Comments on: Virginia Tech Killer Used Easy-To-Get Guns

CBS News: Shooter Used Pistol, Handgun In State With No Registration, Gun-Waiting Period

Add a Comment See all 696 Comments
by gunownerdan April 17, 2007 8:33 PM EDT
"There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been saved if the people had not been 'brainwashed' about gun ownership and they had been well armed. Hitler's thugs and goons were not very brave when confronted by a gun. Gun haters always want to forget the WarsawGhetto uprising, which is a perfect example of how a ragtag, half starved group of Jews took up 10 handguns and made ***** out of the Nazi's."
- Theodore Haas, former prisoner of the infamous Dachau prisoner concentration camp
http://www.a-human-right.com/effective.html
Reply to this comment
by txgolfer51 April 17, 2007 8:32 PM EDT
The thought of a bunch of 19 and 20 year olds walking around with guns DOES NOT give me comfort. I think we'd end up with even more tragedies. Even the most responsible individuals have some irresponsible moments.
Posted by whatithink at 04:50 PM : Apr 17, 2007

I guess you hate the military too then?
Reply to this comment
by charlesdjohn April 17, 2007 8:32 PM EDT
Iceman,

My children use and operate REAL, LOADED, FULLY FUNCTIONAL FIREARMS!

I haven't been locked up yet!

In fact the local Fish and Wildlife Law Enforcement encourage this type of activity!

Did I mention that my youngest children are 9 years old. They also have a legal hunting license!
Reply to this comment
by jimibear April 17, 2007 8:31 PM EDT
"George Bush can't ride a bicycle without injuring himself, so bicycles must also be banned."

No, George Bush should be banned.


"Life involves risk; those who refuse to accept an overcome that fact must be constantly terrified since we never know when something really bad might happen."

That is true. However, that doesn't mean that we need to make deadly toys available just for the asking to every lunatic with the buying price of a handgun. You aren't dealing in logic.

"Gun control advocates are hysterics and arguing emotions. Emotional arguments are a very poor basis for legislation."

Actually, no. I have been posting facts and figures in support of my position all along. Where are yours? Blind dependence on 225-year-old legislation is a poor basis for allowing people to continue dying needlessly.
Reply to this comment
by tuckerndfw April 17, 2007 8:31 PM EDT
Tucker, all you have to do is scroll back through the posts to see that both I and other posters have shot those arguments down over and over.

Posted by jimibear at 05:23 PM : Apr 17, 2007

If you seriously believe I am going to read 66 pages of comments, you are seriously deluded.

Since you have "shot it down" so many times, maybe you could copy and paste it to your word processor so you can paste it as a reply.

Firearms and drugs may be different, but the affect of laws is not. Prohibitng certain drugs has not affected those drugs at all. A result we could expect with firearms restrictions.

You cannot "shoot down" (refute) that argument since it is a fact.
Reply to this comment
by iceman_1960 April 17, 2007 8:31 PM EDT
"Question for the gun ban crowd:

Exactly how are you going to remove all the guns in the world or even the U.S.?"
Posted by CharlesDJohn at 05:28 PM : Apr 17, 2007

Let the Vice President answer that one.

"No question it's an extremely difficult mission, but just because something is difficult, doesn't mean we shouldn't do it." - D*ick Cheney
Reply to this comment
by rheola-2009 April 17, 2007 8:31 PM EDT
Tuckerndfw & Gunownerdan

Am still anxiously awaiting an answer.

Or is it in the Pigs might fly category.
Reply to this comment
by mitywhity April 17, 2007 8:30 PM EDT
Now the invention of the supermarket shopping cart rendered guns obsolete for that purpose.
Posted by Iceman_1960

For you maybe, but I refuse to be a Teamster strike away from starvation pal! I figured you were a tick on the dog like most liberals are - incapable of fulfilling their own independence. I fish and hunt to fill a freezer and raise a garden as well. Are my garden tools and fish hooks going to confiscated as well? To quote Hank Williams, Jr. - "a country boy can survive" And yes, my "tool of providence" (guns) are capable of snuffing out a criminal if need be. I have a favorite old single-shot .20 guage shotgun that was used to defend a 70 year-old man from three armed assailants who broke into his home. This was their second break-in and they had roughed him up the first time. However,they mercifully "pitied" him this time and forced him to sit on his couch while these ghetto-trash females looted his house. As they were leaving he had pulled the shotgun from beneath the cushions and with a "You forgot this!" he fired a blast into the upper arm of a nappy-headed ho. She was found unconscious across the street and lost her arm - what a pity. After this, the word spread through the projects down the road and old Mr. John was NEVER BOTHERED AGAIN! I will give this gun to my kids and the story of old John along with it. Don't be a victim!
Reply to this comment
by cbse3 April 17, 2007 8:30 PM EDT
jimibear'
you are sounding more and more like IQ idiot.
Your common sense is being chocked off by your your anal sphinter.It's the deffective person, not the gun.
Reply to this comment
by iceman_1960 April 17, 2007 8:29 PM EDT
"George Bush can't ride a bicycle without injuring himself, so bicycles must also be banned."

