USA's 2nd Amendment Discussion

[ZoddsNo1Fan]

Hey whats with the stereotype of the asian guy. Was he apprehended as a suspect? He wasnt the killer...

Now people are waving the "get rid of gun rights" flag. People listen...when it comes to murder its the person pulling the trigger that kills not the gun. If a person wants to kill hes gonna find a gun somehow. Monitor gun laws, dont restrict them.

edit: split the thread at this post from previous VPI thread. -- psi29a

[psi29a]

Hey whats with the stereotype of the asian guy. Was he apprehended as a suspect? He wasnt the killer...

Actually, the killer was a South Korean who lived in Centreville Virginia for 14+ years. He shot himself in the end.

Please make a better educated statement and argument first.

[ZoddsNo1Fan]

Seriously though, a gunman walks into a class of what 40 people? If they had all gang rushed him less probably would have died and wouldnt have given this psycho the satisfaction of being able to ship out his dillusional letters. True it would probably be another matter if it happend for real(besides stating the fact, whos going to want to be shot?)but one person with a couple handguns isnt going to take out 40 people attacking him at the same time.

[Albator]

1- Did Psi told you to get your fact straight? It's 32 people that died, not 40, and more importantly he send his package before the big kill.

2- Let see you running towards firing guns, when people fall around you and panic.

Edit: nevermind about the 40 people, you were talking about the class.

[reiketsu]

That was a fatality and I feel very sorry for the families and friends of those that were killed. But I also noticed that people is making a real drama asking "how did it happen?", "why did the Headmaster ignored the warns" and "How the police and the security allowed the boy to keep killed for around 2 hour!?". But I didn't hear anybody stating the main question:

"WTF! WHY DO THEY SELL GUNS IN SUPERMARKETS!?"


Do you think that guy would ever be able to kill so much, do you think that that two boys from Columbine could ever have killed people if they couldn't easily get a hold of a gun? I'm sorry, those two cases are nothing but the fruits of what the society did plant. Everybody will do the easiest, they'll say those guys were a bunch of psychos or that the Virginia Tech's wasn't even a deed of an american. But, hey, wake up, it happened there. And it can happen anywhere, I know, but, at least once a year (exaggerating a bit here...), the same tragedy happen. And what is left behind for the world to see? College students holding canddles in the night, hugging each other and praying for the ones they lost.

It's sad. But what's sadder is that it's not the last time something like that will happen.

[Albator]

I think that if the gun debate must come up, it should be in another thread. This one should stay as civil as possible.

[psi29a]

Here is the problem with guns on campus:

Should we remove 'gun free zone' and allow students and faculty access to firearms then some but not all will pack them.

Now, you hear shots fired and you reach for your piece and go out the door to see what is the matter and you see 2 people with guns drawn on each other (for example). The question is, which one is the perp which one is innocent? Are they both innocent or are they both perps? Now imagine more people showed up with guns, dressed like you.

Academia should remain gun-free. The data collected from around the world, indicates that having guns will increase the area's death rate.

also, at 7:15 in the morning, let alone int he US, let alone at a University do you expect to people to react when someone starts spraying a class room with bullets. Semi-automatic pistols, think about that. To claim that the students would have had the forethought to bum-rush someone is ludicrous and fanciful.

This is reality.

[Ayanami]

There should definitely be more gun control, but this event or any other event is probably going to do nothing about it. This country, for what ever fucked up reason loves their guns...

[reiketsu]

That's the point. I'm not trying to steop out the civil behaviour here. I'm only stating some facts. We've seen this happening before. It's too easy for anyone to get a hold of guns. While it won't be changed, such fatalities will keep happening anywhere.

[Tempest]

This country, for what ever fucked up reason loves their guns...

Something about the 2nd Amendment, "Right the bear arms", Constitution, blah blah blah. I mean come on, it's not like the Constitution matters anymore, right?


Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

[reiketsu]

The President itself are the first one to ignore it...

[Albator]

This country, for what ever fucked up reason loves their guns...

Something about the 2nd Amendment, "Right the bear arms", Constitution, blah blah blah. I mean come on, it's not like the Constitution matters anymore, right?


Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Constitution that has been written about 200+ years ago, in a different context. Maybe it's not totally crazy to suggest that, I don't know like, times change? Note that I'm not pleading for anything here.

I'm tired of reading that stupid sentence (guns don't kill, blah blah blah), which just comes straight form an NRA rally. Maybe think of all the implication of the sentence before repeating it. Seriously, you have posted better.

[ZoddsNo1Fan]

R.I.P. victims. My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families. Its sad to hear about any innocent person having their life snatched away from them by another human. May they be remembered in the echoes of time and our american history. May the grusome picture of the perpatrator be forgoton but let us dwell on how these wonderful individuals spent their lives to the fullest.

Edit: About the gun law. It is way too easy to possess a gun. All you do is show some id, the gun seller puts your information through an automated background check(to make sure your not a fellon) and if you pass the check then you can buy a gun. I think they should make people take gun safety courses/special gun locks with combos/fingerprint recognition(so children cant just pick up a gun and go gung ho on his school or injure themselves). Guns are good if used respectivley but in saying this i think there should be more gun regulations.

[Shaka Zulu]

Well duh guns on their own dont kill people (agree with albator, lamest slogan ever)...but making guns as accessible as as frigging cheeseburgers by selling them in supermarkets and so on makes it more likely that people kill eachother way alot more then they would if they didnt have that option reminded to them all the time. WAY more likely.

Well you might say they might still get it a blackmarket if its restricted or banned, but only the really determined would bother or know how to get it (criminals or those with real intent) . Not your insecure and emotionally disturbed average teen who wouldnt even think to committ massmurder on every little bully he faces, if guns wasn't so accessible.

Its not a coincidence stuff like this happens in states who are very gun liberal. You dont hear about your average emo kid going around in killing sprees in guns restrictive states like New York (or any other countries in which arent gun crazy).


P.S Sorry Albator if I indulged in the topic you warned against...but I just thought that lame excuse had to be addressed...even if this topic has been brought up too much every time a sad tragedy like this occurs. Hopefully a better excuse then its in the constitution is said.

[reiketsu]

Of course there will always have the Blackmarket. But once carry a gun around become illegal anyone who is caugh with one won't be taken a avarge husband, will not be mistaken as a Lawyer, neither as a teacher. If you're holding a gun, them you'd be a fellon.

Why should a civil carry a gun? Don't do people pays all their taxs in order to have the right of be protected by the govern? It's shame that from the law agents are asked to risk their lives on a daily basis in orde to get a miserable salary...

Not wanting to sound pessimistic, but ebing forced to... don't you people feel like this inccident will result in the same end as the previous ones: once the media find something else to talk about, nobody will even remember to worry about the gun issues?

[Tempest]

Constitution that has been written about 200+ years ago, in a different context.

And yet the rest of the constitution has aged nearly perfectly. The seperation of powers, the backbones for our government, and the Bill of Rights. Seems like the framers REALLY droppd the ball on this seemingly important issue.

Maybe it's not totally crazy to suggest that, I don't know like, times change?

Times may change, but people don't. It's in our human nature to destroy, it's just that most of us choose to do it with some subtlety. We've been killing each other long before guns came around, and we'll still be killing each other long after guns get cycled out in favor of the next deadly weapon of choice.

I'm tired of reading that stupid sentence (guns don't kill, blah blah blah), which just comes straight form an NRA rally.

Fair enough, but, "Guns don't kill people, Bullets fired at insane speeds expelled by a gun which was shot by someone whoe needs to take full responsibilty for their actions." doesn't quite have as cool of a ring, does it?

It all comes down to this: Why should mentally stable, law abiding citizens have to jump through even more hoops then they already do now when the system sucks horribley to begin with? A majority of gun control laws are well-meaning ideas brought about well-meaning, albeit naive, people. Could backround checks including mental health reports have prevented Cho buying a gun in a store? Maybe. But since he was lucid enough to go to a post office and calmly mail a package to NBC inbetween the shootings, I think he would be lucid enough to get a gun the way most criminals do.... ILLEGALLY

Seriously, you have posted better.

And I've seen better trolls in the Lord of the Rings movies, but that didn't seem to stop you, did it? Was this one more up to form for you?

For more information on the facts that make me (A normally left-wing liberal hippy) a seemingly hardline conservative when it comes to Gun Control (And I don't even own a gun!) see this video (Note- It's about 30 minutes long, so you'll have to be pacient):

[GVideo]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1553&hl=en[/GVideo]

[reiketsu]

@Tempest:

Then you say our murderous nature justify, nowadays, living in a RATIONAL society, that we accept the fact thete peopel kill people and just watch, without try to change or slow it down?

I'm sorry, but the idea of live with the constant risk of being shot withotu even knwo the reason or WHO did shot me doesn't souding temptating to me. I'm against CITZENS wielding guns. Leave it to the police and the army, they're trainned for such.

And I don't think Albator was trying to troll on you, dude.

[psi29a]

If you look back at the context in which the Constitution was written, we had front loading muskets, meaning it took around a minute to reload a 50 caliber round for a black powder discharge that was only effective around 100 ft with far less accuracy.

It was pretty hard to accidentally discharge one, let alone take time to reload because as stated above, in one minute to 30 seconds someone could bum-rush you and take you out if necessary.

Now we have 9~30 round clips, semi-automatic fire, with twitch like behavior.

These are things to ponder.

The 2nd Amendment to constitution means something to me. I have the right to bear arms, against my own government if I feel that it is acting in tyrannical manner and can't be changed without force. By extension, it also means that I can protect myself from those that would take life and liberty away from me. Because hey, we can't effectively do that with a sword or knife. This is the spirit of the 2nd Amendment.

How do we find balance?

[Tempest]

@Tempest:

Then you say our murderous nature justify, nowadays, living in a RATIONAL society, that we accept the fact thete peopel kill people and just watch, without try to change or slow it down?

I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but I can't tell for the life of me what the fuck you just said. If you could, please rephrase it.

I'm sorry, but the idea of live with the constant risk of being shot withotu even knwo the reason or WHO did shot me doesn't souding temptating to me.

You also stand the risk of being hit by some maniac in a speeding car everytime you go out for a ride. Does that still stop you from driving? Besides, MANY states do not have concieled weapons laws, so you cannot legally take a gun out with you in public anyway.

I'm against CITZENS wielding guns. Leave it to the police and the army, they're trainned for such.

What do you do if you run into a crooked cop? Or if you don't feel that your local police can adequately protect you? (In Britain for example, the regular street walking police can't carry guns). I'm not saying citizens should all go out and arm themselves to the teeth, but they should have the right to protect themselves as long as they are properly trained.

[Albator]

I don't know where the troll comment comes from, I was even posting before Tempest jumped in. And not mindless spam. That's not trolling in my book.

How many amendment have been added to the constitution since it's been written? I'm not american and not necessarily have it right, but I think we are at 27 now. The originals were 10. Is that perfect? No, the founders actually realized that with time, some part of the constitution might become outdated or need adjustement, because it's not some relic, it's a foundation. Which is just fine. So the argument that the original draft was perfect is not valid. Or would you like slavery back, amongst other things?

How do you know you are mentally stable, or anyone? How do you know the way anybody would react in a crisis situation? Even trained people snap, you think the average law-abiding Joe is better? The failure to see that blows my mind.

I will agree that originally, the reasons why every american citizen should be allowed to own guns makes sense, and were naively noble, but good for founding a country. I'm not even saying that it should be partially or totally removed, as this is another thread or debate in my opinion. However to not even recognizing that it is part of the problem that led to that slaughter, is the same as saying you can get lung cancer without smoking, so why not light one?

[Tempest]

I don't know where the troll comment comes from, I was even posting before Tempest jumped in. And not mindless spam. That's not trolling in my book.

Seriously, you have posted better.

Remember that? Doesn't bring much to the conversation now does it? It seems like it's only purpose was to make an ad hominim attack against someone (Namely me, and I like most people don't take kindly to being insulted)

How many amendment have been added to the constitution since it's been written? I'm not american and not necessarily have it right, but I think we are at 27 now.

On the flip side of that, how many of those original 10 have we changed in the the past 200+ years? Oh, that's right, none of them.

