31 dead in virginia

The serial number would help identify it, but a receipt for the purchase of the weapon only a month ago from Roanoke Firearms was conclusive enough.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/17/vtech.shooting/

But the bigger question is why is the law needed? What benefit to your average gun owner does that obtain? Only that you don't need to be aware of special considerations of traveling from one county to the next with a firearm. Let me ask you - how many times have you traveled across your State with a concealed firearm (other than a hunting rifle of course)?

Previously, you could at least pick which city/county you felt more comfortable living based on its laws. Now, its one way or the highway out of
State.

New York State has concealed weapon laws but New York City places its own restrictions on guns. Is New York City violating New York State law? I don't know. But the reason stems from the fact that there are hordes of people in a small area and having willy nilly gun control does in fact harm the city. The laws are not necessarily anti-gun, but they are more strict on who can obtain a legal permit, who can sell, and what types of weapons can be carried or purchased. Those laws make sense for the City itself and the people of that city should have the right to make those laws.

The Virginia State Congress on the other hand has been bought and paid for by the NRA. The fact that only 2% of Virginians have gun permits may shed light on how the NRA special interest lobbies overshadow citizens interests.

The nitwits at the NRA have also unwittingly made it much easier for anti-gun legislation to effect every community just as easily - since it now all happens at the State level.

Again, I'll just clarify I'm against such centralization of power.

As far as guns, I don't own any myself - but have family members who do. None of them have any assault rifles - and I fail to understand why a small percentage of gun owners feel outraged when some legislation tries to minimize the damage from a weapon that can cause mass devestation. The federal ban on assault weapons expired - which is silly for the fact that why make laws which expire at a predetermined time? But the NRA has its own agenda cloaked in the fear campaign it promotes to the average gun owner - and Viriginia State law blankets the communities with the NRA wishes.

'Sounds like someone has a case of the Mondays'

Quote:

---

The serial number would help identify it, but a receipt for the purchase of the weapon only a month ago from Roanoke Firearms was conclusive enough.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/17/vtech.shooting/

But the bigger question is why is the law needed? What benefit to your average gun owner does that obtain? Only that you don't need to be aware of special considerations of traveling from one county to the next with a firearm. Let me ask you - how many times have you traveled across your State with a concealed firearm (other than a hunting rifle of course)?

---

So He ground the serial number off of his own gun that he used in a murder suicide? That makes no sense at all. Sounds like BS to me. I am deeply disturbed that a non US citizen can purchase a firearm in the US. That is Bullsheit. The background checks are not international. I was not aware that that was possible.

I do a lot of alpine hiking and fishing in bear, tweaker, and cougar country which happens to be across the state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

I do a lot of alpine hiking and fishing in bear, tweaker, and cougar country which happens to be across the state.

---

Sure, but you don't (hopefully) use a handgun - you use a rifle. Which was always excluded as long as it was secured in a trunk when not in use.

But the NRA has grown a big head and intentionally interferes with municipalities with high population densities attempting to control the number of handguns in their borders.

That's nothing to do with rifles or hunter's rights - that's about making more money for the gun manufacturers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

Bullsheit! That is the exact same attitude that these pieces of krap feed off of. I'll tell you what. Grow a pair. There were how many students in that room. I don't know the exact count but there were more people there than the capacity of bullets in those guns. That attitude got 33 people killed and no one charged that guy and stopped him. If you're going to die might as well go out swinging than curled up in a ball with krap in your drawers.

---

Don't be an arse MB, I'm not anti-gun, I'm anti idiot who thinks that they can "whip it out and save the day". I totally agree that they could have stopped this guy, even without guns. People who have not been under fire tend not to react with careful thought in those situations. People who have been under fire tend not to react with careful thought in those situations, either.

My point was that a gun isn't a talisman. Anybody imagining themselves as the hero is fooling themselves. You might....you might not. I see Xanith pointed out some anecdote about a case where a person with a gun saved somebody. How hard would I have to look to find a case where somebody with a gun accidentally shot somebody (look no further than the White House). Argument by anecdote is done only as an appeal to emotion, and directly contrary to reason.

