« Tommy Thompson Apologizes For Accusing Jews of Earning Money | Main | Edwards Campaign Blowing Fortune on Haircuts »

Virginia Tech reports shooting (multiple)

Larry Pratt says that, "Moonbats just don't get it." But they do. They disarm people to make it easier to control and tax them. They don't care if there are a few multiple-shootings along the way.

Trust your Government. Big Brother WILL PROTECT YOU!

Guess Who's Coming to the Funerals

The vultures of cable news go on 24 hour spin cycle when something like happens. Out come the talking heads - out come the self proclaimed experts blaming everything from violent video games to violent movies to racism (the shooter was asian) to the War in Iraq (ok, I havent heard this one yet, but Im sure some moonbat will mention it). Then there is all the Monday morning quarterbacking of the schools administrations action - geeze people, the bodies arent even cold yet - theres plenty of time for 2nd guessing later. if 2 people each dies in 16 seperate indicidents across the country, it doesnt make news, but when they all die in a large group it does - are the single and double deaths any less significant? If this were part of a terrorist attack it would merit 24/7 wall to wall coverage, but this just doesnt. Cant they just wait for the answers to their questions rather than asking it a million times over and over and over again? I mean really people... Im sure Don Imus is glad something pushed him out of the news.

This incident should be compared to the U. Texas sniper of some 40 years ago. At that time, students took rifles from their car trunks and helped police shoot down the sniper. Individual and collective self-defense are concepts which most of the media have forgotten.

chsw

Had students and profs been allowed to carry concealed weapons, many more people would be alive today. Period. Instead, the idiot, socialist European press and our own have attacked the gun lobby for this murderous act. This world and those in power are satanic. Big Brother can't protect us and furthermore, it doesn't WANT to protect us. Agendas prevail, not what's right and what makes sense. With that said, I'm headed for the gunshop.

Anon...a poster at HuffPo has already blamed Iraq for the shootings. Also, folks at Dem Underground are angry that George and Laura Bush are daring to go to a ceremony to remember those who were killed. Details at Right Wing News:

http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/04/how_do_you_blame_bush_for_the.php

And V the K, it's absolutely repulsive that those insufferable losers should dare to show their faces at the funerals of innocent students caught up in this madness.

The NYT is already screaming for stricter gun control. Never mind that criminals will simply ignore this as they ignore other laws regarding theft, rape, etc...

Has any nutbag blamed the TV series "24" yet? In the opening episode of (season)Day 6, an asian suicide bombed climbed onto a bus a blew himself up.

What a difference 40 years makes (or maybe it's Virginia vs Texas) - when Charles Whitman shot up Austin from the UT Tower, many students fired back!

From Wikipedia entry on Charles Whitman:

Once Whitman began facing return gunfire from the authorities, he used the waterspouts on each side of the tower as turrets, which allowed him to continue shooting while largely protected from the gunfire below, which had grown to include civilians who had brought out their personal firearms to assist police.

Guys if you're going to start placing blame for this terrible tragedy then you can't exactly criticise others for doing the same thing! I think a lot of people will find the glorification of guns at this time - when 33 people have just been killed by firearms - as highly insensitive.

But seeing as you've started, I'll give my two cents. I think the statistics speak for themselves. In 2005/6, there were only 50 - 50! - homicides committed with firearms in England and Wales, compared with about 12,000 in the USA in 2000. This Wikipedia article discusses the statistics in the two countries - note the UK has a far lower level of homicides per 100,000 people, and also of the people murdered only 6.6% were as a result of firearms, compared with 70% in the USA.

The strict gun control laws that now exist in the UK are the response to events similar to yesterday's horrifying tragedy, most notably the Dunblane massacre in 1996 where 16 primary school children and a teacher were killed by a lone gunman.

I'm not one to frequently quote the vociferously right-wing Daily Mail, but I think today's front page headline puts it into perspective: "What price the right to bear arms?"

HOW about what price the destruction of our right to self defence?

Mark, those stats are impressive but they don't tell the story.

