Another point – who’s to say that Cho would not have caught by the law while trying to purchase an illegal gun? If he had, this whole tragedy may have been avoided, so it’s not as clear cut as many people like to believe.

All these arguments aside, why make it easy for these bastards to get hold of guns? Ten minutes to buy a 9mm handgun. It’s harder in most places to get a driver’s license.

Regards,
Mark M

I am still waiting for more discussion about this, though:

Someone like Mr. Cho could easily go on the black market and get himself a gun.

There lies the main argument against increased gun control. You inconvenience the law-abiding citizens, put a burden upon the system, create more controlling legislation, all in attempt to prevent somebody from getting a gun that can still easily do so on the black market.

If the “bad guys” will always be able to get guns anyway, why should we make it harder for the law-abiding ones?

What you’re saying is true. I live in Australia, and we have tough gun laws, particularly in relation to handguns. Crimes committed with guns are a fraction of the United States, and same it true of Great Britain. Canada, and may European countries.

As you say, the general quality of living in States is very high, and there is much to admired about your country in many ways. Guns laws, however, are an exception – and I don’t understand why the U.S.A wouldn’t want to tackle this issue, and thus become a leader in another area of westeren civilization.

When the Constitution was written, and the Bill of Rights, they never could have envisioned the proliferation of handguns, Mach 10′s, and other assault weapons. I hardly think that was what they had in mind.

Regards,
Mark M

He has even warned us to beware of what he has written as it may be offensive to the world view of some. I did not find it in any way as being problematic to me although I am certain some would disagree. I sincerely hope all involved in this thread will give it a look even if it does trouble them to read it through.

That’s interesting you seem to be able to foretell what all future gun control legislation will and will not do. The American Empire will not go on forever, and one step in its downfall will most likely be a push to restrict guns amongst the citizenry.

Remember, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

The problem is that our society has a bunch of crazed people who also can have access to those same guns you have access to.

What do law abiding citizens have against having their backgrounds checked? If they are law abiding, they’ve got nothing to hide.

Judge Napolitano said it best:

Most Americans don’t want the government to know of their personal behavior; not because we have anything to hide, but because we don’t live in the former East Germany or the old Soviet Union; because government in a free society is supposed to serve the people, not spy on them; because without probable cause, without some demonstrable evidence of some personal criminal behavior, the Constitution declares that our personal lives are none of the government’s business.

Furthermore, we go through background checks all the time, for new employment, and limited for credit.

Ah, yes, but with arming yourself for self-defense we’re talking about rights. You don’t have the right to employment or the right to get a loan, but you do have the right to protect yourself. Very different.

After all, the purpose of a gun is not “defense.” It is designed to kill a living thing.

There’s Orwellian doublespeak if I ever saw it.

I won’t break this fear of yours Connor.

You insist on calling it fear. I call it a wise observation based on historical precedence.

Someone like Mr. Cho could easily go on the black market and get himself a gun.

There lies the main argument against increased gun control. You inconvenience the law-abiding citizens, put a burden upon the system, create more controlling legislation, all in attempt to prevent somebody from getting a gun that can still easily do so on the black market.

the fear you have is that this country will take away your right to own a gun, and your right to protect yourself. Now, this is not true, so I point out that any law abiding citizen is perfectly capable of owning a gun. The problem is that our society has a bunch of crazed people who also can have access to those same guns you have access to. To prevent such horrific incidents from occurring, why not find ways to ensure crazed individuals do not even get close to owning guns? Seems to make sense to me. Now, what are those ways? I think some gun control advocates go too far, and impede on the rights of citizens. However, there has to be a control of some kind. What control was there to ensure Mr. Cho couldn’t get a gun? Well, on the form he filled out (which didn’t require a background check), it states that if he were involuntarily admitted into a psychiatric institution, he cannot own a gun. Well, he of course, lied on the form. Like he really cared if he got caught lying. But because no background check was done, he got a gun when legally he was forbidden to own it. What do law abiding citizens have against having their backgrounds checked? If they are law abiding, they’ve got nothing to hide. Furthermore, we go through background checks all the time, for new employment, and limited for credit. It is something we’ve all accepted as a normal part of our society. So why not for owning guns too? After all, the purpose of a gun is not “defense.” It is designed to kill a living thing. It is designed to shoot off a bullet that has as its intent to penetrate and terminate life. That is the purpose of a gun. Why give those out freely to any who can pay cash?

I won’t break this fear of yours Connor. Like that Gallup Poll showed, people’s views on gun control have basically formed and have not changed at all over the past 20 years or so. So those who are against gun control will continue to be so until the second coming. And heck, maybe even after they will still have a fear of governmental control.

No one is asking law abiding citizens to give up their guns (at least not anyone with political clout). Personally, what I am asking is that we do perform background checks on individuals before handing them guns. Is this going to be perfect? Hardly. Someone like Mr. Cho could easily go on the black market and get himself a gun. But it does choke off the avenues that such individuals have in their quest for murder.

Yes, that’s good to do when you’re in a non-threatening situation like a traffic stop, but when there’s a roomful of students where it’s not just the bad guy who is carrying a firearm when the cop walks in, do you think the cop is going to want to spend a lot of time trying to figure out which one is the good student and which one is the bad one?

