Here is information about the Virginia Tech killer
The Source
Major: Engineering (Senior)
Firearm #1: Glock 19
Firearm #2: Walther P-22
Tim May
Source <thes...@mailinator.com> wrote:
It is not permissable to imply that a killer is Mongoloid or Negroid.
Please rewrite this information to comply with directives that refer to
school killers as Caucasoid. Use of terms like "good ole boys" and
"rednecks," and "white punks on dope" are suggested as acceptable
replacements for any references to Asian, Oriental, etc.
--Tim May
C J Campbell
A single armed student could have stopped him. Thirty armed students
would have turned him into Swiss cheese the moment he threatened them.
As it is, the American public is so helpless that it will not be long
before the whole country could be taken over by a couple goons armed
with spoons.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
Jürgen Exner
<AOL>
Please send pics
</AOL>
At least that would make this spam on topic in RPD.
David Dyer-Bennet
> On 2007-04-16 20:52:44 -0700, The Source <thes...@mailinator.com> said:
>
>> Last Name: Cho
>> Major: Engineering (Senior)
>>
>> Firearm #1: Glock 19
>>
>> Firearm #2: Walther P-22
>
> A single armed student could have stopped him. Thirty armed students
> would have turned him into Swiss cheese the moment he threatened them.
Armed faculty or staff are more likely (except for Virginia law
specifically banning carry on campuses) because nearly everybody limits
carry to people 21 or over, which cuts out most undergrads and hence a
pretty large proportion of the students (grad students are generally a
rather small proportion of the total students at a big university, and
undergrads over 21 certainly exist, but aren't the norm either).
> As it is, the American public is so helpless that it will not be long
> before the whole country could be taken over by a couple goons armed
> with spoons.
Oh, come on; there's been tremendous progress in shall-issue carry laws
in the last two decades, since Florida kicked off the current round of
expansions in 1987. The chance of meeting an armed civilian is, I will
venture to guess, at a 30-year high.
Alfred Molon
christoph...@hotmail.com says...
> A single armed student could have stopped him. Thirty armed students
> would have turned him into Swiss cheese the moment he threatened them.
>
> As it is, the American public is so helpless that it will not be long
> before the whole country could be taken over by a couple goons armed
> with spoons.
On the other hand here in Germany where firearms are not as widespread
as in the USA such massacres are unknown. There have been some small
isolated accidents in the past, but nothing comparable to what you have
in the USA.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330, E400 and E500 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
Billzz
news:MPG.208e778dc...@news.supernews.com...
> In article <200704162124398930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>,
> christoph...@hotmail.com says...
>
>> A single armed student could have stopped him. Thirty armed students
>> would have turned him into Swiss cheese the moment he threatened them.
>>
>> As it is, the American public is so helpless that it will not be long
>> before the whole country could be taken over by a couple goons armed
>> with spoons.
>
> On the other hand here in Germany where firearms are not as widespread
> as in the USA such massacres are unknown. There have been some small
> isolated accidents in the past, but nothing comparable to what you have
> in the USA.
> --
>
> Alfred Molon
I am guessing that you did not live in Germany when we lived in Germany.
http://www.germanculture.com.ua/library/weekly/aa060499.htm
strabo
Right.
Refer to this Caucasian redneck as heavily armed
with high powered automatic guns in his arsenal. And
don't forget to emphasize hundreds of rounds of ammunition.
>
> --Tim May
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
David R KE
"Tim May" <tim...@removethis.got.net> wrote in message
news:160420072118349382%tim...@removethis.got.net...
are mongoloid
David R KE
"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:4624584b$0$272$8046...@newsreader.iphouse.net...
>C J Campbell wrote:
> in the last two decades, since Florida kicked off the current round of
> expansions in 1987. The chance of meeting an armed civilian is, I will
> venture to guess, at a 30-year high.
looks like they met one today,
some people shouldn't be armed
Gunner
<alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <200704162124398930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>,
>christoph...@hotmail.com says...
>
>> A single armed student could have stopped him. Thirty armed students
>> would have turned him into Swiss cheese the moment he threatened them.
>>
>> As it is, the American public is so helpless that it will not be long
>> before the whole country could be taken over by a couple goons armed
>> with spoons.
>
>On the other hand here in Germany where firearms are not as widespread
>as in the USA such massacres are unknown. There have been some small
>isolated accidents in the past, but nothing comparable to what you have
>in the USA.
Look at Norway, Canada and Finland where gun ownership is nearly as high
or higher than the US and such massacres are unknown.
So perhaps its NOT the guns afterall...
Gunner
"I don't want to abolish government.
I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can
drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.
-- Grover Norquist
Gunner
wrote:
>"Alfred Molon" <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.208e778dc...@news.supernews.com...
>> In article <200704162124398930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>,
>> christoph...@hotmail.com says...
>>
>>> A single armed student could have stopped him. Thirty armed students
>>> would have turned him into Swiss cheese the moment he threatened them.
>>>
>>> As it is, the American public is so helpless that it will not be long
>>> before the whole country could be taken over by a couple goons armed
>>> with spoons.
>>
>> On the other hand here in Germany where firearms are not as widespread
>> as in the USA such massacres are unknown. There have been some small
>> isolated accidents in the past, but nothing comparable to what you have
>> in the USA.
>> --
>>
>> Alfred Molon
>
>I am guessing that you did not live in Germany when we lived in Germany.
>
>http://www.germanculture.com.ua/library/weekly/aa060499.htm
But..but..but they were marxists...so should be given a pass.
Right? Power to the People and all that leftist stuff.
Gunner
>
>> ------------------------------
>> Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330, E400 and E500 forum at
>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
>> http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
>
"I don't want to abolish government.
Toni Nikkanen
> Look at Norway, Canada and Finland where gun ownership is nearly as high
> or higher than the US and such massacres are unknown.
I'd be surprised if gun ownership in Finland was nearly as high as in
the US; after all, you need a permit to own one legally and the more
powerful the weapon, the harder it gets.. add to this that most people
aren't interested in owning one anyway.
Got any numbers?
Mohammed the Holy Nabi
Cho = Korean , most likely .
Nick Hull
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> > A single armed student could have stopped him. Thirty armed students
> > would have turned him into Swiss cheese the moment he threatened them.
>
> Armed faculty or staff are more likely (except for Virginia law
> specifically banning carry on campuses) because nearly everybody limits
> carry to people 21 or over, which cuts out most undergrads and hence a
> pretty large proportion of the students (grad students are generally a
> rather small proportion of the total students at a big university, and
> undergrads over 21 certainly exist, but aren't the norm either).
There is no requirement that everyone be armed. If only 10% were
armed the perp would have been killed almost instantly, if only
1% were armed he would have been stopped long before he killed 32.
PaPaPeng
wrote:
On a CNN interview with a senior University administrator he advised
people in campuses elsewhere to be on alert and be aware of one's
surroundings for a few weeks. These shootings, he said, tend to occur
in clusters. In other words there is likely to be copycat shooters.
Scott Schuckert
Campbell <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> A single armed student could have stopped him. Thirty armed students
> would have turned him into Swiss cheese the moment he threatened them.
>
> As it is, the American public is so helpless that it will not be long
> before the whole country could be taken over by a couple goons armed
> with spoons.
You know, I said exactly that to some (admittedly rather liberal)
friends yesterday - that the whole thing got out of hand because there
weren't enough guns around. They didn't simply disagree; they literally
couldn't grasp what I was saying.
"But... guns are bad, guns are dangerous; how could a gun make us safe?"
When I explained that armed citizens might have defended themselves and
STOPPED this guy, the discussion turned to speculation on how to
"authorize" people (to defend themselves), and, God help me, liability
issues.
Now I'M the one who can't comprehend...
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On the other hand here in Germany where firearms are not as
> widespread as in the USA such massacres are unknown.
Oh, I can think of a counter-example or two.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Toni Nikkanen
> "But... guns are bad, guns are dangerous; how could a gun make us safe?"
>
> When I explained that armed citizens might have defended themselves and
> STOPPED this guy, the discussion turned to speculation on how to
> "authorize" people (to defend themselves), and, God help me, liability
> issues.
>
> Now I'M the one who can't comprehend...
I think both things will become true: if more people had guns, more
people would be shooting other people when they go crazy. However,
they will be stopped faster. Who knows it the net total would be for
the better or worse? Please, do make an experiment like this in the
US, we can watch from the sidelines and see if it was a good decision.
Bob Brock
"Toni Nikkanen" <to...@morgoth.tuug.fi> wrote in message
news:rlp8xcr...@morgoth.tuug.fi...
Simply go back an look at the 1950's and early 1960's. Gun ownership, with
the exception of fully automatic firearms was legal with almost no
restrictions. Hell, you mail order a rifle or shotgun and pay with money
order from out of state.
Allen
States. Up until the mid-1920's, armed Klan and Klan-like mobs were
lynching blacks for the crime of being black, with no trial no evidence.
In the 1800s posses and vigilantes roamed the West, shooting or hanging
people for imagined crimes with no trial, no evidence. Then there was
the Spanish Inquisition in Europe--people hanged or burned at the stake
by people with arms, just because they thought the victims had different
ideas. Or, lets go back to the Middle East in about AD 33, when an angry
mob conned the government into lynching a man because they didn't agree
with him.
How many "experiments" do you need?
Allen
Bob Brock
"Allen" <al...@nothere.net> wrote in message
news:4624df33$0$19091$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> Toni Nikkanen wrote:
>> Scott Schuckert <n...@aol.com> writes:
>>
>>> "But... guns are bad, guns are dangerous; how could a gun make us safe?"
>>>
>>> When I explained that armed citizens might have defended themselves and
>>> STOPPED this guy, the discussion turned to speculation on how to
>>> "authorize" people (to defend themselves), and, God help me, liability
>>> issues.
>>>
>>> Now I'M the one who can't comprehend...
>>
>>
>> I think both things will become true: if more people had guns, more
>> people would be shooting other people when they go crazy. However,
>> they will be stopped faster. Who knows it the net total would be for
>> the better or worse? Please, do make an experiment like this in the
>> US, we can watch from the sidelines and see if it was a good decision.
> There have been a large number of such "experiments" in the United States.
