Re: AMERICAN GUN MADNESS !! => Gunman kills 30 at Virginia Tech <= America Most Violent Industrialized Nation in the World !!
_ Prof. Jonez _
> From The Associated Press, 4/16/07:
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070416/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_shooting
Gunman kills 30 on Virginia Tech campus
By SUE LINDSEY, Associated Press Writer 9 minutes ago
A gunman opened fire in a Virginia Tech dorm and then, two hours later, in a
classroom across campus Monday, killing at least 30 people in the deadliest
shooting rampage in U.S. history, government officials told The Associated
Press. The gunman was killed, bringing the death toll to 31.
"Today the university was struck with a tragedy that we consider of monumental
proportions," said Virginia Tech president Charles Steger. "The university is
shocked and indeed horrified."
It was not immediately clear whether the gunman was shot by police or took his
own life. His name was not released, and investigators offered no motive for the
attack. It was not known if the gunman was a student.
The shootings spread panic and confusion on campus, with students complaining
that the university did not warn them about the first burst of gunfire until
more than two hours later.
Witnesses reporting students jumping out the windows of a classroom building to
escape the gunfire. SWAT team members with helmets, flak jackets and assault
rifles swarmed over the campus. Students and faculty members carried out some of
the wounded themselves, without waiting for ambulances to arrive.
The massacre took place at opposite sides of the 2,600-acre campus, beginning at
about 7:15 a.m. at West Ambler Johnston, a coed dormitory that houses 895
people, and continuing at least two hours later at Norris Hall, an engineering
building about a half-mile away, authorities said.
Police said they were still investigating the shooting at the dorm when they got
word of gunfire at the classroom building.
Some students bitterly questioned why the gunman was able to strike a second
time, two hours after the bloodshed began.
"What happened today this was ridiculous. And I don't know what happened or what
was going through this guy's mind," student Jason Piatt told CNN. "But I'm
pretty outraged and I'll say on the record I'm pretty outraged that someone died
in a shooting in a dorm at 7 o'clock in the morning and the first e-mail about
it - no mention of locking down campus, no mention of canceling classes - they
just mention that they're investigating a shooting two hours later at 9:22."
He added: "That's pretty ridiculous and meanwhile, while they're sending out
that e-mail, 22 more people got killed."
FBI spokesman Richard Kolko in Washington said there was no evidence to suggest
it was a terrorist attack, "but all avenues will be explored."
Up until Monday, the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history was in Killeen,
Texas, in 1991, when George Hennard drove his pickup into a Luby's Cafeteria and
shot 23 people to death, then himself.
The massacre Monday took place almost eight years to the day after the Columbine
High bloodbath near Littleton, Colo. On April 20, 1999, two teenagers killed 12
fellow students and a teacher before taking their own lives.
Previously, the deadliest campus shooting in U.S. history was a rampage that
took place in 1966 at the University of Texas at Austin, where Charles Whitman
climbed the clock tower and opened fire with a rifle from the 28th-floor
observation deck. He killed 16 people before he was shot to death by police.
Founded in 1872, Virginia Tech is nestled in the Blue Ridge Mountains of
southwestern Virginia, about 160 miles west of Richmond. With more than 25,000
full-time students, it has the state's largest full-time student population. The
school is best known for its engineering school and its powerhouse Hokies
football team.
The rampage took place on a brisk spring day, with snow flurries swirling around
the campus. The campus is centered around the Drill Field, a grassy field where
military cadets - who now represent a fraction of the student body - once
practiced. The dorm and the classroom building are on opposites sides of the
Drill Field.
A gasp could be heard at a campus news conference when Virginia Tech Police
Chief W.R. Flinchum said at least 20 people had been killed. Previously, only
one person was thought to have been killed.
Investigators from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives began marking and recovering the large number of shell casings and
will trace the weapon used, authorities said.
A White House spokesman said President Bush was horrified by the rampage and
offered his prayers to the victims and the people of Virginia.
"The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that
all laws must be followed," spokeswoman Dana Perino said
After the shootings, all entrances to the campus were closed, and classes were
canceled through Tuesday. The university set up a meeting place for families to
reunite with their children. It also made counselors available and planned an
assembly for Tuesday at the basketball arena.
After the shooting began, students were told to stay inside away from the
windows.
Aimee Kanode, a freshman from Martinsville, said the shooting happened on the
fourth floor of West Ambler Johnston dormitory, one floor above her room.
Kanode's resident assistant knocked on her door about 8 a.m. to notify students
to stay put.
"They had us under lockdown," Kanode said. "They temporarily lifted the
lockdown, the gunman shot again."
"We're all locked in our dorms surfing the Internet trying to figure out what's
going on," Kanode said.
Maurice Hiller, 21, a mechanical engineering student from Richmond, saw police
and SWAT team members with guns drawn going toward Norris Hall. "This is
something just totally beyond anybody's expectations," he said.
Police said there had been bomb threats on campus over the past two weeks by
authorities but said they have not determined a link to the shootings.
It was second time in less than a year that the campus was closed because of a
shooting.
Last August, the opening day of classes was canceled and the campus closed when
an escaped jail inmate allegedly killed a hospital guard off campus and fled to
the Tech area. A sheriff's deputy involved in the manhunt was killed on a trail
just off campus. The accused gunman, William Morva, faces capital murder
charges.
us...@127.0.0.1
Bo Raxo
> Harry Hope wrote:
> > From The Associated Press, 4/16/07:
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070416/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_shooting
>
> By SUE LINDSEY, Associated Press Writer 9 minutes ago
>
> classroom across campus Monday, killing at least 30 people in the deadliest
> shooting rampage in U.S. history, government officials told The Associated
> Press. The gunman was killed, bringing the death toll to 31.
>
>
> The massacre took place at opposite sides of the 2,600-acre campus, beginning at
> about 7:15 a.m. at West Ambler Johnston, a coed dormitory that houses 895
> people, and continuing at least two hours later at Norris Hall, an engineering
> building about a half-mile away, authorities said.
>
Some people really hate Monday mornings.
The death toll is up to 33. Note that Virginia not only has the death
penalty, but is one of the top three U.S. states in per-capita
executions (the others being Oklahoma nd Texas). But gee, it didn't
seem to be much of a deterrent.
Other gun-friendly features of Virginia law include no permit or
license needed to purchase a handgun, rifle, or shotgun, no
registration of gun ownership, and no waiting period for purchases.
This is the biggest gun massacre in U.S. history, surpassing the
Luby's cafeteria massacre in Texas - also a very gun-friendly state,
also a very pro-death-penalty state. Draw your own conclusions.
Bo Raxo
Mike Smith
wrote:
No prob... The correct conclusion was:
Someone should have ignored the rules and been carrying when the
psycho went on his rampage. There might have been far fewer people
killed if a normal citizen had access to their gun.
Mike Smith
Kent Finnell
news:1176768433....@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Goblins and loons don't pay much attention to laws or death penalities.
Note that this particular loon took his own life, according to the latest
reports.
>
> Other gun-friendly features of Virginia law include no permit or
> license needed to purchase a handgun, rifle, or shotgun, no
> registration of gun ownership, and no waiting period for purchases.
Such laws would have stopped the loon how? How do you know that he
purchased either one of the handguns he used (one 9mm, one .22 cal.)? They
could have been stolen, bought on the street, "borrowed", bought several
years ago seperately.
>
> This is the biggest gun massacre in U.S. history, surpassing the
> Luby's cafeteria massacre in Texas - also a very gun-friendly state,
> also a very pro-death-penalty state. Draw your own conclusions.
At the time of the Luby massacre, Texas was a lot less "gun friendly" than
it is now. Ask Suzanna Hupp-Gratia who watched her parents die in each
others' arms. Her pistol was in her truck, per Texas law at the time. BTW,
that loon also took his own life.
>
>
> Bo Raxo
Are you the lead mule of the 20 mule team or one of the others with your
nose up another's ass? It's fortunate that mules are sterile.
--
The Second Amendment ...
America's Original Homeland Defense
Kent Finnell
From The Music City USA
us...@127.0.0.1
The lesson of today's tragedy is simple.
The police cannot protect you.
Gun bans cannot protect you.
Only YOU can protect you.
The taxes the government takes with the promise of being able to
protect us are money taken under false pretenses. Far more crimes are
thwarted by private citizens with legally owned firearms than by the
police.
Morton Davis
"Kent Finnell" <kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:8dWUh.23386$254....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
Bo Raxo
> "Bo Raxo" <crimenewscen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Exactly. So the death penalty provides no deterrent effect, which was
my point.
>
>
> > Other gun-friendly features of Virginia law include no permit or
> > license needed to purchase a handgun, rifle, or shotgun, no
> > registration of gun ownership, and no waiting period for purchases.
>
> Such laws would have stopped the loon how?
I did not say such laws would have stopped him, I said the law there
is gun-friendly. Your reading comprehension is, I see, quite poor.
>
> > This is the biggest gun massacre in U.S. history, surpassing the
> > Luby's cafeteria massacre in Texas - also a very gun-friendly state,
> > also a very pro-death-penalty state. Draw your own conclusions.
>
> At the time of the Luby massacre, Texas was a lot less "gun friendly" than
> it is now. Ask Suzanna Hupp-Gratia who watched her parents die in each
> others' arms. Her pistol was in her truck, per Texas law at the time. BTW,
> that loon also took his own life.
>
And now that everyone in Texas can carry, there are no more murders or
armed robberies there, right?