If you want to consider whether people should be wandering around campuses armed, you can't base the decision off some story about somebody saving a life with a gun, or off a story about an accidental shooting. You have to factor in the probabiltiy of a gun helping the situation against the probability of a gun harming a situation. The incidence of gun violence on college campuses is mighty rare. Even the FBI finds that college shooters are quite different from HS shooters. Not the same profile.

So now we have one incident of a mass killing on a college campus. The probabiltiy of such and occurence can be calculated, as it has happened only two or three times in the last several decades (when was that clock tower shooter? 60's?). The toll of killed and injured can be counted, and a risk can be calculated.

Next, calculate the incident of accidental shootings, crimes of passion, etc., and you can calculate a risk for having an armed campus.

Which is greater? Personally, I don't know. My gut feeling is that the incident of accidents is higher than the incidence of gun violence on campuses, but it isn't my field. This is known, though.


One thing that is odd is how strong a hold guns have on Americans. Everybody I work with owns some, nobody caries one, unless it's part of their job description (law enforcement). But boy, do people get fired up about them (not here, nobody even talks about it). You are VERY unlucky (in this country) if in the course of your entire life you find yourself in a situation where having a gun could save your life. On the other hand, you have a fair chance of finding yourself in a situation where knowing CPR could save a life. Yet I find people getting far more heated about carrying weapons than about CPR.

You weigh the risks you face in life, and we do so terribly, of course. People are afraid to fly, despite the statistics showing that they are more likely to be killed on the drive to the airport than they are in the plane. The same is true with guns. There is far more emotion than reason going into peoples positions on guns. You have to be a particular kind of person to carry one in most parts of this country. You either are unreasonably fearful of risks that are vanishingly small, or you want to strut. I won't carry one because I don't fit into either group. Might start carrying one of those defib machines in the truck, though. That and road flares. I've used a disturbing number of road flares in the last few years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

None of them have any assault rifles - and I fail to understand why a small percentage of gun owners feel outraged when some legislation tries to minimize the damage from a weapon that can cause mass devestation.

---

The problem with the "Assault Weapons" ban was that it was almost purely based on the cosmetics of the firearm. If it had a flash supressor, a hi-impact black plastic pistol grip, folding stock and generally looked like a scary weapon from a Schwarzenegger movie it was banned. If you did the same weapon with a nice figured walnut grip and stock and so forth it was OK. The only thing that in the ban that actually affected the performance of the rifle was the magazine size and this was easily bypassed by those who wanted to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

So He ground the serial number off of his own gun that he used in a murder suicide? That makes no sense at all. Sounds like BS to me. I am deeply disturbed that a non US citizen can purchase a firearm in the US. That is Bullsheit. The background checks are not international. I was not aware that that was possible.

I do a lot of alpine hiking and fishing in bear, tweaker, and cougar country which happens to be across the state.

---

He'd been in the US since he was 8. How much of a history do you think he had prior to that?

What's a tweaker?

As for bear and cougar, a handgun isn't going to help you much for cougar, they are ambush predators. As a general rule, nobody sees one before they feel it. As for a bear, you had best have a mighty big gun. People hunt black bears with hand guns, but they use only the larger caliber weapons. In most cases, if you shoot a bear, you HAVE to kill it, and they are notoriously tough to kill, even with large caliber weapons (griz are far tougher, of course, but black bears are plenty durable).

I walked across your state, too. If you are afraid of the animals out there, I guess you need to carry something to protect yourself. However, unless tweaker is another name for moose, you have failed to list the most deadly, nonhuman, animal you are likely to encounter in Washington state. I've only seen a couple cats, and every bear I ever saw was moving away as fast as its legs could carry it, but moose have put me in situations that made me sweat on numerous occasions. Lots of us backcountry folks can trade stories of being treed, chased, threatened, etc, by moose. Those who get trampled don't generally tell the story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

The only thing that in the ban that actually affected the performance of the rifle was the magazine size and this was easily bypassed by those who wanted to do it.

---

I find that an interesting comment in face of the fact the NRA chose it as their #1 priority to NOT reinstitute that ban in 2004. If it was purely cosmetic, then why the fuss from the NRA?

I understand the gun manufacturing industry reacted to the result of the tobacco industry's day in court. But to actively exclude themselves from lawsuits that may prove their negligence is outrageous. Further, its unprecedented and pompous.

