Gary, first of all I don't think the Virginia Tech incident today will manifest any real change in US gun control laws in the foreseeable future. They tried to amend them it after the Columbine shootings but failed.

It's a horrible tragedy no doubt. But I wouldn't put the gun itself as the guilty one here. Obviously it played its part, and I don't doubt that without it, that person probably wouldn't have been able to kill as many people. However, I think a significant 'ban' on guns would create more problems than it would solve.

First of all, guns clearly aren't necessarily the issue at hand; because I believe Canada has more guns per-household -for example-, but as with nearly every post-industrialized nation, they have significantly less gun crimes than the United States. I don't think its the guns that are killing people but people that are killing people. There clearly is an issue somewhere with the culture and societal circumstances in the United States that are issuing into this kind of crisis where these shootings are taking place more frequently. Its much more complex than: guns=problem, therefore no guns, no problem.

Second of all, a ban on guns wouldn't stop those who are determined to get and use them for sinister purposes from doing so. It would only stop good law-abiding citizens from acquiring them. And it would also further cause criminals using guns to purchase their weapons from the underground or black market, where such guns are completely untraceable. So clearly banning guns isn't going to solve anything.

I agree with you on this, Tad. While this is certainly a sad episode; the weapon (or weapons) involved did not choose to shoot these innocent students by itself. A person with certainly suspect sanity (for whatever reason) did this. As I've stated before, we cannot uninvent science or technology. How many die in motor vehicle accidents each year? Will we abolish automobiles? I think all of you can answer that.
I am not a psychologist nor a psychiatrist; and I cannot speak or even hazard a guess to what may have triggered this violent episode. But, as Tad said:We cannot blame the tools for the action of its users.

Hear, Hear, Katcinsky. I think we as a society and individuals need to concentrate on what our problems are that would make a person respond in a mamanner such as this.

This is just so brilliant of you! Twisting, it's called. God did grant me the right to protect myself and my life and property. If any of the staff or campus police or instructors had a handy weapon, perhaps 32 people wouldn't be dead today!

So? They were clearly and obviously superior characters who understood what was needed here.

That's about right. In every other industrialized nation, elitists far superior to citizens get to decide whether or not any individual living under them has rights or not, whether or not they get to defend their own lives. Who made them gods? The UN would GRANT you the right to live if those unelected unaccountable bureaucratic elitists feel like it today...but they will do nothing to defend your rights to life or property.

Our founding fathers you denigrate were wise enough to state that our rights come from our creator. He isn't a fickle weakminded human who egotistically feels himself superior enough to others to declare whether today they may live!

In England you can't even have a knife big enough to protect yourself! Sitting ducks, they are. We don't want the law giving criminals the upper hand to make it easier to victimize law abiding citizens here.

Gary, God granted that right to everyone......our founding fathers were wise enough and fair enough to NOT take it from us as has been the case everywhere else! So if you don't have rights from God, thank your own leaders for your vulnerability! They think they can grant you the right to live or not!

I'm not suggesting, I'm flat out saying that if someone, anyone was there with a gun other than the killer, many of those lives would have been saved!


I bet you never heard this part of the story!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/38115.htm

THE MISSING GUN

By JOHN R. LOTT, JR.


January 25, 2002 -- ANOTHER school shooting occurred last week and the headlines were everywhere the same, from Australia to Nigeria. This time the shooting occurred at a university, the Appalachian Law School.
As usual, there were calls for more gun control.

====> Yet in this age of "gun-free school zones,"
====> one fact was missing from virtually all ====> the news coverage:

====> The attack was stopped by two students ====> who had guns in their cars.

The fast responses of two male students, Mikael Gross, 34, and Tracy Bridges, 25, undoubtedly saved multiple lives.

Mikael was outside the law school and just returning from lunch when Peter Odighizuwa started his attack. Tracy was in a classroom waiting for class to start.