Go look up their homicide and armed robbery rates - Texas ranks near
the top.
>
>
> > Bo Raxo
>
> Are you the lead mule of the 20 mule team or one of the others with your
> nose up another's ass? It's fortunate that mules are sterile.
>
Oh, that's so hilarious. Did it take you long to come up with that
zinger?
> --
> The Second Amendment ...
> America's Original Homeland Defense
Ignoring the Minutemen, Washington's Continental Army, and plenty of
others who came before 1789.
>
> Kent Finnell
> From The Music City USA
Nashville? Oh yeah, America is really listening to that country crap
- looked at a music sales chart in, say, the last forty years? Crawl
back in your trailer, cracker boy, and watch another he-haw rerun.
Bo Raxo
• UltraMan •
> Why aren't they calling it a 'terrorist' act?
'cause it wasn't a dark skinned muslim ...
Steve Rothstein
So we agree on this point, and it has nothing to do with anything else
in your rant, right?
>
>
>>
>>> Other gun-friendly features of Virginia law include no permit or
>>> license needed to purchase a handgun, rifle, or shotgun, no
>>> registration of gun ownership, and no waiting period for purchases.
>> Such laws would have stopped the loon how?
>
> I did not say such laws would have stopped him, I said the law there
> is gun-friendly. Your reading comprehension is, I see, quite poor.
I would say his reading comprehension is pretty good. He caught the
implication you made about the gun friendly laws versus the shootings.
You can deny it by claiming you did not explicitly say this, but you did
imply it by the very way you wrote it.
>
> >
>>> This is the biggest gun massacre in U.S. history, surpassing the
>>> Luby's cafeteria massacre in Texas - also a very gun-friendly state,
>>> also a very pro-death-penalty state. Draw your own conclusions.
>> At the time of the Luby massacre, Texas was a lot less "gun friendly" than
>> it is now. Ask Suzanna Hupp-Gratia who watched her parents die in each
>> others' arms. Her pistol was in her truck, per Texas law at the time. BTW,
>> that loon also took his own life.
>>
>
> And now that everyone in Texas can carry, there are no more murders or
> armed robberies there, right?
Better go look at our laws again. Nowhere near everyone in Texas can
carry. Last time I checked, we only allowed cops, security guards, and
the approximately 300,000 people who had passed a license check to
carry. Including all of these together, we still get a total of less
than 2 or 3 % of the Texas population carrying.
>
> Go look up their homicide and armed robbery rates - Texas ranks near
> the top.
Please cite these for me. I think you are comparing the number instead
of the rate, but would love to see exactly where you got the figures
before I say anything else either way.
Steve Rothstein
matt_w
> On 16 Apr 2007 17:07:13 -0700, "Bo Raxo" <crimenewscen...@gmail.com>
firearms in the State can be found on campus. Rather than targeting
people who obey the rules because they are 'law abiding' the rules
should concentrate on trying to prevent children, the insane and the
violently criminal from accessing firearms. To allow easy access to
firearms to almost everyone but then to impose rules that only good
people follow is crazy in my opinion. The sane and law abiding people
who left their firearms at home weren't the ones with murderous intent
yesterday.
JP
<us...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:462737e8....@24.71.223.159...
ROFL
the usual US illusion of safety through firearms.
Compare your death rate from fire arms to other countries that do not allow
citizens to bear arms.
You are totally self deluded.
Bo Raxo
My rant was about how the red state approach (death penalty, long
sentences, loose gun controls) doesn't have the desired effect. So
yes, actually, it did.
>
>
> >>> Other gun-friendly features of Virginia law include no permit or
> >>> license needed to purchase a handgun, rifle, or shotgun, no
> >>> registration of gun ownership, and no waiting period for purchases.
> >> Such laws would have stopped the loon how?
>
> > I did not say such laws would have stopped him, I said the law there
> > is gun-friendly. Your reading comprehension is, I see, quite poor.
>
> I would say his reading comprehension is pretty good. He caught the
> implication you made about the gun friendly laws versus the shootings.
> You can deny it by claiming you did not explicitly say this, but you did
> imply it by the very way you wrote it.
>
Reading in something that isn't there isn't the same as seeing an
implication. Every time there is a major gun crime in a place with
strict gun control, I see posts that essentially say, "nyah nyah, gun
control didn't stop this from happening." As if, gun control laws
could be 100% prophylactics. I'm just pointing out the opposite.
>
>
> >>> This is the biggest gun massacre in U.S. history, surpassing the
> >>> Luby's cafeteria massacre in Texas - also a very gun-friendly state,
> >>> also a very pro-death-penalty state. Draw your own conclusions.
> >> At the time of the Luby massacre, Texas was a lot less "gun friendly" than
> >> it is now. Ask Suzanna Hupp-Gratia who watched her parents die in each
> >> others' arms. Her pistol was in her truck, per Texas law at the time. BTW,
> >> that loon also took his own life.
>
> > And now that everyone in Texas can carry, there are no more murders or
> > armed robberies there, right?
>
> Better go look at our laws again. Nowhere near everyone in Texas can
> carry.
Let's see: anyone who is not a convicted felon and can pass a license
check *can* carry. You confuse "does" with "can".
> Last time I checked, we only allowed cops, security guards, and
> the approximately 300,000 people who had passed a license check to
> carry. Including all of these together, we still get a total of less
> than 2 or 3 % of the Texas population carrying.
"Can". "Does". Different words.
>
>
>
> > Go look up their homicide and armed robbery rates - Texas ranks near
> > the top.
>
> Please cite these for me. I think you are comparing the number instead
> of the rate, but would love to see exactly where you got the figures
> before I say anything else either way.
>
Glad to. Overall ranking of Texas' violent crime rate, according to
the U.S. census bureau (using '04 data): 12th
http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html
Break them down, and Texas ranks in the top 15 by rate for murder,
robbery, and most other crimes. Here's a terrific spreadsheet that
lets you sort on any of the columns of data that I think illustrates
it nicely:
http://www.swivel.com/data_columns/spreadsheet/1005800
In the larger picture, crime rates are affected by gun control laws
but not determined by them: poverty, employment, median age, being on
drug smuggling routes, there are a lot of other factors, My point,
and I admit I didn't make it clearly because I was thinking the
regulars in alt.true-crime would catch the context, was to refute the
posters who point out a mass murder in a state (or country) with
strict gun control and say that it didn't prevent it. Well,
widespread gun ownership and the presence of the supposedly-deterring
death penalty doesn't either.
Bo Raxo
HeyBub
> Federal law, in this particular case (as in Columbine [CO]
> ) dictates NOBODY may carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a 'school
> zone'; thereby trumping what you claim are Virginia's laws.
> That's the important conclusion you should draw.
>
Not exactly true.
1. The "penalty" for carrying a gun under the 1994 Gun-Free School Act is
expulsion of the student. Hardly much of a penalty. There is no federal
sanction if the person carrying the gun is not a student.
2.The educational institution may trump the federal law by giving permission
in advance to carry a weapon on campus.
HeyBub
> us...@127.0.0.1 wrote:
>> Why aren't they calling it a 'terrorist' act?
>
> 'cause it wasn't a dark skinned muslim ...
>
Was it a light-skinned Muslim?
Mike Smith
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>"Mike Smith" <m...@wt.net> wrote in message
>news:8k6823h1l5tj789u9...@4ax.com...
> You are saying this conveniently *after* the fact.
> I agree with you, but nobody *dares* do such a thing as carry when
>the high probability exists the carryer-person would have been arrested and
>*his* gun confiscated for doing precisely what would have been the most
>humane thing to do considering the circumstances!
>
>> There might have been far fewer people
>> killed if a normal citizen had access to their gun.
>
> We can't do that with the anti-gun crazies running around passing
>their unworkable, backfiring laws claiming all our defensive guns have to be
>locked-up-tight with a trigger-protective lock and then placed in a locked
>case!
>
There is a way to fix this.
All it would take is 1 lawyer to win 1 lawsuit setting the precedent
that a school that bans possession of guns on their campus must assume
the legal liability for protecting anyone "on campus" or traveling to
their campus.
As an aside, we should have tort reform that prohibits any lawsuits by
the crazed person or their relatives/friends to recover any
compensation from anyone.
Mike Smith
drp
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>"Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
>news:k5XUh.58737$_c5.11072@attbi_s22...
>>
>> "Kent Finnell" <kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:8dWUh.23386$254....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>>> "Bo Raxo" <crimene...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1176768433....@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>> > On Apr 16, 12:25 pm, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote:
>>> >> Harry Hope wrote:
>>> >> > From The Associated Press, 4/16/07:
>>> >> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070416/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_shooting
>>> >>
>> And Susanna Hupp got that law changed.
>
> Only *after* she lost her parents needlessly, and all because
>she was afraid if she carried her gun in the cafeteria, her chiropractor
>license could have been subsequently revoked for carrying!
While it is not against state law, Virginia Tech banned carrying of
firearms by concealed carry holders on campus.
http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/xp-21770
By doing so, they made themselves legally responsible for the safety
of students. Watch the lawsuits against the university start to
fly...
drp
>There is a way to fix this.
>
>All it would take is 1 lawyer to win 1 lawsuit setting the precedent
>that a school that bans possession of guns on their campus must assume
>the legal liability for protecting anyone "on campus" or traveling to
>their campus.
