Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Virginia Tech Shootings, Response to an article against guns

Recommended Posts

Please check this article out from the San Diego Union Tribune. San Diego Union Tribune Gun Control Article This is an example of a person who doesn't think and is afraid of guns with no real reason. Guns are not an object of violence only. They help keep the peace too. The man in the article says that guns are the worst things for a college campus. But I disagree. Guns, with the proper training can help keep peace on a campus. Before you say '' this guy is crazy" hear me out. Lets take the tragedy of the Virginia Tech Massacre. Lets rerun the scenario with all of the students trained in the use of guns. Instead of the shooter able to massacre 32 people execution style, the shooter would have walked into the room with the gun and maybe... MAYBE have been able to squeeze one round off and then been instantly gunned down by 32 students who had instantly pulled their guns out and shot him. Regarding the fact of accidental discharges and suicides, if a student really wants to commit suicide, then he or she will do it regardless of whether there are guns or not. Please give me your opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry... but if you honestly believe that arming students is a good idea, then you clearly have not thought about it very much.

I just don't understand why Americans believe that the way to solve gun crime is to arm everyone. Why can't you be sensible and realise that in order to reduce gun crime, the best solution is to make it HARDER to get guns?!?!!!! This kid walked into a store and bought a glock, as well as two other guns...and yet you think it's a good idea to have everyone concealing a weapon...

I'm sorry but I cannot personally have a debate on this matter as it is, in my opinion, a stupid debate. Keep in mind that it has been shown over and over again that you are more likely to get shot if you have a gun than if you don't.

And rather than arming students, perhaps ask yourself the question, why is it that school shootings are so frequent in America, yet here in Europe it's almost unheard of? My guess it has something to do with guns being so easy to get...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not about arming the students its about properly training people to deal with situations, but no one takes it seriously. We had a real fire alarm go off at our school this morning yet no one paid attention and did not flee the school. WE shouldn't arm everyone because it just increases the chance of a shooting and it happens enough as it is.

To get a gun in America there is a holding period and a background check. So basically if you don't have a criminal past and can wait thirty days to shoot somebody then the chance is yours, but that is all a part of being in the land of the free.

The VT shooting was tragic and it doesnt happen all the time either. It may seem like it but its only every couple of years America just makes a big media deal out of it because that is what viewers want to hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school-related_attacks

It's impossible to say that it's simply the media making a big deal out of it. Trust me, if there was a school shooting here, the media here would also make a huge deal out of it.

And anyway, in my opinion, when it comes to school shootings, a single event is already a single time too many. It shouldn't be a rare occurence, it shouldn't happen at all! And don't tell me guns are a prerequisite for freedom in a democratic society...

I'm not sure what you mean by training people to deal with the situation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just don't understand why Americans believe that the way to solve gun crime is to arm everyone. Why can't you be sensible and realise that in order to reduce gun crime, the best solution is to make it HARDER to get guns?!?!!!!

You just haven't thought about it enough. Who is going to go and shoot a bunch of people? A person who is going to go through the process of the gun control waiting period, or a criminal who doesn't care about breaking the law? The criminal. So if you make it harder for the average law-abiding citizen to get guns, then you are limiting the ability of the citizen to protect themselves. The criminal will always be able to get a gun illegally. The citizen who obeys the law is the only one unable to protect themselves from an attack.

Also, wouldn't you think that a criminal might think of what is underneath the coat of a person he is about to rob if there is a chance that the person might just have the force to fight back??? Criminals prey on the weak and defenseless, not the armed citizen. Mull that over and get back to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it really hard to believe that you actually think that having guns more readily available will make gun crime reduced. Criminals are desperate people they commit crime out of hardship and regardless of whether they think that that their victim will have a gun. The one thing having easier available guns is going to cause is more deaths, death to the attackers and more victims. Why do you think that America has the highest tally of gun related murder per year? Because guns are alot easier to get. All evidence suggests that making guns harder to get reduces gun crime. Take Australia for example, after a disastrous massacre (35 killed and 37 wounded) in Tasmania in 1996, where the gunman got a gun with out a gun license. Since then gun law's have been drastically tightened, and as a result there has been a reductionin gun crime and Australia now has 10 gun related murders a year, while the US has over 10000. I just can't see your logic at all. Guns are called weapons for a reason, they cause harm, they are killing machines, they are design to injure and kill. Shouldn't something like that be controlled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Piano, what you fail to realise is that the reason people use guns is because they can get them so easily. I am sorry but if you believe that gun control will mean that only criminals will have guns, then you sir, fail to see the bigger picture.