When the shots rang out, utter chaos erupted. Mikael said, "People were running everywhere. They were jumping behind cars, running out in front of traffic, trying to get away."

Mikael and Tracy did something quite different: Both immediately ran to their cars and got their guns. Mikael had to run about 100 yards to get to his car. Along with Ted Besen (who was unarmed), they approached Peter from different sides.

As Tracy explained it, "I aimed my gun at him, and Peter tossed his gun down. Ted approached Peter, and Peter hit Ted in the jaw. Ted pushed him back and we all jumped on."

What is so remarkable is that out of 280 separate news stories (from a computerized Nexis-Lexis search) in the week after the event, just four stories mentioned that the students who stopped the attack had guns.

Only two local newspapers (the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the Charlotte
Observer) mentioned that the students actually pointed their guns at the attacker.

Much more typical was the scenario described by the Washington Post, where the heroes had simply "helped subdue" the killer. The New York Times noted only that the attacker was "tackled by fellow students."

Most in the media who discussed how the attack was stopped said:
"students overpowered a gunman," "students ended the rampage by tackling him," "the gunman was tackled by four male students before being arrested," or "Students ended the rampage by confronting and then tackling the gunman, who dropped his weapon."

In all, 72, stories described how the attacker was stopped without mentioning that the student heroes had guns.

Unfortunately, the coverage in this case was not unusual. In the other public school shootings where citizens with guns have stopped attacks, rarely do more than one percent of the news stories mention that citizens with guns stopped the attacks.

Many people find it hard to believe that research shows that there are 2 million defensive gun uses each year. After all, if these events were really happening, wouldn't we hear about them on the news? But when was the last time you saw a story on the national evening news (or even the local news) about a citizen using his gun to stop a crime?

This misreporting actually endangers people's lives. By selectively reporting the news and turning a defensive gun use story into one where students merely "overpowered a gunman" the media gives misleading impressions of what works when people are confronted by violence.

Research consistently shows that having a gun is the safest way to respond to any type of criminal attack, especially these multiple victim shootings.

John Lott is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of "More Guns, Less Crime."


The dominant media that wants us to lose our rights and freedoms didn't publicize this story much. But it happened.

We elect our leaders for specific time frames spelled out in our Constitution. Other nations can do whatever they wish. We use the Constitution as our law, and the fundamental basis for all we do.

Who would DARE to set themselves ABOVE God and claim they can dictate what rights humans have? I suppose you think Kings and Queens have this superiority? Or Imams or human judges? What makes ONE man BETTER than another so much so that they can grant rights?

We have free access to healthcare, the access is there..no waiting lists....but you can bet Britain had no free Access to healthcare in 1776, dearie! Or even in 1812! I suppose you think the British granted free healthcare and education to all those real Indians in India? Took real good care of those "rights" huh? The Constitution says nothing about education, but I expect in 1812 Britain wasn't granting free education to citizens either....so why bring it up? Every American has an opportunity for a free education ANYWAY.

I don't have to tell it to the 32 who died or their families. What happened was ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW!!!!!! We already HAVE laws against killing. Guns don't kill, people do.

Your statistics are not credible...so verify them and provide a link to their source.

If you can't use the QUOTE properly, it's difficult to properly respond to your remarks. But it's not difficult at all to figure out that you think we should all disarm ourselves and be sitting ducks for any shooter who comes along. Criminals don't disarm because of laws, but law abiding citizens do. Why would we make a law that makes crime easier?

No Gun Control Law Could Have Prevented The Shootings In Virginia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Could it be that those OTHER countries wanted gun control so the people could not REVOLT against their injudicious rule? The US isn't resigned to failure in anything at all.... Only leftists here are resigned to failure in Iraq...the rest of us aren't resigned to failure. Hitler had gun control....even if the people had wanted to they could not have revolted, because of his gun control. I believe it was one of the first things he did. How clever....he went about deciding who could live and who could die, didn't he.