What of the school districts in the country that have been sued in civil courts over negligence - and the public taxpayer money that has been spent on awards. I find it rather disgusting how one manufacturing industry can institute a federal law excluding themselves, yet State legislators and federal congressmen cannot apply that protection to government run schools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

He'd been in the US since he was 8. How much of a history do you think he had prior to that?

---

The article I read yesterday said a student Visa. I was going off of that. Apparently the article I read was incorrect.

Quote:

---

What's a tweaker?

---

Pic attached, They are a widespread fierce rhodent known for unpredictable actos of violence and can be quite deadly.

Quote:

---

As for bear and cougar, a handgun isn't going to help you much for cougar, they are ambush predators. As a general rule, nobody sees one before they feel it. As for a bear, you had best have a mighty big gun. People hunt black bears with hand guns, but they use only the larger caliber weapons. In most cases, if you shoot a bear, you HAVE to kill it, and they are notoriously tough to kill, even with large caliber weapons (griz are far tougher, of course, but black bears are plenty durable).

---

I used to hunt black bear with a 44 Magnum S&W when legal to do so. Rifles are difficult control/carry in heavy brush. I am quite accurate with it and have dropped every bear I have ever shot with one round. And before the anti hunting crowd jumps on me too, I don't hunt any more with a firearm.

Quote:

---

I walked across your state, too. If you are afraid of the animals out there, I guess you need to carry something to protect yourself. However, unless tweaker is another name for moose, you have failed to list the most deadly, nonhuman, animal you are likely to encounter in Washington state. I've only seen a couple cats, and every bear I ever saw was moving away as fast as its legs could carry it, but moose have put me in situations that made me sweat on numerous occasions. Lots of us backcountry folks can trade stories of being treed, chased, threatened, etc, by moose. Those who get trampled don't generally tell the story.

---

I am not afraid of animals. I respect them, their capabilities, and their territory. Big Bull moose are pretty scarce around here these days and I avoid their stomping ground during the rutt. 99% of the bear I've seen over the years did exactly as you said. I've also seen what was left of a guy who walked across a path inbetween a sow and her cubs. It was not pretty. I have been cornered by a Black Bear once, fortunatly for me she was a cubless he and was just being curious. Yes cougars suck! I was fly fishing an alpine stream and walked up on one laying on a gravel bar. She was not happy. I was paranoid for the rest of the 1 1/2 day hike after seeing those teeth and claws.


now, back to tweakers. If you have hiked across our state I am damn suprised you've seen a bull and never seen one of these vile creatures. They are all over the place, especially along remote rivers and lakes. They have a nasty habit of robbing and or killing hikers.

http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/DrugI...ces/index.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Don't be an arse MB....

---

Hey, would you expect anything less? :lol:

Ok, I do know tweakers, but I have had the good fortune not to encounter any. You are right that they are the most dangerous animal out there.

I never did see a moose in WA, but had some really bizarre encounters with them last summer in ID, as well as past years. I have heard that the bull in rut is more overrated than dangerous. Not that I'd mess with one, but it is the cow and calf that is most dangerous. Had a pair chage at me one time, but it turns out they were just running away from something else, and once they saw me, they turned aside....but I was looking for a tree. Half a ton of moose will turn you into jam, and there's not much you can do about it.

Most of my friends seem to have switched to bow hunting for everything. Is that what you use?

The thing that keeps me somewhat safer out there is the fact that I am the size of the average NFL linebacker (not lineman, though if my foot doesn't get better, I'll be there). I had some featherweight teenager waving a gun at me and talking trash. Since I was on my way to the store, and am not a particularly angry type, I just walked away, but I was thinking that he wouldn't be so bold if he wasn't carrying the hardware. Guns might protect some people, but there is also a class of people who think it makes them tough. Kind of true in his case, I suppose. I wasn't looking for a fight anyways, but his having a gun did make up for the fact that he was a 120lb teenage tweaker (as you would say).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

Hey, would you expect anything less? :lol:

---

Well, yeah. That was kind of low for you. I can understand that you might misunderstand the reason for my position, but I am kind of the "death before dishonor" type. I've always wondered what happened in cases like that, or Columbine. Most shootings are over so fast that there really isn't time to do much of anything, but those two were relatively slow. You've GOT to fight back. Everything we know shows that ultimately you have to charge the guns. There might be some tactical considerations as to how you go about it, but if your basic instinct is to turn into the attack, you can't be criticized too much. People can find situations where inaction is the right course, but they are relatively rare, and should only be taken deliberately. If you only have time to react, it should be to retreat or attack, and either one promptly and without hesitation.