> Up until the mid-1920's, armed Klan and Klan-like mobs were lynching
> blacks for the crime of being black, with no trial no evidence.
A mob doesn't require a gun to hang someone.
David Dyer-Bennet
> In article <200704162124398930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>,
> christoph...@hotmail.com says...
>
>> A single armed student could have stopped him. Thirty armed students
>> would have turned him into Swiss cheese the moment he threatened them.
>>
>> As it is, the American public is so helpless that it will not be long
>> before the whole country could be taken over by a couple goons armed
>> with spoons.
>
> On the other hand here in Germany where firearms are not as widespread
> as in the USA such massacres are unknown. There have been some small
> isolated accidents in the past, but nothing comparable to what you have
> in the USA.
And this has been true of Britain and Canada and Australia both before
and after they drastically restricted civilian ownership of firearms.
It appears to relate to national character or local social conditions or
something rather than to availability of weapons.
Meanwhile, Americans defend themselves from assaults with firearms
something like 700,000 to 5,000,000 times a year (measuring successful
defenses is hard, hence the large uncertainty; difficulties include that
successful defenses may not be reported to the authorities especially if
shots aren't fired, and that somebody who scared you enough to cause you
to show your firearm and tell him to go away may not have intended an
assault).
Cynicor
> Meanwhile, Americans defend themselves from assaults with firearms
> something like 700,000 to 5,000,000 times a year (measuring successful
> defenses is hard, hence the large uncertainty; difficulties include that
> successful defenses may not be reported to the authorities especially if
> shots aren't fired, and that somebody who scared you enough to cause you
> to show your firearm and tell him to go away may not have intended an
> assault).
5 million times per year? Dividing that out, that's 100,000 times per
state. Even taking 700,000 as the low end, that's still over 10,000
times per state per year. I find that very hard to believe.
Gunner
wrote:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html
One should also note that Mexico, which has a total ban on firearms
ownership, has one of the highest murder rates.
Oh..and silencers...terrible....
Gunner
wrote:
>Scott Schuckert <n...@aol.com> writes:
Norway and Switzerland.
Need more?
Oh..btw...Piva!
Gunner...Soumilinen
Gunner
>Toni Nikkanen wrote:
>> Scott Schuckert <n...@aol.com> writes:
>>
>>> "But... guns are bad, guns are dangerous; how could a gun make us safe?"
>>>
>>> When I explained that armed citizens might have defended themselves and
>>> STOPPED this guy, the discussion turned to speculation on how to
>>> "authorize" people (to defend themselves), and, God help me, liability
>>> issues.
>>>
>>> Now I'M the one who can't comprehend...
>>
>>
>> I think both things will become true: if more people had guns, more
>> people would be shooting other people when they go crazy. However,
>> they will be stopped faster. Who knows it the net total would be for
>> the better or worse? Please, do make an experiment like this in the
>> US, we can watch from the sidelines and see if it was a good decision.
>There have been a large number of such "experiments" in the United
>States. Up until the mid-1920's, armed Klan and Klan-like mobs were
>lynching blacks for the crime of being black, with no trial no evidence.
And when the blacks started arming themselves, such incidents fell to
nearly zero.
>In the 1800s posses and vigilantes roamed the West, shooting or hanging
>people for imagined crimes with no trial, no evidence.
Actually..most of the shootings and hangings were of the right people
for real crimes. Dead criminals are NOT repeat offenders.
Then there was
>the Spanish Inquisition in Europe--people hanged or burned at the stake
>by people with arms, just because they thought the victims had different
>ideas.
Actually..the Spanish usually used a garrot.
Or, lets go back to the Middle East in about AD 33, when an angry
>mob conned the government into lynching a man because they didn't agree
>with him.
>
>How many "experiments" do you need?
>
>Allen
Thank you for demonstrating that unarmed people are helpless against the
mob.
Gunner
Robert Sturgeon
<dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
(snips)
>Oh, come on; there's been tremendous progress in shall-issue carry laws
>in the last two decades, since Florida kicked off the current round of
>expansions in 1987. The chance of meeting an armed civilian is, I will
>venture to guess, at a 30-year high.
Not on a school campus, which is why those are the favored
shooting spree venues.
--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
Robert Sturgeon
<billzz...@starband.net> wrote:
>"Alfred Molon" <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.208e778dc...@news.supernews.com...
>> In article <200704162124398930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>,
>> christoph...@hotmail.com says...
>>
>>> A single armed student could have stopped him. Thirty armed students
>>> would have turned him into Swiss cheese the moment he threatened them.
>>>
>>> As it is, the American public is so helpless that it will not be long
>>> before the whole country could be taken over by a couple goons armed
>>> with spoons.
>>
>> On the other hand here in Germany where firearms are not as widespread
>> as in the USA such massacres are unknown. There have been some small
>> isolated accidents in the past, but nothing comparable to what you have
>> in the USA.
>> --
>>
>> Alfred Molon
>
>I am guessing that you did not live in Germany when we lived in Germany.
>
>http://www.germanculture.com.ua/library/weekly/aa060499.htm
You're forgetting little bit of violence which occurred from
1933 through 1945. Oh, wait -- that was done BY the
government, so I guess it was OK. Yeah: Germany, the one
place on earth where violence NEVER happens. Riiiiight...
David Dyer-Bennet
And well you should; you'd expect it to be distributed by population,
rather than by state, so very few states will have 100,000 instances.
And a few will have more.
Gunner
It is. The US Department of Justice has conducted studies..and the high
end appears to be between 1.8 million and 2.5 million DGUs a year
(defensive gun uses)
Personally, Ive had 6 DGUs in the past 25 yrs, with no shots fired.
And got a serious ass chewing from the local cops for NOT shooting the
perps. But I hold human life for the most part, sacred. Which doesnt
mean that I wont shoot if I deem it necessary. And sleep soundly
afterwards.
PirateJohn
>
> One should also note that Mexico, which has a total ban on firearms
> ownership, has one of the highest murder rates.
>
Mexico doesn't have a "total" ban on firearms. Ownership is
restricted, but there are plenty of locals and plenty of gringos with
residential permits who have legal firearms in Mexico. And Tamaulipas
is advertising that there is plenty of hunting in the forests outside
Victoria, and they aren't expecting anyone to do their hunting with
rocks and sticks.
The following is a decent overview of the situation:
~~~
Mexico
By David B. Kopel
The Mexican Constitution guarantees the right of Mexicans to possess
arms. Even so, gun control laws in Mexico are very strict, and police
discretion in enforcement makes possession of firearms of greater
than .22 very difficult.
The Cinco de Mayo celebration, commemorating Mexico's 1867 victory
against French colonialists enjoys a little-known tie to American
firearms. Before the French Emperor Napoleon III overthrew the Mexican
government in 1863, Benito Juárez had been serving as President of
Mexico. When the French occupied Mexico City, he set up a resistance
movement in northern Mexico. There, he ordered 1,000 Winchester Model
1866 carbines in .44 caliber, to be delivered to Monterrey, along with
500 cartridges per gun. The Juárez forces paid $57,000 in silver coin.
"R.M." - for "Republic of Mexico" - was inscribed on the frames of the
carbines. Today, "Juarez Winchesters" are very valuable collectors
items.
In Death by Government (Transaction, 1994), R.J. Rummel estimates that
between 1900 and 1920, various Mexican governments killed over 1.4
million people, through slave labor, executions, and other means, not
including the hundreds of thousands more who died at the hands of
rebels or from other war-related causes.
A new constitution, adopted in 1917, at last recognized a right to
arms. Article 10 of the Mexican Constitution, as amended, states:
"The inhabitants of the United Mexican States have the right to
possess arms in their homes for their security and legitimate defense
with the exception of those prohibited by federal law and of those
reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and
National Guard. Federal law shall determine the cases, conditions and
place in which the inhabitants may be authorized to bear arms."
In the middle of the twentieth century, firearms laws and their
enforcement had become liberal enough so that Mexico was a popular
hunting destination for Americans, and Mexican hunters could invent a
new shooting sport. "Silhouette shooting" - shooting at metal
silhouette targets in the shape of game animals -originated in Mexico
in the early 1950s. Mexican hunters were looking for ways to sharpen
their eyes between hunting seasons, and so began shooting at live
animals who had been placed on a high ridgeline, visible in silhouette
from hundreds of yards away. Whoever shot the animal would win a
prize. American hunters near the Mexican border - most notably the
Tuscon Rifle Club -- adopted the sport, but used life-sized metal
targets instead - hence the sport's name of "Siluetas Metalicas."
The sport originally used high-power rifles to shoot at metal
silhouettes of wild chickens, javelinas, turkeys, sheep, and other
game. In the 1970s, the National Rifle Association put silhouette
shooting into its competition schedule, and created separate classes
for smallbore rifle (.22), air rifles, and both smallbore and
centerfire handguns. This allowed the competitions to take place on
much smaller ranges than the 500 meter ranges which had been standard
for the high-power event. Since then, the sport has spread worldwide,
and many competitive shooters specialize in silhouette competition.
"Siluetas Metalicas" remains the proper name for silhouette shooting
with high-power rifles (6mm and up).
In Mexico as in the United States, civil unrest in 1968 led to
important new restrictions on firearms. Before then, many types of
rifles and handguns were freely available. Anti-government student
movements, however, scared the government into closing firearms
stores, and registering all weapons. Compliance with the registration
has been very low.
Today, notwithstanding the constitutional right, arms possession in
Mexico is severely restricted by a wide network of laws. Article 160
of the Federal Penal Code authorizes government employees to carry
guns. Article 161 requires a license to carry or sell handguns.
Article 162 provides penalties for violations, and also bans the
stockpiling of arms without permission. Article 163 states that
handguns may only be sold by mercantile establishments, not by
individuals. Further, handgun carry permit applicants must post a
bond, must prove their need, and must supply five character
references.
The most important gun laws are contained in the Federal Law of
Firearms and Explosives. It establishes a Federal Arms Registry
controlled by the Ministry of National Defense. Both the federal and
state governments are required to conduct public information campaigns
to discourage all forms of weapons ownership and carrying. Only sports-
related advertising of firearms is permitted.