The originals were 10. Is that perfect? No, the founders actually realized that with time, some part of the constitution might become outdated or need adjustement, because it's not some relic, it's a foundation.

Of course the founding fathers made it so we can add more amendments as we go, but so far their orignal 10 (Or at least 1 and 3-10 in some people's minds) have functioned quite well over the years.

How do you know you are mentally stable, or anyone? How do you know the way anybody would react in a crisis situation? Even trained people snap, you think the average law-abiding Joe is better? The failure to see that blows my mind.

So just because certain people cannot act responsibley with their firearms, everyone has to pay the price? Blame those people, not me and the litterally millions of people who use their firearms responsibly. That's like saying "Well people get into driving accidents everyday, so buying personal cars should be illegal." or "Since certain people get into fights when they are drunk, alchohol should be made illegal for everyone!" What's next, outlawing knifes? Swords? Blunt Objects? The failure to see THAT blows MY mind.

I will agree that originally, the reasons why every american citizen should be allowed to own guns makes sense, and were naively noble, but good for founding a country.

Why shouldn't we be ALLOWED to own guns now? Because the goverment is currently stable? If you look at your world history, you'll find out that countries with much longer life spans than the Great American-Democracy Experiment have risen and fallen after surviving for hundreds, even thousands of years. The reasons American citizens need the right to arm themselves is as valid today as it was 200 years ago: To protect our rights and liberties from those who would take them from us.

However to not even recognizing that it is part of the problem that led to that slaughter

I don't think I can say it more clearly than this: Gun laws will not stop CRIMINALS from breaking the law. What's one more law to someone planning on shooting up a school, or robbing a bank? Can guns be used to harm people? Of course they can. Can they make a bad accident even worse for someone who is not properly trained or properly storing their gun? Absolutely. Will stricter gun laws stop instances like VT or Columbine? Absolutely not. One of my favorite quotes from the "Penn and Teller" show is from that episode I linked: "You can't stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws. That's Insane!" My point is this: We need more emphasis on gun safety, not gun restriction. Just like how we go through courses to properly drive a car, I think we should make it so you need to have a gun liscence system that ensures you can properly use and store your weapons (No more of this "I put a loaded unlocked gun in my closet for safety and my toddler found it. Oops." stuff)

[Albator]

You thought that was an insult? "You've posted better?" Shit, what's with people being that sensitive? In any case, that doesn't make me a troll stricto sensu and you know it.

Who said criminals? We are talking about wackos here. By bringing this type of arguments here, you are trying to entirely redirect the debate.

You are just way too heated about this. I'll be back later.

Edit: back earlier than expected. Typing...
1- This should be split somewhere, this is deviating into something that I feared it would.
2- I understand Tempest had this discussion with somebody else recently or not, which explains why he repeatidly focused in my posts, thinking I am some kind of anti-weapon activist. I am in a way, but as I said, I am just trying to demonstrate that gun control is PART OF the problem here. However, don't try to counter things I didn't bring up (why would I, foreigner, allow anybody to have guns or not?). That was for a reason, I was just trying to look at the problem at hand.
3- IF we must go there, I can easily return the argument: if you are a real patriot and your government mess up, then you will find way to arm yourself. It's been proved that in the face of tyranny/occupation, people find ways to get weapon no matter what. Unless you think that citizens owning weapons is dissuasive, which I didn't consider. In this case, maybe it should become a requirement.
4- There is a lot of stable countries that goes by with strict weapons control. They do as good as the US.
5- That maybe more of a debatable thing: sure, the US government can decide to take over. However, what are the odds? They exist. Look at Bush, I think he really tried. He succeeded at some level (see the latest supreme court decision), but already the democratic apparatus is slowing him down. Did that required armed citizens? It could have. But how many people did yield instead? Look at all the major conflicts, what happens? At 1st oppressors are usually successful, and when people wake up after a certain time they act. Whether thay have weapon before is irrelevant beause thay will be most likely confiscated of hidden, and we are back to a situation where there is strict weapon control. In a way it is very similar to the proposal that the students should have ganged on the shooter: they could have, and would probably have been successful. How many did? Nobody, because of fear, panic, human nature simply.
6- If you consider ONLY the VT shooting, the gun accessibility is a problem. You can say it's an opinion, and we'll never know cause the guy is dead. However I'll refer you to the info Psi gave us, the correlation is strong.
7- I read your analogy with cars, I'm not convinced. It's not because you tell people to slow down that they do (Do you?). It's because the freakin' cop is around the corner. That's repression and control, not education. Human nature again.
8- Read suckers!
9- I'm done editing. I swear.

