1988RedT2

While every word rings true, this is particularly compelling. And obvious. Why are so many blind to this simple logic?



It's not a radical idea. A firearm is a simple and effective tool, and in the hands of sensible and law-abiding citizens, it certainly is nothing to fear.

inanimate_object

What is your point here exactly? The orangemen celebrate a 17th century victory by protestant William III over catholic James II. There's a standing Brittish army in Ireland because part of Ireland is Brittish. What has any of that got to do with guns or a killing spree in Virginia?



IMO your idea about training is good, and more knowledge/awareness is always a healthy thing. However I'm not so convinced about your proposal to give everyone a gun and let them shoot criminals. That sounds a lot more like anarchy to me. I'm proud of the fact that police in Ireland don't carry guns. After all they're not infallible and are still people that can make mistakes, and you don't have to look too far to see that they do. If these are people highly trained in the use of this equipment, and also in the intricacies of state law - do you have enough faith in average civilians to even match even this flawed level to give them all lethal weapons? I CERTAINLY don't, especially since these people are the victims and their decision making is being affected. Sure more rapists would be getting "shot in the crotch", but what about the guys who's crime was being a misunderstood creep, or the "towelhead" who got shot for forgetting his work briefcase at the bus stop?



I'm not English, but if I was I'd find your tale about "jolly old england" highly offensive. Aside from being completely made up from preconceived stereotypes it's got nothing to do with the topic and trying to tell me we've "come a long way from those days", to be quite frank is arrogant and bigoted. Especially when try to insult my intelligence in the first sentence like that.



That's all I'm going to say, we're turning this topic to a load of drivel. I have the utmost respect for your knowledge in other areas but honestly I've been surprised at what you've said here.

isamu

What happened was a dicrepency in the wording between what the state submitted to the Feds to show up in the Federal background check. When he was submitted for the check, he was not denied the weapon. It looks like he also purchased one of the guns online and picked it up at a pawnshop.



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/us/21gun...agewanted=print

Dramon_Killer

Whether or not youre pro or anti-gun I just think its funny how people dont care about gun control until theres a highly publicized shooting and then all the sudden, oh man, shooting?! how can we prevent this! well if he didnt have a gun then it'd be perfect!



All the big highly publicized shootings like VT and columbine were highly premeditated and the shooters had plenty of chances to get their hands on guns. But for the most part thats irrelevant and I say this becuase when it comes down to it while those types of shootings are tragic, they don't represent fraction of the homicides that occur every year.



It's horrible that it happened don't get me wrong but when people start using the VT incident as the only go to model for gun control, meh.