While it is not against state law, Virginia Tech banned carrying of
firearms by concealed carry holders on campus.
http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/xp-21770
By doing so, they made themselves legally responsible for the safety
of everyone on their property. Here in Texas, the
"no-guns-allowed" signs came down as soon as people figured this one
out. Watch the lawsuits against the university start to fly.
Kris Baker
"matt_w" <matthew_...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1176800563.5...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> I agree. I imagine that some of the strictest rules imposed against
> firearms in the State can be found on campus. Rather than targeting
> people who obey the rules because they are 'law abiding' the rules
> should concentrate on trying to prevent children, the insane and the
> violently criminal from accessing firearms. To allow easy access to
> firearms to almost everyone but then to impose rules that only good
> people follow is crazy in my opinion. The sane and law abiding people
> who left their firearms at home weren't the ones with murderous intent
> yesterday.
Oh, was the shooter NOT a law-abiding person before yesterday?
If so, how did he obtain those weapons?
Kris
Kris Baker
> On Apr 16, 7:24 pm, "Kent Finnell" <kentf...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> Are you the lead mule of the 20 mule team or one of the others with your
>> nose up another's ass? It's fortunate that mules are sterile.
>>
>
> Oh, that's so hilarious. Did it take you long to come up with that
> zinger?
Don't you love it when you win the argument that easily?
Kris
_ Prof. Jonez _
An inscrutable Asian ... is that close enough ?
_ Prof. Jonez _
So your gun-nutter social premise is, that since criminals (by definition) will
always break laws, that we don't need any laws (as a deterrant) because only
law-abiding people would follow them anyway?
That about sum it up, eh Sigmund?
>There might have been far fewer people
> killed if a normal citizen had access to their gun.
Or there might have been the same number killed, or
even more people slaughtered by friendly fire in the ensuing
close-quartered gun battle and chaos.
One thing is for certain, if the perpetrator did NOT have
a gun, then he would NOT have been able to shoot and
kill 32 people.
_ Prof. Jonez _
Ziiiiiiiiing !
>
> Kris
_ Prof. Jonez _
And do you posit that if "everyone" were allowed to carry, that everyone
would carry?
Is everyone allowed to be a christian ? Are they?
Is everyone allowed to have an abortion? Do they?
What data/evidence do you have that lax gun laws would
BOTH significantly increase the % of people who choose
to carry loaded firearms with them on a daily basis AND that
more armed people on the street on a daily basis leads to
any reduction in violence crime ??
Take Iraq for example ...
>>
>> Go look up their homicide and armed robbery rates - Texas ranks near
>> the top.
>
> Please cite these for me. I think you are comparing the number instead
> of the rate, but would love to see exactly where you got the figures
> before I say anything else either way.
You're the one making the blind implication that gun laws are preventing
a statistically significant portion of the public from gun access and that
such gun access would in anyway REDUCE violence / crime .
Note: The V-Tec gunman was a "law-abiding" legal resident right up
until he began his murderous rampage yesterday morning. How would
allowing him easier access to firearms up until Sunday have reduced
the carnage?
_ Prof. Jonez _
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "drp" <d...@drproctor.com> wrote in message
> news:q5q923d0ik3f5rnro...@4ax.com...
> since policies/laws obviously aren't obeyed by criminals determined
> to do bad things.
So if criminals don't obey laws, by definition, then society doesn't
really need any laws at all, eh?... since only law-abiding people
obey laws ...
> ONE concealed-carry student could have ended the madness way
> before 32 others had died and another 28 wounded.
In your delusional scenario. Or MULTIPLE c-c TEENAGE students could
have paniced in the chaos and confusion and started a wild firefight resulting
in the "friendly-fire" deaths of even MORE innocents, jackass.
Cole Firearms Inc.
law abiding people don't need to know the law, they are following common
sence Right and Wrong behavior.
>
>
>> ONE concealed-carry student could have ended the madness way
>>before 32 others had died and another 28 wounded.
>
>
> In your delusional scenario. Or MULTIPLE c-c TEENAGE students could
> have paniced in the chaos and confusion and started a wild firefight resulting
> in the "friendly-fire" deaths of even MORE innocents, jackass.
>
>
>
--
"Police obey the law, pigs do not." -- Rev. Shawn Cole
HeyBub
>> killed if a normal citizen had access to their gun.
>
> Or there might have been the same number killed, or
> even more people slaughtered by friendly fire in the ensuing
> close-quartered gun battle and chaos.
>
> One thing is for certain, if the perpetrator did NOT have
> a gun, then he would NOT have been able to shoot and
> kill 32 people.
If the shooter had not had legs, he wouldn't have been as mobile. If a frog
had wings...
I'm really disappointed in the students at VT; evidently some have not
learned from 911 (and taught since time immemorial to all warriors) that you
don't run AWAY from the aggressor. The only way to prevail is to attack.
Cole Firearms Inc.
He could of used a knife and quietly killed even more than 32 people.
_ Prof. Jonez _
Like they did through a few centuries of common-sense
Black Slavery, eh?
HeyBub
>
> Is everyone allowed to have an abortion? Do they?
>
> What data/evidence do you have that lax gun laws would
> BOTH significantly increase the % of people who choose
> to carry loaded firearms with them on a daily basis AND that
> more armed people on the street on a daily basis leads to
> any reduction in violence crime ??
It's empirical. A greater percentage of people carry guns in Virginia (and
Texas) than in New York or London.
In every state that's adopted a "shall issue" methodology, the number of
people who carry has risen.
>
> Take Iraq for example ...
Hmm. Most parts of Iraq are less violent than Detroit. I don't think you've
picked a good example.
>
> You're the one making the blind implication that gun laws are
> preventing a statistically significant portion of the public from gun
> access and that such gun access would in anyway REDUCE violence /
> crime .
Well, no he isn't. That conclusion has already been proven - he's just
reciting the results.
>
> Note: The V-Tec gunman was a "law-abiding" legal resident right up
> until he began his murderous rampage yesterday morning. How would
> allowing him easier access to firearms up until Sunday have reduced
> the carnage?
Well, hardly. A non-immigrant alien cannot purchase a firearm in Virginia
(see #12 at http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_PurchaseEligibility.shtm )
Uh, it wouldn't. However, assuming the usual percentage of CHL holders in
the general population is translatable to VT students (~2%), then the 60-odd
people shot would have included at least one CHL holder. Add to that the
people who were NOT shot, but were in the same building/vicinity, then
there's a good chance that the perp would have met his demise, not through
his own hand, but by the action of a righteous warrior.
_ Prof. Jonez _
Or hijacked an airliner and killed 3000+ ... since hijackers don't follow
laws anyway, what's the need for disarming all the passengers?
_ Prof. Jonez _
> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>
>> Is everyone allowed to be a christian ? Are they?
>> Is everyone allowed to have an abortion? Do they?
>>
>> What data/evidence do you have that lax gun laws would
>> BOTH significantly increase the % of people who choose
>> to carry loaded firearms with them on a daily basis AND that
>> more armed people on the street on a daily basis leads to
>> any reduction in violence crime ??
>
> It's empirical. A greater percentage of people carry guns in Virginia
> (and Texas) than in New York or London.
And Virginia and Texas both have higher violent crime rates than
England.
>
> In every state that's adopted a "shall issue" methodology, the number
> of people who carry has risen.
To what percentage, exactly?
>
>>
>> Take Iraq for example ...
>
> Hmm. Most parts of Iraq are less violent than Detroit. I don't think
> you've picked a good example.
Most parts of Iraq are uninhabited desert. I think you've dodged
the uncomfortable facts -- so compare Detroit to similarly populated
CITIES in Iraq today.
>
>>
>> You're the one making the blind implication that gun laws are
>> preventing a statistically significant portion of the public from gun
>> access and that such gun access would in anyway REDUCE violence /
>> crime .
>
> Well, no he isn't. That conclusion has already been proven - he's just
> reciting the results.
Where's the proof?
>
>>
>> Note: The V-Tec gunman was a "law-abiding" legal resident right up
>> until he began his murderous rampage yesterday morning. How would
>> allowing him easier access to firearms up until Sunday have reduced
>> the carnage?
>
> Well, hardly. A non-immigrant alien cannot purchase a firearm in
> Virginia (see #12 at
> http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_PurchaseEligibility.shtm )
He was a lawful PERMANENT RESIDENT.
>
> Uh, it wouldn't. However, assuming the usual percentage of CHL
> holders in the general population is translatable to VT students
> (~2%), then the 60-odd people shot would have included at least one
> CHL holder.
Who if he was one of the FIRST ones capped, would have been irrelvant.
> Add to that the people who were NOT shot, but were in the
> same building/vicinity, then there's a good chance that the perp
> would have met his demise, not through his own hand, but by the
> action of a righteous warrior.
In a chaotic firefight with dozens of armed TEENAGERS ?
You really are deluded.
Cole Firearms Inc.
Exactly, if those airline passengers has been armed, they could have
stopped the hijacking and saved those 3000+ lives.
_ Prof. Jonez _
How amazingly simple! Why hasn't ANY society on earth implemented your
amazingly simple solution? Is all of humanity dumber than you are ?
Bama Brian
So gun friendly that VA Tech doesn't allow students to keep guns on
campus, even if they have a CCW license.
Didn't seem to make a damn bit of difference, Bo.
Cole Firearms Inc.
No just politicians and anti gun nuts.
Mike Smith
<hostl...@postmaster.uk.co> wrote:
>Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> sputtered:
>
>> All it would take is 1 lawyer to win 1 lawsuit setting the
>> precedent that a school that bans possession of guns on their
>> campus must assume the legal liability for protecting anyone
>> "on campus" or traveling to their campus.