Quote:

---

My point was that a gun isn't a talisman. Anybody imagining themselves as the hero is fooling themselves. You might....you might not. I see Xanith pointed out some anecdote about a case where a person with a gun saved somebody. How hard would I have to look to find a case where somebody with a gun accidentally shot somebody (look no further than the White House). Argument by anecdote is done only as an appeal to emotion, and directly contrary to reason.

---

Apparently you didn’t read (understand) my post. I didn’t just post some isolated story about how guns can save lives, guns save lives every single day. Someone that is trained in the use of a firearm can save lives and it doesn’t have to be a police officer or someone that is ex-military. I agreed with you and stated that those who are not trained and don’t know how to use a gun can be a danger not only to himself/herself but to others. Not sure how that is emotional, I thought it was a lucid point that was fairly easy to understand.

X

Quote:

---

Next, calculate the incident of accidental shootings, crimes of passion, etc., and you can calculate a risk for having an armed campus.

---

Well at least we know now what happens when you have a gun free zone. I’m not advocating that students should be allowed to carry weapons around campus but maybe allowing professors who are well trained law abiding members of society should be allowed to carry a weapon not only to defend themselves but their students.

X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanith

Apparently you didn’t read (understand) my post. I didn’t just post some isolated story about how guns can save lives, guns save lives every single day. Someone that is trained in the use of a firearm can save lives and it doesn’t have to be a police officer or someone that is ex-military. I agreed with you and stated that those who are not trained and don’t know how to use a gun can be a danger not only to himself/herself but to others. Not sure how that is emotional, I thought it was a lucid point that was fairly easy to understand.

X

---

Sorry X, you are right, I didn't read your post very carefully, just noticed the anecdote that lead it, and was responding mostly to MB. I work for an enforcement agency, so I'm not going to dispute that guns can be useful, and can save lives. I think the "every day" part is an exageration that is only true if you look at the country at large. Once you do that, you also need to look at the rate of accidents in the country at large. These accidents happen among well trained individuals, as well as casual users. As an amusing anecdote about that, our hunting safety instructor managed to shoot a hole through the side of his own truck when he made a very small mistake, but I don't have time for the whole story. Accidents happen, even among professionals. You have to weigh the whole account before you decide the balance.

As for your second post, you must be mad. We STRONGLY advocate that people keep guns secured in gun safes, largely because they are theft magnets to anybody who breaks into your house. So which model do you favor: The prof leaves a gun in whichever classroom he/she is occupying, or the prof carries one with him/her at all times?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Sorry X, you are right, I didn't read your post very carefully, just noticed the anecdote that lead it, and was responding mostly to MB. I work for an enforcement agency, so I'm not going to dispute that guns can be useful, and can save lives. I think the "every day" part is an exageration that is only true if you look at the country at large. Once you do that, you also need to look at the rate of accidents in the country at large. These accidents happen among well trained individuals, as well as casual users. As an amusing anecdote about that, our hunting safety instructor managed to shoot a hole through the side of his own truck when he made a very small mistake, but I don't have time for the whole story. Accidents happen, even among professionals. You have to weigh the whole account before you decide the balance.

---

I think we went over this last time. I'm no hero and I'm only looking to protect me and mine. Outlawing guns isn't going to solve anything. Maybe we should do something usefull like forcing people who buy guns to go through training, or provide proof of advanced training. Also Require all guns to be locked and rendered unuseable when not in control of the owner. That doesn't mean a professor has to carry all the time or lock it in a classroom. It's as simple as removing the bolt from a weapon and sticking it in your pocket, or calling the state cops and getting a trigger lock.

Yes, I use a compound bow for all of the hunting I do. But, I am almost accurate enough with a sightless recurve to shelf the compound and start shooting a wood bow. probably a few thousand more arrows and I'll be on par with what I can do with my compound. I'd really like to learn to make my own recurve or longbow some day so I can at least say everything I hunt and fish with I built myself. Of course I don't really hunt much anymore. A stop at the local butcher is a lot eaiser than dragging a dead amimal over a mountain or three.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

I find that an interesting comment in face of the fact the NRA chose it as their #1 priority to NOT reinstitute that ban in 2004. If it was purely cosmetic, then why the fuss from the NRA?

