident,
according to federal officials. That meant he was eligible to buy a
handgun unless he had been convicted of a felony.
"To find out the gun came from my shop is just terrible," Markell
said.
'Easy access to high firepower weapons'
Authorities also found a Walther .22-caliber handgun in Cho's
possession, according to a search warrant filed in Montgomery County.
Virginia State Police Superintendent Col. W. Steven Flaherty said
Tuesday afternoon that both guns were purchased legally in Virginia.
Because he killed and injured so many victims in a short span of time,
some people speculated that Cho used high-capacity magazines
containing as many as 33 rounds in each clip.
Under the federal assault-weapons ban enacted in 1994, magazines were
limited to 10 rounds. But that ban was allowed to expire in 2004.
"The key thing that we have seen in all of these school shootings is
easy access to high firepower weapons," said Daniel Vice, an attorney
with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "These killings can't
be done with baseball bats and knives."
What makes you so sure of these stupid musings of yours? I can whack
your ass with a baseball bat and you wouldnt be around -- Your mouth
moves before you think!!!
KEY THING?? " ALL THESE...??" You are mixing your metaphores Daniel Vice or if not, talking with shit in your mouth. The process that all must follow to gain ownership of a firearm is a done deal -- we have all been through the process and the purpose is to search for peculiaraities in a persons application to purchase a firearm. The key thing is that this Chink had already premeditated the murder of certain and or several teachers or students - he would have killed them sooner of later. Why lie about it? If the cops are out gunned by black drug dealers or robbers, one never hears that their high firepower handguns were not equal to the bad guys firearms -- rather the cops use low firepower as to not do harm. Cho definately was not using a high firepower weapon and you so easily lie about that.
What a liar!! Cho would have used whatever he could to kill certain
persons as these persons truly - in his sick mind - had done him
wrong. Cho could not be stopped one way or another.
Where you so err is believing that all firearms cause harm. Were I in
those classrooms or near and with a concealed carry permit - I would
have put an end to his hurting the majority of persons that he shot.
Just think if a whole room full of students were carrying firearms,
they would have blown Cho away before he could have done any harm or
the full extent of the harm he committed. You are just a child and
coward with no creative solutions and neither vision. Your Brady
group does more harm than good and fight against persons who are
lawful and law abiding and still Mr Brady is a vegetable is he not?
Go join the army and do some good you cowardly liar sack of sh__.
Under Virginia law, state police keep records of gun purchases from
licensed dealers for only 30 days. After that, police destroy the
records.
= And if the
= mental health system or that judge had not dropped the ball so
= badly..and the data had been properly entered into the InstaCheck
data
= base..he would never have been able to buy one through a store.
good, so you are finally admitting the system we have in place ins not
enough..
= Now on the other hand..this seldom stops a criminal or other
individual
= who wants a firearm. They simply procure one illegally. After
all..they
= are criminals.
and that once again, is why they need to go to jail for a very long
time when they do, now they get a slap on the writs and they areright
back at until they finally kill a large group of people.
= Seems the UK has the same problem..a total ban on them..yet they
seem to
= be readily available. Even with draconian penalties attached.
The UK has a small fraction of gun related deaths and crimes compared
to the USA, there is no comparison.
Gunner Asch
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it commits suicide"
- James Burnham
Gunner
2007-05-09 09:48:30 UTC
Permalink
"The key thing that we have seen in all of these school shootings is
easy access to high firepower weapons," said Daniel Vice, an attorney
with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "These killings can't
be done with baseball bats and knives."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

At 10:15 that morning, 37-year-old former janitor Mamoru Takuma entered
the school armed with a kitchen knife and began stabbing numerous school
children and teachers. He killed eight children, mostly between the ages
of seven and eight, and seriously wounded thirteen other children and
two teachers. Takuma was later convicted and sentenced to death by
hanging. The sentence was executed on September 14, 2004. [1]

The Osaka School Massacre was the second largest mass murder in recent
Japanese history, exceeded only by the fatalities caused in the Sarin
gas attack on the Tokyo subway.
"If thy pride is sorely vexed when others disparage your offering, be
as lamb's wool is to cold rain and the Gore-tex of Odin's raiment
is to gullshit in the gale, for thy angst shall vex them not at
all. Yea, they shall scorn thee all the more. Rejoice in
sharing what you have to share without expectation of adoration,
knowing that sharing your treasure does not diminish your treasure
but enriches it."

- Onni 1:33
h***@hotmail.com
2007-05-18 23:36:40 UTC
Permalink
How many more tragedies is it going to take before we wake up? We have
a serious gun problem in this country and it's time to take a stand.
Let the farmers and hunters keep the rifles and shotguns. Get rid of
the pistols and the assault rifles unless you want to go over and
fight in Iraq.
We certainly have a serious problem. That problem is the creation of
disarmament zones like VT, where people aren't allowed to defend
themselves. We need to stop doing that *now* before more people die.
Imagine an upright student-citizen ignored the VT ban, carried
illegally, and brought Cho down early in the rampage.
Hero or Villian?
How would the media portray him/her? Certainly the DA would prosecute.
How many guns are carried by students TODAY? People will risk it now.
Apparently none were carried in the vicinity of VT on that day.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...