>
>Your fantasy of a nanny state will never happen.
Dumbass.
I never suggested a nanny state. However, thanks for posting more
proof that you simply do not understand the English language.
Mike Smith
Mike Smith
No. Not even close.
Are you able to comprehend the English language?
>
>
>>There might have been far fewer people
>> killed if a normal citizen had access to their gun.
>
>Or there might have been the same number killed, or
>even more people slaughtered by friendly fire in the ensuing
>close-quartered gun battle and chaos.
>
>One thing is for certain, if the perpetrator did NOT have
>a gun, then he would NOT have been able to shoot and
>kill 32 people.
You aren't very bright, are you.
Tell us... How would YOU disarm all the criminals?
Mike Smith
jif...@supanet.com
opportunity to push their failed agenda now pops its head up, How
truly morbid.
Bert Hyman
news:1176832655....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
> You can almost hear the liberals celebrating these deaths
What do you mean "almost"?
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@iphouse.com
jif...@supanet.com
wrote:
> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mike Smith wrote:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Heck, I could have openly killed 32 people with a knife, which often a
better weapon to use at close quarters. Not that I'm trying to sound
hard or planning on doing it or anything.
jif...@supanet.com
> England.
I'll bet you don't get life imprisonment for shooting burlgars in
Virginia or Texas, as you do in England. Result: burglary rate several
times higher. Try again.
Bert Hyman
news:58kbtdF...@mid.individual.net:
> And Virginia and Texas both have higher violent crime rates than
> England.
Well, not, not by a long shot.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi115.html
com...@webtv.net
"Socialism is the worship of lucifer,which is the name of the devil."
HeyBub
>> It's empirical. A greater percentage of people carry guns in Virginia
>> (and Texas) than in New York or London.
>
> And Virginia and Texas both have higher violent crime rates than
> England.
Sorry, no.
>
>>
>> In every state that's adopted a "shall issue" methodology, the number
>> of people who carry has risen.
>
> To what percentage, exactly?
I don't know. Even an approximate percentage is unknowable.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Take Iraq for example ...
>>
>> Hmm. Most parts of Iraq are less violent than Detroit. I don't think
>> you've picked a good example.
>
> Most parts of Iraq are uninhabited desert. I think you've dodged
> the uncomfortable facts -- so compare Detroit to similarly populated
> CITIES in Iraq today.
Detroit has a higher violent crime rate than similar-sized cities in Iraq.
>>
>> Well, no he isn't. That conclusion has already been proven - he's
>> just reciting the results.
>
> Where's the proof?
Well, gee, it's just about everywhere. I learned it in, I think, the second
grade.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Note: The V-Tec gunman was a "law-abiding" legal resident right up
>>> until he began his murderous rampage yesterday morning. How would
>>> allowing him easier access to firearms up until Sunday have reduced
>>> the carnage?
>>
>> Well, hardly. A non-immigrant alien cannot purchase a firearm in
>> Virginia (see #12 at
>> http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_PurchaseEligibility.shtm )
>
> He was a lawful PERMANENT RESIDENT.
So what? He was still a non-immigrant alien.
>
>
>>
>> Uh, it wouldn't. However, assuming the usual percentage of CHL
>> holders in the general population is translatable to VT students
>> (~2%), then the 60-odd people shot would have included at least one
>> CHL holder.
>
> Who if he was one of the FIRST ones capped, would have been irrelvant.
Probably, but not entirely. His gun would still be available - possibly - to
anyone brave enough to step up.
>
>
>> Add to that the people who were NOT shot, but were in the
>> same building/vicinity, then there's a good chance that the perp
>> would have met his demise, not through his own hand, but by the
>> action of a righteous warrior.
>
>
> In a chaotic firefight with dozens of armed TEENAGERS ?
>
> You really are deluded.
Try telling that to a platoon of Marines.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>> It's empirical. A greater percentage of people carry guns in
>>> Virginia (and Texas) than in New York or London.
>>
>> And Virginia and Texas both have higher violent crime rates than
>> England.
>
> Sorry, no.
Prisoners (per 1,000 people)
United States 4.2
United Kingdom 1.0
Germany 0.8
France 0.8
Austria 0.8
Spain 0.8
Switzerland 0.7
Denmark 0.7
Belgium 0.7
Italy 0.6
Sweden 0.6
Japan 0.4
Netherlands 0.4
Annual reports of police brutality (per 100,000 people)
United States 92.5
United Kingdom 6.0
France 0.7
Death row inmates
United States 2,124
Japan 38
All others 0
Murder rate (per 100,000 people)
United States 8.40
Canada 5.45
Denmark 5.17
France 4.60
Portugal 4.50
Australia 4.48
Germany 4.20
Belgium 2.80
Spain 2.28
Switzerland 2.25
Italy 2.18
Norway 1.99
United Kingdom 1.97
Austria 1.80
Greece 1.76
Sweden 1.73
Japan 1.20
Ireland 0.96
Finland 0.70
Murder rate for males age 15-24 (per 100,000 people)
United States 24.4
Canada 2.6
Sweden 2.3
Norway 2.3
Finland 2.3
Denmark 2.2
United Kingdom 2.0
Netherlands 1.2
Germany 0.9
Japan 0.5
Rape (per 100,000 people)
United States 37.20
Sweden 15.70
Denmark 11.23
Germany 8.60
Norway 7.87
United Kingdom 7.26
Finland 7.20
France 6.77
Switzerland 6.15
Luxembourg 5.00
Spain 4.43
Austria 4.40
Belgium 4.00
Greece 2.40
Ireland 1.72
Japan 1.40
Portugal 1.20
Armed robbery (per 100,000 people)
United States 221
Canada 94
France 90
Belgium 66
United Kingdom 63
Italy 50
Sweden 49
Germany 47
Ireland 46
Denmark 44
Finland 38
Switzerland 23
Norway 22
Greece 7
Japan 1
TYPE OF OFFENSE (Sentenced Pop. Only) - Federal Prisoners
Drug Offenses 59.6%
Robbery 9.8%
Property Offenses 5.5%
Extortion, Fraud, Bribery 6.8%
Violent Offenses 2.7%
Firearms, Explosives, Arson 8.6%
White Collar 1.0%
Immigration 2.8%
Courts or Corrections 0.8%
National Security 0.1%
Continuing Criminal Enterprise 0.8%
Miscellaneous 1.5%
THE INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE
The U.S. is the most violent society in the industrialized world.
Although it doesn't have the most police per capita,
the U.S. does have the toughest laws and punishments by far. The question of
which came first, the chicken or the egg, is becoming much less relevant as time
passes; the U.S. has been following this "get tough" approach for decades, with
no significant reduction of its violent crime rate.
Bert Hyman
> HeyBub wrote:
>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>> It's empirical. A greater percentage of people carry guns in
>>>> Virginia (and Texas) than in New York or London.
>>>
>>> And Virginia and Texas both have higher violent crime rates than
>>> England.
>>
>> Sorry, no.
>
> Prisoners (per 1,000 people)
>
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi115.html
"Comparing international trends in recorded violent crime"
Peter Franks
> America Most Violent Industrialized Nation in the World !!
Just out of curiosity, what does being an "Industrialized Nation" have
to do w/ anything?
Are less industrialized nations exempt from violence rates?
William Black
"Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99159417A82...@127.0.0.1...
The problem with that chart is that England changed the way they recorded
crime three times in the period 1998 to 2003.
It changed from 'formal complaints made' to 'reported to the cops' to
'statistical statement based on the incidents reported plus an unknown
number that are estimated because they're never reported'.
The last two years crime in the UK has gone down with a big drop last year
because we've changed the drinking laws and crimes by drunks, committed at
'closing time', have dropped by about a third and they were about a quarter
of all reported crime...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Bert Hyman
news:ix9Vh.3370$VT3...@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net:
>
> "Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns99159417A82...@127.0.0.1...
>> the...@jonez.net (_ Prof. Jonez _) wrote in
>> news:58kkuoF...@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> HeyBub wrote:
>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>>>> It's empirical. A greater percentage of people carry guns in
>>>>>> Virginia (and Texas) than in New York or London.
>>>>>
>>>>> And Virginia and Texas both have higher violent crime rates
>>>>> than England.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, no.
>>>
>>> Prisoners (per 1,000 people)
>>>
>>
>> http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi115.html
>>
>> "Comparing international trends in recorded violent crime"
>
> The problem with that chart is that England changed the way they
> recorded crime three times in the period 1998 to 2003.
>
> It changed from 'formal complaints made' to 'reported to the cops'
> to 'statistical statement based on the incidents reported plus an
> unknown number that are estimated because they're never reported'.
But presumably, the numbers at the end of the chart should be based
on the method they finally settled on, and could be compared with the
figures from the other represented countries.
> The last two years crime in the UK has gone down with a big drop
> last year because we've changed the drinking laws and crimes by
> drunks, committed at 'closing time', have dropped by about a third
> and they were about a quarter of all reported crime...
The chart represents "violent crime"; are violations of "drinking
laws" so characterized?
William Black
> willia...@hotmail.co.uk (William Black) wrote in
> The chart represents "violent crime"; are violations of "drinking
> laws" so characterized?
Oh yes.
You should try a Saturday night out in an English provincial city some time.
Bert Hyman
> "Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9915979967E...@127.0.0.1...
>> willia...@hotmail.co.uk (William Black) wrote in
>
>> The chart represents "violent crime"; are violations of "drinking
>> laws" so characterized?