---

That it was a meaningless law that restricted the rights of law-abiding citizens while having no impact on criminal usage of firearms. The magazine size restriction wasn't cosmetic though and that was probably the biggest reason behind them fighting it.

Basically, the law was based on a couple of high publicity incidents, one in California and one in Florida, involving bank hold-ups where police with their service pistols were outgunned by the perps. That plus the general fear of gangs in the early 90's. It was a law largely based on fear and ignorance which is never a good basis for a law (I refer you to the Patriot Act for another example of such a law).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

I think we went over this last time. I'm no hero and I'm only looking to protect me and mine. Outlawing guns isn't going to solve anything. Maybe we should do something usefull like forcing people who buy guns to go through training, or provide proof of advanced training. Also Require all guns to be locked and rendered unuseable when not in control of the owner. That doesn't mean a professor has to carry all the time or lock it in a classroom. It's as simple as removing the bolt from a weapon and sticking it in your pocket, or calling the state cops and getting a trigger lock.

Yes, I use a compound bow for all of the hunting I do. But, I am almost accurate enough with a sightless recurve to shelf the compound and start shooting a wood bow. probably a few thousand more arrows and I'll be on par with what I can do with my compound. I'd really like to learn to make my own recurve or longbow some day so I can at least say everything I hunt and fish with I built myself. Of course I don't really hunt much anymore. A stop at the local butcher is a lot eaiser than dragging a dead amimal over a mountain or three.

---

I have lots of friends who ONLY eat meat they harvested. I've been curious as to whether it is a cost effective strategy (leaving out the enjoyment they get from it), and it appears to me that it is currently not strictly cost effective, but it is really hard to pin that down. We have some people who make their own long bows. I don't know if they use them, but they can make some dough off them, as they are very fine.

As for guns, many states now require hunters to take a hunters education course before they get a liscense. This makes for a really funny situation: Technically, you have to take some training if you intend to use a gun for shooting anything other than humans. You don't need any training if the only purpose for the gun is to shoot humans.

Ok, that's flippant, but it is pretty much true out here. When people talk about self defense, they are generally talking about defense against other people, and no training is mandatory for that. Since you have to be both liscensed and trained to hunt, you are effectively liscencing a hunting gun.

I advocate that, since guns are intended to kill, either people or animals, you should have at least as much demonstation of competance as is required to drive a car. That's a mighty low standard: a cheap liscense and a simple test. However, even that standard is strongly opposed by the NRA, and most gun enthusiasts. Yet that low standard is already in place in many states for hunters. Thus my point: Only if you intend to shoot a human do you not have to have a liscense for a gun.

I heard on talk radio today the argument that he could have done more damage with a car driven through a crowd in less time.

The issue is certainly not gun control.

It's the lack of embracing the mental health issues that our population is suffering with.

@shaggy - I'm so envious that you do software to track fish...

I do software to track students :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

I do software to track students :(

---

I think you would have lost track of that one.

So what do people think about NBC showing the footage. I've heard all sides, and can't form a solid opinion. Of course, there must have been a bunch of execs drooling over the scoop, but did showing that serve a valuable service to the public?

Since I'm in this field - tracking discipline for students - developing PDA app's to handle building lockdowns - student evaluations - I would rather see who the person was that could sink to this level.

I'm not offended by seeing his video - I'm more interested in knowing what makes a sick mind like this tic.

The other networks are taking jabs at NBC for this - but not for any reason other than sour grapes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

I advocate that, since guns are intended to kill, either people or animals, you should have at least as much demonstation of competance as is required to drive a car. That's a mighty low standard: a cheap liscense and a simple test. However, even that standard is strongly opposed by the NRA, and most gun enthusiasts. Yet that low standard is already in place in many states for hunters. Thus my point: Only if you intend to shoot a human do you not have to have a liscense for a gun.

---

I agree with that as long as the training and license are reasonably priced, just like with driver's licenses. I don't support ideas that would allow Hollywood celebs, top corporate officials, and their bodyguards to be armed while us "great unwashed" couldn't afford it.