If I was really depressed and angry here, I wouldn't be able to do much. Getting guns on the black market is possible, of course, but it's not something the average person, or even average criminal can do.

If you think that the peopel responsible for these school shootings would have done so regardless of gun control, then I am truly shocked. People know guns are easy to get, and therefore guns are just another option. Removing the easy availability of guns means that depressed students (who are often suicidal) won't have the option of calmly buying a whole bunch of weapons and go around shooting innocent bystanders.

I just cannot believe you think that we need to arm everyone. What the hell kind of society is that? It's called a society based on a fear, and the notion of such a place makes me truly sick. Not the kind of way I want to live my life, and I seriously doubt the average students wants to be constantly watching their backs because everyone they know or see has a gun.

Also, try to keep in mind the psychological effects of actually holding a gun.. You are not the same person with a gun as you are without. People with guns do really stupid things...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piano, what you fail to realise is that the reason people use guns is because they can get them so easily. I am sorry but if you believe that gun control will mean that only criminals will have guns, then you sir, fail to see the bigger picture.

If I was really depressed and angry here, I wouldn't be able to do much. Getting guns on the black market is possible, of course, but it's not something the average person, or even average criminal can do.

If you think that the peopel responsible for these school shootings would have done so regardless of gun control, then I am truly shocked. People know guns are easy to get, and therefore guns are just another option. Removing the easy availability of guns means that depressed students (who are often suicidal) won't have the option of calmly buying a whole bunch of weapons and go around shooting innocent bystanders.

I just cannot believe you think that we need to arm everyone. What the hell kind of society is that? It's called a society based on a fear, and the notion of such a place makes me truly sick. Not the kind of way I want to live my life, and I seriously doubt the average students wants to be constantly watching their backs because everyone they know or see has a gun.

Also, try to keep in mind the psychological effects of actually holding a gun.. You are not the same person with a gun as you are without. People with guns do really stupid things...

deus,

even if gun control laws were tightened, there are still many ways that a person could do major harm or death to another person or persons. There are many improvised weapons, knives, small explosives, and other deadly items besides guns. and people who go to shoot people up at schools or on the street do not just wake up one day and think, "I am depressed about school, I am going to shoot everyone." there is planning going into shootings. Depressed students who want to kill themselves or others will not be stopped by laws. If someone wants to do something and they are not sane, they will do whatever they want regardless of laws. Many people, like yourself, are just afraid of guns because they have been given a bad reputation from movies, and a few people that went crazy and shot some innocents. I am not saying that these few events are not tragic. Nor am i saying that guns are the only solution. i am saying there are several ways that these events could have been prevented and that training would be necessary to have guns in society. My thought is not to have guns given away without some training. Guns are only dangerous to those who don't know how to use them, and criminals but my focus is on the average citizen. as to the "what the hell kind of society is that?" question, it is a dangerous world in some parts of the city. In San Diego, one of the communities has many excellent restaurants and stores, but it is gangster heaven there and it is dangerous. A family should be able to walk down the street without being held up or robbed. Guns are not only for violence but for protection against the violent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, this is an issue that we fundamentally disagree on. I will stick to my arguement based on what evidence has shown, that gun control reduces gun related deaths. That's fact and nothing you can say will change that. However, I am also fully aware that there is no way that the U.S will ever implement gun control, because so many Americans feel it is there undeniable right to own guns.

Fair enough. I just think that perhaps people should take a step back and ask themselves why these things aren't nearly as common in Norway, Denmark, Sweden, France, Switzerland, UK, Australia, etc, etc, etc...

Having said that, I am done on this topic :) . As long as none of my friends carry concealed weapons, then I'm perfectly happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again, this is an issue that we fundamentally disagree on. I will stick to my arguement based on what evidence has shown, that gun control reduces gun related deaths. That's fact and nothing you can say will change that. However, I am also fully aware that there is no way that the U.S will ever implement gun control, because so many Americans feel it is there undeniable right to own guns.