In my father's generation, (he's in his eighties), it was common for boys to carry rifles to school so that they could squirrel/rabbit hunt afterwards. There was no thought of murder. Crime was low. Why is that? Because "back then", this country (and yours) was CHRISTIAN. Lack of God-fearing accounts for most murders, be they by gun or other means. Also, knowing that half your fellow men are carrying arms puts a huge damper on the itch to murder large numbers of people. But since we can't and shouldn't force God on citizens, we must resort to policy, right? Thugs will always find arms no matter what the law says. But allowing citizens to conceal firearms in a public place is by far the best solution. It's very unpopular but nonetheless, true. BTW, I really don't appreciate the PM of Australia butting in on this issue either. He has problems of his own and needs to shut up and deal with those.

>>I'm not one to frequently quote the vociferously right-wing Daily Mail, but I think today's front page headline puts it into perspective: "What price the right to bear arms?"

Wow, talk about being an arrogant jackass. What the hell gives you, or anyone else, the power to take away my right to defend myself? You don't wanna own a gun, fine, that is your choice. I, however, do not want to end up as a murder statistic if some scumbag decides to break into my house and knife me.

The right to defend oneself is UNIVERSAL. Otherwise, evolution would not have hardwired us with a 'fight or flight' response.

British citizens dont have guns? Thats why so many muzzies have gone there (same for Europistan) - when they decide to make Britain an Islamic nation, the takeover will be easy. A few cops with goofy hats and clubs arent going to stop it either. Things like this happen every few years, what else is new? This nut at VT wasnt even American.

Mark, comparing the UK with the whole of the United States is, shall we say, a little bit specious. Obtuse, perhaps. A better comparison is between us and a single state, for example Florida, or New York. Or Texas perhaps. Similar populations, but wide differences in gun law. I don't have the stats to hand since thy're quite hard to come by, but I believe New York - with the strongest gun control laws - tops the stats by a wide margin.

You also spoke of actual murders, but you didn't mention the use of guns in crime. Gun crime is rising rapidly in this country and it's only a matter of time before the murder rate catches up. I know this because I see it. There are regular gun-fights in parts of Greater Manchester late of an evening but they're simply ignored by the police, who don't want the hassle of paperwork. The media ignores them for their own reasons - probably because they don't hear about it most of the time.

Basically the statistics are a pile of shit.

Mate - I live in Birmingham (UK) so you don't need to tell me about gun crime in Britain! Yes we have gun crime problems, but just look at those statistics. Our problems are no where near as severe as those in the US. There must be a reason for that.

I don't think it is reasonable to compare the UK with one city or state in the USA, for fairly obvious reasons I think: guns can be brought across state / city borders with hardly any problem, whereas the UK obviously shares a land border only with Ireland which has similarly tough gun laws. So, for example, if people are banned from possessing guns in DC, but not in Virginia (as is the case), then DC will still suffer the effects of the guns being illegally brought over from Virginia. Therefore the only way to compare firearms homicide rates in the US with the UK IS by taking the whole nation. Lax gun laws in Virginia will have an effect on other parts of the US - particularly cities, because more people and wealth are concentrated there. Criminals will buy guns in parts of the US where they are more readily available and use them in places where they can earn the most money. It's not rocket science...

Anonymous - erm, what can I say... There are armed response units, you know - just in case those crazy 'muzzies' start trying to 'take over' our country... what a joker.

BRL - yeah in case you didn't notice this is a forum for expression of views, not a place where people can take away your rights. You didn't really answer the Mail's question either to be honest. In exchange for the deaths of 12,000 Americans every year, you get:
- a (I would argue false) sense of security;
- to satisfy your belief (I would say paranoia) that the State is going to come round and take away all your freedoms.
Do you think that's a reasonable exchange? Because I don't, but you know, we can disagree.

