Dear Sirs - if it would be of help to you and Scottish readers to understand a little more of this town and university from a Scottish perspective, I am available to help. Born and bred in Edinburgh I moved here in 1997 to start my teaching career. I have been in Blacksburg for 10 years. I'm assuming you can track my email address, but if you can't and want to contact me please try a secondary email of mine: cbaker@mcps.mail.org

Colin Baker
History teacher
Blacksburg, Virginia

There will, as we have already observed, be a great deal of santamonious lecuring by we UK citizens, Europeans and others to the US on the matter of private ownership of firearms. Fair enough.

Perhaps it will be of note, though, to consider that the Glock was an Austrian-made pistol.

The point is, if one examines any recent copy of any 'gun' magazine in the US, even the NRA's 'American Rifleman', one will observe that almost all of the firearms, especially handguns, are manufactured in countries in which the same items could not be bought or owned by the general public.

It does appear (to me) to be a bit hypocritical for persons outside the US, especially from countries who export firearms into the US, to lecture the US on its gun laws. What do you think?

It would seem that the consistent approach that such countries should take would be the say that if the firearms cannot be owned by citizens of their country thern they should not be exported elsewhere just to make a few Euros.

But that, of course, would involve paying the price in lost jobs and lost exports ..... something Europeans in particular cannot tolerate.

This is very tragic and no words can tell the sadness and hurt we all feel. Yes, my flag is going to fly at half mast tomorrow morning, I just read it here. I will tell you straight that I am a licenced to carry a weapon and do have one. Do I carry it, no but I like shooting. The ban on the number of cartridges one can load should not have been allowed to expire and yes, I do support ban on assult weaponsl. The average citizen has no use of one. I hunt and have two rifles, a shotgun and a pistol. I use my black powder rifle for deer. The shotgun for small game and the pistol for target shooting. Before any wants more gun control laws stop and think, there are so many laws that I don't think anyone really knows what they are.
When I bought my pistol in Pennsylvania it worked like this. First I went to the sheriff's office for a permit. They took my life history, picture and fingerprints. Then I had to wait a couple of weeks(they say three days) while they ran a check on me with the local, county and state police and also with the FBI. Then I took the license down and chose a pistol, put a down payment and then had to wait until they checked to see if my permit was legal.
From what I read Virginia must be very laxed with their laws and a great tragedy happened. I read where he wrote two horrible stories. If so that alone should have disqualified him. I will not as a gun owner make any excuses. I will say that more gun control isn't the answer. The answer lays in how the character of the younger generation has degenerated. I started shooting when I was nine years old and when we went to school there was never a thought of carrying any kind of weapon. I truely think that we should take a real good look at the morals and character of the present generation, or should I say lack of them.
I cannot express how sadden I am by this and there is no way I could express my feelings.

#2. Conan, Here

correct, of course - but theres a lot of money wrapped up in the arms trade, just like the oil market.. and ethics go right out the window just as in everything else when it comes to money,

Remember the bofors scandal of the 1980s involving good ol' neutral Sweden & India ...

Quote : “CHO Seung-Hui walked into a gun shop five weeks ago, paid the £285 bill by credit card and walked out with a Glock 19 handgun and a box of ammunition”
In USA buying guns and ammunition is as easy as buying apples or oranges. Therefore we must expect such inhuman attacks. This open market along with Hollywood can create an ideal environment for shooting with fire guns and killing innocent people.

This is off track and politically incorrect, but melt them, dump them, outlaw them; do anything to curb the availlability of guns. It would be a good idea to clean up these mindless video games that glorify killing (as entertainment?). It is brainwashing our youth, and taking a toll on sanity as well as safety. Professors don't help with their left-wing agendas either.

#6- Bob, I agree with the burning of violent video games, along with the gangsta rap & very violent movies. However, the US has gangs, the black market, knives, and some of us have bears and coyotes in the neighborhood-So guns are still essential for some. Besides, no guns used in the OK city bombing or on 9/11.

#5-Faramars, It's not that easy in every state to buy a gun legally.

American
It is necessary for US to pass a federal law applicable in all of the states bannig the fire guns .

#8 Faramars, it could be said that gun-ownership and the right to bear arms is part of the American psyche.

I think Mr. Mauser made a point when he was quoted in the article talking about anger. It is terrible that this young man went to this breaking point, and it's tragic that so many suffered for it.

As to his choice of weapon, as #7 mentioned, guns are not always used. Not to sound morbid, but he could well enough have created a homemade bomb made from every day items purchased at the local store...he was probably intelligent enough to do the research on how to make such a thing. I'm no psychologist, but when a person is so focused with the intent to kill, they will find a way, regardless.

Conan @ #2 is quite right, it is not for us to lecture a Nation who apparently feel very protective of their `right to bear arms'. If handguns are so easily obtained, as is widely reported in this tragic case, then deranged gunmen/women will continue to take other innocent people with them when they chose to end their own pointless and futile lives. We should not really expect anything different here in the UK as the culture towards handguns is entirely different, particularly after the Dunblane shootings. The situation is not about to change, until such time as the people want it to change by restricting the sale of handguns to those with mental problems. My own thought on the matter is, what possible use can you find for a glock handgun and oversize ammo magazine, other than to pop off the odd tin can in your back garden and kill people with?

lanna
please answer this questions :
why a young student should be allowed to purchase two fire guns and enough ammunation while we know that the normal use of these tools is killing ?if there was a ban on guns and CHO Seung-Hui was not able to buy guns , could he kill 33 persons so easily ? your reasoning indicates that tanks , mortars and mines should be sold in shops because when there is no ontention to kill these tools are safe

The headline couldnt be any clearer.
It just says it all.

2

What a load of mince. It the law of supply and demand. the demand is greater in the US so thats where they are sold.
If there was no demand for these weapons the manufacturers would go out of business.
Thats why they dont make muskets any more.
And the number 1 top dog in arms sales globally is the good ol USA.

"It was a very unremarkable sale," said Mr Markell, who did not handle the sale personally. "He was a nice, clean-cut college kid. We won't sell a gun if we have any idea that a purchase is suspicious."

So if criminals and sociopaths can avoid looking suspicious and creepy in gun shops in Virginia you could walk away with your own little arsenal of weapons. The fact that you have walked in and asked for a Glock automatic pistol with ammo the preferred weapon of choice for murder used extensively throughout the US in gandland and other criminal killings isnt enough to set of the alarm bells.
Just what would constitute a suspicious purchase of a gun in the US?

"Just what would constitute a suspicious purchase of a gun in the US?"

Having a Scotish accent perhaps ?

15
Your confusing gun shops with liquor stores.

just goes to prove what a sick society they live in.

Oh, get over it!!! Thousands of people every year are killed on the roads. Let's ban cars. Hundreds of people every year are killed doing DIY. Let's ban B&Q, Home Depot, Homecare, etc.

As a Scot who alternates between rural VA and here in Scotland, it always embarrasses me just how naive people in the UK are when it comes to guns.

Handguns were outlawed here (mistakenly I think) after Dunblane and gun crime has NOT gone away. In fact, outlawed guns are now exclusively in the hands of the outlaws.

The Americans have a wee bit written in their constitution about the right to bear arms (but it's all about making it easy to raise a functional malitia rather than the rubbish Charlton Heston spews forth). Don't forget we in the UK don't even have a constitution so our American cousins don't have it all wrong, huh?

Any angry young man who is driven to go out in a blaze of glory (that's usually what it's all about anyway) and unable to get his hands on a gun because they are banned could just as easily build a back-pack bomb. Oh, OK, let's ban hairdressing products and garden fertilizers now. Maybe we should just shoot all potential angry young men at the first sign of them being a wee bit whacko.

Of course, you could argue it's all those violent TV programmes and video/computer games that cause it, so let's ban those, too.

Don't get me wrong. What happened at VT was a tragedy but a gun ban won't solve anything so you better get over it ASAP because there WILL be another no matter what legislation is passed (or left as it is for that matter).

18

There is nothing more frustrating than reading the same old arguements and points made already during these debates and repeated by late commers to the debate. All of the points and statements you have made have already been made on other blogs and have been shot down (excuse the pun) in detail
I really cant be arsed to go through it all again.
Please go back and read some of the previous blogs which will answer the points you have made.

This tragedy is all the more accute because we know it won't be the last.

I'm sorry for the community at VT, but it will happen again, somewhere else in leafy middle USA and will keep happening until they change their gun laws. I can't understand the argument that if everyone carried a gun they could've 'taken him down'; that sort of retrospective action still requires for a loon to draw his gun and shoot.

No guns, reduced chance of this sort of crime. The blame has to sit with the government, whether it's State or Federal (not sure how this is handled).

Until then, we just sit and wait for this sick record tally to be beaten.

I believe that the second amendment 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".

This amendment is historical and clearly pre-dates the US standing army, not to mention the FBI, police, state troopers, US marshalls, etc., all of whom are heavily armed.

It is interesting that the US gun lobby only ever quotes the latter part of the 2nd. amendment. Also, given the amount of armed protection available via the army, police etc., it is surprising that no attempt to repeal the 2nd. amendment has yet been successful.

Surely tighter gun controls would make such tragedies less likely.

I am sick of reading after every incident of a similar nature,and in whatever country that it happens, the views mainly from those with a vested interest in the firearms industry pontificating about the right to continue to allow free access to firearms, until such a time that legislation is passed in every country, forbidding every outlet from supplying these firearms and banning every gun club from using them then these massacres and atrocities willl continue to occur. it has less to do with the freedom of the individual as keeping the majority safe from the lunitic fringe.

In India the constitution permits every citizen the right to possess guns but guns are not as widespread as they are elsewhere in the world. Guns are damn expensive to buy and police has every record of the buyer or user. Besides not everyone is trained to operate a gun or pistol, so using arms recklessly is ruled out. Everytime there's an election, the police seizes guns from the citisens and returns them only after teh results. This shows how guns are regulated in India. May be if this can serve as a lesson to others, nothing better than this.

Every time I read tripe such as Zanzo is writing I'm amazed all over again at the sheer breathtaking stupidity of the human race.
If you have guns, you have gun crime. Simple as that. Guns have NO use other than to terrorize, maim and kill (and PLEASE don't anybody repeat yesterday's inanity about being a "fashion accessory")
Licensing doesn't help - the only sensible law about granting gun licenses would read something on the lines of "anyone who wants to carry a gun isn't a suitable person to be allowed to do so."
Ban them, completely, other than to the police and armed forces.
Declare an amnesty, collect and destroy every gun that can be found.
Each gun off the streets is one less to do damage.

Yes, people will still kill with knives and cricket bats, but there will be far, far fewer deaths, because it is just so much harder to do so.
You cannot hold hostage and kill 32 people with a cricket bat.

And there is no similarity with death by car accident and death by shooting. Cars have a legiitimate purpose.
Guns don't.

26

Switzerland is only second to the US in gun crime and over double the percentage of the 3rd in line.
That fact alone speaks volumes.

22. Ex-pat., Surrey.# spells it out.

From a European point of view, the USA is in this respect stuck in a timewarp. At the time when the Second Amendment was enacted, a gentleman wore a sword, and perhaps pistols, almost in the same way as a man might wear a tie today.

Given the history of the country, it's understandable that this right should have persisted. What is, however, utterly inexcusable is that, in many states, it should be so much easier to obtain small-scale WMDs in any amounts over the counter than to get a driving licence.

Cars are dangerous weapons in the wrong hands. Generally speaking, however, one has the impression when driving in the US that the roads are very thoroughly policed. But when it comes to the buying and use of weapons suitable only for mass murder, anything goes.

That is lax to the point of barbarity.

27 29

Again all of these good points have been brought out on earlier blogs but the pro gun lobbie completely ignores them and comes back with the same innane arguments like those posted at 18.
I even had a debate yesterday about aids being used as a weapon and if you ban guns why not aids? unbelievable but true.
Its just deja vue from yesterday.
Has anybody got anything new to add?

28. Boyce# What you write about Switzerland is very much to the point, in that the reason why the Swiss have so many weapons is that they are all army reservists called upon to renew their military training at regular intervals. The situation's very much like that for which the Second Amendment was designed; yet, despite army discipline and arms training - unlike the chaotic free-for-all in America - the fact of so many weapons in so many households makes for so many unnecessary deaths.

In general today, the arms industry and the merchants of death are a curse upon the world. If dreadful crimes can be committed by masses armed with machetes or spears, how much worse those committed by the uniformed banditry one now finds everywhere in the planet.

Re: 28

Boyce, can you tell me where these stats are quoted?

The UK has some of the most draconian firearms legislation in the World yet we still manages to have an epidemic of juvenile and gang related firearms crime. Some of the the worst firearms abuse has been been witnessed by the over enthusiastic use of Police held small arms. Most of the illegal weapons involved come in from Eastern Europe and the Balcans and are drug related. The State shows the same inability to control such weapons as it has with proscribed drugs over the last 40 years.
At least in in Virginia Cho is likely to face the Ultimate penalty, not as here- a couple of year in a Young Offenders Institution!

32

yes mate on the internet. just type in Switzerland gun crime or switzerland gun control or switzerland gun. I posted the full stats yesterday on another blog and I just cant be arsed to go over it all again.
I got a bit worn out yesterday dealing with all the yeehah rednecks.

33

The main difference is because of our draconian gun laws we are at the bottom or damn near the bottom of the international gun kill list.
And that is No coincidence.

32 MJB

Just for you mate here is a copy and paste from yesterday I took from a page on the internet.

55

Myth: Switzerland proves that high gun-ownership doesn't increase murder.

Fact: Switzerland also has strict gun control laws.

Summary

Switzerland has compulsory gun ownership for military age males, yet it has a far lower murder rate than the U.S. But Switzerland also has far stricter gun control laws. Even so, Switzerland has the second highest rate of handgun ownership and handgun murders in the industrialized world, after the U.S.

Argument

Switzerland is frequently cited as an example of a country with high gun ownership and a low murder rate. However, Switzerland also has a high degree of gun control, and actually makes a better argument for gun regulation than gun liberalization.

Switzerland keeps only a small standing army, and relies much more heavily on its militia system for national defense. This means that most able-bodied civilian men of military age keep weapons at home in case of a national emergency. These weapons are fully automatic, military assault rifles, and by law they must be kept locked up. Their issue of 72 rounds of ammunition must be sealed, and it is strictly accounted for. This complicates their use for criminal purposes, in that they are difficult to conceal, and their use will be eventually discovered by the authorities.

As for civilian weapons, the cantons (states) issue licenses for handgun purchases on a "must issue" basis. Most, but not all, cantons require handgun registration. Any ammunition bought on the private market is also registered. Ammunition can be bought unregistered at government subsidized shooting ranges, but, by law, one must use all the ammunition at the range. (Unfortunately, this law is not really enforced, and gives Swiss gun owners a way to collect unregistered ammunition.) Because so many people own rifles, there is no

#33 "an epidemic of juvenile and gang related firearms crime"
What epidemic? You've been reading too many headlines in the press, chum, where "epidemic" means two in a year.
The UK has amongst the lowest "deaths by firearm" rate in the world BECAUSE we have tight gun control. But it needs to be tighter yet, and maybe we could get right to the bottom.

If there were no guns, then neither juveniles nor gangs nor psychopaths nor drunks nor anybody else could commit gun crimes.

Abuse of firearms by the police? Again, way down the list. BECAUSE the police very, very rarely use firearms. Have a look at the position in countries where the police are armed, THEN talk about abuse of firearms by the police.

I repeat, no guns, no gun crime..
Ban the, round them up, destroy them.

Actually here is something more up to date and more graphic.

SOURCE
Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)DEFINITION
Total recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence. Per capita figures expressed per 1,000 population.Crime Statistics > Murders with firearms (per capita) by country
VIEW DATA: Totals Per capita
Definition Source Printable version

Bar Graph Map Correlations

Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 South Africa: 0.719782 per 1,000 people
#2 Colombia: 0.509801 per 1,000 people
#3 Thailand: 0.312093 per 1,000 people
#4 Zimbabwe: 0.0491736 per 1,000 people
#5 Mexico: 0.0337938 per 1,000 people
#6 Belarus: 0.0321359 per 1,000 people
#7 Costa Rica: 0.0313745 per 1,000 people
#8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
#9 Uruguay: 0.0245902 per 1,000 people
#10 Lithuania: 0.0230748 per 1,000 people
#11 Slovakia: 0.021543 per 1,000 people
#12 Czech Republic: 0.0207988 per 1,000 people
#13 Estonia: 0.0157539 per 1,000 people
#14 Latvia: 0.0131004 per 1,000 people
#15 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of: 0.0127139 per 1,000 people
#16 Bulgaria: 0.00845638 per 1,000 people
#17 Portugal: 0.00795003 per 1,000 people
#18 Slovenia: 0.00596718 per 1,000 people
#19 Switzerland: 0.00534117 per 1,000 people
#20 Canada: 0.00502972 per 1,000 people
#21 Germany: 0.00465844 per 1,000 people
#22 Moldova:

Every country boy/hunter knows for large game in close quarters, it's hard to beat a sawed off shot gun with buckshot. Then switch to the pistols. It could have been worse. I wonder if he stopped due to exhaustion of his ammo clips. BTW CNN keeps mixing up the labels. The larger/more viscious looking gun is actually the .22 cal (not a good choice, surprised at the fatality rate, multiple rounds/student?). The more plain looking gun is the Glock 9mm (model 17 or 19), a much more "effective" round.

Well, even with all our legislation and one or two 'holier than thou' comments, we still managed a Dunblane didn't we ... and isn't the UK one of the worlds foremost arms exporters?

It's sad but I have no doubt this butchery will be exceeded given time. All I do know for sure is I would hold my hands up to not having an answer to this one. It would seem the main difference between the UK and the States is that over there you buy a gun in a shop .... over here you go to a pub.

I haven't read every post here, but I don't know that anyone has touched on WHY the US has the gun laws it has.

The American founding fathers, after the Revolutionary War, felt that the best way to prevent the rise of a tyrannical government was to have an armed populace. It was to a large extent armed farmers and other citizens who formed the "Minutemen" that fought and won American freedom. James Madison wrote that an armed populace would keep its government from attempting to usurp power, and that if the countries of Europe at the time--most of whom were ruled by ruthless monarchs--had allowed its own citizens to arm themselves, all of the tyrannical governments of the time would have been overthrown in short order. I'm not sure they were wrong.

That does mean that situations like this can arise, but overall an armed populace actually is a deterrent to crime. While the violent crime rate in the U.S. has been steadily DEcreasing even with the expiration on the assault weapons ban and with more and more states allowing people to carry concealed weapons, the violent crime rates here in the UK have been INcreasing since handguns were outlawed.

Let's not look at one instance of an armed lunatic. Let's understand the philosophical underpinnings of the debate and the long-term numbers. And surprisingly enough, the long-term numbers seem to be supporting the American position.

#22 and 29. You have good points but we are not in a time warp. The second amendment is there to protect the constitution. Any government can go bad and with a large armed force and police could possibly evolve into a dictatorship. We citizens have the last word and that is why the amendment is there. It is not easy to purchase a weapon here legally, see my post #3. Also in this state if you purchased that much ammunition, you wouldn't get it but would be reported to the police. Putting the gun issue aside, what happened in Va. that is how I read it not Vt. is a tragedy and it has saddened the whole world. One cannot really express the sadiness in their hearts but we feel it.

For those of you that are trying to seize this opportunity to speak out against guns in the US....

Stop sounding like you are talking for the masses, you are not. The needs of a few irrational like you do not speak for the masses. This is a time for mourning, not your wacko liberal agenda.

**************************************

And for those outside the US that start out with your sympathies and then end your comment with a stupid comment against Bush or Guns, you are sick and have a one track mind.

******************************

For those of you that are truly expressing your sympathies, that you very much.

why pontificate about looking for weapons of mass destruction when they sell them so willingly at home.

inScotland we can't be smug.go into most toy shops and you will see plenty of toy guns for sale.Dunblane.......how quickly people forget.How insensitive we are.

We already have over four thousand gun related laws here in the States, including federal, state and local.
Those of you who publish the need for new laws perhaps were unaware of this fact.
I own three long guns and 3 hand guns (pistols) and have a state regulated CCW(carry concealed weapon).
The requirements to obtain this permit required a waiting period of a month while I was checked out with the FBI, State police and local police.
We have a more dangerous weapon here in the State. It is called a automobile. More people are killed by stupid, drunk or road rage drivers than all the gun related deaths.
While even one death by any means is too many, until mankind finds a way to educate the masses in common sense there will be incidents like this one.

45

Snappy relevant comback please stay and give us more of your wisdom.

46

I am sure you are right you will one day have to be forced to give up your firearms after one massacre too many. Wonder when that will be and how many more deaths it will take?
And I doubt very much that you are representative of most Americans.

I have come to this thread from another thread. What is clear to me is that Americans are a totally alien culture, with next to nothing in common with us or the rest of Europe.

"I have long guns" "I have 10 guns", why is it that anyone needs more than one gun? Yet to the majority of American posters on these threads, that is perfectly acceptable, and if you dont like it, your a liberal.

There seems to be an unwillingness to give up guns, cos there are so many of them about, it just isnt safe.

Jings.

And #41 - an armed populace is a deterrant to crime? I must respect your views, and you must respect the fact that I think your view, with respect, is nonsense. Would the fact that everyone in Glasgow was carrying a gun actually prevent murders on a Saturday night? Have a word with yourself.

11. Faramars, I'm not ignoring you, but I'm out the door for my 12hour shift and have no internet access...perhaps another time.

48

David did you read the article. This young guy didnt wait a month for the FBI to check him out he went straight down to a shop and bought a Glock auto handgun and ammo with a credit card.

#50--yes, an armed populace is a deterrent to crime. Perhaps you have murders on Saturday night in Glasgow is because the bad guys with the guns know that the good guys are unarmed.

Several years ago some researchers questioned men in prison and asked them how they decided who to rob and who to leave alone. To a man they said they looked for those who looked helpless. If they thought the potential victim was armed or could defend him- or herself, they moved on to someone else.

These prisoners also said that they feared an armed civilian far more than they feared the police.

You'll also notice that the places in the US with the highest crime rates are those cities with the strictest gun laws.

I'm thinking maybe it's best to have a word with YOURself.

Buying a handgun in the US is not quite so easy as the story makes it appear. No firearm is sold until the purchaser has passed a criminal background check. This is done by computer and does not take a long time. I have seen a very heated discussion in a gun shop when the buyer was turned away because he did not pass the background check.

But we need to be clear about one thing: a Glock did not kill those students. A man did. An evil, disturbed man. The London bombers did not use firearms, but were able to kill many innocent lives nonetheless.

Could Cho have been identified and stopped earlier? Perhaps, but in the US, you can't just lock people up because they are introverted or depressed. And it seems that teachers tried to get him into counselling, but he did not want to go.

Would banning guns have prevented such a tragedy? Cocaine is presently banned in the US, but people who want it seem to have no problem buying it. Gun control legislation was pioneered in the UK in the 1920's to prevent the IRA from obtaining guns. And we all know what a stunning success that was.

Should we again ban high capacity magazines? This guy must have fired off at least 150 rounds. He must have had a lot of magazines with him., because reloading a high capacity magazine is a slow and laborious process. A Glock is sold with two magazines. High capacity or not, two magazines would not have caused this carnage. If Cho went in with a load of extra magazines in his backpack, as he must have done, reducing the capacity is countered by carrying more magazines.

Do we post armed guards in every classroom. That would have stopped the killing. If anyone else in that classroom had been armed, it could have been stopped. There was a small scale school shooting in the US several years ago that was stopped by an assistant principal who kept a pistol in his car. The shooting started. He retrieved his pistol and stopped the shooter. But I suspect that Americans will

Gosh, reading these posts makes me wonder if somehow the "Scotsman" forum is piped into the US's loony bins as some sort of therapy.

It's too scary to imagine that the bulk of US citizens think (if that's the correct verb here) like these people posting here; but if they don't, you have to wonder when they are going to decide that all these TOTALLY AVOIDABLE deaths are too, too many.

What sort of thought processes motivate people who find it necessary to have one gun, far less 6 of the things as #48 boasts (what are you intending, to start a war?) are way beyond my comprehension.

And as for #43, "wacko??" for NOT wanting to reduce one's fellow man to his component atoms? Is this truly the American definition of the word? And I always thought "liberal" was a compliment, a generally good thing to be.

But there you go, chilling stuff. Makes you glad that there are 3,000 miles of ocean between the UK and the US!

#53, Criminals always prey on the weakest and helpless, but that is no reason for everyone to carry a gun. It is a reason to improve policing, fight poverty, distribute wealth, eradicate drugs and generally improve society.

I am at peace with the fact that I want to turn my country into a better place, not give everyone a '44 and turn them all into Dirty Harry.

If everyone had guns in Glasgow on a Sturday night it would be a bloodbath, until everyone was afraid to go out, except for the very well armed, perhaps in armoured 4x4s.

Not for me, thanks.

Three things:

1) The Virginia Tech campus already has a total ban on firearms, so "banning" them demonstrably did not work. You can't have a ban any more comprehensive than the one already in place.

2) The idea that a Glock is only useful to terrorize and murder is rubbish. The vast majority of people who carry Glocks (I am one) do so for defensive purposes, not offensive ones. The difference between defense and offense is so simple it pains me to have to point it out to adults.

3) There's a reason why mass shootings happen at schools instead of police stations. At schools, nobody can shoot back. Prof Gary Kleck, a criminologist from the University of Chicago, demonstrated conclusively that permitting law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons is the most effective way to prevent mass public shootings. (Spare me the emotion-based incredulity.) For those who have enough intellectual honesty to face a different point of view, read "More Guns, Less Crime" if you want facts to replace emotions.

53

These prisoners also said that they feared an armed civilian far more than they feared the police.

So does everybody else!
you dont have to be a criminal to be the victim of an armed civilian.
How many criminals died in the University campus the other day? how many criminals died in Columbine School? how many in the Amish School?

54
And yet in spite of all that here we are with a young sociopath gunning down 32 students with a auto handgun he bought in a shop with a credit card.
The 2 kids at Columbine didnt even have to buy their weapons they just used their parents legally aquired weapons which just happened to be lying around at home.
Would banning guns have prevented such a tragedy
It would have lessened the chances by a country mile. Why do you insist on making it so easy for them to commit these murders?

#53 and #41 an armed populace a deterrant to crime?
You'd be happy to see the punters on the streets of Glasgow totin' six guns? You somehow believe that this would reduce crime and shootings, accidental and deliberate?

You just HAVE to be kidding.

LOOK at the figures - look how many people in the US die every year from homicides and from accidental shootings. NONE of this would happen if there were no guns.

Turkey has the same problem, and the number of accidents alone with guns is reason enough to ban them totally. They too have strict licensing requirements, but the license doesn't protect you from a bullet. Every week in life there are horrifying tragedies where people are shot; youngsters getting hold of Daddy's pump-action shotgun, it goes off and five of the neighbours are dead before anyone manages to get it off them; idiots firing guns in the streets and hitting innocent people by accident; not to mention deliberate murders, suicides and robberies.

Allow our people guns, and you'd have the same problem - and crime worse than ever.

No guns, no gun crime..
Ban the things, collect them up, and destroy them..

#56, Im sorry, but from what you say we dont have a middle ground. You seem to be saying that everyone you meet in Europe is some sort of pinko, who does not understand democracy. Europe is home to some very old Democratic Republics, so I think that is a tad unfair. I am a history buff and respect the collector. However the collection of historical weapons is not what is at issue here.
I do think your reference to Serfdom is a tad arrogant, if you will forgive me, given the survival of slavery in several of your states for some considerable time, even Jefferson - "all men are created equal" owned slaves. Also, although there may not be a titled aristocracy in America, you cannot deny that your society has created its own elite, to "lord" it over the country.
Like I say, when it seemed there was a coup in America with the Republicans in the last but one election, I didnt see the Militia taking over.
In Britain, and in Europe, we are no strangers to armed invasions, indeed, more violently and more recently than was ever the case in the USAbut that is not put forward as areason to be armed now. And as for the Indians.....come on , please?
However, peace to you and I hope your son appreciates and treasures your collection, especially the Peacemaker - it sounds like a fabulous peace of history.

56

That was fine then but now you have a very highly trained well armed army and police force to deal with criminals and external threats. thats what they are paid for that is what they are trained for.
Again I repeat a civilian population armed with small arms is not going to be able to take on a hostile government force armed with WMDs Artillary tanks and aircraft. Your second amendment was written when everybody both civilian and Military were armed at best with cannon and musket.
Youre argument just doesnt hold water anymore and neither does your second amendment.

This is a perfect example of socialist thinking: individual citizens can't be trusted to do things for themselves. The government must provide health care, retirement plans, protection from the bad guys. You make for a weak society when you expect the government to do things for you that you could do for yourself.

You obviously have a very low opinion of Glaswegians if you think simply allowing them to own guns would turn them into blood-thirsty killers.

What you may not realize is that putting a gun into a person's hand does not turn that person into Dirty Harry. It turns that person into a deterrent. Millions of Americans (and citizens of many other countries, by the way) own guys and use them responsibly--often to stop crimes. If an armed person breaks into your house, the police will arrive in time to put you in a body bag and carry you away. If you have a weapon, the odds of that happening drop considerably.

What you also fail to realize--and this is yet another grand example of socialist thinking (didn't you pay attention to what life was like in the USSR?)--is this: "...improve policing, fight poverty, distribute wealth, eradicate drugs..." Police will always arrive after the fact, poverty will always be with us, redistributing wealth is a disinsentive to work hard and never works (again, look to the USSR and Communist Europe), everyone has been trying to eradicate drugs for over a century, and I don't see it happening anytime soon. While you're working on all of those things, let me defend myself from the thugs of the world.

No wonder our government has become to powerful and stifling. If I can't trust my fellow citizens to act responsibly and take care of themselves, I must ask the government to do it.

61

Now youre just being a tosser have you run out of decent arguments already?

#60--no guns, no gun crime.

So then we have no gun crime here in the UK then?

#58 so your Glock isn't intended to terrorize? Don't tell me- another "fashion accessory"?
Defense?? If your country wasn't stuffed with gung ho gun totin' morons, you wouldn't feel the need to "defend yourself".
Never ask yourself how the rest of the world manages?
I don't even KNOW anybody in the UK, or anywhere else in Europe (communists that we all are) who feels the need to carry a gun.
Or are you like #56, who imagines he needs to protect himself against the "Indians and the bad guys"? Or to stop himself having to call anybody "lord or lady"? (By the way, #56 do you know what "anachronistic" means? Or did you mean "anarchistic"?)

And golly, there's #58 wanting to arm the schoolchildren too now, for pity's sake.

If this is an example of American thinking, you're quite correct - I don't understand it.

66

We have gun crime cos theres guns here couldnt have it if we didnt.

#58, I doubt I would be able to distinguish between a bullet fired offensively and one fired defensively as it tore through my flesh. Dont get your argument there, old boy. Is there a defensive glock and an offensive glock? dont think so.

Yes, more guns is the answer? There is another thread today where I have posted at length on that argument. Which is why I have come to the conclusion that Americans are utterly alien. I would rather reduce the number of guns and address the social issues that create violence and crime, but then thats the HARD way.

I agree with your point 1 tho. Why have a gun free zone when everyone outside the zone can carry two glocks? No good, urm, unless the gun free zone was extended maybe?

#66 "#60-no guns, no gun crime.
So then we have no gun crime here in the UK then?"

Do pay attention. We do : we still have guns, so we still have gun crime.
However we have FEW guns, so we have FEW gun crimes - we're near the bottom of the list.

SO if we had NO guns, we would have NO gun crime.

#64, ok, take it you wont be voting in our democratic elections, you will be putting on your cape and waiting for the Bat Signal?

I dont think Glaswegians are blood thirsty killers. It could be anywhere in Scotland. A few drinks are consumed, a frank exchange of views, a scuffle, and a t worst a knifing. BAD ENOUGH. Alternatively, in your Utopia, a scuffle, and Blam Blam, a bloodbath. Holding any weapon can turn anyone into a killer.

You just dont get it. Because Criminals can get guns does not mean that we should all carry them. That is giving in to chaos and then anarchy. Just because I want to find a better way does not make me weak or a commie.

70

That point has been hammered home today and yesterday about a dozen times its not that they dont understand its that they dont want to acknowledge its the truth. They would rather live in self deceipt if it allows them to hang onto their wee guns like a child with a security blanket.
Their arguments will just get more bizarre as the day wears on as they run up against the wall of logic and reason.

Could someone in the UK please explain to me why the police now carry handguns and body armour?

#67 Wow, Nell, you managed to read my relatively simple post and respond with no fewer than six non-sequiturs. I guess they don't teach logic in Scottish schools any more than they do in ours. Since there may be people out there who actually care about discussing the topic logically though, I'll respond for their sakes.

1) My weapon is not a "fashion accessory." I'm not sure where you picked up that phrase in connection with handguns, but it certainly wasn't from me. Anyway, like most people who carry in the US (and most people don't, by the way), it's not visible. So much for "fashion."

2) The fact that you feel the need to resort to name-calling reveals the fact that even you understand you have a weak argument. To answer your comment though, the answer is still, "Yes." Every country, even yours, has men with evil in their hearts. I'm just not naive enough to believe that laws that disarm the good guys make anyone safer.

3) I don't have to wonder about how the rest of the world manages: I actually know. The single greatest man-made killer in the 20th Century is government. Genocide kills FAR more people than armed law-abiding citizens, yet there is not a single historical case of genocide occurring against a group that was well-armed. Not one.

4) Just because you don't know anyone who fits that description is meaningless. I personally don't know anyone who snorts cocaine, but I believe such people exist. Also, I take it that you don't know a single soldier or police officer, because they carry guns. By the way, I didn't say anything about Europeans being communists, either.

5) You deliberately mis-characterized "Reading Public" and then attributed that mis-characterization to me.

6) I did not advocate arming school children with firearms. At US schools we have people called "adults."

73

That point has also been addressed at least 3 or 4 times in the last couple of days already.

74

Only special police groups in the UK carry firearms and only to specific incidents they are called out to in the same way as your swat teams.
The local bobbie on the beat is only armed with a nightstick, pepper spray, and in some cases in some areas with tazers.

#74, actually, the jacket the bobby on the beat wears is known as a Stab Jacket. For knives. One of your chaps teflon coated high velocity "Cop Killers" would cut right through it.

75

1 If your weapon is not visible how is it a deterent to a criminal who may decide to attack you?
and how will it help if your attacked by somebody who also carries a gun and is going to use his first?
2. How does your second amendment guarantee only good guys are allowed to be armed?
3. Are you actually living in fear of genocide within the USA and if so why are you still living there?

6.So you want to arm School teachers why stop there? why not nurses and doctors? how about nuns and priests? waitresses? office workers?
Now theres a country worth living in eh?

#69.
At last, a reasoned argument! Thank you, and I'll respond in kind. The difference is that a "defensive" bullet would not tear through your flesh in the first place, because a defensive bullet would not ever be fired EXCEPT IN DEFENSE.
It's not that a Glock is offensive or defensive, it's the purpose that is is offensive or defensive. My purpose for carrying is defensive.
I agree that it would be preferable to live in a world where people don't do bad things to each other, but while I'm waiting for Utopia to arrive, I choose to take responsibility for the safety of myself and family. If that makes me "alien" to some people, I can live with that.
I'm sure you have posted elsewhere about the ratio of guns to crime, but unless someone who advocates what we call "victim disarmament' can explain why mass shootings never occur at police stations as being due to anything other than the fact that all the potential victims are armed, I'm just not buying into the argument that deliberately rendering people helpless is a good idea.

#79, and if I am standing idly by, minding my own business, when this offensive, defensive exchange occurs? If I am hit, will it matter to me whether the bullet is fired in offence or defence?

The problem is you guys have guns and dont want to give them up because you fear the consequences.

I sympathise, as I have said earlier, solving this problem is going to be diificult. But I remain convinced that arming everyone is not the answer.

Sometimes we have to stand up for what we believe is right in our society, without relying on a gun, as, say, Ghandi would have done.

#78
Good questions. Answers to each follow:

1a) My weapon is not an individual deterrent. The fact that law-abiding citizens in the some jurisdictions carry weapons is a general deterrent within those jurisdictions (obviously not applicable to jurisdictions where that is prohibited, like the Virginia Tech campus.)

1b) If my assailant also has a weapon, he may or may not "win" the engagement. A defensive pistol is not a magic wand, but that hardly renders it generally useless. Seatbelts don't prevent death in all car crashes, either, but I wear mine anyway because it increases my odds.

2) It doesn't. It just makes sure the good guys are not the only ones disarmed.

3) I'm not living in fear of genocide in the US. And as long as Americans are armed, I will never be worried about genocide in the US. Remember that some of the most advanced and civilized countries in history resorted to genocide within living memory.

6) Perhaps I should have been more specific: I'm not saying anybody should be required to be armed, but if a teacher (and I used to be one), or a nun, or a doctor, or anyone else chooses to be armed, I have no problem with that. It's their life, and since I can't guarantee that I can defend them, I'm don't want to be responsible for telling them they may not defend themselves.

79

you carry your gun for defensive purposes is that right? against who somebody else with a gun who is going to use it offensively first? or somebody who doesnt have a gun which is going to make you a criminal and possibly a murderer.
Taking responsiblity for the safety of your family includes keeping a lethal weapon where any member of your family can get a hold of it and shoot either themselves or somebody else.
Mass shootings never occur in Police stations
They never occur in Police stations in other countries that dont arm theyre Police either so it kind of shoots that argument in the foot dont you think?
The desire to own a weapon should automatically bar you from ever owning one.
Do you honestly feel helpless if youre not carrying a gun? if so dont you think you need therepy? and if you do need therepy what the hell are you doing carrying a gun?

#77
Sorry, I can't let that go unchallenged. Teflon coated bullets were taken off the market in the US years ago, although there has never been a single case of such a "cop-killer" bullet ever actually killing a cop. Not even one.

#82
Ah, the vitriol comes out at last... (Sign of a weak argument, that.) Since you didn't actually advance any arguments I'll refrain from responding further.

#78, good to be free to debate these points, I think we can all agree on that.

I think that what makes our views differ is that I believe I dont need to be armed to remain free.

You take an opposite view, as is your right.

I remember my first visit to America, many many years ago, and my shock at seeing an armed policeman, his gun not inches from where I was sitting. I have to say I didnt feel safe. I felt "what if he goes to shoot the bad guy next to me, and misses?"

And I think that is my answer to your points - I would rather not rely on the good aim of another.

The Nazis didnt take over because no one else was armed. In fact, most of the opposition and the government were all armed. They took over by other means. I do not think that if there had been a general gun culture it would have prevented what happened.

Yes, genocide in the Balkans, in the Middle East. I am not convinced that if more people had been armed there it would not have happened.

I myself would have a problem with armed nuns. I remember some quite nasty ones from school, and would prefer the metre stick.......

One of the points I have made in other threads is the differences between Americans and Europeans are far greater than any of us think.

#83, a normal bullet would do just as well. Our Bobbies dont wear flack jackets.

The argument that 'it's not the gun that is harmful, it's the person' is fallacious. If we took that argument to extremes, we could say that 'it's not the drugs that are harmful, but the fact that we decide to use them' - Why not, then, legalise cocaine.... after all, it's up to the user who would abuse their own body.
Similarly, why bother having 'softcrete' in kids playgrounds - after all concrete is not dangerous in itself....?

The argument over carrying a gun as a defensive weapon is one in which both sides are correct, however. It's the old 'Hawks v Doves' game theory. In an environment where many are armed (hawks), then it is rational to decide to be a hawk too. (approximating US society). In an environment where the vast majority are unarmed (doves - like the UK), it is best overall to also be a dove, as the reward for each individual (fewer killings) for an 'all dove' society is better overall than the reward for each individual in an 'all hawk' society, where there are far more murders (per head of population). The problem is that it is extremely difficult to go from being a 'hawks' to a 'doves' society, as in the 'inbetween' state, the hawks will take advantage of the doves. Easy for us to criticise the US from over here, but each citizen there who has a gun is making the 'logical' choice... Their choice, but although painful in the short term, for the long term good, were I a US citizen, I would want to be live in a 'dove' society. I just thank my lucky stars, however, that I live in a country with far more 'doves' than 'hawks' ...

#78, I should add that understanding differences promotes tolerance, so this debate has been a good thing, if we understand each other better.

One wee wee positive thing to come out of the tragedy, a green shoot in the ashes.....

Lately, I have been reading that 6 teens knifed a teenager, and they have been arrested in Merry Old England...
We all have our crosses to bear. So they don't use guns in England, they use knives. Like the killing of the pregnant lady last week, and the knifings in the schools.
How do children get into the school with knives?

81

1 How can you possibly have a general deterent in the way you have described if a blanket law entitles everybody to own a weapon.
Yet again I will repeat myself the guy who committed the murders at the college was NOT A CRIMINAL until after he shot the weapon he was a student who had a constitutional right to carry his weapons in to the college.
Until he committed the murders he was the guy next door who just happened to own an automatic pistol. Just like all of these other law abiding gadjis youve described.
2 My assailent may or may not win isnt that going to be the case whether your armed or not?
If somebody comes at you with a gun knowing you are not armed he is not likely to shoot you unless you do something stupid unless he,s a disturbed physco and then he.s going to shoot you without any warning or provocation.
3 Believe it or not there are billions of people living all over the world who are not thinking about genocide or worried enough to arm themselves against it. Its called living in the real world you should try it sometime. Come over to Europe for a holiday but leave your guns at home you wont need them. Bring a security blanket if you get too anxious.
6 Chooses to be armed now that really is the point isnt it?

#85
Jock, well spoken. I'm afraid our differences are philosophical, and we'll have to just agree to disagree. It's a shame we can't sit down over a couple of pints and discuss it, as I appreciate a thoughtful debate. Unfortunately, I've been avoiding my work too long already.

84

Any arguments you have an answer for you mean?

Lynne

It isnt constitutional in the UK to carry a knife its actually illegal.

Singing off this thread now, a stimulating debate from most, may you all have a peaceful evening, and remember the families who have lost loved ones yesterday.

Aoda, Pennsylvania Wilds / 4:38am 18 Apr 2007

Aoda
If you are really a hunter and want to continue that sport you better read "Dear Bob" What all Gun Owners should know about "Assult Weapons."
In a nut shell it includes any weapon the military has ever used. That includes shot guns and rifles. Go to you closest gun shop and pick up the May 2007 America's Freedom, one of the NRA magazines.

And here's an interesting article with a comprehensive view of gun control.

http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm

Bear in mind, that there is very little in the way of
Federal gun control, especially since the Republican-controlled congress in 2004 allowed the ban on assault weapons to expire.

Yanno, I do get so tired of hearing when we here have a tragedy such as this, that MORE gun laws would stop it. No it won't ladies and gentlemen. If the boy had wanted guns, and they were "too hard" for him to get legally, he would have gotten them illegally, which is far easier and less costly than the legal route.

Gun laws affect law abiding gun owners. Gun laws do not affect anyone who wants to kill with them.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

What should be considered is the sad fact that this young mans horrific writings WERE reported to the authorities by his teachers, and even fellow students, and NOTHING was done. WHY? Why because, here in America, we value YOUR privacy. Why NO, we'd never question that this young man may have some serious issues, because nowhere in his sick and disturbing plays did he actually come out and say HE was going to kill someone. So, despite those who tried to bring his behavior to light to those who perhaps could have helped him, it was ignored.

THAT is what killed all those innocent people, much more so than he could obtain a legal weapon.

I've owned and shot weapons for years, and I have YET to even entertain the thought of killing anyone. So those of you who blame our lack of draconian gun laws, or Hollywood, (Oh, that you poster who did say blame hollywood, that was a minor point of humor in my day), or the fact that a person of legal age may legally purchase a weapon, I beg you to rethink. Our young men and women can join our armed forces and be taught to shoot with a high level of skill at 18, yet they cannot drink until they are 21. Not all of our states are concealed carry states. Mine is not, for one.

97

What you have clearly missed is the fact that this disturbed individual had a constitutional right to bear arms and he excersized that right.
How many more like him do you think are out there right now with the same rights?
This young student WAS A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN right up until he pulled the trigger.

98. Boyce & other cruel liberals

You need to re-read an excellent post again. It's so good here it is again!

Pasted from "#43 Bostitch"

For those of you that are trying to seize this opportunity to speak out against guns in the US....

Stop sounding like you are talking for the masses, you are not. The needs of a few irrational like you do not speak for the masses. This is a time for mourning, not your wacko liberal agenda.

**************************************

And for those outside the US that start out with your sympathies and then end your comment with a stupid comment against Bush or Guns, you are sick and have a one track mind.

******************************

For those of you that are truly expressing your sympathies, thank you very much.

All handgun purchases require a background check and since there was no criminal history, he could legally buy a weapon.

In America, more people are killed by medical errors/negligence than are killed by firearms.

Since UK and Australia have banned weapons and required them to be turned in, violent crime has risen and some police in the UK now carry weapons.

Think there would have been as many casualties if everyone over 21 years old in the class had been carrying a weapon they had been trained in...I doubt it.

You can check UK articles on gun crime at the URL below.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun

100. wilbur

Also more children die from drowning than from accidental shootings. Next thing you know Boyce will want mothers that allow thier children to go swimming to be locked up.

I guess a man's home isn't his castle in England.

A farmer in Norfolk had been victimized by burglars several times, then he fought back. The farmer who shot the burglars, Tony Martin, was later charged with the murder of 16-year old Fred Barras and intent to cause grievous bodily harm to another intruder, Brendan Fearon.
In April 2000 he was found guilty of murder and jailed for life.

After an appeal Martin's conviction was later reduced to manslaughter and his sentence shortened to five years.

In January 2002 Martin was refused leave to take his case for acquittal to the House of Lords.

The two surviving burglars, Brendan Fearon, 29, and Darren Bark, 33, were jailed for three years and 30 months respectively.

In 2002 Fearon began a claim against Martin for up to £50,000 compensation for his injuries.

//////////////////////

Israeli Woman kills Suicide Bomber

"A suicide bomber at a supermarket in the West Bank Jewish town of Efrat was foiled when a gun-toting Jewish woman shot him, the Jerusalem Post reports. The terrorist managed to set off one explosion, but 'further tragedy was averted when a woman shopping in the packed supermarket apparently saw the terrorist trying to set off a second explosion and shot him twice in the head from close range.' Sources in Bethlehem identify the bomber as Muhammad Ashimali, whose father says he wanted to be a martyr. He got his chance--and thanks to the gal with the gun, he didn't take anyone with him."

#43
Well said; I have to agree.

100

Wilbur this guy went down to a gun store and bought a Glock auto and ammo with a credit card in and out no questions asked.

We need Doctors we dont need guns.

Gun crime in the UK is virtually non existant. There are no statistics to prove one way or the other that violent crime has increased in the UK after the total gun ban.

Which students would you arm and which students shouldnt be allowed weapons?
Any one of those students could have been the one to go on a killing spree. The student who committed the murders was a law abiding clean cut arm bearing citizen right up to the point where he opened fire. And you want to arm more or all of them?

101

Again we need water we dont need guns.

105. Boyce

Would you please stop calling other posters idiots, I have some choice words for you but I have the decency not to voice them on these threads.

104. Boyce

"Wilbur this guy went down to a gun store and bought a Glock auto and ammo with a credit card in and out no questions asked."

That is a lie, a background check was performed and all sorts of questions were asked. He had no police records that warranted him not to purchase a gun.

#105
We are still called the "Land of the Free" for a reason. Sorry about where you come from.

106

If the shoe fits. These bloggers I insult are not contributing anything to the discussion from either point of view.
I would treat them with more respect if they earned it by contributing something worthwhile to the discussion. For or against.

107

Really were you there at the time?

#89. Lynne, usa - "So they don't use guns in England, they use knives" - guns are also used in "England" (I take it by "England" you mean the United Kingdom) but not as much as the country is not awash with them as in the US. There is a limit to the amount of damage you can do with a knife compared to a looney armed with a 9mm handgun with a large magazine capacity. The Redcoats are not coming and the USA has professional armed forces so why the need for so many semi-auto and automatic weapons. The American way? Nein Danke!

110. Boyce

Ever heard of a paper trail?

112

Ever heard of covering your arse?

Forget stricter gun laws. Let's start with enforcing the ones which are already on the books.

Laws only do so much. The owner of the shop where the murderer bought the guns did run an instant background check and abided by the laws. On the news here last night, he said that the shop turns down many, many sales each month to err on the side of caution and safety. Sometimes, evil wears a charming face and you don't know the smile was only a facade until it's too late.