Isn't that a good reason NOT to ban them ?
Reply to this comment
by gunownerdan April 17, 2007 8:28 PM EDT
Iceman 1960, you say guns are only good for killing. What about the millions of hunters who rely on their guns for safe food? What about the secret service who use full automatic machine guns to protect the president and other leaders? What about the thousands of people who participate in target shooting competitions? What about the thousands of police officers, security guards, and military troops who rely on their guns every day for their own safety? What about the nearly 2 MILLION defensive uses of guns each year by citizens?
If these millions of responsible people were defenseless and unarmed society would be destroyed in no time.
Reply to this comment
by charlesdjohn April 17, 2007 8:28 PM EDT
Question for the gun ban crowd:

Exactly how are you going to remove all the guns in the world or even the U.S.?
Reply to this comment
by iceman_1960 April 17, 2007 8:27 PM EDT
"Cars have other uses besides killing."

It starts to sound like John Stossel's swimming pool analogy -- that homes with swimming pools are 100 times more dangerous for children than homes with guns.

A specious point in the extreme.

Parents with swimming pools encourage their children to use them. That's often why they live in homes with swimming pools.

Parents who encourage their children to play with loaded guns are locked up.
Reply to this comment
by jimibear April 17, 2007 8:27 PM EDT
"people kill people gun dont kill people wake up look at the ausies ask them about crime were did it go .
Posted by wdgliude at 05:12 PM : Apr 17, 2007
+ report abuse"

OK, I'll ask the Aussies, with their drastically reduced rates of gun crime since stricter laws were brought in.

By the way, how's that "English as a 25th Language" course going?
Reply to this comment
by tuckerndfw April 17, 2007 8:26 PM EDT
Bring back horseriding as transportation !

Very safe (pace, Christopher Reeves), and the horses, instead of polluting, help fertilize the soil.

If it was good eneough for George Washington, it's good enough for me.

Posted by Iceman_1960 at 05:16 PM : Apr 17, 2007

In the interest of consistency, the government must ban all potentially hazardous activities, so that would prohibit riding horses, mules, donkeys, pigs, dogs, or bicycles.

George Bush can't ride a bicycle without injuring himself, so bicycles must also be banned.

Life involves risk; those who refuse to accept an overcome that fact must be constantly terrified since we never know when something really bad might happen.

Gun control advocates are hysterics and arguing emotions. Emotional arguments are a very poor basis for legislation.
Reply to this comment
by iceman_1960 April 17, 2007 8:24 PM EDT
Cars have other uses besides killing.
Reply to this comment
by jimibear April 17, 2007 8:23 PM EDT
"For you gun control advocates, explain how prohibiting the use, sale or production has affected the use, sale or production of "illegal drugs."

And, then explain why you conclude laws restricting firearms would be more effective than "drug laws."

Attempting to restrict firearms ownership is a severe over reaction from people, who, for the most part, live in urban areas where cars are a much greater threat to them than firearms.

But, we don't hear them demanding severe restrictions on automobile ownership.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 05:17 PM : Apr 17, 2007
+ report abuse"

Tucker, all you have to do is scroll back through the posts to see that both I and other posters have shot those arguments down over and over.

Drugs and cars are not guns, they are not the same, and making a connection is a fallacious argument. Please read back, as I am getting tired of repeating myself, as I am sure are other people.
Reply to this comment
by tuckerndfw April 17, 2007 8:21 PM EDT
Posted by rheola at 05:14 PM : Apr 17, 2007

Your "question" is a "straw man argument" based on a hypothetical that cannot be answered.

How do you know you won't become suicidal while on your way to the grocery store?

Perhaps we should eliminate all automobiles since we never know when a person might become so affected by insanity or other incapacity that he decides to run over people at a bus stop or other public waiting area. (as has happened many, many times)
Reply to this comment
by gunownerdan April 17, 2007 8:20 PM EDT
People who are in the military and members of law enforcement also suffer mental illness. Even NASA pilots can have mental illness. So please, what's your point rheola?
Reply to this comment
by jimibear April 17, 2007 8:20 PM EDT
"News Flash: Making guns harder to obtain only affects people who do so legally. Criminals will obtain firearms by whatever means necessary, mostly through illegal channels. This means introducing new gun legislation will take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, while the number of criminals with guns rises. Of course there's more to it than that, but that pretty much sums it up.
Posted by vester49 at 05:12 PM : Apr 17, 2007
+ report abuse"

Vester, newsflash for you: the facts don't bear you out. See my earlier posts, and the rates of gun crime in countries with strict gun control vs. the US.

YOu are stating the same argument other gun advocates here have done, and it simply doesn't hold water when you look at the facts and figures. The majority of gun crimes in this country are committed by legal gun owners with their legally registered guns. The majority of crimes committed by others are either with guns stolen from legal owners, or with guns purchased fraudulently (with or without the seller's cooperation) from legal gun dealers.

Get rid of legal guns, and you get rid of the majority of guns out there. You cut off the main source of guns for criminals. You reduce gun crime.

It's worked in other countries all over the world.
Reply to this comment
See all 696 Comments
  • MOST POPULAR
Latest News
News in Pictures
Scroll Left Scroll Right
Connect with CBS News

Stay connected with the CBS News using your favorite social networks and online news applications: