Rob's Lobs

[Lyehopper]

AH! We do agree on something!

I truely feel sorry for all the victims of the massacre and their families and hope that this country can find the real leaders to help solve the violence problem in this country. Its an absolute shame how bad we've gotten.

And to this I say.... AMEN!

Today, the idea of a patriotic despot-despising militia is an anachronism and more aptly a pipe dream. This almighty militia would face tanks, anti-personnel microwave weapons, napalm, "daisy cutter" bombs, tactical nukes, etc. What would a freaking "militia" do then against a hypothetical American despot? This is a myth. And this is the argument for allowing every gun nut to have his own little arsenal in his back room and basement. Gimme-A-Break!
Geezzz...I thought you were referring to Iraq for a second there. I think they're doing a pretty good job of making our boys pretty miserable, with a lot of help from Iran obviously.

I just wanted to say that everything has a price, and usually that price is much higher than anyone thought it would be at the outset. The NRA (ie lobbyists of death) has been so successful in its whore-mongering campaign on capital hill that they must be beaming with pride that yet another massacre has happened in this country....handguns for all!!

And the news media too....they must love all the ad time they can sell in this time of crisis.

And how about Hollywood? They've done such an outstanding job of making mass murder look like fun that they ought to be given an acedemy award for their efforts! Way to go Martie Scorcese and friends! Little Angelina and Brad must be so proud of their efforts to promote wanton and senseless violence, while not getting so much as a scratch in the process.

Its too bad that they don't use live ammo in Hollywood shoot-em-ups. I'd be glad to offer it to them for free!!

Alright, I'm done with the topic. I truely feel sorry for all the victims of the massacre and their families and hope that this country can find the real leaders to help solve the violence problem in this country. Its an absolute shame how bad we've gotten.

[mrmarket]

Allow me to point out the flaws in your arguement. First, this situation is not much of a parallel to the VA Tech incident. Those terrorists did not have guns, they had box cutters. It's a lot easier to jump somebody armed with a box cutter than it is to jump somebody armed with a loaded gun. Second, the people who decided to try to overpower the terrorists on that flight knew that their death was a certainty if they did nothing. They learned of the other attacks that day via cell phone while in flight. They knew what was going to happen, therefore they had nothing to lose. Now here's the part you're going to love: if one or two law-abiding passengers had been carrying, there's a good chance that not only could the terrorists have been stopped but that the plane could have landed safely, sparing the lives of the rest of the passengers and crew.

I realize the weaknesses in the last part of that arguement, i.e. that if people are allowed to carry guns on flights, how are you going to stop terrorists from boarding planes with guns? But what are the chances that under those circumstances a flight is going to become an airborne shooting gallery? Actually the armed, plain-clothed, federal air marshal system they have in place now I think is a reasonably good solution.

But the circumstances in the school shooting on Monday bore very little resemblance to the incident on United Airlines Flight 93, Sept. 11, 2001.

It's funny to me that Tatnic says, on one hand, that if a student in a classroom being besieged by a crazed shooter had a handgun, he would probably freeze up with fear and be unable to use it anyway, and on the other hand you think that a number of students in that situation are going to be able to simultaneously "jump" the assailant. I don't even begin to buy that.

I stand by my original position. A responsible person with a loaded gun at his disposal in that Norris Hall building on Monday could have saved lives.

Let's say that instead of 33 the death toll would have wound up at 16, about half of what it was. If responsible students and teachers were allowed to be armed, how long would it take for the additional 17 accidental deaths to occur? Obviously that question cannot be answered, but I submit that it would take a long, long time.

I would further argue that the first 16 lives may also have been spared, because if Cho knew that other people in the building were armed there's a good chance he would not have had the will to act out as he did.

I have little doubt that you will disagree with that arguement and attempt to belittle it, but if so then you're just wrong. Sorry.