Most gun crime in the States is committed with stolen/black market weapons. It's not the legal sales which are the problem.

102 Wilbur

What you dont mention is that Fred Barras was shot in the back trying to escape out of a window the other 2 managed to get out first or they would have been shot to death as well. None of them were armed.
They shouldnt have been in his house in the first place but thats why we have laws and police forces.

Today in Iraq, people were killed when the road blew up - people in the U.S. must be hated by cars, otherwise why would cars kill so many - people in Asia have really pissed off water as evidenced by deaths caused etc. If you are unable to understand where this is going, please stop using up valuable oxygen supplies.

I reserve the right to arm bears (for my polar friends)

I didn't mention it because the article I read didn't.

I believe anyone in your house without a reasonable explanation, especially at night, deserves anything that happens to them, a homeowner doesn't normally get a chance to ask a gang of intruders if they are there to injure/kill the homeowner or only deprive him of his (supposed) hard-earned wealth/belongings. If he did ask, why trust the answer?

Police normally come AFTER the crime and are there to solve the crime (unlikely) and then allow courts to punish the criminal in order to change his behavior (unlikely for career criminals), sometimes they may even be able to retrieve the belongings but not most of the time.

Martin deserved a medal not punishment for protecting his own.

112

I just heard on the news that Cho was once referred to mental asylum so much for the so called background check.

118

Wilbur he shot a young unarmed man in the back with a 12 bore shotgun when he was trying to run away. Is that whats referred to as self defence in the US? And you want the right to carry firearms.

what Europe? there is no Europe. It is EUSR - Union of European Socialist Republics.

As long as he's in the house, yes, self defence. It's easy to say he was unarmed after-the-fact.

I've had too much stolen from me; further, someone attempted to burn my mother's home after breaking in and then years later someone broke into my father's home when he was in the hospital, stole his check book and emptied his bank account.

I hope if you ever find an intruder in your house at night, you'll politely ask if he has a weapon before you do anything untowards. And if he does, I'm sure your survivors will take comfort in knowing you did.

It may be worth noting that nearly everybody in Iraq is armed at the moment and nobody is in control.

122

Been there done it got the tee shirt. One of my mothers neighbours broke into her house while I was there. I managed to chase him out with the help of my mothers dog. He didnt have a gun of course because they are just too hard to get a hold of in the UK. Never even entered my mind after that to buy a gun thought about getting another dog though.

122

No that is not self defence. You cant just shoot somebody because hes in your house without your permission If that were the case you could shoot baliffs and repo men or lodgers who wont pay their rent.

119 - BTW - I don't need to want the right to carry firearms, protecting yourself and your property is considered a God-given right, the second amendment only says the government shall not infringe upon that right.

Too bad some societies have let a government deny them their rights (Armenia, Hitler's Germany, Russia, Mao's China, Rwanda).

An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject.

124. Boyce

Good, glad to see the animal is still on the loose to attack, rape, rob, or kill someone else. Good job.

The meek shall inherit the earth but only about a 3x6 metre plot.

127

People who carry guns do far worse whats your point?

128

Probably if they are shot with a legal weapon.

126

An armed man is a danger to himself and all around him.

Since the Government introduced the handgun ban after the Dunblane shootings, Manchester is much safer on a Saturday night!!

131

I know Edinburgh is and Dunblane.

Well, I suppose if the US banned guns like all you numpties suggest they could then get used to being beaten up stabbed and robbed by the gangs of armed drunken hooligans that roam the streets completley unafraid of the unarmed police who aren't around. I mean, we all know that video camera is going to stop them. "OMG, look out were being filmed by a grainy black and white camera, run away, aaaghh!"

Am also currently looking for any partners in a new company I'm thinking of starting. It would be 'long distance drivers diapers'. I probably can have a customer immediately, as it would be the ex-astronaut Lisa Nowak. I would like to off-shore this business to Scotland, and it would be too expensive here in the states.

Buy One Handgun A Month.

It Is The Law In Virginia.

118

Wilbur he shot a young unarmed man in the back with a 12 bore shotgun when he was trying to run away. Is that whats referred to as self defence in the US? And you want the right to carry firearms.

That bloody medical privacy thingy strikes again.

Just imagine the pain of Mr Cho if he had his Mental Illness Posted For All To laugh and sneer At.

Didn't You Rich Preps Put Him Through Enough Misery?

Came home, and somebody musta broke in the back windowand stole two loaded machine guns and both of my trenchcoats

Sick sick dreams of picnic scenes, two kids, sixteen
with M-16’s and ten clips eachAnd them (internet edited) reach through six kids each

Slim gets blamed in Bill Clint’s speech to fix these streets? (internet edited for your protection) THAT! Tou (internet edited to protect your sensitivities) can vanish to volcanic ash
and re-appear in hell with a can of gas, and a match

What the article failed to mention is that the murderer had run afoul of the law for harassing and stalking young women prior to the murders. He had been reported to the university by his teachers as engaging in disturbing writings and behavior. Further, he had been ordered by the court to obtain psychiatric care because of his potential for violence. Yet, in spite of this record of instability, he was permitted to walk about freely and even to continue to attend the university, thanks in no small measure to policies supported by people of the same political orientation as those who claim that more gun regulation is the answer. If we are to follow these people's thought patterns in other areas we would conclude that the solution to drunken driving is to ban automobiles, rather than to prevent those with a history of habitual drunken-ness from driving.

A couple of observations. It turns out the shooter had been temporarily committed as suicidal a year or two ago. When he purchased his guns, a background check was run on him and came back clean. I don't have a lot a faith in gun control laws, if the sale had been denied, as determined as he was, he would have found his guns elsewhere, but I wonder why the commitment to a mental institution did not come up in the background check. It should have denied the sale.

Even though gun laws are fairly lax in Virginia, they are completely banned on university campus. Virginia has a concealed carry permit system, but it is not allowed to carry on campus. Universities were in effect gun-free zones. It's astounding to me how long this shooting went on, how many people, how many rounds he fired, upwards of 200 shots by my calcs. And yet he encountered no resistance. In that gun-free zone, he had the place all to himself. The police were no help. The slaughter ended when he either got tired or ran out of ammo, saving the last bullet for himself.

I live in Alaska where there is concealed carry. I know when I go out, there is a strong possibility that there is a gun or two under the coat or in the purse of some fellow shopper. I can't imagine a guy shooting for that long without encountering resistance. It just wouldn't happen. An given the poor performance of the police, I wouldn't want that to change.

Here in Florida, the law is much stricter on concealed permit carriers than it is on the average citizen. If you have the permit, you are required to know and be responsive to carry laws that are always being updated or changed. Having the permit and breaking any of the gun laws or carrying while committing a crime will result in a much much harsher penalty than a non-carry person would get for the same offense or for not being aware of the law.

Tearlach/Alaska is right in suggesting that lives could have been saved if people were used to going armed.

Fear is a greater foe that danger is: although I was not there, it is still very hard for me to understand not only why the students did not do more to save themselves, but why that Prof. was left to die by younger, more able students who should have been the ones to defend him. I will not judge those students but I would not like to have to live with that memory.