Title Two of the Federal Law of Firearms allows possession and
carrying of handguns in a calibers of .380 or less, although some
calibers are excluded, most notably .357 magnum and 9mm parabellum.
Members of agricultural collectives and other rural workers are
allowed to carry the aforesaid handguns, .22 rifles, and shotguns, as
long as they stay outside of urban areas, and obtain a license.
Hunters and target shooters may obtain licenses for the above types of
firearms, as well as higher-powered rifles. There are a variety of
exceptions for particular guns, detailed in the Library of Congress
volume cited at the end of this entry. Gun collecting is allowed, with
a license and registration. Possession of firearms for home defense is
legally permitted. All guns must be registered with the Ministry of
National Defense within 30 days of acquisition. Licensees may only buy
ammunition for the caliber of gun for which they are licensed.
In practice, possession of firearms above .22 caliber is severely
restricted. As with much of the rest of Mexican law enforcement,
corruption is a major element of the gun licensing system.
Because government permits are difficult to obtain, there is a
thriving market in smuggled handguns from the United States. One
effort to control smuggling was Operation Forward Trace, conducted in
the 1990s by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. BATF
agents examined federal gun registration documents (Form 4473) held on
file at gun stores in southwestern states, and recorded the names and
addresses of buyers - especially those with Hispanic names - who had
purchased self-loading rifles or inexpensive handguns. BATF then
contacted the purchasers, and demanded to know where the guns were.
In July 2001, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and Mexican Attorney
General Rafael Macedo de la Concha announced a cooperative law
enforcement program, aimed partly at weapons smuggling. Mexican police
would provide computerized information about seized firearms to the US
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) so that BATF can trace
the guns. for criminal investigation. Ashcroft also assigned US
prosecutors in districts bordering Mexico to serve as contacts on gun
smuggling cases.
Even government agencies, frustrated with the Defense Ministry,
sometimes smuggle in their own weapons from the U.S.
In August 1985, the army -- using the pretext of a routine inspection
-- confiscated the weapons of the Juarez police. Many observers
believed the confiscation took place because the city government was
controlled by PAN, the leading opposition party. Guns confiscated by
the police or the military often end up on the black market.
In 1994, Mexico had a total homicide rate of 17.6 per 100,000
population. Of these homicides, 9.9 were by firearm, and 7.7 by other
means. Mexican law enforcement against violent crime is widely
regarded as ineffectual and dishonest.
Temporary gun licenses for sporting purposes may be issued to
tourists. Mexican law provides penalties of at least five to as many
as 30 years in prison for tourists who attempt to bring a firearm, or
even a single round of ammunition, into Mexico without prior
permission. In the past, the law was enforced stringently, even in
cases where the violation was accidental. In December 1998, however,
the Mexican Congress enacted legislation relaxing the law for first-
time, unintentional violations involving only a single gun. Now, first-
timers will be fined $1,000, but not imprisoned. The exemption does
not apply for military weapons or calibers - which by Mexican law
means any handgun above .380 in caliber, as well as a wide variety of
rifles.
Alfred Molon
b.net says...
> Meanwhile, Americans defend themselves from assaults with firearms
> something like 700,000 to 5,000,000 times a year (measuring successful
> defenses is hard, hence the large uncertainty; difficulties include that
> successful defenses may not be reported to the authorities especially if
> shots aren't fired, and that somebody who scared you enough to cause you
> to show your firearm and tell him to go away may not have intended an
> assault).
Another good reason not to live in the USA. I've never been in a
situation where I would have needed a gun.
--
Alfred Molon
cgiorgio
"Alfred Molon" <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> In article <200704162124398930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>,
> christoph...@hotmail.com says...
>
>> A single armed student could have stopped him. Thirty armed students
>> would have turned him into Swiss cheese the moment he threatened them.
>>
>> As it is, the American public is so helpless that it will not be long
>> before the whole country could be taken over by a couple goons armed
>> with spoons.
>
> On the other hand here in Germany where firearms are not as widespread
> as in the USA such massacres are unknown. There have been some small
> isolated accidents in the past, but nothing comparable to what you have
> in the USA.
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
> Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330, E400 and E500 forum at
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
> http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
Ever heard of the Erfurt high school spree, 26. April 2004 where an
ex-student killed 18 people (mainly teachers)?
There were a few others in Germany as well.
Cynicor
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:06:20 -0400, Cynicor
> <j...tru.p...in@speak.ea.sy.net> wrote:
>
>> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>> Meanwhile, Americans defend themselves from assaults with firearms
>>> something like 700,000 to 5,000,000 times a year (measuring successful
>>> defenses is hard, hence the large uncertainty; difficulties include that
>>> successful defenses may not be reported to the authorities especially if
>>> shots aren't fired, and that somebody who scared you enough to cause you
>>> to show your firearm and tell him to go away may not have intended an
>>> assault).
>> 5 million times per year? Dividing that out, that's 100,000 times per
>> state. Even taking 700,000 as the low end, that's still over 10,000
>> times per state per year. I find that very hard to believe.
>
>
> It is. The US Department of Justice has conducted studies..and the high
> end appears to be between 1.8 million and 2.5 million DGUs a year
> (defensive gun uses)
Do you have a source for that, or is it from Kleck? Because this DoJ
source (dated) measured 931,000 violent crimes by offenders who had
handguns, and 83,000 crime victims who used firearms as defense.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
Have those numbers gone up by a factor of 20x since 1992? Or are there
still 10 gun crimes for each 1 gun save?
Nick Hull
"Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-america.net> wrote:
> > I think both things will become true: if more people had guns, more
> > people would be shooting other people when they go crazy. However,
> > they will be stopped faster. Who knows it the net total would be for
> > the better or worse? Please, do make an experiment like this in the
> > US, we can watch from the sidelines and see if it was a good decision.
>
> Simply go back an look at the 1950's and early 1960's. Gun ownership, with
> the exception of fully automatic firearms was legal with almost no
> restrictions. Hell, you mail order a rifle or shotgun and pay with money
> order from out of state.
Go back to 1930; you could buy a tommy gun in the hardware store
with NO paperwork. I don't recall anyone shooting up a school
with a tommy gun ;)
Nick Hull
"Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-america.net> wrote:
> > There have been a large number of such "experiments" in the United States.
> > Up until the mid-1920's, armed Klan and Klan-like mobs were lynching
> > blacks for the crime of being black, with no trial no evidence.
>
> A mob doesn't require a gun to hang someone.
An unarmed mob will never hang an armed citizen ;)
BogusID
news:nhull-9D7C7E....@dialupusa.usenetserver.com...
Just the gin joints and competitor hang outs!
Kind of like street drug dealers in Oakland today.
Its all about motive and incentive I guess...
BogusID
news:mc6dnZUM4IyfhLjb...@speakeasy.net...
How convenient to have those 12 year old stats handy.
Got anything more current, with growing CCW allowances this has likely
changed quite a bit.
Bob Brock
Very true.
David Dyer-Bennet
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:06:20 -0400, Cynicor
> <j...tru.p...in@speak.ea.sy.net> wrote:
>
>> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>> Meanwhile, Americans defend themselves from assaults with firearms
>>> something like 700,000 to 5,000,000 times a year (measuring successful
>>> defenses is hard, hence the large uncertainty; difficulties include that
>>> successful defenses may not be reported to the authorities especially if
>>> shots aren't fired, and that somebody who scared you enough to cause you
>>> to show your firearm and tell him to go away may not have intended an
>>> assault).
>> 5 million times per year? Dividing that out, that's 100,000 times per
>> state. Even taking 700,000 as the low end, that's still over 10,000
>> times per state per year. I find that very hard to believe.
>
>
> It is. The US Department of Justice has conducted studies..and the high
> end appears to be between 1.8 million and 2.5 million DGUs a year
> (defensive gun uses)
And not everybody agrees that those studies are accurate (or that any of
the alternative studies are accurate); there's no accepted method of
measuring DGUs yet. *Lots* of people think the DOJ studies aren't
maximal, so I wouldn't take them for the top end; I think they represent
a good solid mainstream position, but arguments can be made for some of
the higher and lower numbers.
> Personally, Ive had 6 DGUs in the past 25 yrs, with no shots fired.
>
> And got a serious ass chewing from the local cops for NOT shooting the
> perps. But I hold human life for the most part, sacred. Which doesnt
> mean that I wont shoot if I deem it necessary. And sleep soundly
> afterwards.
I hear you don't really know about that til you've tried it. Like you,
I'm prepared to risk it; when the alternatives look worse.
Cynicor
>>> It is. The US Department of Justice has conducted studies..and the high
>>> end appears to be between 1.8 million and 2.5 million DGUs a year
>>> (defensive gun uses)
>> Do you have a source for that, or is it from Kleck? Because this DoJ
>> source (dated) measured 931,000 violent crimes by offenders who had
>> handguns, and 83,000 crime victims who used firearms as defense.
>>
>> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
>>
>> Have those numbers gone up by a factor of 20x since 1992? Or are there
>> still 10 gun crimes for each 1 gun save?
>
>
> How convenient to have those 12 year old stats handy.
> Got anything more current, with growing CCW allowances this has likely
> changed quite a bit.
I don't, which is why I asked.
Ron Hunter
> last name = Cho,
> Cho = Korean , most likely .
>
>
> On Apr 17, 10:52 am, The Source <thesou...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>> Last Name: Cho
>> Major: Engineering (Senior)
>>
>> Firearm #1: Glock 19
>>
>> Firearm #2: Walther P-22
>
>
Yes, Korean. Not clear if he is resident alien, legal, or illegal, or
citizen.
Ron Hunter
Why? Remember, we have 300,000,000 people.
Notan
"Virginia Tech police today identified the gunman as Cho Seung-Hui, 23,
who was born in South Korea but came to the United States in 1992. He
grew up in Centreville, Va., a suburb of the nation's capital."
--
Notan
Ron Hunter
> In article <4624ece6$0$952$8046...@newsreader.iphouse.net>, dd-b@dd-
> b.net says...
>
>> Meanwhile, Americans defend themselves from assaults with firearms
>> something like 700,000 to 5,000,000 times a year (measuring successful
>> defenses is hard, hence the large uncertainty; difficulties include that
>> successful defenses may not be reported to the authorities especially if
>> shots aren't fired, and that somebody who scared you enough to cause you
>> to show your firearm and tell him to go away may not have intended an
>> assault).