Obviously there would have to be rigorous standards that one should have to adhere to in order to carry such lethal force. But if I were a student in a university classroom this morning somewhere in America, I would feel much better knowing there was a loaded gun in the building at the disposal of a responsible person well-trained in its use than I would knowing there was no such weapon any closer than the nearest police officer.

If 5 kids jumped Cho simulataneously, he would have been disarmed. He was small and weak.

[Lyehopper]

Today, the idea of a patriotic despot-despising militia is an anachronism and more aptly a pipe dream. This almighty militia would face tanks, anti-personnel microwave weapons, napalm, "daisy cutter" bombs, tactical nukes, etc. What would a freaking "militia" do then against a hypothetical American despot? This is a myth. And this is the argument for allowing every gun nut to have his own little arsenal in his back room and basement. Gimme-A-Break!

Every law abiding "gun nut" with his little "basement backroom arsenal" is NOT the problem Park. Why not focus on disarming the bad guys.

Hey Park, Since guns are NOT illegal in America, why not learn to shoot?.... You could get out of the house and from behind that computer and take in some fresh air, shoot some targets, maybe meet a girl at your local shooting range.LOL!.... And with her help, I'll bet figure out how to operate a gun without killing yourself.... Heck! you might even enjoy yourself!

[Rob]

This reminds me of the situation of the "Let's Roll" airline passengers on the day of 9-11. They looked at each other, swallowed hard, and stormed the cockpit and took their chances. No guns. Boortz's hypothetical gunman (always hypothetical, just to keep his argument real "clean") can't shoot 10 persons simultaneously with a semi-automatic weapon. A group in this situation must ambush the gunman.

Allow me to point out the flaws in your arguement. First, this situation is not much of a parallel to the VA Tech incident. Those terrorists did not have guns, they had box cutters. It's a lot easier to jump somebody armed with a box cutter than it is to jump somebody armed with a loaded gun. Second, the people who decided to try to overpower the terrorists on that flight knew that their death was a certainty if they did nothing. They learned of the other attacks that day via cell phone while in flight. They knew what was going to happen, therefore they had nothing to lose. Now here's the part you're going to love: if one or two law-abiding passengers had been carrying, there's a good chance that not only could the terrorists have been stopped but that the plane could have landed safely, sparing the lives of the rest of the passengers and crew.

I realize the weaknesses in the last part of that arguement, i.e. that if people are allowed to carry guns on flights, how are you going to stop terrorists from boarding planes with guns? But what are the chances that under those circumstances a flight is going to become an airborne shooting gallery? Actually the armed, plain-clothed, federal air marshal system they have in place now I think is a reasonably good solution.

But the circumstances in the school shooting on Monday bore very little resemblance to the incident on United Airlines Flight 93, Sept. 11, 2001.

It's funny to me that Tatnic says, on one hand, that if a student in a classroom being besieged by a crazed shooter had a handgun, he would probably freeze up with fear and be unable to use it anyway, and on the other hand you think that a number of students in that situation are going to be able to simultaneously "jump" the assailant. I don't even begin to buy that.

I stand by my original position. A responsible person with a loaded gun at his disposal in that Norris Hall building on Monday could have saved lives.

Let's say that instead of 33 the death toll would have wound up at 16, about half of what it was. If responsible students and teachers were allowed to be armed, how long would it take for the additional 17 accidental deaths to occur? Obviously that question cannot be answered, but I submit that it would take a long, long time.

I would further argue that the first 16 lives may also have been spared, because if Cho knew that other people in the building were armed there's a good chance he would not have had the will to act out as he did.

I have little doubt that you will disagree with that arguement and attempt to belittle it, but if so then you're just wrong. Sorry.

Obviously there would have to be rigorous standards that one should have to adhere to in order to carry such lethal force. But if I were a student in a university classroom this morning somewhere in America, I would feel much better knowing there was a loaded gun in the building at the disposal of a responsible person well-trained in its use than I would knowing there was no such weapon any closer than the nearest police officer.