Fair enough. I just think that perhaps people should take a step back and ask themselves why these things aren't nearly as common in Norway, Denmark, Sweden, France, Switzerland, UK, Australia, etc, etc, etc...

Having said that, I am done on this topic :) . As long as none of my friends carry concealed weapons, then I'm perfectly happy.

fair enough deus,

but keep in mind that guns help keep the peace. They are not just used by criminals. And the next time you are in a dark alley with a stranger, maybe you would think a little more of guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fair enough deus,

but keep in mind that guns help keep the peace. They are not just used by criminals. And the next time you are in a dark alley with a stranger, maybe you would think a little more of guns.

Or maybe he would think of self-defense methods that require knowledge and skill rather than the ability to push a button (or pull a trigger)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or maybe he would think of self-defense methods that require knowledge and skill rather than the ability to push a button (or pull a trigger)?

shooting guns is not as easy as some people think. it is very difficult, but i agree, there are many more less lethal ways to approach an attacker. But guns can be shot accurately enough to wound and not kill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shooting guns is not as easy as some people think. it is very difficult, but i agree, there are many more less lethal ways to approach an attacker. But guns can be shot accurately enough to wound and not kill.

Well, I'm not a gun specialist, but I'm fairly certain that any 4 year old of average intelligence could be taught to use a gun. However, unless a person has been through extensive training, when they are threatened they are likely to attempt to eliminate their attacker completely. How many people do you think would shoot only to wound and not to kill (if that is even possible in their situation), when they are frightened and filled with adrenaline?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I'm not a gun specialist, but I'm fairly certain that any 4 year old of average intelligence could be taught to use a gun. However, unless a person has been through extensive training, when they are threatened they are likely to attempt to eliminate their attacker completely. How many people do you think would shoot only to wound and not to kill (if that is even possible in their situation), when they are frightened and filled with adrenaline?

the person who has had training and is not afraid of the gun. You have not shot a gun before so you do not know what it is like other than movies and maybe other sources (?). but when you pull a gun on an attacker, they are not likely to continue what their plan was.

and no, a four year old cannot learn to shoot a gun. it would probably knock them on the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the person who has had training and is not afraid of the gun. You have not shot a gun before so you do not know what it is like other than movies and maybe other sources (?). but when you pull a gun on an attacker, they are not likely to continue what their plan was.

and no, a four year old cannot learn to shoot a gun. it would probably knock them on the ground.

I'm sorry, but I find it very difficult to believe that a person without extensive training would not be afraid of a gun.

No, I have not shot, and hope never to shoot a gun.

If an attacker is determined enough (or simply crazy :) ) I really don't believe that pulling a gun out would stop them from continuing with their plan.

Oh, and I do believe I said learn how to shoot a gun, not put it into practice? I was simply attempting to illustrate the minimal amount of intelligence required to utilize that instrument of destruction.

Edit: Gah, that sounded pretentious, so I apologize for that. But I'm too busy to re-write it. :)

Edited by Mandiloquence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry, but I find it very difficult to believe that a person without extensive training would not be afraid of a gun.

No, I have not shot, and hope never to shoot a gun.

If an attacker is determined enough (or simply crazy :) ) I really don't believe that pulling a gun out would stop them from continuing with their plan.

Oh, and I do believe I said learn how to shoot a gun, not put it into practice? I was simply attempting to illustrate the minimal amount of intelligence required to utilize that instrument of destruction.

Edit: Gah, that sounded pretentious, so I apologize for that. But I'm too busy to re-write it. :)

fair enough. but guns are not very easy to operate. Many children could not even turn the safety off or rack a round into the chamber in order to fire a gun because there are very powerful springs in the mechanism. so they are harder for children to operate. I bet you could give a .45 1911 colt semi- automatic pistol to a child and they could not make that weapon fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fair enough. but guns are not very easy to operate. Many children could not even turn the safety off or rack a round into the chamber in order to fire a gun because there are very powerful springs in the mechanism. so they are harder for children to operate. I bet you could give a .45 1911 colt semi- automatic pistol to a child and they could not make that weapon fire.