>
> Another good reason not to live in the USA. I've never been in a
> situation where I would have needed a gun.
Nor have I in 64 years living in the US. However, I studiously, and
with aforethought, avoid places, and situations were such a need might
arise. Many don't.
Cynicor
And in 2005, there were 1,390,000 violent crimes and 10,166,000 property
crimes. Without supporting source material, I find it hard to believe
that the ratio of violent crime to defense from assaults using handguns
is 1.4:5.0 (or even 1.4:0.7). There are not 3x as many assaults repulsed
as there are assaults!
Lee K
> In article <200704162124398930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>,
> christoph...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
> On the other hand here in Germany where firearms are not as widespread
> as in the USA such massacres are unknown. There have been some small
> isolated accidents in the past, but nothing comparable to what you have
> in the USA.
"Small isolated accidents in the past", like WWII.
Lee K
"Alfred Molon" <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.208e778dc...@news.supernews.com...
>
> On the other hand here in Germany where firearms are not as widespread
> as in the USA such massacres are unknown.
- Nov. 21, 2006: Sebastian Bosse, 18, opens fire at his former school in
Emsdetten, Germany, before killing himself. Five people are wounded and
scores hospitalized for smoke inhalation after he sets off smoke bombs.
- April 26, 2002: Robert Steinhaeuser, 19, who had been expelled from a
school in Erfurt, Germany, kills 13 teachers, two former classmates and a
policeman, before shooting himself.
- Feb. 19, 2002: A man in his 20s fatally shoots the principal of his former
high school in Freising, Germany, after killing two people at a company
where he was fired. The man then kills himself.
Ron Hunter
We really can't know. How many crimes are averted simply because the
potential offender knows that his target is armed? This is one of those
unknowable things. Also, the only statistics we have are from those
situations that became out of control enough to involve the police. I
am sure that there are 10 situations that aren't reported for every 1
that is.
C J Campbell
> In article <200704162124398930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>,
> christoph...@hotmail.com says...
>
>> A single armed student could have stopped him. Thirty armed students
>> would have turned him into Swiss cheese the moment he threatened them.
>>
>> As it is, the American public is so helpless that it will not be long
>> before the whole country could be taken over by a couple goons armed
>> with spoons.
>
> On the other hand here in Germany where firearms are not as widespread
> as in the USA such massacres are unknown. There have been some small
> isolated accidents in the past, but nothing comparable to what you have
> in the USA.
Yeah, right. Germany is smaller than some of our states, yet it has
numerous massacres in its history, including recent history. Few
American states have a violence record as bad as that of Germany.
I'll try to remember how peaceful, friendly, and polite the Germans are
the next time I actually stop at a railroad crossing in Germany. Last
time I did that I was in genuine fear for my life.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
Alexander Arnakis
>
>Go back to 1930; you could buy a tommy gun in the hardware store
>with NO paperwork. I don't recall anyone shooting up a school
>with a tommy gun ;)
In 1930, a Thompson cost $250, which was a *lot* of money in those
deflationary times. Keep in mind that when the National Firearms Act
was passed in 1934, the $200 transfer tax imposed on machine guns was
thought to be practically prohibitive. So, in the 1930's, *economics*
acted as a screening tool. Interestingly, today's astronomical prices
for registered machine guns have the same practical function: owning
machine guns is a rich man's purview.
C J Campbell
Precisely. Tens of millions of kids went to school yesterday. And they
didn't kill anybody. One guy, out of tens of millions, had a bad day.
However, as was demonstrated at Virginia Tech, the World Trade Center,
Columbine, and several other incidents -- disarming the American public
has only made them more vulnerable to thugs and terrorists, not less.
It is time that we brought back the time-honored tradition of America:
mandatory membership in the Militia. Every able-bodied adult should be
required to keep and maintain a firearm and receive recurrent training.
The only exceptions should be those physically or mentally unable or
convicted criminals. It is time we drew the line. Not one more
Columbine. Not one more Virginia Tech. Not one more airliner. Not one
more screwed up kid in a tower on a campus somewhere. Not one more
disgruntled Postal worker. Not one more nut walking into McDonalds and
blowing away dozens of helpless people. It stops now.
We tried disarming the public. That failed. Miserably. It is time that
we took the country back from the gangsters, the mental cases, the
criminals, and the terrorists. Their time is done. No more women
threatened by animals masquerading as 'men.' No more minorities
threatened by hate groups. I say it is over.
As Mao said, freedom grows from the barrel of a gun.
C J Campbell
>
> "Toni Nikkanen" <to...@morgoth.tuug.fi> wrote in message
> news:rlp8xcr...@morgoth.tuug.fi...
>> Scott Schuckert <n...@aol.com> writes:
>>
>>> "But... guns are bad, guns are dangerous; how could a gun make us safe?"
>>>
>>> When I explained that armed citizens might have defended themselves and
>>> STOPPED this guy, the discussion turned to speculation on how to
>>> "authorize" people (to defend themselves), and, God help me, liability
>>> issues.
>>>
>>> Now I'M the one who can't comprehend...
>>
>>
>> I think both things will become true: if more people had guns, more
>> people would be shooting other people when they go crazy. However,
>> they will be stopped faster. Who knows it the net total would be for
>> the better or worse? Please, do make an experiment like this in the
>> US, we can watch from the sidelines and see if it was a good decision.
>
> Simply go back an look at the 1950's and early 1960's. Gun ownership, with
> the exception of fully automatic firearms was legal with almost no
> restrictions. Hell, you mail order a rifle or shotgun and pay with money
> order from out of state.
In those days, kids on the junior high school rifle team carried their
weapons on the school bus. Hunters stuck their rifles in the overhead
bins on airliners.
C J Campbell
I am not in favor of completely unregulated access to any kind of
weapon that anybody wants. I favor mandatory arming of the citizen
militia -- and that every citizen has an obligation there. But even I
don't want some guy next door building a personal nuke in his basement.
The tommy gun got a lot of bad press, but it was also one of the
weapons that brought freedom to hundreds of millions of Europeans in
the last nastiness there.
I say, mandatory ownership of at least a shotgun, rifle, or handgun,
but for any automatic weapon (one that will fire more than one round
with a single press of a trigger) I think some sort of restricted
access is reasonable.
C J Campbell
> Toni Nikkanen wrote:
>> Scott Schuckert <n...@aol.com> writes:
>>
>>> "But... guns are bad, guns are dangerous; how could a gun make us safe?"
>>>
>>> When I explained that armed citizens might have defended themselves and
>>> STOPPED this guy, the discussion turned to speculation on how to
>>> "authorize" people (to defend themselves), and, God help me, liability
>>> issues.
>>>
>>> Now I'M the one who can't comprehend...
>>
>>
>> I think both things will become true: if more people had guns, more
>> people would be shooting other people when they go crazy. However,
>> they will be stopped faster. Who knows it the net total would be for
>> the better or worse? Please, do make an experiment like this in the
>> US, we can watch from the sidelines and see if it was a good decision.
> There have been a large number of such "experiments" in the United
> States. Up until the mid-1920's, armed Klan and Klan-like mobs were
> lynching blacks for the crime of being black, with no trial no
> evidence. In the 1800s posses and vigilantes roamed the West, shooting
> or hanging people for imagined crimes with no trial, no evidence. Then
> there was the Spanish Inquisition in Europe--people hanged or burned at
> the stake by people with arms, just because they thought the victims
> had different ideas. Or, lets go back to the Middle East in about AD
> 33, when an angry mob conned the government into lynching a man because
> they didn't agree with him.
>
> How many "experiments" do you need?
>
> Allen
If everyone was armed, then the Klan would never have dared to attack
blacks. And the Spanish Inquisition could only have occurred against
helpless people. There has never been, since a brief time after the
country was founded, a time when the entire population was armed. And
even then, slaves were not armed.
I say, arm everyone. Then let us see how far the Klanners or the Nazis get.
rst0...@yahoo.com
wrote:> >> In article <4624ece6$0$952$80463...@newsreader.iphouse.net>, dd-b@dd-
> >> b.net says...
>
> >>> Meanwhile, Americans defend themselves from assaults with firearms
> >>> something like 700,000 to 5,000,000 times a year (measuring successful
> >>> defenses is hard, hence the large uncertainty; difficulties include
> >>> that successful defenses may not be reported to the authorities
> >>> especially if shots aren't fired, and that somebody who scared you
> >>> enough to cause you to show your firearm and tell him to go away may
> >>> not have intended an assault).
>
> >> Another good reason not to live in the USA. I've never been in a
> >> situation where I would have needed a gun.
>
> > Nor have I in 64 years living in the US. However, I studiously, and
> > with aforethought, avoid places, and situations were such a need might
> > arise. Many don't.
>
> Precisely. Tens of millions of kids went to school yesterday. And they
> didn't kill anybody. One guy, out of tens of millions, had a bad day.
>
> However, as was demonstrated at Virginia Tech, the World Trade Center,
> Columbine, and several other incidents -- disarming the American public
> has only made them more vulnerable to thugs and terrorists, not less.
>
> It is time that we brought back the time-honored tradition of America:
> mandatory membership in the Militia. Every able-bodied adult should be
> required to keep and maintain a firearm and receive recurrent training.
What guarantee do you have that "to keep and maintain a firearm and
receive recurrent training" in the use of these firearms would NOT
have 100 times more incidents like the Virginia Tech massacre?
Remember, the availability of firearms is the cause of these
shootings.
> The only exceptions should be those physically or mentally unable or
> convicted criminals. It is time we drew the line. Not one more
> Columbine. Not one more Virginia Tech. Not one more airliner. Not one
> more screwed up kid in a tower on a campus somewhere. Not one more
> disgruntled Postal worker. Not one more nut walking into McDonalds and
> blowing away dozens of helpless people. It stops now.
>
> We tried disarming the public. That failed. Miserably. It is time that
> we took the country back from the gangsters, the mental cases, the
> criminals, and the terrorists. Their time is done. No more women
> threatened by animals masquerading as 'men.' No more minorities
> threatened by hate groups. I say it is over.