Cops are trained to shoot to kill once the gun comes out of the holster. They don’t particularly care who the good guys in the room are if those good guys aren’t wearing a police uniform. All they know is that if somebody in the room has to die today, they’re going to do their level best to make sure that the dead guy isn’t a cop.

If it’s gun-loving, ultra-conservative, preparedness practitioners (read toy soldier Rambo fantasists), I plead guilty. Are you watching the news? The video made by the VA Tech killer?

This kid had complaints made against him by both teachers and students, was ordered by a court into a mental health unit, then went into a shop and bought a 9mm handgun, no questions asked. This is the type of person whose rights you so fervantly preach about protecting, whether you want to admit it or not.

It is very simple, see. You attack me, I attack you. You don’t attack me, I leave you alone. I’d prefer a clean debate, but I will strike back if attacked. I also am not a perfect Christian.

I’ve seen the latest Gallup poll which shows 56% of Americans prefer stricter controls on guns, and that that number has stayed basically the same even through Columbine (though during Columbine the number jumped to 68%). This incident will not change the dynamic of the gun control debate.

I still have not expressed my personal views on gun control. My quibble with Connor, and the only reason I commented on here, was his swipe at “gun control advocates” for supposedly “taking advantage of the tragedy to gain political points,” which is exactly what Connor is doing with this post. If he can take advantage of the tragedy to score his own political points, why can’t others without being attacked? So I figure I’d make it even and attack him. Seems fair to me. :)

Dan and Connor need to take the conversation ( I say this like I am an administrator) to messenger or something…as the issue has been beat to death and clearly either position isn’t swaying.
:P

John, I wasn’t making light of the shooting – I watched the coverage on TV and it made me sick. What I am making light of, is the way the pro-gun nuts jump on these situations. These people don’t care about your rights, and they certainly don’t care about the rights of the victims, they only care about their right to play with their toys when and where they feel like it. Same people who like to play pretend soldier games on the weekend and live out their Rambo fantasies.

Your predjudices are showing. I don’t think that gives you any right to joke around about what happened in Virginia, either. Or maybe I’m just a little afraid to joke about it because I live in the US.

No idea what you’re talking about.

That’s why the police are generally not in favor of average citizens packing heat. It makes their job much easier to be able to assume that the guy with a gun who’s not in a police uniform is the bad guy.

Sure it’s relevant: do you think that he could have caused this much mayhem if he had been restricted to using a knife or some other “non-firearms” type of weapon?

It’s nice to be able to assume that everyone can be trusted to do the right thing with a gun all of the time, but the truth of the matter is that we just can’t.

The goal, it seems to me, is to level the field when it comes to self-protection: you either arm everyone, or you disarm everyone. At this point, I’d just as soon go with option B, because I’m not sure that even the police ought to be trusted with guns most of the time.

As “The Karate Kid’s” Mr. Miyagi would say, “Too much advantage”.

Or, as Joseph Smith said: “We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.”

For too many people, authority comes from the barrel of a gun, and as we have seen, the unrighteous dominion that results can be horrific.

Conner, I would suggest that you spend some time outside the USA, and see the difference in countries with tough gun policies. The one thing I’ve noticed whenever I’ve been in the States is that Americans are the most frightened people I’ve seen anywhere. You fear violence, look for it everywhere, and therefore are much more likely to react violently at the slightest perceived provocation.

Add guns to such an attitude of fear and you get – modern America. Whether guns are the cause of your fears doesn’t really matter. They are most certainly not the solution.

If you think its funny to joke about this situation, I pity you. Shame on you for making light of a real tragic situation.

You fail to consider the fact that a large proportion of the population of the USA is in fact armed, but go and see how many stories can find about someone successfully defending themselves against a gunman with their own firearm – it’s virtually unheard of.

You fail to realize a media industry bias. Just because something is ‘unheard of’ doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

Even highly trained police officers shoot people wrongly; do you really believe civilians carrying firearms are not going to produce them when faced with a heated argument? They do and they will.

Mmmm… sounds like you’re just offering your opinion.

Do they end up killing twenty or thirty people when it happens? Does it happen as often as you seem to think it does? Are the victims completely innocent in these ‘heated’ situations?

Do you think I’m as eager to pull a weapon out if there’s a decent chance my target has one as well?

Check out comment #25, Mark, you may find something you like. :)

People have fists, and they inevitably use them. If they carry a knife, they end up slicing someone.

While you’re apparently seeking to refute my point, you’re only supporting it. Read the post again; you’ll see that I argue that anything can be used as a weapon, so the weapon itself is not the issue.

More guns will make us safe – please!!

Mark, why are you commenting here without even reading the post? Who here has once said that “more guns will make us safe”?

On the other hand, how many legally owned guns are used to shoot innocent people? Plenty of them. Even highly trained police officers shoot people wrongly; do you really believe civilians carrying firearms are not going to produce them when faced with a heated argument? The do and the will.

People have fists, and they inevitably use them. If they carry a knife, they end up slicing someone. If they’re carrying a gun, and pull that out, you’re going to get shot, and even if you have a gun, you won’t have time to pull it out anyway.

More guns will make us safe – please!!