>
> Oh yes.
>
> You should try a Saturday night out in an English provincial city
> some time.
If that's the case, maybe not.
Spob
lawyers to wait before contacting families of the victims?
Steve Rothstein
>
> a gun, then he would NOT have been able to shoot and
> kill 32 people.
The above statement is true only because it requires a gun, by
definition. The question is if the person would have been able to kill
32 people without a gun, and the answer to that is also, of course. This
makes the discussion of the tool used irrelevant.
Steve Rothstein
Steve Rothstein
>> Bo Raxo wrote:
>>>> "Bo Raxo" <crimenewscen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:1176768433....@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>>> penalities. Note that this particular loon took his own life,
>>>> according to the latest reports.
>>>>
>>> Exactly. So the death penalty provides no deterrent effect, which
>>> was my point.
>> So we agree on this point, and it has nothing to do with anything else
>> in your rant, right?
>>
>>>
>>>>> Other gun-friendly features of Virginia law include no permit or
>>>>> license needed to purchase a handgun, rifle, or shotgun, no
>>>>> registration of gun ownership, and no waiting period for purchases.
>>> I did not say such laws would have stopped him, I said the law there
>>> is gun-friendly. Your reading comprehension is, I see, quite poor.
>> I would say his reading comprehension is pretty good. He caught the
>> implication you made about the gun friendly laws versus the shootings.
>> You can deny it by claiming you did not explicitly say this, but you
>> did imply it by the very way you wrote it.
>>
>>> >
>>>>> This is the biggest gun massacre in U.S. history, surpassing the
>>>>> Luby's cafeteria massacre in Texas - also a very gun-friendly
>>>>> state, also a very pro-death-penalty state. Draw your own
>>>>> conclusions.
>>>> friendly" than it is now. Ask Suzanna Hupp-Gratia who watched her
>>>> parents die in each others' arms. Her pistol was in her truck, per
>>>> Texas law at the time. BTW, that loon also took his own life.
>>>>
>>> And now that everyone in Texas can carry, there are no more murders
>>> or armed robberies there, right?
>> Better go look at our laws again. Nowhere near everyone in Texas can
>> carry. Last time I checked, we only allowed cops, security guards, and
>> the approximately 300,000 people who had passed a license check to
>> carry. Including all of these together, we still get a total of less
>> than 2 or 3 % of the Texas population carrying.
>
>
> And do you posit that if "everyone" were allowed to carry, that everyone
> would carry?
>
> Is everyone allowed to be a christian ? Are they?
> Is everyone allowed to have an abortion? Do they?
>
> What data/evidence do you have that lax gun laws would
> BOTH significantly increase the % of people who choose
> to carry loaded firearms with them on a daily basis AND that
> more armed people on the street on a daily basis leads to
> any reduction in violence crime ??
You certainly have jumped to some wild claims. I never made any claim
that everyone who could carry would, nor came anywhere near implying it.
I merely pointed out that the claim of all Texans being able to carry is
not true.
So, now that we know these are your claims, and not mine, i will show
that some number of people would carry if laws were relaxed. This is
easily done by showing the number of people who are taking advantage of
the option to carry with a CHL. Now that Texas finally has those types
of licenses, we have a number of people carrying that did not before.
Since this has been shown to be true in every state that has moved to
shall issue licensing, we can assume the trend would continue and if the
laws were relaxed further, some number of people more would carry. The
question of the significance of the number is a personal judgment. You
must clearly think a significant number would carry or you would not
fight the laws so much. If you felt it was an insignificant number, you
would not care.
As to whether or not crime would go down, I cannot say and never tried
to make the claim. I will say I believe the number of successful crimes
would drop as people were able to defend themselves, but it would climb
again shortly as the criminals who survived would learn where the soft
targets (you, being unarmed) are and choose them. It would make my
family safer since I would encourage them to carry. Your family might be
in more danger if they listened to you.
>
> Take Iraq for example ...
>
>
>
>>> Go look up their homicide and armed robbery rates - Texas ranks near
>>> the top.
>> Please cite these for me. I think you are comparing the number instead
>> of the rate, but would love to see exactly where you got the figures
>> before I say anything else either way.
>
> You're the one making the blind implication that gun laws are preventing
> a statistically significant portion of the public from gun access and that
> such gun access would in anyway REDUCE violence / crime .
>
> Note: The V-Tec gunman was a "law-abiding" legal resident right up
> until he began his murderous rampage yesterday morning. How would
> allowing him easier access to firearms up until Sunday have reduced
> the carnage?
I will note that the gunman was not a law abiding citizen before
yesterday, and not since at least March. He lived in a dorm where the
guns were forbidden, but he had them. Thus, he was not law abiding (or
more technically correct, rule abiding) before yesterday.
As for that, you have yet to show him as law abiding even before that
date. All we know is that he was not legally disqualified from buying a
gun. We can assume he was not truly law abiding since he knew to file
the serial numbers off the guns. That was also done before yesterday and
is a crime. Since this is a mark of a criminal to consider it, we can
assume that the shooter was not law abiding, just had not yet been
caught and indicted or convicted.
Steve Rothstein
ozark...@yahoo.com
he understands. He is just a pathological liar.
Bo Raxo
<colefirearm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Cole Firearms Inc. wrote:
>
> >>_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>
> >>>Mike Smith wrote:
>
Except that the hijackers would have been armed, too. Half a dozen
men, trained, acting as a coordinated team, would still likely have
been able to take over the planes.
As usual, the gun lovers present a false choice. The things that
would have saved 3,000+ lives on 9/11 were reinforced cockpit doors
and a policy of not opening the cockpit doors while in flight. No
guns needed.
But heck, let all airline passengers carry guns. In a pressurized
cabin. How many accidental discharges would we get? Would you want
to be the flight attendant telling some drunk he or she is cut off,
having them get belligerant, and consider that your angry drunk might
be packing?
Yeah, what could possibly go wrong with that scenario. Sheeeeeeesh.
Bo Raxo
Bo Raxo
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:20:24 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
>
>
>
>
>
> <thep...@jonez.net> wrote:
> >Mike Smith wrote:
If only we could develop some kind of technology that would detect
metal, I don't know, a sort of "metal detector".
Nah, too complex...
Bo Raxo
And this is why you never hire someone who didn't go to college.
Note: clown college doesn't count, Pete.
ozark...@yahoo.com
<hostl...@postmaster.uk.co> wrote:
>Steve Rothstein <sroth...@earthlink.net> sputtered:
>
>> The question is if the person would have been able to kill
>> 32 people without a gun, and the answer to that is also, of
>> course. This makes the discussion of the tool used irrelevant.
>
>If you think that other "tools" are just as effective as guns,
>then you and your gunhugging buddies would be content to walk
>around with just a knife.
Your lack of ability to think in abstract terms is duly noted.
A common characteristic of rather slow people like you.
>
>His possession of a gun was significant to his ability to kill
>that many people.
Hoodini
>> ONE concealed-carry student could have ended the madness way
>> before 32 others had died and another 28 wounded.
> In your delusional scenario.
Oh, my omnipotent being! Stating that while following it with the
content below is so freaking hilarious that it is worthy of
nomination, if not outright claiming the title of, asinine statement
of the year in each newsgroup you cross-posted it into!
Or MULTIPLE c-c TEENAGE students could
> have paniced in the chaos and confusion and started a wild
firefight > resulting in the "friendly-fire" deaths of even MORE
innocents,
> jackass.
The wild delusions of ignorant zealots are, behind stupidity, the
second most prevalent element in the known universe.
--
Gotta Find My Roogalator
Mike Smith
wrote:
Geez... you have no clue as to how to disarm all criminals.
You are clueless.
Give me a week to try to act surprised.
Mike Smith
Mike Smith
wrote:
>On Apr 17, 10:03 am, "Cole Firearms Inc."
Tell us moron...
Are ya scared of your own shadow?
Mike Smith
Mike Smith
<hostl...@postmaster.uk.co> wrote:
>Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> sputtered:
>
>> I never suggested a nanny state.
>
>You're the fuckwit who wants lawyers to sue schools because they
>don't take care of kids away from school grounds.
Once again, you post your ignorance of the English language.
I did not post any such thing. Go back and get someone competent in
the English language to explain my post to you, in terms you "might"
understand.
Also, you don't have a clue what "nanny state" means. Try to find
someone to explain THAT to ya, too.
Mike Smith
Bo Raxo
> On 17 Apr 2007 17:50:42 -0700, Bo Raxo <crimenewscen...@gmail.com>
Funny, the high school down the street from my home manages to have
metal detectors, in a rough neighborhood, and keep guns out. Why
wouldn't that work for a college campus?
> Give me a week to try to act surprised.
>
No doubt it takes you that long to do anything.
Bo Raxo
> On 17 Apr 2007 17:48:36 -0700, Bo Raxo <crimenewscen...@gmail.com>
Hard to argue with "logic" like that.
Who needs reinforced cockpit doors, we're manly men, it's shootout at
the OK corral - at 20,000 feet.
Fred G. Mackey
> Harry Hope wrote:
>
>>From The Associated Press, 4/16/07:
>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070416/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_shooting
>
>
> Gunman kills 30 on Virginia Tech campus
Shouldn't this thread be titled "Korean GUN MADNESS"?
After all, it was a Korean immigrant who did this shit.
JFC, when I was in college, the Koreans just got into fights with each
other and used pool cues. WTF is the world coming to?