>
> As Mao said, freedom grows from the barrel of a gun.
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
C J Campbell
> In article <200704162124398930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>, C J
> Campbell <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A single armed student could have stopped him. Thirty armed students
>> would have turned him into Swiss cheese the moment he threatened them.
>>
>> As it is, the American public is so helpless that it will not be long
>> before the whole country could be taken over by a couple goons armed
>> with spoons.
>
> You know, I said exactly that to some (admittedly rather liberal)
> friends yesterday - that the whole thing got out of hand because there
> weren't enough guns around. They didn't simply disagree; they literally
> couldn't grasp what I was saying.
>
> "But... guns are bad, guns are dangerous; how could a gun make us safe?"
>
> When I explained that armed citizens might have defended themselves and
> STOPPED this guy, the discussion turned to speculation on how to
> "authorize" people (to defend themselves), and, God help me, liability
> issues.
>
> Now I'M the one who can't comprehend...
You might ask them what the liability should for someone who could have
stopped this killer and did not. And then ask them if deliberate
incompetence is an excuse.
All of those people blaming the university would do well to ask
themselves why they themselves were not prepared to stop this killer.
What -- because the didn't care? Because they have political
objections? Because they are pacifists? Every person who stood by and
let this guy do what he did is as guilty as the gunman himself.
Bob Brock
"C J Campbell" <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:200704171848208930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
I got my first real gun (a shotgun) when I was 14. My grandfather bought it
for my birthday. I'd take it with me to the hardware store to buy some
shell on the way to go hunting. No big deal, no strange looks, and no one
in town or the store thought anything about it. Now, I sometimes carry open
to go shopping etc. Not because I feel like I need to defend myself at the
grocery store. It's more because my state has one of the more liberal open
carry laws on the east coast and I want to do what little I can to keep it.
If no one does open carry in states that permit it, it's just a matter of
time before someone in power decides it's no big deal to eliminate it. It
was tried a few years ago and required a judicial decision to declare that
it violated the state constitution.
I simply do not see the problem with open carry or concealed carry for that
matter and I feel that it would act as a restraint on those who want to go
on shooting sprees. If it didn't stop them before they did it, it would
stop them shortly after they started.
Bob Brock
<rst0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1176861604.9...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Another way to look at it is that the lack of access to firearms was the
reason he was so successful.
rst0...@yahoo.com
> "C J Campbell" <christophercampb...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:200704171848208930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...> >> "Toni Nikkanen" <t...@morgoth.tuug.fi> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
The law of the wild west days, I see.
Bob Brock
<rst0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1176862211.6...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
No. One of the original 13 colonies.
John Smith
"Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-america.net> wrote in message
news:q2fVh.11987$qB4....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> Another way to look at it is that the lack of access to firearms was the
> reason he was so successful.
You can never know that.
DP
John Smith
<rst0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1176861604.9...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> What guarantee do you have that "to keep and maintain a firearm and
> receive recurrent training" in the use of these firearms would NOT
> have 100 times more incidents like the Virginia Tech massacre?
> Remember, the availability of firearms is the cause of these
> shootings.
Well, a clue might be that of the thousands of folk with CW permits, none
(to my knowledge) have ever (in my memory) have been involved in any mass
murder situation at all. In fact, you rarely if ever hear about them being
involved in murder at any level.
DP.
Bob Brock
"John Smith" <shot...@sneiorglobe.com> wrote in message
news:1e82$462584f7$401854bc$11...@DIALUPUSA.NET...
Once an action has been carried out, one can never really know what other
outcomes may have happened had things been different. However, I cannot
imagine a lone gunman shooting so many other armed people before getting
killed himself. If I ever see a lone gunman go into a police station and do
the same thing, I'll change my mind.
C J Campbell
No. It was Cho's untreated mental problems that was the cause of these
shootings. Here is a guy, with a long history of writing violent and
twisted plays and stories in his English class, one who is a loner and
who is well known to have serious mental problems, being allowed to run
around loose. And you want to blame the gun he used? How about the
negligence of all those people who knew what he was and did nothing
about it? And Cho would never have been able to shoot 30 armed
students. One of them would have got him first.
I don't have any guarantee other than the fact that what we are doing
now is obviously not working. Doing more of the same is not a recipe
for success.
C J Campbell
Really? What was the Wild West like? If you are talking about the Wild
West of the movies, you have a lot to learn about both the Wild West
and the movies.
I am old enough to have known people who actually lived in the Wild
West. I have also read their diaries and studied their histories. You
know what? The Dalton gang and the James gang, Butch Cassidy and the
Sundance Kid and the Hole-in-the-Wall gang (and I knew people who
actually knew Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid), Wyatt Earp and Doc
Holiday -- all those guys -- the reason they made the news and
dimestore novels were written about them and their highly exaggerated
exploits was because they were the exception, not the rule. They were
considered freaks and weirdos in their day. And they lived in fear of
an armed populace.
Shoot-outs, duels in the streets, even widespread banditry are all the
stuff of fiction. So if you learn anything at all about the Wild West,
learn this: it was not wild. These people had all they could do just to
survive long enough to bring the crops in, deliver the mail, and tend
the herds without getting involved in drunken brawls. You check the
medical records for those days. Gunshot wounds were extremely rare and
noteworthy, and the vast majority of them were from hunting accidents.
You want to know how many people were killed in the last range war of
the Wild West? None! Not a soul. But in the movie based on it, dozens
of people died. Do you know how many people were killed in the Pig War?
None! The only casualty was a pig! Do you know how many people were
killed in Tombstone? Dozens of them. But people did not carry guns in
Tombstone.
The worst towns, such as Tombstone, had strict gun control laws,
prohibiting any firearms in the town. The most famous shootout in
American history, the gunfight at OK Corral, was in a town which
prohibited anyone carrying firearms. In fact, the shootout was
precipitated by defiance of that law! Real effective, that was.
Yeah, if you were a professional criminal or even a card cheat or an
adulterer, someone might get mad at you and kill you, but the odds of
that happening were no worse then than they are today. In fact, it
seems on the face of it that today's disarmed society is far more
violent than the people of the Wild West.
C J Campbell
<Moony...@gmail.com> said:
> last name = Cho,
> Cho = Korean , most likely .
>
>
> On Apr 17, 10:52 am, The Source <thesou...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>> Last Name: Cho
>> Major: Engineering (Senior)
>>
>> Firearm #1: Glock 19
>>
>> Firearm #2: Walther P-22
Turns out he had a frightening history. He was an English major, but
normality ends there. He wrote violent and twisted plays and stories
that frightened his own professors. He was a loner who was off and on
medication for mental problems. He had been threatening to kill people
for months. Despite his known medical problems, he was able to buy
handguns last month. Students and teachers who knew him openly joked
(half-heartedly) about the day they would see him in the news.
Tragically, their jokes turned into reality. No one yet knows what,
exactly, it was that finally set him off, but does it matter? This was
a sick kid who doted on violent fantasies. Everyone knew he was a time
bomb waiting to go off. Apparently everyone was just hoping that he
would go off someplace else. Not a particularly moral position, in my
view.
Notan
When are we going to start taking these "troubled" people seriously?
This certainly isn't the first time one of these wackos has been spotted,
long before they actually snapped.
--
Notan
C J Campbell
Heck, there was a bomb threat in his backpack, almost identical to two
other bomb scares that closed Virginia Tech down recently. Officials
aren't saying that Cho was responsible for those bomb scares, but then
they are not saying that they officially think he was responsible for
both shooting incidents, either.
His works of fiction were so disturbing that the chairwoman of the
English department referred Cho to counseling. At the beginning of the
school year, when all the students were introducing themselves in one
of his classes, a signup sheet was passed around. Cho was the only one
who would not sign his name. He put a question mark. His professor
asked, "Is your name 'Question Mark?" Cho didn't answer. He just sat
there. And that is how he was the whole time he was in class. Would not
answer questions or participate in any way. He played basketball, but
almost never spoke to anyone. Apparently some of his classmates never
knew him by any other name than "Questionmark."
He had something against religion, women, 'rich' kids, etc., that in
his twisted mind somehow grew into this. Doctors say that every
shooting victim was shot at least three times. Cho used chains to lock
his victims in. He lined them up against the wall and shot them, never
showing any emotion at all. At some point, you have to admit that he
was actually evil, as unpopular notions of good and evil are these
days. He was deliberately cruel and unfeeling, writing about the joys
of violence.
You know, there will always be people like Cho. We can argue endlessly
about the best way to stop people like this. As is well known by now, I
think we need to look at enabling people to defend themselves, by
universally arming them. Others reasonably argue that they do not want
to see college students carrying guns. Some other people are not so
reasonable -- they simply think anyone who disagrees with them is
stupid. And I think that the latter are part of the problem. They are
obstructive, without offering any alternative.
strabo
> Scott Schuckert <n...@aol.com> writes:
>
>> "But... guns are bad, guns are dangerous; how could a gun make us safe?"
>>
>> When I explained that armed citizens might have defended themselves and
>> STOPPED this guy, the discussion turned to speculation on how to
>> "authorize" people (to defend themselves), and, God help me, liability
>> issues.
>>
>> Now I'M the one who can't comprehend...
>
>
> I think both things will become true: if more people had guns, more
> people would be shooting other people when they go crazy. However,
> they will be stopped faster. Who knows it the net total would be for
> the better or worse? Please, do make an experiment like this in the
> US, we can watch from the sidelines and see if it was a good decision.
>
Never before in the history of man has such ignorance of
human nature and the natural law of survival been ignored.
You can research small conflict resolution over the thousands
of years and never find an example of a people outlawing
weapons for themselves.
Today, those places where gun bans were introduced experienced
increases in crime beginning shortly after.
There was a shooting at the Appalachia Law School in 2002. An
armed teacher and several students quickly overcame the shooter
thus limiting casualties.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
C J Campbell
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <200704162124398930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>,
>> christoph...@hotmail.com says...
>>
>>> A single armed student could have stopped him. Thirty armed students
>>> would have turned him into Swiss cheese the moment he threatened them.
>>>
>>> As it is, the American public is so helpless that it will not be long
>>> before the whole country could be taken over by a couple goons armed
>>> with spoons.
