Comments on: Shootings At Va. Tech Spark Gun Debate

Two Experts On Opposite Side of The Spectrum Appeared On "The Early Show" To Talk About Gun Policy

[guysdigdirt]

I don't think we need to ban handguns, but its ridiculous that semiautomatic weapons are legal. If you're just defending yourself you don't need to shoot that fast.

And why don't we have registration and licensing at gun shows?
Posted by TheTruth2001
-------------------------------------------
Do you understand what semi-automaic is? If not semi-auto then i would have to reload the gun after each shot.

Gun shows are not different than buying from a lic. gun dealer. The media and anti-gun lobby want you to think it is different, but it is not.

[guysdigdirt]

1. I own a six shot revolver handgun primarily for use in the most extreme circumstances, eg to prevent someone who has forced their way into my house from hurting my family before the police arrive.
2. In my humble opinion one cannot help but believe that the statistics are REAL that show lowered gun deaths in countries with stiff laws prohibiting handgun ownership.
3. The constitution never envisioned the firepower that one person can own under the right to bear arms.
4. I read it takes 20 minutes to buy a gun of this magnitude in VA. How can anyone think that this is right and proper?

Posted by Dogband
-----------------------------------
1- If you wait for the police to arrive youa re at the mercy of the criminal willingly.
2- Different countries have different cultures and it is not a good comparison. Look at the US. Washington Dc- all guns banned, highest crime and murder rate. Arizona, you can carry a gun unconcealed without a permit, low crime rate. Taht is a more REALISTIC statistic.
3- I do not think we should try and impose our interpritations on the Constitution, it is just not a good path to start down. We do not know what they knew or that it matters.
4- If the proper checks are done, no it does not matter how long it takes. Would a weeks wait have changed this crime, no- he bought the gun in March.

[guysdigdirt]

Is there any legal object, purchasable by anyone, that can be so easily carried to almost anywhere, that can do so much damage so quickly? I can't think of any.
Posted by Dogband
-----------------------------------

Think Timothy McVeigh.

Yes, his bomb was bigger than he could carry, but smaller sizes, able to be carried by a man easily, could have killed more people more quickly than a gun.

[rongee11]

Infidel_ US wants to know: Any gun owners care to suggest a nice pistol with a good size clip...like a 9mm?
Hey, that Glock M19 is a good choice. 15 rd mag. Practically indestructable. No worries with this.

[booyaw_77]

I'm invented a bullet proof force field.

[guysdigdirt]

What a strange comment...your love of guns is certainly disturbing...a fascination with guns and firearms is one of the warning signs to look for in perpetrators of this kind of violence.

Personally, I don't give a rat's hairy butt whether you want to own guns or not...but I don't want them to be easily obtainable, and I certainly don't want people carrying them around concealed- there are just too many angry people and dim bulbs out there.
Posted by finn2056
--------------------------------------------

I disagree, you see his love of owning a gun to be derainged, i see it as one who knows his rights are being stripped away slowly but surely and will not stand for it.

All rats aside, you are wrong about the concealed weapon opinion too. Statistics have proven that when concealed carry increases, crime decreases. Look at those states who have allowed concealed carry, their crime before nad after. Now look at Arizona, you can carry openly and crime is very low.

[guysdigdirt]

In an ideal world guns would not exist. Thus no-one would be killed by one (or the person holding one). This is the only way that such a horrible incident could be 100% avoided.
Posted by USBrit
-------------------------------------
Wrong. That would not be a perfect world and guns are a great source of sport, and are used to protect and save many more people than they harm. You will not read that in the media as they want to capture your dime with doom and gloom.

Even if guns were not available, if the desire to kill is there, a means will be found. Many more people have been killed by a crazie without a gun than with.

[mikealford3]

The only thing we need to BAN is criminals.

Although I am on the side of Mrs. Hupp and firmly support my freedom to have firearms, I don't think she did a very good job of supporting her point. Perhaps CBS will allow me the opportunity next time. Sadly there is nothing about this tragedy that is lawful. A foreign national was allowed to purchace a weapon, not legal. He was also allowed to purchase a second gun within a few weeks and clips for those weapons that exceed most state's regulations, not legal. He then carried these handguns onto a college campus, not legal. Then he murdered 32 people which is certainly not legal. Obviously this person did not care if his weapons were legal. This terrorist was obviously intent on hurting/killing people. He could have just as easily made a bomb or run people over with his car.

[mcmustang2]

This is an interesting match up for a debate. How about getting the president of the NRA to debate the president of the Brady Center? I'm sure the NRA would love to have been invited to this debate.

[mcmustang2]

Tragedies like the Virginia Tech shootings cannot be prevented but they can be mitigated by trained good guys with guns.