° Shanghai Lil °
>> 32 people without a gun, and the answer to that is also, of
>> course. This makes the discussion of the tool used irrelevant.
>
> then you and your gunhugging buddies would be content to walk
> around with just a knife.
Bingo!
>
> His possession of a gun was significant to his ability to kill
> that many people.
The gun-nutter apologists claim all weapons are equally effective/efficient.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
° Shanghai Lil °
> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>> Harry Hope wrote:
>>
>>> From The Associated Press, 4/16/07:
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070416/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_shooting
>>
>>
>> Gunman kills 30 on Virginia Tech campus
>
Did this massacre occur in Seoul with Korean made guns ?
>
> After all, it was a Korean immigrant who did this shit.
Legally a permanent resident of the US who legally purchased the firearms
while
he was a law abiding resident.
° Shanghai Lil °
Bullshit. He was a law-abiding resident when he legally purchased those guns
and
passed the FBI background check.
Try again, apologist.
docremington
> always break laws,
>
That's what criminals do, evidently.
> that we don't need any laws (as a deterrant) because only
> law-abiding people would follow them anyway?
That's what law-abiders do, evidently.
Do you know, dear Perfessor Jones that, Yemen is an interesting study
in gun-crimes? They have about 3 AKs per citizen of all age (and I
mean all age), and may return the favor in full parade formation. But
we are better, than those barbarians, and can't lower ourselves to
their savage level, aren't we?
> Or there might have been the same number killed, or
> even more people slaughtered by friendly fire in the ensuing
> close-quartered gun battle and chaos.
As distinct from the police, hiding their fat posteriors behind the
trees, until it was over and out, no doubt. Looks like a serve-
protection scam - Stay put. Dial 911. Lie down. Get shot. Get dead.
Get cried over. Get sanctified in the sheriff's report and the media,
everyone's a Pope. Very much not "pro-life" to my liking, but
generates revenues for the networks.
> One thing is for certain, if the perpetrator did NOT have
> a gun, then he would NOT have been able to shoot and
> kill 32 people.
Conversely, if the police did the job "he would NOT have been able to
docremington
> until he began his murderous rampage yesterday morning.
>
And the variable valve lift-Tec was law abiding, until it was used to
drive a cat over.
> How would
> allowing him easier access to firearms up until Sunday have reduced
> the carnage?
Are we talking about a korean student VIP access? How would not
allowing others to carry on campus have reduced the carnage on Sunday?
Bo Raxo
> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>
> > So your gun-nutter social premise is, that since criminals (by definition) will
> > always break laws,
>
> That's what criminals do, evidently.
>
> > that we don't need any laws (as a deterrant) because only
> > law-abiding people would follow them anyway?
>
> That's what law-abiders do, evidently.
> Do you know, dear Perfessor Jones that, Yemen is an interesting study
> in gun-crimes? They have about 3 AKs per citizen of all age (and I
> mean all age), and may return the favor in full parade formation. But
> we are better, than those barbarians, and can't lower ourselves to
> their savage level, aren't we?
>
But you can't hide an AK in a pocket - that's the difference between
long guns and handguns. I'd be perfectly happy to very strictly
regulate purchase/licensing/ownership of handguns and leave long guns
relatively easy to own. Because it's the concealed aspect of handguns
that make them dangerous in public places.
That's why handguns are IIRC less than half of all guns owned, but
figure in well over 80% of the crimes involving guns.
> > Or there might have been the same number killed, or
> > even more people slaughtered by friendly fire in the ensuing
> > close-quartered gun battle and chaos.
>
> As distinct from the police, hiding their fat posteriors behind the
> trees, until it was over and out, no doubt.
No, that was Columbine. The police here were much more aggressive, to
their credit.
> Looks like a serve-
> protection scam - Stay put. Dial 911. Lie down. Get shot. Get dead.
> Get cried over. Get sanctified in the sheriff's report and the media,
> everyone's a Pope. Very much not "pro-life" to my liking, but
> generates revenues for the networks.
>
> > One thing is for certain, if the perpetrator did NOT have
> > a gun, then he would NOT have been able to shoot and
> > kill 32 people.
>
> Conversely, if the police did the job "he would NOT have been able to
> shoot and kill 32 people".
What exactly is it the police failed to do? From what I've seen so
far, their response was rapid and exemplary.
Actually, if the police hadn't aggressively stormed the building and
broken through the chained doors within a minute or two of arrival,
most likely more people would have died. The police response, at
least from the preliminary reports, was rapid, coordinated,
aggressive, and courageous. Considering the size and type of the
community, it's even more impressive that they had a plan in place and
had trained for this scenario. Storming a building when you don't
know how many shooters there are, what they are armed with, whether
they are suicidal, you haven't studied the building layout, perhaps
don't even have a description of a suspect, that takes some pretty big
balls - again, if the preliminary reports are accurate. I've been at
the scene of a shooting, with some idiot firing in the middle of the
street, and with people fleeing and others looking for any kind of
cover. It takes a certain kind of person to set aside the adrenalin
and the fight or flight instinct and do what's best for the whole
situation, instead of yourself. That, or just crazy enough to not feel
any fear.
Bo Raxo
Bama Brian
Wonderful police response. The second attack was over BEFORE the cops
bothered to warn the campus.
HeyBub
>
> As to whether or not crime would go down, I cannot say and never tried
> to make the claim. I will say I believe the number of successful
> crimes would drop as people were able to defend themselves, but it
> would climb again shortly as the criminals who survived would learn
> where the soft targets (you, being unarmed) are and choose them. It
> would make my family safer since I would encourage them to carry.
> Your family might be in more danger if they listened to you.
>>
Excellent argument, Steve.
A new reason to support relaxed gun laws: relaxed gun laws would direct the
evil-doers to the doorsteps of the liberals thereby decreasing the
percentage of intellectual evil-doers among us.
The argument is kinda like the "Roe Effect" in regard to abortion. Some
support the "Right To Choose" because it (eventually) reduces the percentage
of liberals in society!
Anyway, who knows but that this might have already taken place? Even among
the Democrats, the agitation for stricter gun laws is somewhere between
muted and non-existent. Could it be that the more excited supporters of gun
control have been killed off by trolls looking for easier targets?
HeyBub
> Fred G. Mackey wrote:
>
> Did this massacre occur in Seoul with Korean made guns ?
>
>>
>> After all, it was a Korean immigrant who did this shit.
>
> Legally a permanent resident of the US who legally purchased the
> firearms while
> he was a law abiding resident.
To do so, he had to provide a false statment on a federal form, then he
filed off the serial numbers, then took the guns to his dorm.
There're three violations right there. The man was hardly a pillar of
society.
Keenan Clay Wilkie
A college campus is not a single building with easily controlled
entrances. I work on a college campus (no, I don't carry while working;
university policy requires that I be disarmed and defenseless in the event
of a crisis); there is no barrier between three of the four sides of the
campus grounds. A major road runs between the main campus and the
engineering school. It would not be feasable to set up metal detectors at
every possible entrance point of the campus grounds.
Metal detectors would also not be feasable in buildings. Many of them
have far too many entrances for feasably setting up multiple checkpoints,
and the volume of traffic to and from a number of frequently visited
buildings would create massive bottlenecking. In addition, few would
appreicate the sizeable tuition increase required to turn the open campus
into a closed-off guarded prison -- the only possible method for actually
watching and stopping firearms from coming onto campus.
I suspect, based on your suggestion, that you have never even attended
college.
--
http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif
d a r k s t a r @ i g l o u . c o m
William Black
"Keenan Clay Wilkie" <dark...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote in message
news:46261a67$1...@news.iglou.com...
> Bo Raxo <crimene...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>On Apr 17, 7:32 pm, Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote:
>>> On 17 Apr 2007 17:50:42 -0700, Bo Raxo <crimenewscen...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >If only we could develop some kind of technology that would detect
>>> >metal, I don't know, a sort of "metal detector".
>>>
>>> >Nah, too complex...
>>>
>>> Geez... you have no clue as to how to disarm all criminals.
>>> You are clueless.
>>>
>
>>Funny, the high school down the street from my home manages to have
>>metal detectors, in a rough neighborhood, and keep guns out. Why
>>wouldn't that work for a college campus?
>
> A college campus is not a single building with easily controlled
> entrances. I work on a college campus (no, I don't carry while working;
> university policy requires that I be disarmed and defenseless in the event
> of a crisis); there is no barrier between three of the four sides of the
> campus grounds. A major road runs between the main campus and the
> engineering school. It would not be feasable to set up metal detectors at
> every possible entrance point of the campus grounds.
Build a fence and put controlled entrances around them where necessary.
It would cost a sight less than a mass murder investigation and aftermath.
If this particular nutter had been an Arab terrorist they'd be shipping the
chain-link fencing by now...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Keenan Clay Wilkie
"0 Shanghai Lil 0" <Li...@Shanghai.cn> writes:
>Carl Nisarel wrote:
>> Steve Rothstein <sroth...@earthlink.net> sputtered:
>>
>>> The question is if the person would have been able to kill
>>> 32 people without a gun, and the answer to that is also, of
>>> course. This makes the discussion of the tool used irrelevant.
>>
>> If you think that other "tools" are just as effective as guns,
>> then you and your gunhugging buddies would be content to walk
>> around with just a knife.
>Bingo!