I know that whenever I've mentioned any kind of required firearms training in conservative or libertarian slanted discussion forums I've gotten flamed pretty good. Most are concerned either by the elitist angle, the slippery sloop analogy or they're simply just annoyed with the government being in their business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

I have lots of friends who ONLY eat meat they harvested. I've been curious as to whether it is a cost effective strategy (leaving out the enjoyment they get from it), and it appears to me that it is currently not strictly cost effective, but it is really hard to pin that down. We have some people who make their own long bows. I don't know if they use them, but they can make some dough off them, as they are very fine.

As for guns, many states now require hunters to take a hunters education course before they get a liscense. This makes for a really funny situation: Technically, you have to take some training if you intend to use a gun for shooting anything other than humans. You don't need any training if the only purpose for the gun is to shoot humans.........

---

Actually it is pretty cost effective if you're at it for a while. After you get past the price of guns and ammo all you're paying for is fuel and your license. When I was a starving student, For 40 dollars I could get enough red meat, bird meat and enough fly tying materials to last a year. Add another 40 for a freshwater license and I got fish added to the menu. Add another 200 bucks for fertilizer and seed and I got a half years worth of vegetables. Of course eating the same thing every other day sort of sucks.
I took that hunters safety class when I was 11. It was actually a very good class and out of the 30 or so people in it, it probably saved a life or two.
I picked up a book on bow building, I haven't read it yet. I'm still waiting on the parts for the new fly rod I'm building to show up. My next project is a driftboat, then I'll probably start on a recurve bow. Long bows are nice and I'll probably get one in a couple years for my boy to learn on, but It's difficult to get one to shoot enough FPS to hunt any big game with.

BTW It's not flippant It's the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

The issue is certainly not gun control.

It's the lack of embracing the mental health issues that our population is suffering with.

---

^+1^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xcoder

^+1^

---

And what does that symbol mean??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

And what does that symbol mean??

---

Agreement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

And what does that symbol mean??

---

Agreement as PG said, I was going to put only +1 but there is a 4 min characters rule so I added the rest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

Actually it is pretty cost effective if you're at it for a while. After you get past the price of guns and ammo all you're paying for is fuel and your license. When I was a starving student, For 40 dollars I could get enough red meat, bird meat and enough fly tying materials to last a year. Add another 40 for a freshwater license and I got fish added to the menu. Add another 200 bucks for fertilizer and seed and I got a half years worth of vegetables. Of course eating the same thing every other day sort of sucks.
I took that hunters safety class when I was 11. It was actually a very good class and out of the 30 or so people in it, it probably saved a life or two.
I picked up a book on bow building, I haven't read it yet. I'm still waiting on the parts for the new fly rod I'm building to show up. My next project is a driftboat, then I'll probably start on a recurve bow. Long bows are nice and I'll probably get one in a couple years for my boy to learn on, but It's difficult to get one to shoot enough FPS to hunt any big game with.

---

I wasn't counting squirrels;)

Seriously, though, I never calculated it based on a need for food. I was only counting elk and deer, and I see I have wildly miscounted. I ignored the cost of the weapons and ammo, and was basing the calculation on the amount people were paying for liscense and elk tags vs the amount of meat they were getting in a year. Since that is a relatively tricky animal to harvest, meat hunters can spend a significant amount of time, and still only harvest every other year or so. Had I added in all the various options in the sportsmans packs available today, the cost per pound would have dropped to pennies. Add in fish, and it would be VERY cheap indeed.

so most people agree with the concept of being able to defend themselves, after all any civilisation without a defense is just asking to be conquered.

however, that doesn't mean that everyone should have a nuclear weapon at their disposal.

so personal defense is allowed in some countries meaning that martial arts machettes and guns are legal.

It is PERMITTED to post more than one sentence per post.

you should ask a moderator that question :D

Penegate does raise an interesting point though, moderator = adjudicator = judge = justice

is a terrorist a person that does random acts of violence, or is a terrorist doing the acts of violence because they feel victimised either personally or acts done to their country or their beliefs?

justice implies a balance; for a wrong act there is supposed to be compensation to balance the injustice.

if we had justice at all levels of society as well as internationally, would we be neutralising and minimising the terrorist theat?

with a system based on perfect justice there would be adequate compensation for all victims meaning there would be no logical reason for terrorist activities, leaving only the insane to worry about.

they said on the news the psychiatrists didn't admit him to hospital, so what was the reason for the killing, he referred to himself as jesus the archetypal innocent victim, what was the source of the injustice he was responding to?