Yes, but once again I said "Well, I'm not a gun specialist, but I'm fairly certain that any 4 year old of average intelligence could be taught to use a gun." Perhaps I could make my statement more clear by changing "be taught" to "learn".

I would never advocate teaching the operation of a gun to a small child, and I agree that they would most likely not hav ethe physical power to shoot a gun.

However, the point that I was trying to make was that an adult (or even a teenager) with no more intelligence than a 4 year old could operate a gun. And that is a terrifying thought, at least for me. I do NOT want imbeciles running around with destructive weapons. (Not that I'm insulting 4 year olds or anything. My cousing is 4 and I think she's just brilliant. :) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, this is all very interesting, what you you all arguing over whether a person can handle a gun, or if a criminal can get guns easily. But you all have missed the real reason that we have a second amendment in our constitution. You all may be familiar with our system of checks and balances in the US, or in other democracies. When you analyze that system, you may find that there is no part where the actual citizen can keep the government in check. What happened in Germany, Russia, Italy, and every other country that was overthrown and made into a dictatorship? When the government went bad, the people had no way to fight back. 1956, an anti-communist uprising in Hungary is crushed. Why? Because the only method tat the people had to resist the dictatorship was weapons they got from defecting soldiers. We value guns so much in the US because we got our independence by using hunting rifles to defeat the British Empire. We believe that guns give us the power to stop tyranny from taking over our country. We don't advocate violence, but you can bet that any tyrant who tries to take our country from the inside will meet with a strong barrier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but once again I said "Well, I'm not a gun specialist, but I'm fairly certain that any 4 year old of average intelligence could be taught to use a gun." Perhaps I could make my statement more clear by changing "be taught" to "learn".

I would never advocate teaching the operation of a gun to a small child, and I agree that they would most likely not hav ethe physical power to shoot a gun.

However, the point that I was trying to make was that an adult (or even a teenager) with no more intelligence than a 4 year old could operate a gun. And that is a terrifying thought, at least for me. I do NOT want imbeciles running around with destructive weapons. (Not that I'm insulting 4 year olds or anything. My cousing is 4 and I think she's just brilliant. :) )

cute. But nor do i advocate any child to shoot guns. but i advocate the right stated by the 2nd amendment to bear arms (and to have an organized militia. That would be cool). so i am against gun control laws because they are in direct violation of the 2nd amendment.a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, this is all very interesting, what you you all arguing over whether a person can handle a gun, or if a criminal can get guns easily. But you all have missed the real reason that we have a second amendment in our constitution. You all may be familiar with our system of checks and balances in the US, or in other democracies. When you analyze that system, you may find that there is no part where the actual citizen can keep the government in check. What happened in Germany, Russia, Italy, and every other country that was overthrown and made into a dictatorship? When the government went bad, the people had no way to fight back. 1956, an anti-communist uprising in Hungary is crushed. Why? Because the only method tat the people had to resist the dictatorship was weapons they got from defecting soldiers. We value guns so much in the US because we got our independence by using hunting rifles to defeat the British Empire. We believe that guns give us the power to stop tyranny from taking over our country. We don't advocate violence, but you can bet that any tyrant who tries to take our country from the inside will meet with a strong barrier.
cute. But nor do i advocate any child to shoot guns. but i advocate the right stated by the 2nd amendment to bear arms (and to have an organized militia. That would be cool). so i am against gun control laws because they are in direct violation of the 2nd amendment.a

@ Both of you. I'm sorry, but I don't support or not support things because they are/ aren't in violation of the U.S. Constitution. In fact, if you have studied US history, I call into question the validity of the US rebellion against England, when England's demands were not completely unreasonable, and the colonies and England likely could have compromised...that is if the colonies hadn't been so, well, uncompromising. Ideally, the citizens keep the government in check through their votes and their elected officials, and no one branch of government can completely take over the others, so this theoreticaly wouldn't be a problem in places like the US. I do understand that not everything is ideal, and not every theory works. However, if it is necessary for the citizens to take forcible control of their government, there are many, more sophisticated ways (besides guns, rifles, etc.) for them to do this, using minimal violence.

Edit: Wow, my English teacher would probably kill me if she read this. :)

Edited by Mandiloquence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.