"Just as useful as a mass-murder tool" != "Just as useful as a
self-defense tool". The comparison is not valid. Law-abiding citizens
who are armed are not carrying firearms for the purpose of committing
mass-murder. The methodology and motive are very different. One
important difference is that someone seeking to commit mass murder will
frequently act as though their victim is disarmed, in which case any
weapon is an advantage. Someone using a deadly weapon for defense,
however, is already confronting someone who is armed; getting close enough
to effectively use a knife against an armed and aggressive assailant is
much more dangerous than getting close enough to use a knife against a
defenseless and possibly unsuspecting victim.
Also, why do gun grabbers ALWAYS assume that the only other possible
"tool" for committing mass murder is a knife? It's not. Crude
homemadeexplosives might not be as effective as military-grade equipment,
but they could still do significant damage, and on a college campus could
easily fit in a common backpack. Ammonia and bleach are readly available
at any supermarket, and can be combined to make a deadly gas; someone
could easily rig a setup to mix a good amount of them in a populated area.
Even a large motor vehicle can cause quite a bit of carnage when driven
through a crowd. If the presence of guns really puts society at danger
because of the ability to kill with them, then why do we not have even
greater deliberate carnage as a result of the presence of automobiles,
which are quite capable of being used as killing machines also?
(I suspect now that the gun grabbers will irrationally accuse me of
planning or considering such murder sprees as a means of dishonestly
evading the points that I have raised)
Keenan Clay Wilkie
>"Keenan Clay Wilkie" <dark...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote in message
>news:46261a67$1...@news.iglou.com...
>> Bo Raxo <crimene...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>On Apr 17, 7:32 pm, Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote:
>>>> On 17 Apr 2007 17:50:42 -0700, Bo Raxo <crimenewscen...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >If only we could develop some kind of technology that would detect
>>>> >metal, I don't know, a sort of "metal detector".
>>>>
>>>> >Nah, too complex...
>>>>
>>>> Geez... you have no clue as to how to disarm all criminals.
>>>> You are clueless.
>>>>
>>
>>>Funny, the high school down the street from my home manages to have
>>>metal detectors, in a rough neighborhood, and keep guns out. Why
>>>wouldn't that work for a college campus?
>>
>> A college campus is not a single building with easily controlled
>> entrances. I work on a college campus (no, I don't carry while working;
>> university policy requires that I be disarmed and defenseless in the event
>> of a crisis); there is no barrier between three of the four sides of the
>> campus grounds. A major road runs between the main campus and the
>> engineering school. It would not be feasable to set up metal detectors at
>> every possible entrance point of the campus grounds.
>Build a fence and put controlled entrances around them where necessary.
I can think of at least five vehicular entrances off of the top of my
head, and I'm not even trying.. There's a factory right next to campus,
and the entrance to the employee parking lot is through campus property --
workers at the factory drive through a campus parking lot to get onto the
factory grounds. They all arrive and leave at the same time every day.
Their arrival and departure creates a massive traffic backup for anyone
trying to leave campus from the adjacent parking lot, and that's without
every driver being stopped and searched on their way in. Do you seriously
think that it is feasable to set up a checkpoint where entering vehicles
are individually searched for the presence of firearms?
Over one-hundred students park in the parking lot of a stadium that is
several blocks from the campus proper. Do we have checkpoints at the
entrance of the stadium lot, the campus itself or both?
One of the student parking garages also allows pay parking to the general
public. Do we have a checkpoint there, where people's cars are searched
before they can enter the lot, or do we spare everyone the invasive
searching until they cross the threshold into the campus proper?
What about the divide between the engineering school and the rest of the
campus? There is a major road dividing them. Do we set up checkpoints in
the road and divert anyone found in posession of a firearm?
Your suggestion is unrealistic and infeasable. Again, it is clear that
you have never even seen a typical college campus. Walling them in and
putting in armed entrance checkpoints with metal detectors is not a
reasonable suggestion.
>It would cost a sight less than a mass murder investigation and aftermath.
Which itself is a statistically unlikely event, and there are far better
methods for preventing such a disaster. Such as not requiring by policy
that absolutely all non-LEOs on campus be defenseless.
Kentucky allows for concealed carry. There are already over 50,000 CCW
permit holders in the state. Thus far, less than 1%, close to 0%
(possibly 0 total) have committed a violent crime while otherwise legally
posessing a firearm. Why is it unreasonable to assume that allowing those
CCW permit holders to be armed when on campus would change that statistic?
>If this particular nutter had been an Arab terrorist they'd be shipping the
>chain-link fencing by now...
Justifying an unreasonable suggestion by asserting, without evidence, that
"they'd be doing it if the killer fit profile X" does not make it become
reasonable.
William Black
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
>>If this particular nutter had been an Arab terrorist they'd be shipping
>>the
>>chain-link fencing by now...
>
> Justifying an unreasonable suggestion by asserting, without evidence, that
> "they'd be doing it if the killer fit profile X" does not make it become
> reasonable.
Well, you're the one who'll have to live with the heaps of dead children.
It'll happen again soon...
Have a nice day...
Peter Franks
?
Is that directed toward me or the OP?
If me, can you answer the question?
_ Prof. Jonez _
> "0 Shanghai Lil 0" <Li...@Shanghai.cn> writes:
>
>> Carl Nisarel wrote:
>>> Steve Rothstein <sroth...@earthlink.net> sputtered:
>>>
>>>> The question is if the person would have been able to kill
>>>> 32 people without a gun, and the answer to that is also, of
>>>> course. This makes the discussion of the tool used irrelevant.
>>>
>>> If you think that other "tools" are just as effective as guns,
>>> then you and your gunhugging buddies would be content to walk
>>> around with just a knife.
>
>> Bingo!
>
> "Just as useful as a mass-murder tool" != "Just as useful as a
> self-defense tool". The comparison is not valid.
And equally invalid is the gun-nutters' dismissal of the efficiency
of the firearm in killing.
> Law-abiding citizens who are armed are not carrying firearms for the purpose
> of
> committing mass-murder.
This Cho character was a "law-abiding" resident who legally purchased his
firearms after passing an FBI background check.
> The methodology and motive are very
> different. One important difference is that someone seeking to
> commit mass murder will frequently act as though their victim is
> disarmed,
Suicidal psychopaths do not care if their targets are armed or not,
as the 100s of cases of "suicide by cop" clearly show.
> in which case any weapon is an advantage. Someone using a
> deadly weapon for defense, however, is already confronting someone
> who is armed; getting close enough to effectively use a knife against
> an armed and aggressive assailant is much more dangerous
Never crossed your mind to just run from the knife, eh?
> than getting
> close enough to use a knife against a defenseless and possibly
> unsuspecting victim.
>
> Also, why do gun grabbers ALWAYS assume that the only other possible
> "tool" for committing mass murder is a knife? It's not. Crude
> homemadeexplosives might not be as effective as military-grade
> equipment, but they could still do significant damage, and on a
> college campus could easily fit in a common backpack.
More delusion. How effective were the crude expolsives and bombs that
the Columbine killers Kleebold and Harris brought with them, eh?
Exactly 0% -- they ALL failed to detonate, which left those losers with
only their firearms as instruments of death.
> Ammonia and
> bleach are readly available at any supermarket, and can be combined
> to make a deadly gas; someone could easily rig a setup to mix a good
> amount of them in a populated area.
Yet those events happen how often in the U$, eh?
> Even a large motor vehicle can
> cause quite a bit of carnage when driven through a crowd.
A crowd that happens to have gathered in the street?
> If the
> presence of guns really puts society at danger because of the ability
> to kill with them, then why do we not have even greater deliberate
> carnage as a result of the presence of automobiles, which are quite
> capable of being used as killing machines also?
Because they are not as efficient and a lot harder to hide under your coat
as you walk the hallways of the office building or school ?
>
> (I suspect now that the gun grabbers will irrationally accuse me of
> planning or considering such murder sprees as a means of dishonestly
> evading the points that I have raised)
I suspect you ain't the sharpest tack in the box, moron.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> On Apr 18, 1:33 am, docremington <docreming...@safe-mail.net> wrote:
>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>
>>> So your gun-nutter social premise is, that since criminals (by
>>> definition) will always break laws,
>>
>> That's what criminals do, evidently.
>>
>>> that we don't need any laws (as a deterrant) because only
>>> law-abiding people would follow them anyway?
>>
>> That's what law-abiders do, evidently.
>> Do you know, dear Perfessor Jones that, Yemen is an interesting study
>> in gun-crimes? They have about 3 AKs per citizen of all age (and I
>> mean all age), and may return the favor in full parade formation. But
>> we are better, than those barbarians, and can't lower ourselves to
>> their savage level, aren't we?
>>
>
> But you can't hide an AK in a pocket - that's the difference between
> long guns and handguns. I'd be perfectly happy to very strictly
> regulate purchase/licensing/ownership of handguns and leave long guns
> relatively easy to own. Because it's the concealed aspect of handguns
> that make them dangerous in public places.
>
> That's why handguns are IIRC less than half of all guns owned, but
> figure in well over 80% of the crimes involving guns.
Wow! Imagine the howl and screams we'd hear from
those red-neck gun-nuts if they had that extreme statistical
difference with regard to RACE and CRIME ...
LOL!
>
>>> Or there might have been the same number killed, or
>>> even more people slaughtered by friendly fire in the ensuing
>>> close-quartered gun battle and chaos.
>>
>> As distinct from the police, hiding their fat posteriors behind the
>> trees, until it was over and out, no doubt.
>
> No, that was Columbine. The police here were much more aggressive, to
> their credit.
Yes, they were. Agreed 100%.
>
>> Looks like a serve-
>> protection scam - Stay put. Dial 911. Lie down. Get shot. Get dead.
>> Get cried over. Get sanctified in the sheriff's report and the media,
>> everyone's a Pope. Very much not "pro-life" to my liking, but
>> generates revenues for the networks.
>>
>>> One thing is for certain, if the perpetrator did NOT have
>>> a gun, then he would NOT have been able to shoot and
>>> kill 32 people.
>>
>> Conversely, if the police did the job "he would NOT have been able to
>> shoot and kill 32 people".
>
> What exactly is it the police failed to do? From what I've seen so
> far, their response was rapid and exemplary.
Yes it was.
_ Prof. Jonez _
Why do you lie?
_ Prof. Jonez _
> Steve Rothstein wrote:
>>
>> As to whether or not crime would go down, I cannot say and never
>> tried to make the claim. I will say I believe the number of
>> successful crimes would drop as people were able to defend
>> themselves, but it would climb again shortly as the criminals who
>> survived would learn where the soft targets (you, being unarmed) are
>> and choose them. It would make my family safer since I would
>> encourage them to carry. Your family might be in more danger if they
>> listened to you.
>>>
>
> Excellent argument, Steve.
>
> A new reason to support relaxed gun laws: relaxed gun laws would
> direct the evil-doers to the doorsteps of the liberals thereby
> decreasing the percentage of intellectual evil-doers among us.
>
> The argument is kinda like the "Roe Effect" in regard to abortion.
> Some support the "Right To Choose" because it (eventually) reduces
> the percentage of liberals in society!
And we saw what that spawned in 2000 and 2004 ...
LOL!
_ Prof. Jonez _
> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>> Note: The V-Tec gunman was a "law-abiding" legal resident right up
>> until he began his murderous rampage yesterday morning.
>>
>
>
> And the variable valve lift-Tec was law abiding, until it was used to
> drive a cat over.
Drive a cat over what, exactly?
>
>> How would
>> allowing him easier access to firearms up until Sunday have reduced
>> the carnage?
>
> Are we talking about a korean student VIP access? How would not
> allowing others to carry on campus have reduced the carnage on Sunday?
Sunday is the commanded day of rest for most baable-thumpin' xtians.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> ° Shanghai Lil ° wrote:
>> Fred G. Mackey wrote:
>>
>> Did this massacre occur in Seoul with Korean made guns ?
>>
>>>
>>> After all, it was a Korean immigrant who did this shit.
>>
>> Legally a permanent resident of the US who legally purchased the
>> firearms while
>> he was a law abiding resident.
>
> To do so, he had to provide a false statment on a federal form,
Which false statement, like exactly?
>then
> he filed off the serial numbers, then took the guns to his dorm.
After he legally purchased them as a law-abiding resident who passed
the FBI background check, moron.
>
> There're three violations right there.
You're lying again.
Why do you lie?
>The man was hardly a pillar of society.
Nor are you a step-stone of intellect.
Mike Smith
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Keenan Clay Wilkie" <dark...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote in message
>news:46262c61$1...@news.iglou.com...
>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
>
>>>If this particular nutter had been an Arab terrorist they'd be shipping
>>>the
>>>chain-link fencing by now...
>>
>> Justifying an unreasonable suggestion by asserting, without evidence, that
>> "they'd be doing it if the killer fit profile X" does not make it become
>> reasonable.
>
>Well, you're the one who'll have to live with the heaps of dead children.
>
>It'll happen again soon...
>
>Have a nice day...
Thanks for letting us know you're a moron.
I'm betting you enjoy spending other people's money for nothing. What
did you pay in income taxes this year? Zero? That would be my guess.
Instead of letting the people have a means to protect themselves, you
want to waste millions of dollars on metal detectors and millions of
dollars on the ongoing maintenance of those metal detectors and
millions of dollars on the labor to actually watch all those metal
detectors.... Forever....
Yea... see where I came up with the "moron" label for you?
Mike Smith
William Black
"Mike Smith" <m...@wt.net> wrote in message
news:vvlc23hos85mq9254...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:41:19 GMT, "William Black"
> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Keenan Clay Wilkie" <dark...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote in message
>>news:46262c61$1...@news.iglou.com...
>>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>>>If this particular nutter had been an Arab terrorist they'd be shipping
>>>>the
>>>>chain-link fencing by now...
>>>
>>> Justifying an unreasonable suggestion by asserting, without evidence,
>>> that
>>> "they'd be doing it if the killer fit profile X" does not make it become
>>> reasonable.
>>
>>Well, you're the one who'll have to live with the heaps of dead children.
>>
>>It'll happen again soon...
>>
>>Have a nice day...
>
> Thanks for letting us know you're a moron.
>
> I'm betting you enjoy spending other people's money for nothing. What
> did you pay in income taxes this year? Zero? That would be my guess.
Guess again sucker.
> Instead of letting the people have a means to protect themselves, you
> want to waste millions of dollars on metal detectors and millions of
> dollars on the ongoing maintenance of those metal detectors and
> millions of dollars on the labor to actually watch all those metal
> detectors.... Forever....
>
> Yea... see where I came up with the "moron" label for you?
Like I said, you're the one who'll have to live with the heaps of dead
children.
The way to pay for all the security stuff is obvious, tax the guns...
Or maybe tax the licenses you should have before you buy a gun.
The mass murderer this time was having treatment for a serious mental
disorder. Yet he passed an FBI screening.
Obviously the screening didn't work...
Any idea why?
I mean, no reasonable society would let mad people have guns...
HeyBub
> Like I said, you're the one who'll have to live with the heaps of dead
> children.
>
> The way to pay for all the security stuff is obvious, tax the guns...
>
> Or maybe tax the licenses you should have before you buy a gun.
>
> The mass murderer this time was having treatment for a serious mental
> disorder. Yet he passed an FBI screening.
>
> Obviously the screening didn't work...
>
> Any idea why?
>
> I mean, no reasonable society would let mad people have guns...
Better for one mad person to have a gun than hundreds of the merely pissed
being denied...
HeyBub
>
>
> LOL!
Well, there were about 85,000 abortions in 1982 in Florida. Had it not been
for the abortions, those 85,000 would have been eligible to vote in 2000.
Gore lost Florida, and the election, by some 500-odd votes.
What baffles me is what happened in 2006. I guess we need more abortions....
jif...@supanet.com
>
> United States 4.2
> United Kingdom 1.0
> Germany 0.8
> France 0.8
> Austria 0.8
> Spain 0.8
> Switzerland 0.7
> Denmark 0.7
> Belgium 0.7
> Italy 0.6
> Sweden 0.6
> Japan 0.4
> Netherlands 0.4
People are usually imprisoned because they've done something illegal,
not because someone just feels like locking you up. Your statistic is
no good unless we know what they're being locked up for.
> Death row inmates
>
> United States 2,124
> Japan 38
> All others 0
Again, useless unless we know what they're on death row for. The USA
and Japan are the only countries on earth with the death penalty? What
about China? N. Korea? Who are you trying to kid?
> Murder rate (per 100,000 people)
>
> United States 8.40
> Canada 5.45
> Denmark 5.17
> France 4.60
> Portugal 4.50
> Australia 4.48
> Germany 4.20
> Belgium 2.80
> Spain 2.28
> Switzerland 2.25
> Italy 2.18
> Norway 1.99
> United Kingdom 1.97
> Austria 1.80
> Greece 1.76
> Sweden 1.73
> Japan 1.20
> Ireland 0.96
> Finland 0.70
>
> Murder rate for males age 15-24 (per 100,000 people)
>
> United States 24.4
> Canada 2.6
> Sweden 2.3
> Norway 2.3
> Finland 2.3
> Denmark 2.2
> United Kingdom 2.0
> Netherlands 1.2
> Germany 0.9
> Japan 0.5
>
> Rape (per 100,000 people)
>
> United States 37.20
> Sweden 15.70
> Denmark 11.23
> Germany 8.60
> Norway 7.87
> United Kingdom 7.26
> Finland 7.20
> France 6.77
> Switzerland 6.15
> Luxembourg 5.00
> Spain 4.43
> Austria 4.40
> Belgium 4.00
> Greece 2.40
> Ireland 1.72
> Japan 1.40
> Portugal 1.20
>
> Armed robbery (per 100,000 people)
>
> United States 221
> Canada 94
> France 90
> Belgium 66
> United Kingdom 63
> Italy 50
> Sweden 49
> Germany 47
> Ireland 46
> Denmark 44
> Finland 38
> Switzerland 23
> Norway 22
> Greece 7
> Japan 1
Ah, so America is violent. But take away the guns, and it'd still be
violent. Where does that leave the opposition to gun ownership,
professor?
> TYPE OF OFFENSE (Sentenced Pop. Only) - Federal Prisoners
>
> Drug Offenses 59.6%
> Robbery 9.8%
> Property Offenses 5.5%
> Extortion, Fraud, Bribery 6.8%
> Violent Offenses 2.7%
> Firearms, Explosives, Arson 8.6%
> White Collar 1.0%
> Immigration 2.8%
> Courts or Corrections 0.8%
> National Security 0.1%
> Continuing Criminal Enterprise 0.8%
> Miscellaneous 1.5%
This tells us a bit more, but it's a bit of a misfire, too. How may
people favouring the legalisation of gun ownership also favour the
legalisation of drugs too? Quite a high percentage, I should imagine.