By the way, in the UK you're allowed to defend yourself, too - the term is 'reasonable force' - which in practice, if your life is at risk, can involve killing your attacker.

mark, don't you mean that Britan shares a land border with SCOTLAND? Also, you have to consider the fact that the United States shares borders that are HUNDREDS of miles long with TWO countries, that alone makes it diffrent from the United Kingdom, which is surrounded by water. Then there is the fact that England is about the size of Tennesee and has a MUCH smaller population: 60,609,153 (July 2006 est. CIA world factbook).

Let me say something once again: the American people have "the right to KEEP and bear arms". Get it right, people.

There is one point about the reporting of this tragedy that I cannot stand: the SOB was NOT "a shooter", he was "a MURDERER". The incident was not "a shooting", it was "MASS MURDER". Let's use the proper terminology, OK?

Well Scotland is part of Britain... And the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (to quote the name in full) has a land border between the province of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

The statistics for Scotland are slightly higher than those in England and Wales as far as I remember. They're given separately because (due to devolution), Scotland has different procedures, laws, etc. than England and Wales. Wales and England have slight differences in areas such as Health but not on Home Affairs as far as I know, so they're lumped together. The Wikipedia article cites statistics per 100,000 and so takes account of the difference in population between England/Wales and the US.

Still, the diffrences between the UK and the United States are too great to compare. But there is one thing you don't take into account: VERY FEW criminals LEGALLY buy guns, they STEAL them, sometimes from the POLICE and the MILLITARY. The murdering SOB wasn't an American citizen, so there was NO WAY in hell he could have bought his guns LEGALLY. So more gun laws (20,000 and counting) wouldn't do a thing, nor would gun bans help as you admit that criminals in England get guns in spite of bans going back almost a century.

Try cleaning up the EU's act before you start acting oh, so superior to us Americanos, mark.

- a (I would argue false) sense of security;>>

BS. Out and out utter bs. Its not a false sense of security. I know perfectly well how to use a firearm (having 8 yrs of Civil War reenacting under my belt) as well as into what situations you can legally inject lethal force.

>

Right, and Ray Nagin's kleptocracy in New Orleans didn't attempt to disarm the citizens of that city during a disaster. Try again.

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=198836

>

There would be far fewer deaths if more people took their 2nd Amendment rights to heart and our idiot politicians didn't do their damnedest to disarm us. Unlike that twit Rosie O'Donnel, I can't afford a bodyguard who is trained and licensed to use lethal force.

"On behalf of VT's educrats, spokesman Larry Hincker expressed delight when the bill failed:

"'I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions, because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.'"

Were this dolt a human being, Mr. Hincker would be apologizing profusely today for his idiocy. No doubt because he is a liberal, he will find some way to weasel out of his obviously (to anyone with an IQ greater than a bowling ball) foolish remarks, by blaming Bush, the "gun culture" of America (yes, folks, guns do not exist anywhere else on Earth except America!), the war on Islamofascism, video games -- everywhere but where the blame truly belongs: on the POS who decided to take weapons onto an unarmed campus and shoot people to death (and who gives a crap about his "reasons"?).

"We must have more gun control," the libs will now scream (have already, before we even knew who the murderer was). One person nearby with a permitted concealed weapon, who knew how to use it, could have saved 31 lives (#32, that murdering SOB, can roast in Hell for all I care), but no, we need MORE "gun control."

Mr. Hincker, you must be very proud of yourself today, having helped in disarming the VT campus, and in effect having facilitated every one of these murders.

P.S. -- Loved the comments on "rotten" America from the Brits on this comment board. Hilarious! Best get your collective act together real soon, guys, or you're bound to become Great Britainistan, or the Islamic Republic of England, or whatever else your new bosses will want to call their latest caliphate. Hope you enjoy your new lives under sharia law; we over here, on the other side of the pond, will do what we can to avoid that fate, however, and that includes the continuing right to "keep and bear arms." Been nice knowin' ya.

jc14 - I didn't say America is rotten at all; I think it's a great country in many respects. I admire the Bill of Rights and wish we had similar codified protections here in the UK, and the West Wing and the Daily Show are two of my favourite shows. I admire your institutions and many of your politicians, and the great optimism and friendliness of so many Americans I've met both in the States and abroad. It kind of irritates me that I have to say that though - that anyone who is critical of any aspect of the policy of current administrations is instantly decried as an America-hater.