>>
>> On the other hand here in Germany where firearms are not as widespread
>> as in the USA such massacres are unknown. There have been some small
>> isolated accidents in the past, but nothing comparable to what you have
>> in the USA.
>
> And this has been true of Britain and Canada and Australia both before
> and after they drastically restricted civilian ownership of firearms.
> It appears to relate to national character or local social conditions
> or something rather than to availability of weapons.
>
> Meanwhile, Americans defend themselves from assaults with firearms
> something like 700,000 to 5,000,000 times a year (measuring successful
> defenses is hard, hence the large uncertainty; difficulties include
> that successful defenses may not be reported to the authorities
> especially if shots aren't fired, and that somebody who scared you
> enough to cause you to show your firearm and tell him to go away may
> not have intended an assault).
Note that both Virginia Tech and Trolley Square in Salt Lake City are
supposedly 'gun-free zones.' In both cases, the murderers walked right
past signs that prohibit possession of firearms on the premises.
However, only five people were killed at Trolley Square. The reason is
that Kenneth Hammond, an off-duty Ogden police officer, also ignored
the signs at Trolley Square. He returned fire and killed the gunman. If
he had not, there would undoubtedly have been far more people killed
and injured. Perhaps Trolley Square will sue him for violating their
'no guns' policy.
Utah has no prohibition of guns on their school campuses. And there has
never been a mass killing at a school in Utah. Neither has any teacher
drawn a gun on a disrespectful student nor has a student stolen a
teacher's gun.
In Pearl, Miss, an assistant principal retrieved a gun from his car and
apprehended a school shooter. Luckily that assistant principal had
disobeyed the rules and brought a gun on campus. Two law enforcement
students stopped school shooter in 2002 in Grundy, VA. One of them
retrieved a weapon from his car. And in Edinboro, PA, a neighboring
storekeeper stopped a school shooter with his shotgun in 1997.
Barbara Boxer was right to introduce a bill mandating the arming of
airline pilots. By the time the so-called 'pro-gun' Bush administration
was done with it, though, the bill was so watered down and laden with
bureaucratic gobbledygook that it was almost completely unworkable.
I think that 7,000,000 times a year is over the top. The Center for
Disease Control and Prevention estimated in 1997 that Americans used
guns to prevent crime about 500,000 times a year. That seems more
reasonable.
And it is not just Americans. People all over the world manage to use
guns to keep the peace, not to break it. Israeli school teachers have
kept guns for years, and they don't go around shooting each other or
their students.
It is ridiculous for anyone to assert that Germans or anyone else don't
have mass shootings. They do. This is not something peculiar to America
or Americans. It is not the 'violent American culture,' or the 'easy
access to guns.' That only comes from the fiction writers at the New
York Times and the European papers too unimaginative to do anything but
repeat whatever the Times says.
Quite honestly, European criticism of American gun violence is
hypocritical in the extreme. Most Americans, after all, are descended
from Europeans who brought their European culture with them -- all
except for the European love of aristocracy, intrigue, and cynicism.
Before Europeans start telling America how to run our affairs, they
need to clean up their own.
It is just this attitude of blaming America for everything that is
making Europe more and more irrelevant in world affairs. Got a problem
in the Balkans? Blame America and do nothing. Former colonies
exterminating millions of people? Blame America and do nothing. Iran
threatening Germany with nuclear weapons? Blame America and do nothing
(except to illegally sell Iran more equipment to make missiles and
nukes). Saddam Hussein illegally re-arming his country with graft from
the Oil for Food program? Blame America and call Bush a liar, even when
the European bankers running the program are caught red-handed. Iraqi
insurgents using European military equipment on Europeans? Blame
America. Moslems rioting in Paris? Blame America. Basque separatists
blowing up the trains? Blame America. Neo-nazis marching in Berlin?
Blame America. Irish fighting each other? Blame America. Greeners
burning down Oslo? Blame America. Italian tuna fishers depleting the
Mediterranean of fish? Blame America. Terrorists shooting kids in Rome?
Blame America. Dutch whorehouses and needles spreading HIV? Blame
America. Can't build a decent European hybrid car? Blame America. Bird
flu? Blame America. Drug companies pulling out of the European market
because they can't afford to comply with regulations demanding they
manufacture their products for free? Blame America. High unemployment?
Blame America. Socialism doesn't work? Blame America. Can't build an
iPod? Blame America. Can't build a decent GPS system? Blame America.
Russia charging too much for fuel? Blame America. Can't build a
gigantic airplane without enormous cost overruns and delays and nobody
will buy it? Blame America. The asteroid is coming? Blame America.
Well, guess what? Americans are sick of it. We are beginning to have a
very hard time remembering the last time anyone in Europe behaved with
anything resembling responsibility.
Seriously, Europe is not even able to govern itself. We don't need
European advice about guns or anything else, thank you very much.
strabo
No one else does either.
> The tommy gun got a lot of bad press, but it was also one of the weapons
> that brought freedom to hundreds of millions of Europeans in the last
> nastiness there.
>
> I say, mandatory ownership of at least a shotgun, rifle, or handgun, but
> for any automatic weapon (one that will fire more than one round with a
> single press of a trigger) I think some sort of restricted access is
> reasonable.
strabo
No, the law of free people, the Code of the West.
C J Campbell
And I think that is the fundamental flaw in the idea that there should
be no restrictions on ownership of weapons. I am not a gun rights
advocate. I am a self-protection advocate. No one can reasonably argue
the need of a bomb or a machine gun for self-protection. You cannot
claim that you need a tank to protect you from burglars and rapists, or
an F-18 to protect you from corrupt officials. At some point, your need
for self protection stops and when you acquire weapons beyond that need
then you have to ask whether the intent is aggressive. A firearm of
limited capability for personal protection seems reasonable to me. A
machine gun is not. If you have a recreational or sporting use for a
machine gun, you should expect that access should be tightly
controlled. Even the military does not leave its machine guns and hand
grenades lying around (except through gross negligence).
I have no problem with someone going to a range and, the range operator
being duly licensed, firing a tommy gun. I just might have a problem
with people taking the tommy gun home with them. I don't think people
need assault rifles for self protection, either.
But it is obvious that the police are incapable of protecting us. The
police arrived at Virginia Tech only a few minutes after the shooting
began. By the time they broke down the door and confronted the killer,
30 people were dead. The police cannot be everywhere. In fact, the
courts have ruled that the police are not even obligated to try to
protect us. So where does that leave us?
We have to be able to protect ourselves, that seems clear to me. The
only question now is what measures are necessary to accomplish that. I
think uinversal arming of the population is the answer. At least a
national right-to-carry law. These shootings invariably happen where
guns are illegal and difficult to obtain. I think there is a lesson to
be drawn from that.
strabo
> Toni Nikkanen wrote:
>> Scott Schuckert <n...@aol.com> writes:
>>
>>> "But... guns are bad, guns are dangerous; how could a gun make us safe?"
>>>
>>> When I explained that armed citizens might have defended themselves and
>>> STOPPED this guy, the discussion turned to speculation on how to
>>> "authorize" people (to defend themselves), and, God help me, liability
>>> issues.
>>>
>>> Now I'M the one who can't comprehend...
>>
>>
>> people would be shooting other people when they go crazy. However,
>> they will be stopped faster. Who knows it the net total would be for
>> the better or worse? Please, do make an experiment like this in the
>> US, we can watch from the sidelines and see if it was a good decision.
> States. Up until the mid-1920's, armed Klan and Klan-like mobs were
> lynching blacks for the crime of being black, with no trial no evidence.
> In the 1800s posses and vigilantes roamed the West, shooting or hanging
> people for imagined crimes with no trial, no evidence. Then there was
> the Spanish Inquisition in Europe--people hanged or burned at the stake
> by people with arms, just because they thought the victims had different
> ideas. Or, lets go back to the Middle East in about AD 33, when an angry
> mob conned the government into lynching a man because they didn't agree
> with him.
>
The propaganda mills are busy today!
You have watched too many bad Hollywood fantasies.
If you are interested, which I doubt, you can find the federal
territorial laws under which these posses and lawmen operated.
Cases of mistaken identity did happen, rarely. Outlaw justice
did happen, rarely. Dime novels popularized the exceptions
and set the stage for the cartoonish depictions by the later
NYC filmmakers who gravitated to California.
The Code of the West, an amalgam of Napoleonic Code and American
common law, was the best social system in recent history. With
a minimum of proscriptive laws and a lot of common sense, the
westerners lived for the most part, peacefully and prospered
from the libertarian style atmosphere.
> How many "experiments" do you need?
>
> Allen
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
Li RM
I think it's a normal reaction to say "what could we have done to
prevent this" and try to make sense out of senseless act.
The bottom line is this guy was CRAZY. He was a fucking loon.
It's not his parents fault. It's not society's fault. It's not the
schools fault. It definitely isn't the guns fault.
It's HIS FAULT.
You can't legislate sanity into someone who isn't.
What do we do now - start putting people who write violent reading
material under the watchful eye of "Homeland Security"?
If that's the case, then Stephen King and about 60 percent of today's
popular authors should be tossed in a padded cell somewhere.
Fuck that.
This guy was a fucking maniac and that's all there is to it.
It's sad - it's tragic - but the bottom line is it will happen again.
The best solution is to level the playing field and allow concealed
carry on college campuses.
Gun Free Zones need to go away.
Jer
Much of what you say here is relevant to the issue, but I'm afraid a lot
of folks just can't connect the dots. Some will delight in their own
missives while performing their duties under the Monday Morning
Quarterback Doctrine, yet, still miss the point.
Many other countries like to blame the U.S. in many ways, but I consider
most to be jealous simply because they don't have a Constitution like we
do. Do they need one? Dunno, but we did - and that's a significant
difference between the U.S. and others.
TV talking heads are already blathering abut gun control legislation,
and they'll fail. Again. Why? Because most of us would rather be
judged by twelve than carried by six. I carried concealed for many
years illegally before I sought and acquired the legal privilege to do
so. Do I feel differently now? Yes, I do - now I carry a larger more
capable weapon, but I'm no closer to being Cho than thirty years ago,
yet I'm a lot closer to stopping Cho than I was thirty years go. That's
the difference.