[halfnhalf]

Once the VT shooting happened, I knew the 2nd amendment would be under consideration. However, what happens if the kid decided to make a bomb, a knife, taser, or use a chainsaw (bogus I know but go with it)? Would the discussion be different? I think so. However it situation was I know it is not my place to be the all commading truth, because I'm not, but if any of you has seen the video footage that he taped of himself, you can see his reason and cause. They also posted his screenplays that he wrote and you can tell that there was anger in him (though poorly written screenplays that had no depth other than hate). To call this guy a "wacko" or in what cnn called him a "loner" doesnt justify why this guy went on his rampage. Basically CNN put this guy in a catergory that makes up most of my school University of California, Irvine. Large asian presence where most individuals stay in their rooms and avoid any thing social, exactly the attitude of the VT shooter.



It is horrible that such an act happened, but what am I suppose to do? Mourn for those I dont know? My uncle died of cancer, why don't you mourn for him? Discuss this in class only to discover that many people know someone that has expressed their feelings about hurting someone?


I know what I say may shock and piss off some of you, and I beg you not to bring personal hate or reply with a threating post, I won't know how to responed to it. All I know how to do is understand what happened and then move on.

[psi29a]

Split thread here, continue on.

[Eldo]

I'm tired as well along with some of you guys, about the whole 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'. Yet, guns DO kill people. We can also extend that phrase to 'wars don't kill people, people kill people', and 'nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people', eventually reaching to 'cancer don't kill people...oh wait, it does'.

As psi said, when the constitution was written, guns took around a minute to reload. Never did the founding fathers imagine semi-automatic fire, assault weapons to be invented when they first wrote it. Perhaps if the founding fathers could have been clear and more specific about the type and model of gun, we wouldn't have this problem. However, I'm not arguing that America should change its entire constitution, because that would be impossible for people to accept. The society in America is that most people live in fear and paranoia that their possessions would get stolen and that a threat could appear around the corner, hence the need to arm themselves. But whatever, that's not the point here.

The point is gun restrictions will limit the amount of deaths in these shootings. If a related scenario such as Columbine or VT occurred again, but this time with a knife, the death toll and the injured would not be in two digit figures. If there were tougher gun restrictions, Cho would not have been able to purchase two semi-automatic pistols whilst having a record for psychotic behaviour. Also, who could categorise who would use the guns responsibly, or who wouldn't? If everyone carried a gun in campus, what's to guarantee that a gunfight or massacre wouldn't occur?

With Tempest's point about cars, alcohol killing people, what was the last documented event of an individual using a car to mow down an entire crowd of people intentionally, and when was the last time an individual tried to get themselves hammered so they could kill 30+ people with their bare hands? The function of guns were to inflict bodily harm and to severely injure another person. If anyone of you say 'oh, it's for protection purposes', take a karate lesson. You can protect yourself the same way without probably killing the other opponent as easily as a gun. Well, unless that dude has a gun as well. See the problem here?

The point here isn't that limiting guns would stop criminal activity. Limiting guns would ensure a reduced death rate, a minimised loss of life. It probably won't completely stop events like this from occurring, but at least it would limit the amount of deaths, so not a large number of people would receive phone calls about their family member's passing. I refuse to believe that Americans are more fucked up than the rest of the world. Anybody could just equally snap. I am quite proud of the fact that Australia has been free of reported shootings for a decade now, ever since tougher gun restrictions has been introduced. Gun safety wouldn't limit the gun deaths. I could give a gun to a child, teach him everything about gun safety, but what's to say he wouldn't pull the trigger? What's more dangerous, a child with a gun, or a child without a gun?

It's true that the dark human nature is very ugly, some people are extremely fucked up. People could use anything as a weapon, and can kill anyone with it, but not as easily as a gun, which is often associated with larger kill counts.