As for the argument that "one person with a concealed weapon could have saved 31 [sic] lives" - well counter-factuals are almost always useless because they can't be proven either way. What I would say though is that I think that might have reduced the scale of this incident, but there would still have been several deaths along the way... And campus shootings would have been more frequent because everyone had a gun in their room, and so confrontations would have had much greater propensity to quickly escalate to the point of people being killed.

BRL - the reason why I would argue that it's a false sense of security is for this reason: in the short run, having a gun in your house which you can should people with is beneficial to you in terms of security. However, in the long run, the fact that many more people (including those trying to get into your house) have guns makes you substantially less safe.

KHarn - wrong. As a permanent US resident with no criminal convictions, he was able to legally buy a gun from a gun shop. On secondary (i.e., second hand or private) gun sales (and at gun shows), you don't even need to do a background check in Virginia.

When a similar maniac tried to shoot up the Appalachian School of Law some years ago, he was stopped by another student... who had a legal handgun in his possession.

So, it's not a hypothetical. Handguns in the possession of law-abiding people save lives, and would have saved lives at Virginia Tech had its administration not pursued a policy of disarming students and staff.

I didn't say it was a hypothetical. I said: "I think that might have reduced the scale of this incident, but there would still have been several deaths along the way... And campus shootings would have been more frequent because everyone had a gun in their room, and so confrontations would have had much greater propensity to quickly escalate to the point of people being killed."

Oh, and another point regarding the 9mm Glock this guy used. Until the federal assault weapons ban was allowed to expire in 2004, magazines were limited to 10 rounds. Since 2004, however, there is no limit, and you can now buy high-capacity magazines, up to about 30 rounds for the Glock. Why would anyone ever need to have a gun which can shoot off that many rounds without reloading for self defence?

>

God, are you friggin dense? The only thing it did was make the higher capacity magazines MORE EXPENSIVE. The gun manufacturers mass produced them out the ying-yang before the ban went into effect.

>

What in the bloody frag does that have to do with that psychopath killing 33 people? He could easily have bought 3+ magazines.

>>However, in the long run, the fact that many more people (including those trying to get into your house) have guns makes you substantially less safe.

Brilliant. Where the f&ck do you think that scumbag is getting his gun? 9 times out of 10, its NOT through a legally registered method. He's getting it from his gang-banger friend, that got it from his South American drug-dealer friends, who in turn got them from an arms market.

I, who've had to go through the background procedure EVERY TIME I purchased a firearm, am supposed to lose my constitutional right to defend myself because some a$$hole banger broke a host of laws before trying to attack me? What about if he had a bowie knife? Am I supposed to be manly and CHARGE him and attempt to wrestle the knife from him instead of plugging him full of lead (which would be far safer for me in the exchange)?

>>>KHarn - wrong. As a permanent US resident with no criminal convictions, he was able to legally buy a gun from a gun shop. On secondary (i.e., second hand or private) gun sales (and at gun shows), you don't even need to do a background check in Virginia.

You know nothing about American gun laws. Both Virginia and Florida required background checks YEARS BEFORE the National Rifle Association DEMANDED THAT Congress insert that requirement into the "Brady Bill". Sara Brady (who had lobbied for the bill) WITHDREW her support when that happened, saying that the background check RUINED the bill which was origonaly just a five-day waiting period.

Once more, with feeling...

Virginia gun laws

Secondary Sales
Are background checks required on 'private' gun sales? NO

Gun Show Checks
Are background checks required at gun shows? NO

From the Brady Campaign? They lied about a lot of stuff.

But let's look at some other problems: Virginia Tech was a GUN FREE ZONE, the b*****d was NOT LICENSED TO CARRY A CONCEILED WEAPON and MURDER IS AGAINST THE LAW.
So why didn't these THREE LAWS stop the son of a b***h? Do you really think that ANOTHER law would have made the slightest bit of diffrence?