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
George Kerby
On 4/17/07 8:46 PM, in article
2007041718463443658-christophercampbell@hotmailcom, "C J Campbell"
<christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 2007-04-17 16:30:16 -0700, Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> said:
>
>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> In article <4624ece6$0$952$8046...@newsreader.iphouse.net>, dd-b@dd-
>>> b.net says...
>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, Americans defend themselves from assaults with firearms
>>>> something like 700,000 to 5,000,000 times a year (measuring successful
>>>> defenses is hard, hence the large uncertainty; difficulties include
>>>> that successful defenses may not be reported to the authorities
>>>> especially if shots aren't fired, and that somebody who scared you
>>>> enough to cause you to show your firearm and tell him to go away may
>>>> not have intended an assault).
>>>
>>> Another good reason not to live in the USA. I've never been in a
>>> situation where I would have needed a gun.
>>
>> Nor have I in 64 years living in the US. However, I studiously, and
>> with aforethought, avoid places, and situations were such a need might
>> arise. Many don't.
>
> Precisely. Tens of millions of kids went to school yesterday. And they
> didn't kill anybody. One guy, out of tens of millions, had a bad day.
>
> However, as was demonstrated at Virginia Tech, the World Trade Center,
> Columbine, and several other incidents -- disarming the American public
> has only made them more vulnerable to thugs and terrorists, not less.
>
> It is time that we brought back the time-honored tradition of America:
> mandatory membership in the Militia. Every able-bodied adult should be
> required to keep and maintain a firearm and receive recurrent training.
> The only exceptions should be those physically or mentally unable or
> convicted criminals. It is time we drew the line. Not one more
> Columbine. Not one more Virginia Tech. Not one more airliner. Not one
> more screwed up kid in a tower on a campus somewhere. Not one more
> disgruntled Postal worker. Not one more nut walking into McDonalds and
> blowing away dozens of helpless people. It stops now.
>
> We tried disarming the public. That failed. Miserably. It is time that
> we took the country back from the gangsters, the mental cases, the
> criminals, and the terrorists. Their time is done. No more women
> threatened by animals masquerading as 'men.' No more minorities
> threatened by hate groups. I say it is over.
>
> As Mao said, freedom grows from the barrel of a gun.
Amen!
George Kerby
On 4/17/07 8:48 PM, in article
200704171848208930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom, "C J Campbell"
<christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 2007-04-17 07:46:02 -0700, "Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-america.net> said:
>
>>
>> "Toni Nikkanen" <to...@morgoth.tuug.fi> wrote in message
>> news:rlp8xcr...@morgoth.tuug.fi...
>>> Scott Schuckert <n...@aol.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> "But... guns are bad, guns are dangerous; how could a gun make us safe?"
>>>>
>>>> When I explained that armed citizens might have defended themselves and
>>>> STOPPED this guy, the discussion turned to speculation on how to
>>>> "authorize" people (to defend themselves), and, God help me, liability
>>>> issues.
>>>>
>>>> Now I'M the one who can't comprehend...
>>>
>>>
>>> I think both things will become true: if more people had guns, more
>>> people would be shooting other people when they go crazy. However,
>>> they will be stopped faster. Who knows it the net total would be for
>>> the better or worse? Please, do make an experiment like this in the
>>> US, we can watch from the sidelines and see if it was a good decision.
>>
>> Simply go back an look at the 1950's and early 1960's. Gun ownership, with
>> the exception of fully automatic firearms was legal with almost no
>> restrictions. Hell, you mail order a rifle or shotgun and pay with money
>> order from out of state.
>
> In those days, kids on the junior high school rifle team carried their
> weapons on the school bus. Hunters stuck their rifles in the overhead
> bins on airliners.
When I was nine, my dad gave me a .410 shotgun. Summer camp included rife
range. It is NOT the weapon that kills. Period.
Nick Hull
C J Campbell <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> And I think that is the fundamental flaw in the idea that there should
> be no restrictions on ownership of weapons. I am not a gun rights
> advocate. I am a self-protection advocate. No one can reasonably argue
> the need of a bomb or a machine gun for self-protection. You cannot
> claim that you need a tank to protect you from burglars and rapists, or
> an F-18 to protect you from corrupt officials. At some point, your need
> for self protection stops and when you acquire weapons beyond that need
> then you have to ask whether the intent is aggressive.
What short of an A-bomb will reign in our overbearing govt? It
might take a while, but eventually a modern 'terrorist' like
George Washington is going to make atomic bombs as an equalizer
to the govt and force them to obey the constitution. Nothing
else will work ;)
C J Campbell
> In article <4624ece6$0$952$8046...@newsreader.iphouse.net>, dd-b@dd-
> b.net says...
>
>> Meanwhile, Americans defend themselves from assaults with firearms
>> something like 700,000 to 5,000,000 times a year (measuring successful
>> defenses is hard, hence the large uncertainty; difficulties include that
>> successful defenses may not be reported to the authorities especially if
>> shots aren't fired, and that somebody who scared you enough to cause you
>> to show your firearm and tell him to go away may not have intended an
>> assault).
>
> Another good reason not to live in the USA. I've never been in a
> situation where I would have needed a gun.
But you don't have a problem with making and selling guns, do you? Cho
used a Glock and a Walther. Where do you think they were made, Friend?
You have some nerve, when your own country has had the ability to
prohibit the manufacture of these weapons for decades, to lecture us
about a violent culture.
C J Campbell
> Last Name: Cho
> Major: Engineering (Senior)
>
> Firearm #1: Glock 19
>
> Firearm #2: Walther P-22
He had a mother, you know. She bore him, changed his diapers, played
with him, brought him to America, gave him the best education she
could, helped him with his homework, packed his lunches, tried to teach
him right from wrong, devoted a lifetime of service and sacrifice and
love to him.
And this is the thanks she got. How can someone do something like that
to his mother?
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, C J Campbell
<christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Another good reason not to live in the USA. I've never been in a
> > situation where I would have needed a gun.
>
> But you don't have a problem with making and selling guns, do you? Cho
> used a Glock and a Walther. Where do you think they were made, Friend?
Um ... in Austria and North Carolina?
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CsuElites
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:34:31 -0700, "Billzz" <billzzstr...@starband.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molonCAN...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:MPG.208e778dc...@news.supernews.com...
> >> In article <200704162124398930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>,
> >> christophercampb...@hotmail.com says...
>
> >>> A single armed student could have stopped him. Thirty armed students
> >>> would have turned him into Swiss cheese the moment he threatened them.
>
> >>> As it is, the American public is so helpless that it will not be long
> >>> before the whole country could be taken over by a couple goons armed
> >>> with spoons.
>
> >> On the other hand here in Germany where firearms are not as widespread
> >> as in the USA such massacres are unknown. There have been some small
> >> isolated accidents in the past, but nothing comparable to what you have
> >> in the USA.
>
> >> Alfred Molon
>
> >I am guessing that you did not live in Germany when we lived in Germany.
>
> >http://www.germanculture.com.ua/library/weekly/aa060499.htm
>
> But..but..but they were marxists...so should be given a pass.
>
> Right? Power to the People and all that leftist stuff.
>
> Gunner
You will be sad ,because the killer is not a Marxists.He is from
S.korea,a reneck from Capitalist country like USA.
rst0...@yahoo.com
wrote:
C. J. Campbell, I agree with you. However, I must say, I grew up
about a hundred miles from Tombstone in Arizona where Billy the Kid
used to roam and where Geronimo used to play. Even back in 1949, on
saturdays, the American Indians came to town and sat on the sidewalks
all over town. I have lived in the Wild West, and lynching of Blacks
in the South were still common.
rst0...@yahoo.com
> On 4/17/07 8:48 PM, in article
> 200704171848208930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom, "C J Campbell"
>
>
>
>
>
> <christophercampb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2007-04-17 07:46:02 -0700, "Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-america.net> said:
>
> >>news:rlp8xcr...@morgoth.tuug.fi...
> >>> Scott Schuckert <n...@aol.com> writes:
>
> >>>> "But... guns are bad, guns are dangerous; how could a gun make us safe?"
>
> >>>> When I explained that armed citizens might have defended themselves and
> >>>> STOPPED this guy, the discussion turned to speculation on how to
> >>>> "authorize" people (to defend themselves), and, God help me, liability
> >>>> issues.
>
> >>>> Now I'M the one who can't comprehend...
>
> >>> I think both things will become true: if more people had guns, more
> >>> people would be shooting other people when they go crazy. However,
> >>> they will be stopped faster. Who knows it the net total would be for
> >>> the better or worse? Please, do make an experiment like this in the
> >>> US, we can watch from the sidelines and see if it was a good decision.
>
> >> Simply go back an look at the 1950's and early 1960's. Gun ownership, with
> >> the exception of fully automatic firearms was legal with almost no
> >> restrictions. Hell, you mail order a rifle or shotgun and pay with money
> >> order from out of state.
>
> > In those days, kids on the junior high school rifle team carried their
> > weapons on the school bus. Hunters stuck their rifles in the overhead
> > bins on airliners.
>
> When I was nine, my dad gave me a .410 shotgun. Summer camp included rife
> range. It is NOT the weapon that kills. Period.
When I was 13, I bought a 22 rifle along with my two other friends.
As soon as my father saw it, he returned it to the store. People
perceives it as the weapon that kills.
rst0...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> On 2007-04-16 20:52:44 -0700, The Source <thesou...@mailinator.com> said:
>
> > Last Name: Cho
> > Major: Engineering (Senior)
>
> > Firearm #1: Glock 19
>
> > Firearm #2: Walther P-22
>
> He had a mother, you know. She bore him, changed his diapers, played
> with him, brought him to America, gave him the best education she
> could, helped him with his homework, packed his lunches, tried to teach
> him right from wrong, devoted a lifetime of service and sacrifice and
> love to him.
>
> And this is the thanks she got. How can someone do something like that
> to his mother?
Her way of bringing him up may be the main reason why he acted as he
did. Asian way of bringing kids up is to beat them until they submit
and obey.
strabo
> Cynicor wrote:
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> Cynicor wrote:
>>>> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>>>> Meanwhile, Americans defend themselves from assaults with firearms
>>>>> something like 700,000 to 5,000,000 times a year (measuring
>>>>> successful defenses is hard, hence the large uncertainty;
>>>>> difficulties include that successful defenses may not be reported
>>>>> to the authorities especially if shots aren't fired, and that
>>>>> somebody who scared you enough to cause you to show your firearm
>>>>> and tell him to go away may not have intended an assault).