'The point here is that you are never ever going to get the guns out of the hands of those who want to use them for carnage. Never."

For Neal, the best is the enemy of the good. His "never" means that our government should do nothing to improve the rampant handgun situation in America? Do tell ... This is called a "straw man" rejoinder. Very weak. See today's article of reaction (I posted a link earlier in this thread) from certain other nations with differing philosophies (i.e., non-Wild West philosophies) about handguns.


"The anti-gun lobby, and that includes much of the media, will never give any fair coverage at all to the people who use guns to save their own lives, or the lives of others."

Well, when those saving lives are using a gun to face down another person with a gun, it's perhaps hard to see why that's a great situation. You have to deal with the root cause here, not another gun-shaped band-aid. Come on, Neal, you can do it, you can do it. Focus ... What if the criminal didn't use a gun ...


"And let's talk about people with concealed carry permits. Do you think they're dangerous? Do you think they're just wandering around ready to pull their gun and start shooting at the slightest provocation?"

We had a little discussion of this very topic on this thread earlier today. Not a bad discussion.


Here's the Boortz (gun-lover) coup de grace:
"Let me ask you another question. In fact, let's set up a hypothetical situation. You're in a class full of people at a university. Let's say that there are 30 people in that room. A predator with a gun walks through the door. He shoots the professor, kills him. He then takes the remainder of the people in the room and lines them up against a wall. He then walks up to the first person and shots them in the head. Now ... let me allow you to change the scenario. We can freeze-frame this situation while you make a decision. Your decision is this: You can put a gun into the hands of one student or a professor in that room, or you can leave things exactly the way they are. What are you going to do? Come on now, let's have it. Which way do you want it? Do you want the predator to be the only one in the room with a gun? Or would you like to have at least the fighting chance that would result if one, maybe two of your classmates had a firearm."

This reminds me of the situation of the "Let's Roll" airline passengers on the day of 9-11. They looked at each other, swallowed hard, and stormed the cockpit and took their chances. No guns. Boortz's hypothetical gunman (always hypothetical, just to keep his argument real "clean") can't shoot 10 persons simultaneously with a semi-automatic weapon. A group in this situation must ambush the gunman.

I would say that Boortz's take is pretty lame. It's basically, "the more guns in gatherings of vulnerable people, the better." There is no questioning of the assumption of "the guy walks in with a gun." That's what he can't envision or address. That's a big problem with his position. There are definitely alternatives to what we have to live with about proliferating handguns. Look at the respondent nations mentioned above.

The 2nd Amendment argument is such a crock. As if all citizens need to own a gun to be ready to serve as a "militia." And what is a "militia" and what purpose does it serve. Two hundred fifty years ago it served a purpose, when the state authorities had an army carrying muskets and bayonets, with a few cannon thrown in. A band of militia with its own muskets would make any despot's army think twice. Too many armed citizens out there.

Today, the idea of a patriotic despot-despising militia is an anachronism and more aptly a pipe dream. This almighty militia would face tanks, anti-personnel microwave weapons, napalm, "daisy cutter" bombs, tactical nukes, etc. What would a freaking "militia" do then against a hypothetical American despot? This is a myth. And this is the argument for allowing every gun nut to have his own little arsenal in his back room and basement. Gimme-A-Break!

I'm in favor of making it very hard for anyone to own a handgun. I own many firearms but only one handgun and I can't even find it now. I love firearms..I think they're works of art and every one I own has been a decent investment that does not go down in value. I also load my own ammo and can customize a load for my 300 winchester so it shoots like Lye's pee shooter .308, that is if I wanted to.

And I would have absolutely no problem with registering them and from an investment standpoint, the fewer guns there are the more valuable they become..simple supply and demand. But if the government ever decided to take away my rights of legal gun ownership I'd be the first one to resist and tell them to go phuck themselves.