Learning C - Stick to one post.

Ok a few things - this post at times has become borderline and if people dont continue to respect other peoples comments we will have to close it!

My views are simple, I live in the Uk where guns are fairly rare. I've read alot about people saying they want to carry guns to defend themselves? Well doesnt this just esculate into I carry a gun you shoot me I shoot you blah blah and then your all dead? It seems a very 'caveman' approach. Prehaps I'm incorect but thats my view.

Also if you have a look at the number of school shootings in the US isnt that because guns are so avalible and carying one is just normal?

What we are seeing is an extreme incident where a person was obviously messed up in the head. But non the less he was able to obtain a couple of guns. Surley having the option for crazy people to get guns isnt the best way?

I offer sympothies for the people involved in this.

Pino

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pino

Learning C - Stick to one post.

Ok a few things - this post at times has become borderline and if people dont continue to respect other peoples comments we will have to close it!

My views are simple, I live in the Uk where guns are fairly rare. I've read alot about people saying they want to carry guns to defend themselves? Well doesnt this just esculate into I carry a gun you shoot me I shoot you blah blah and then your all dead? It seems a very 'caveman' approach. Prehaps I'm incorect but thats my view.

Also if you have a look at the number of school shootings in the US isnt that because guns are so avalible and carying one is just normal?

What we are seeing is an extreme incident where a person was obviously messed up in the head. But non the less he was able to obtain a couple of guns. Surley having the option for crazy people to get guns isnt the best way?

I offer sympothies for the people involved in this.

Pino

---

Guns have been in American society since the beginning (of America, that is), but school shootings have not. It is easy to blame guns for the problems, and I tend to favor that, despite it not being the case. The real problem is much more difficult, and we really hate difficult problems. After all, society as a whole is much less violent than it was fifty years ago. Back then, the violence was not as random as it now is, but lynching, mass violence, organized violence, etc. were much more prevalent. Much of that has gone away from all parts of society except a few (inner city slums, for one).

As for the cause of the seemingly random, isolated, incidents of violence that are pretty common in this society, everybody picks their own bogeyman to shoulder the blame. Evangelicals say it is immorality, conservatives choose liberal attitudes, liberals choose conservative crap, other groups (with no particular name or creed) choose movies, videogames, etc. Which one is right? I certainly don't know.

Therefore, I will place the blame squarely on TV, and anybody who disagrees with me is, of course, and idiot. Bah! Humbug!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pino

Learning C - Stick to one post.
What we are seeing is an extreme incident where a person was obviously messed up in the head. But non the less he was able to obtain a couple of guns. Surley having the option for crazy people to get guns isnt the best way?

---

are you sure he was crazy, apparently he was examined in hospital and they evaluated him as sane. Sane people do sometimes undertake terrorist activities if they feel victimised. It is easy to dismiss anyone capable of performing a mass killing as insane, however, that would be shortsighted.

Insane is barely a technical and medical term.

Do you think this person knew compasion? Knew what love was?

Everyone feels rage - that's a normal passion. Having the other parts of your personality in place to counter your rage moments is what is expected.

I would venture to guess this person had many negative personality traits and conditions. Obviously not enough to be committed (with the system we have in place today) - but then most criminals get out of jail after serving a sentence to once again commit some heinous act.

So one hospital stay that didn't result in the proper folks seeing the full depth of his depravity is an indictment of the mental health system that we all ignore...

I heard that he was ruled a danger to himself and others by a magistrate. I had not heard that he was ruled to be sane, but that he just wasn't considered sufficiently dangerous to be committed. That's a very hard thing to do in VA because of the wording of the laws of that state.

the ability to kill people doesn't define insanity, a soldier who presses the button on a smart bomb that kills several hundred people is not necessarily insane. I read the opposite SH, that he wasn't ruled insane. what was the reason that he had for killing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by learning c

What was the reason that he had for killing?

---

Computer games

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by learning c

is a terrorist a person that does random acts of violence, or is a terrorist doing the acts of violence because they feel victimised either personally or acts done to their country or their beliefs?

---

I did it all for the nookie :cool: