Comments on: Why The NRA Gets Its Way

Organization's Political Power Means Calls For Gun Control Will Likely Go Unheard

[pakaal]

mtatrose wrote: "Do you suppose this knowledge would have cause the gunman to rethink his options?"

Or on the other hand would it have caused Cho to buy explosives rather than handguns and blown up the whole building, causing even more deaths?

As I noted before, it's a hypothetical question, with so many variables, it can easily be spun the other way.

[mikealford3]

noaanhc

Have you ever heard the phrase, "taking a knife to a gun fight"? Just how are those without guns going to kill those of us with guns in order to pry them from our cold dead hands? Just another point based on your statement, guns are not the only way to kill someone.

[pakaal]

Griezz wrote: "The question should be "How many people could have been saved if one of the other people in the building had had a weapon and killed the lunatic before he killed 32 others?"

That's a hypothetical, and kind of meaningless. Someone could just as easily say "How many people would have been killed over the years if all 26,000 people on campus had weapons and shot each other?"

[rheola-2009]

Lilvinnyb

I understand this person had a previous psychiatric problem on record, if that is so, in the more mature [gun wise] nations, he would have not been able to procure a gun.
If that had been the case in America, then most of those 32 victims would at the worst still be alive.

[mtatrose-2009]

I suppose that this point will be ridiculed, but just suppose there were no policies preventing responsible students from exercising their rights to keep and bear arms. Let us further suppose that the miniscule amount of collage students who have not been further brainwashed by their public school educations to have total disdain for firearms chose to exercise this right, and it was a well known fact they did.

Do you suppose this knowledge would have cause the gunman to rethink his options? And if not, do you not think that this armed student body could not have put a quicker, less deadlier end to this tragic ordeal? My money is on yes to both questions!

[pakaal]

lilvinnyb wrote "background check was clean"

You mean when Cho didn't incriminate himself by checking the checkbox on the form that asks about "prior hospitalization" for mental health issues? True enough. Asking someone with a felony background or mental health issues to voluntarily admit it is a bit naive in my opinion. I personally have no idea what use those questions are. They sure didn't help in this case.

[lilvinnyb]

Hey Griezz a couple of points:

1. Militias were made up of the "people", not "the government".

2. I refuse to believe that the same government which just fought a war against a tyrannical King who gave orders to confiscate the weapons of the colonists (which precipitated the revolution) would turn around and say that only "the government" can have firearms.

[pakaal]

"But then, 66% to 32% were AGAINST any law banning handgun ownership by Citizens. Also, by 53% to 43%, Americans favored enforcing EXISTING laws"

Posted by veteran71

Thanks for actually checking, sir! When we get pulled by the extremes ("ban all guns" or "arm everyone") any hope of rational conversation goes out the window. One fact I didn't know until today is that the "background check" is to a great degree self-enforced, that is, a person is required to state on the form if he/she has ever been a felon, or hospitalized for psychiatric reasons, and that person is then deemed ineligible to purchase a gun. Cho simply didn't put the checkmark in the checkbox, and walked out with the weapon. This gets into privacy issues, but it seems like the risk to the public should outweigh privacy issues in this situation.

Of course I also think folks should be retested for a driver's license over the age of 65 too, so there ya go. ;-)

[noaanhc]

Someday all you gun nuts,someday,it may many more decades,but someday We The People who want to have a less violent nation will prevail and we will have tougher gun laws and will have the honor of prying your guns away from you and to paraphrase Mr Hestons famous words:

FROM YOUR COLD DEAD HANDS

[lilvinnyb]

This is my 3rd post on this subject and i'm STILL waiting to hear what kind of gun control would have prevented this tragedy?

Its obvious this thing was being planned for a while....5 day waiting period was useless. He had no criminal record....background check was clean. Banning 15 round magazines.....he had 320 rounds of ammo in the car and the 22 did not carry 15 rounds. He could have committed the same crime with a 6 shot 38 and speed loaders.

[pakaal]

sclaires wrote: "I get the news from London, England daily and there are just as many murders per capita there as there are here."

England (pop 60,609,000+) had a grand total of 765 homicides in 2005/2006, while the US (pop 298,444,000 ) had 17,879 homicides, which boils down to England 1.2, US 5.5. We're far above England per capita in homicide rates.

[griezz]

There are two comments that I have regarding the Virginia Tech murders, the comments on gun control, and the power of the NRA.

My first point is this: Whenever people talk about the constitutional amendment regarding firearms, they usually seem to develop a bit of amensia. The amendment actually starts reads "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

What often gets left out is "well REGULATED militia". That means that the founders had to have intended that there be some management or control of armed citizens, not that they intended to be free to do whatever they wanted with guns. In addition, I still can't beleive that the founders would have had the same opinion about the amendment had they knew that weapons would be developed which could kill hundreds of people within seconds.

On the other hand, from a totally different viewpoint, I imagine that the NRA's reaction to possible gun control measures would be something like the following:


The question shouldn't be "how did this individual get a weapon to kill all those people?"

The question should be "How many people could have been saved if one of the other people in the building had had a weapon and killed the lunatic before he killed 32 others?"

[ottumwaiowa1]

Right on rm2013. When will it stop?

[rheola-2009]

ttinsly

Yours of 10:11pm

One of the most sensible postings today, pity more can not see it as clearly as do you.

[gunctrlyes]

sclaires,

Why can't the news media do some stories on the non-criminals who own guns??

What would you have the news media present? Somebody with a gun in their nightstand saying how they've never had a chance to use their gun.

TV is laced with positive gun media. It's called sporting/hungting shows.

[rheola-2009]

Sclaires

In point of fact the number of gun related deaths in England are so far behind those of the U.S. there is no comparison.
Again using per capita comparison to make the American figures a realistic comparison.

A similar situation exists throughout the majority of Europe.

[gunctrlyes]

Maybe I am. Why don't you help me out with that definition.

YOU REALLY ARE DUMB AS DIRT...!

TRY LOOKING THE DEFINITION FOR

''' THE PEOPLE '''

[pakaal]

sclaires wrote: "Knives, vehicles, ice picks, and just about anything else can be and has been used to commit murder."

Yeah, humans may very well be doomed to keep killing each other forever, but you'd be hard pressed to equate a guy with a knife with a guy with a gun. I think it has something to do with the ease in which a gun can kill so many, in such a short time. And BTW, "gun control" doesn't mean "outlawing guns", it means figuring out how we can tighten restrictions on how weapons are bought.

[sclaires]

I get the news from London, England daily and there are just as many murders per capita there as there are here. Between knives and other type instruments, they have just about daily murders. It is the criminals over there that use guns for various shootings. The law binding citizens have their weapons, i.e., guns & rifles, for hunting and this is with strick gun controls. I hate to see that the various news media here in the United States blame guns, rifles, shotguns for every murder that happens here. That isn't necessarily the case by any means. All the talk about gun control because guns of all types are weapons and are used in murders doesn't mean that guns should be outlawed. Knives, vehicles, ice picks, and just about anything else can be and has been used to commit murder. So, why aren't they outlawed?? There are a lot of people who have guns and they are used legally. It is the ones who use guns to commit crimes that get the headlines. Why can't the news media do some stories on the non-criminals who own guns?? I bet you will get a different perspective on guns then!!

[pakaal]

BTW, none of the polls on the site link I pasted are from today - just so we're clear I'm not referencing today's "response" polls that would undoubtedly be skewed due to this tragedy.