I saw on the news last night that australia, one of the last frontiers of independence and capitalism went through a huge effort to get rid of firearms and handguns....not registering them, but simply eliminating them. This was done from a safety standpoint, not so the government can become totalitarian and suppress the rights of the citizenry (ie illegal wire taps, voter harrassment, all the things our administration is so good at). If we get too many more VPI incidents that's where we're headed. Virginia is known as one of the easiest places in the country to buy a handgun, ask any gang member or drug dealer in Boston and New York.

Re: Neal Boortz article

'The point here is that you are never ever going to get the guns out of the hands of those who want to use them for carnage. Never."

For Neal, the best is the enemy of the good. His "never" means that our government should do nothing to improve the rampant handgun situation in America? Do tell ... This is called a "straw man" rejoinder. Very weak. See today's article of reaction (I posted a link earlier in this thread) from certain other nations with differing philosophies (i.e., non-Wild West philosophies) about handguns.


"The anti-gun lobby, and that includes much of the media, will never give any fair coverage at all to the people who use guns to save their own lives, or the lives of others."

Well, when those saving lives are using a gun to face down another person with a gun, it's perhaps hard to see why that's a great situation. You have to deal with the root cause here, not another gun-shaped band-aid. Come on, Neal, you can do it, you can do it. Focus ... What if the criminal didn't use a gun ...


"And let's talk about people with concealed carry permits. Do you think they're dangerous? Do you think they're just wandering around ready to pull their gun and start shooting at the slightest provocation?"

We had a little discussion of this very topic on this thread earlier today. Not a bad discussion.


Here's the Boortz (gun-lover) coup de grace:
"Let me ask you another question. In fact, let's set up a hypothetical situation. You're in a class full of people at a university. Let's say that there are 30 people in that room. A predator with a gun walks through the door. He shoots the professor, kills him. He then takes the remainder of the people in the room and lines them up against a wall. He then walks up to the first person and shots them in the head. Now ... let me allow you to change the scenario. We can freeze-frame this situation while you make a decision. Your decision is this: You can put a gun into the hands of one student or a professor in that room, or you can leave things exactly the way they are. What are you going to do? Come on now, let's have it. Which way do you want it? Do you want the predator to be the only one in the room with a gun? Or would you like to have at least the fighting chance that would result if one, maybe two of your classmates had a firearm."

This reminds me of the situation of the "Let's Roll" airline passengers on the day of 9-11. They looked at each other, swallowed hard, and stormed the cockpit and took their chances. No guns. Boortz's hypothetical gunman (always hypothetical, just to keep his argument real "clean") can't shoot 10 persons simultaneously with a semi-automatic weapon. A group in this situation must ambush the gunman.

I would say that Boortz's take is pretty lame. It's basically, "the more guns in gatherings of vulnerable people, the better." There is no questioning of the assumption of "the guy walks in with a gun." That's what he can't envision or address. That's a big problem with his position. There are definitely alternatives to what we have to live with about proliferating handguns. Look at the respondent nations mentioned above.

The 2nd Amendment argument is such a crock. As if all citizens need to own a gun to be ready to serve as a "militia." And what is a "militia" and what purpose does it serve. Two hundred fifty years ago it served a purpose, when the state authorities had an army carrying muskets and bayonets, with a few cannon thrown in. A band of militia with its own muskets would make any despot's army think twice. Too many armed citizens out there.

Today, the idea of a patriotic despot-despising militia is an anachronism and more aptly a pipe dream. This almighty militia would face tanks, anti-personnel microwave weapons, napalm, "daisy cutter" bombs, tactical nukes, etc. What would a freaking "militia" do then against a hypothetical American despot? This is a myth. And this is the argument for allowing every gun nut to have his own little arsenal in his back room and basement. Gimme-A-Break!

WH Secret Service gun accident (4/17/07)

//
2 Officers Injured at White House
By REUTERS
Published: April 17, 2007

Two Secret Service officers were injured on the White House grounds after a gun accidentally fired, said a spokesman for the service, Darrin Blackford. Their injuries are not life threatening, Mr. Blackford said. One officer suffered a shrapnel wound to the face, and the other was wounded in the leg. Both are from the service’s uniform division. They were taken to George Washington University Hospital. At the time, President Bush was in Blacksburg, Va., to attend a ceremony at Virginia Tech after Monday’s shooting rampage.
//


Just another little "gun accident" right on the White House grounds. Yep, NO PROBLEM, everything's UNDER CONTROL, just some SHRAPNEL TO THE FACE, and a little leg wound. Check in with the hospital spokesman at noon for your story. Nothing serious to report. Everything's under control, under control, ...

Virginia firearms purchase eligibility test

If any of the (reported) three women that Cho had stalked on the Va. Tech campus had put a restraining order on him and it was still in effect, he could not have legally purchased a handgun in Virginia.

http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_PurchaseEligibility.shtm

//
6. Is there an outstanding protective or restraining order against you from any court?
7. Is there an outstanding felony or misdemeanor warrant of arrest pending against you from any jurisdiction?
//

Cho, the Va. Tech shooter, was firing two handguns in the classroom building, a Glock 19 9mm and a Walther .22, one in each hand. The Glock used a 15-round magazine (I don't see a report about any magazine for the Walther), and the Wash Post reports that more than one empty magazine was found at the scene. He had purchased at least one box of 50 9mm rounds at the time he bought the Glock, according to the Wash Post.

If he was thinking as he was shooting, he could have accomplished his carnage such that there wouldn't have been a time when both guns would have needed to have its magazine changed, thereby interrupting his fire for at least a few seconds. So there wouldn't have been much of a chance for anyone to have ambushed him without taking direct and up-close fire.

[mrmarket]

Mr. Market, I do indeed own guns but I'm no gun-nut. I was raised around them and was taught to respect them. As a child was never allowed to play like I was shooting (playing "cowboys and Indians" was not allowed by my father). Instead, shooting and gun safety was something that I was taught by my father as guns were a fact of life for us.

I know literally hundreds of people that are gun owners and I can't think of one single firearm accident (like Park and Tatnic allude to) within the circle of folks I personally know of. I have never had one of my guns accidentally discharge, but I know it can happen depending on the design. The most common malfunction a gun experiences causes the gun NOT to shoot.... or to jam, rather than accidentally discharge. Most malfunctions are caused by a lack of care (dirt and grime in the mechanical action).

To me, a firearm is more than just a weapon. It's is a tool. I use guns to help protect my cattle and rid my farm of pests.... and feed my family within legal hunting seasons. As a mechanically inclined fella, I understand how firearms work.... And I equally understand the damage they can inflict on a living creature. And believe it or not, I am not always armed.LOL!.... BUT I like to have the right to be if I so desire.

OH! and btw I'm rarely in NJ anyway, if you can believe that...SssSsssss!

You are what we would call a very responsible gun owner.

[Lyehopper]

Lye...I think you are an excellent guy and you should have as many guns as you want. I wan you to carry them as often as you like and to almost anywhere you want. To be honest, I wouldn't want you to bring it into my house, however.

I don't like the idea, but if any citizen wants to carry a concealed gun, they have the right to do so, in my opinion. There should be very strict background checks and permitting procedures. If someone really loves guns, this paperwork and review shouldn't be a problem for them.

Mr. Market, I do indeed own guns but I'm no gun-nut. I was raised around them and was taught to respect them. As a child was never allowed to play like I was shooting (playing "cowboys and Indians" was not allowed by my father). Instead, shooting and gun safety was something that I was taught by my father as guns were a fact of life for us.

I know literally hundreds of people that are gun owners and I can't think of one single firearm accident (like Park and Tatnic allude to) within the circle of folks I personally know of. I have never had one of my guns accidentally discharge, but I know it can happen depending on the design. The most common malfunction a gun experiences causes the gun NOT to shoot.... or to jam, rather than accidentally discharge. Most malfunctions are caused by a lack of care (dirt and grime in the mechanical action).

To me, a firearm is more than just a weapon. It's is a tool. I use guns to help protect my cattle and rid my farm of pests.... and feed my family within legal hunting seasons. As a mechanically inclined fella, I understand how firearms work.... And I equally understand the damage they can inflict on a living creature. And believe it or not, I am not always armed.LOL!.... BUT I like to have the right to be if I so desire.

OH! and btw I'm rarely in NJ anyway, if you can believe that...SssSsssss!

[Lyehopper]

Attached is a text file. It contains the text of a column by radio talk show host Neal Boortz and deals with the subject of the VA Tech shooting and gun control. It's rather lengthy but a very good read. If you have a little time, read it. This guy makes a lot of sense to me.

Neal hit the nail on the head.... Thanks for posting that Rob..

[IIC]

Okay, it appears I am in the middle of the OK Corral confrontation. But I feel I have to say the following:

1. We are dealing with actual and potential victims of a killer.
2. We are dealing with college kids that are between the ages of 18 and 21 or more, like your kids and grandkids.
3. These kids have been taught for their total school lives the art of self-preservation; that is, dive under your desk when you feel a tremor, a threat of a tornado, fall-out from a mushroom cloud. Lie on the floor and play dead.
4. The first kids killed in the shooting were in the first two rows of the auditorium. They had no chance.
5 To say that 15-20 other kids might have overpowed the assailant is assinine, becuse there was NO TIME or possible coordination to formulate such a response, whether concealed guns or no guns. It happened too fast.
6. The LET'S ROLL people on the United Airlines jet had the advantage of TIME to formulate a plan.
7. I live alone. I do not have a gun. I believe that if I have a gun I am more likely to be shot by my assailant.
8. I can survive a rape by my own physical assault on the assailant; I cannot survive a deadly shooting. I accept that.
9. I used my foot to disarm my first husband from trying to rape me during our divorce, and saw the very positive results, with him writhing on the floor.
10. I can defend myself better without a gun than with a gun.

I think I stated in the beginning that I would stay out of the Gun...No Gun debate. I have, although I joined the crime rate discussion portion.

To be honest, I can see arguments on both sides...But that is another story.

I don't own a gun...mainly because I think that there is a better chance of an accident than me actually needing to use it in self defense.

However, River...You may believe that you can take care of yourself with your bare hands...But I'd suggest that you carry a large cannister of pepper spray. My wife has one...And I used to carry one...but after the 2nd time I accidently sprayed myself in the face I said forget it.

When you are in areas where there is a higher probability of being mugged or something...It is prudent to have it in your hand...Muggers don't wait for you to get it out of your purse or pocket.

Now Tatnic...You mention the 100 a day that die in car accidents...I checked and that sounds about right...But it is about the same for shooting deaths...Although the highest percentage are suicides from what I found on the Net.

Maybe it is a geographical thing???...But on my way home from work I was trying to count the number of people that I knew or knew somebody that knew people that died in each instance...I can think of a lot more people that died from a gun than a car accident....Although I can think of a lot more that have been in non-fatal car accidents than I can think of people that were simply wounded by guns.

...Doug

[Lyehopper]

Come on, Lye, a gun is a WEAPON. When a gun malfunctions, because its operation is designed to be LETHAL, it is even more dangerous than, cough, a tractor to passersby. Let's get real.

There's even a story today about a gun handling accident involving the U.S. Secret Service stationed at the White House. Why is handling a handgun so accident-prone?

But hey, we have a "free market" in health care and in firearms in this country, but neither works very well for the masses.

"US gun laws draw heat after latest shooting"
http://tinyurl.com/2k2pvs

Hey Park, have you ever fired a handgun?