>>>>
>>>> per state. Even taking 700,000 as the low end, that's still over
>>>> 10,000 times per state per year. I find that very hard to believe.
>>>
>>> Why? Remember, we have 300,000,000 people.
>>
>> And in 2005, there were 1,390,000 violent crimes and 10,166,000
>> property crimes. Without supporting source material, I find it hard to
>> believe that the ratio of violent crime to defense from assaults using
>> handguns is 1.4:5.0 (or even 1.4:0.7). There are not 3x as many
>> assaults repulsed as there are assaults!
>>
>> (Source: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm)
>
> We really can't know. How many crimes are averted simply because the
> potential offender knows that his target is armed?
>
Or *might* be armed. Cannot be emphasized enough.
That's why an armed society is a polite society.
> This is one of those
> unknowable things. Also, the only statistics we have are from those
> situations that became out of control enough to involve the police. I
> am sure that there are 10 situations that aren't reported for every 1
> that is.
strabo
>
> We tried disarming the public. That failed. Miserably. It is time that
> we took the country back from the gangsters, the mental cases, the
> criminals, and the terrorists. Their time is done. No more women
> threatened by animals masquerading as 'men.' No more minorities
> threatened by hate groups. I say it is over.
>
> As Mao said, freedom grows from the barrel of a gun.
>
Uh, that was, "All political power flows from the muzzle of a gun"
Chairman Mao did not believe in individual freedom.
strabo
> On Apr 17, 6:46 pm, C J Campbell <christophercampb...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>>>>> something like 700,000 to 5,000,000 times a year (measuring successful
>>>>> defenses is hard, hence the large uncertainty; difficulties include
>>>>> that successful defenses may not be reported to the authorities
>>>>> especially if shots aren't fired, and that somebody who scared you
>>>>> enough to cause you to show your firearm and tell him to go away may
>>>>> not have intended an assault).
>>>> situation where I would have needed a gun.
>>> with aforethought, avoid places, and situations were such a need might
>>> arise. Many don't.
>> Precisely. Tens of millions of kids went to school yesterday. And they
>> didn't kill anybody. One guy, out of tens of millions, had a bad day.
>>
>> However, as was demonstrated at Virginia Tech, the World Trade Center,
>> Columbine, and several other incidents -- disarming the American public
>> has only made them more vulnerable to thugs and terrorists, not less.
>>
>> It is time that we brought back the time-honored tradition of America:
>> mandatory membership in the Militia. Every able-bodied adult should be
>> required to keep and maintain a firearm and receive recurrent training.
>
> receive recurrent training" in the use of these firearms would NOT
> have 100 times more incidents like the Virginia Tech massacre?
> Remember, the availability of firearms is the cause of these
> shootings.
>
No, Liberal Progressive, a person caused these shootings.
An inanimate object did not cause these shootings. The availability
of an inanimate object did not cause these shootings.
If not guns, then swords. Check Asian history. If not swords then
explosives. Check the Middle East. If not explosives then gas.
If not explosives then manual serial assassinations.
Now, I want you to repeat this out aloud 100 times a day for the next
30 days. Maybe, just maybe, you'll begin to comprehend the difference.
What guarantee do you want?
We know from history before 1972 that the armed American society
did not run amok. On the contrary, society was quieter, more polite
and more considerate.
<snipped>
Bill Funk
<rst...@inreach.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:17:06 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
><dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>(snips)
>
>>Oh, come on; there's been tremendous progress in shall-issue carry laws
>>in the last two decades, since Florida kicked off the current round of
>>expansions in 1987. The chance of meeting an armed civilian is, I will
>>venture to guess, at a 30-year high.
>
>Not on a school campus, which is why those are the favored
>shooting spree venues.
But, wait...
Guns are banned on the VT campus. Therefore, Cho must have used
something else, and the police obviously planted the guns, and are
lying about what really killed and wounded the strudents and teachers.
(We know this because gun bans are so obviously foolproof; the gun
banners tell us so.)
I wonder who and what actually caused these deaths and injuries.
Does VT have any Government-sponsered research going on thast may have
gone awry? Possibly, something along the lines of a military robot
that got out, and went on a spree?
I bet that's it! This is all a Government conspiracy! IT'S BUSH'S
FAULT!!!
--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!
Hillary Clinton postponed her meeting with
the Rutgers women's basketball team Monday
due to weather. The team forgave a middle-aged
white guy for humiliating them in front of the
entire world. Hillary wanted to go there to
collect her royalty check.
Bill Funk
<j...tru.p...in@speak.ea.sy.net> wrote:
>David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> Meanwhile, Americans defend themselves from assaults with firearms
>> something like 700,000 to 5,000,000 times a year (measuring successful
>> defenses is hard, hence the large uncertainty; difficulties include that
>> successful defenses may not be reported to the authorities especially if
>> shots aren't fired, and that somebody who scared you enough to cause you
>> to show your firearm and tell him to go away may not have intended an
>> assault).
>
>5 million times per year? Dividing that out, that's 100,000 times per
>state. Even taking 700,000 as the low end, that's still over 10,000
>times per state per year. I find that very hard to believe.
I find it very hard to believe that a person could plan a massacre,
padlock the doors to prevent escape, and methodically shoot almost 50
people, then himself. So do many others.
But, it happened.
Now, of course, we will witness what America does best: investigation
after investigation, breast-beating over how we could have prevented
this (watching the news last night, students (at ASU) actually said
smiling could have prevented this!), calls for gun bans and
foruniversal gun carriage, prosecution of the VT President and Police
Chief, outlawing the NRA, and wondering if extraterrestials somehow
had a part in this.
This was one person who went crazy; not even a psychiatrist would make
the claim that this could have been actually prevented without a total
abrogation of civil rights.
The idea that more gun laws will prevent someting like this are as
rediculous as the idea that drug laws prevent drug abuse.
strabo
> "John Smith" <shot...@sneiorglobe.com> wrote in message
> news:1e82$462584f7$401854bc$11...@DIALUPUSA.NET...
>> "Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-america.net> wrote in message
>> news:q2fVh.11987$qB4....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>>
>>
>>> Another way to look at it is that the lack of access to firearms was the
>>> reason he was so successful.
>> You can never know that.
>
> Once an action has been carried out, one can never really know what other
> outcomes may have happened had things been different. However, I cannot
> imagine a lone gunman shooting so many other armed people before getting
> killed himself. If I ever see a lone gunman go into a police station and do
> the same thing, I'll change my mind.
>
Hard to believe but indisputable.
The differences separating just a few generations can be dramatic.
Why didn't the boys form several groups to track, contain and overcome
the shooter? It would have been easy. Ideally done there may have
been no casualties. Otherwise, maybe two or three.
The answer is simple. They were afraid and most were immobilized
with fear. A few at least had the wherewithal to run or jump out of
windows, but NONE, absolutely NONE had the courage, imagination or
initiative to perform this simple act of survival. And what are they
doing now? Crying. Crying and looking for reporters and psychiatrists.
The shooter had a 9mm and a .22 and he had to watch his back and
reload at the same time. How is it possible to shoot 60+ people
under those circumstances? How could he kill 32 of them with these
low-power pistols? Another simple answer. They volunteered. They
sat and groveled while Mr. Shooter walked about shooting each multiple
times or in the head.
Some Americans have become so afraid of death that they can be killed
with ease.
Bill Funk
<j...tru.p...in@speak.ea.sy.net> wrote:
>Gunner wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:06:20 -0400, Cynicor
>> <j...tru.p...in@speak.ea.sy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>>> Meanwhile, Americans defend themselves from assaults with firearms
>>>> something like 700,000 to 5,000,000 times a year (measuring successful
>>>> defenses is hard, hence the large uncertainty; difficulties include that
>>>> successful defenses may not be reported to the authorities especially if
>>>> shots aren't fired, and that somebody who scared you enough to cause you
>>>> to show your firearm and tell him to go away may not have intended an
>>>> assault).
>>> 5 million times per year? Dividing that out, that's 100,000 times per
>>> state. Even taking 700,000 as the low end, that's still over 10,000
>>> times per state per year. I find that very hard to believe.
>>
>>
>> It is. The US Department of Justice has conducted studies..and the high
>> end appears to be between 1.8 million and 2.5 million DGUs a year
>> (defensive gun uses)
>
>Do you have a source for that, or is it from Kleck? Because this DoJ
>source (dated) measured 931,000 violent crimes by offenders who had
>handguns, and 83,000 crime victims who used firearms as defense.
>
>http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
>
>Have those numbers gone up by a factor of 20x since 1992? Or are there
>still 10 gun crimes for each 1 gun save?
I have a p[roblem with this report; namely, where does this come from:
"On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a
firearm to defend themselves or their property."
We have a pretty good idea of where the *crime* figures come from,
because people tend to report crime. But do people tend to report when
they *prevent* a crime? Does this figure (83,000) come from those who
reported a crime, at the same time reporting that they used a gun to
*prevent* being victimized? (Meaning they were already making a
report.)
Myself, I've used guns 3 times to prevent a crime, firing once (the
Phoenix police didn't respond to the gunshot). I never reported these
incidents. Anecdotally, I know of many more like incidents.
C J Campbell
> C J Campbell wrote:
>> On 2007-04-17 16:30:16 -0700, Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> said:
>>
> <snipped>
>
>>
>> We tried disarming the public. That failed. Miserably. It is time that
>> we took the country back from the gangsters, the mental cases, the
>> criminals, and the terrorists. Their time is done. No more women
>> threatened by animals masquerading as 'men.' No more minorities
>> threatened by hate groups. I say it is over.
>>
>> As Mao said, freedom grows from the barrel of a gun.
> >
> Uh, that was, "All political power flows from the muzzle of a gun"
>
> Chairman Mao did not believe in individual freedom.
No, he did not. But what he said was true, nonetheless. And my
paraphrase of what he said is true, too. But, really, he was just
echoing Sun Tzu.