While I'm still waiting to hear that the shooter was a 'Christian' (even moreso now that we've learned he's from South Korea which has a huge Christian Fellowship) especially since some details of the shooters note has been released... terms like "debauchery" and "deceitful charlatans". While I'm still waiting on that score, what initially escaped me was the inevitable assault on the 2nd Amendment. BenT was first in my ear with that, but it seems the Drive-By's and their adherents are all putting forth a renewed assault on our right to keep and bear arms. A whole host of people out there, including Rosie, are talking about more gun control. So the question I'd like to ponder and open up for discussion is this:
Could stricter gun control REALLY have prevented the Virginia Tech massacre, assuming Cho Seung-Hui was a man determined to kill?
_____________
I'll begin by saying-- No, I do not believe stricter gun control in this nation would have prevented a determined Cho Seung-Hui from acquiring weapons and ammunition to attack a college campus, and commit wholesale slaughter upon members of its students and faculty.
Just look at Japan, which has perhaps the strictest gun control in the world. Shootings are almost unheard of in Japan, yet just yesterday the Mayor of the city of Nagasaki was gunned down by a member of a "criminal" organization.
From the Associated Press...
TOKYO — The mayor of the Japanese city of Nagasaki was shot to death in a brazen attack Tuesday by an organized crime chief apparently enraged that the city refused to compensate him after his car was damaged at a public works construction site, news agencies reported.
The shooting was rare in a country where handguns are strictly banned and only four politicians are known to have been killed since the Second World War.
Mayor Iccho Ito, 61, was shot twice in the back at point-blank range outside a train station Tuesday evening, Nagasaki police official Rumi Tsujimoto said.
One of the bullets struck the mayor’s heart and he went into cardiac arrest, according to Nagasaki University Hospital spokesman Kenzo Kusano. Kyodo News agency and national broadcaster NHK said Ito died of his wounds early Wednesday.
Tetsuya Shiroo, a senior member of Yamaguchi-gumi, Japan’s largest organized crime syndicate, was wrestled to the ground by officers after the attack and arrested for attempted murder, police said.
What's equally crazy (to my mind) is the idea that limiting the magazine capacity gun owners are allowed possess. Even had Cho Seung-Hui been so constrained, the very fact that he was wearing a vest loaded with ammunition and additional clips should clearly illustrate that here was a man who was determined to use as much ammo, and kill as many debauched and deceitful charlatans as he could.
Limiting the round capacity of clips for gun owners puts the gun owner at a disadvantage when, say, three armed men break into his house at night, forcing the home owner to protect his family and fight off three attackers, who are similarly armed, with an 8 or 9 round clip.
No one in their right mind advocates private citizens owning uzi's or high-powered sniper rifles... or cannons. But to preserve the 2nd Amendment, which recognizes the need for an armed citizenry, we must not curtail, to the point of making void, the American citizen's right to keep and bear arms.
Let's look at Japan again. Very few citizens own a hand gun, and they are almost all in law-enforcement. Law-abiding citizens are not allowed to own firearms. But that didn't stop a member of an organized-crime syndicate from acquiring one and using it. If gun's were severly restricted in this nation, does anyone honestly believe that law abiding citizens would be any safer from the criminal elements? Does anyone honestly believe criminals and gang-bangers would turn in their guns and revert to rocks, clubs and knives should hand-guns be outlawed?
Virginia Tech's no-gun policy is partly responsible for the number of deaths on the Virgina Tech campus yesterday. All it would have taken was one or two deaths before some life-loving student or teacher drew down on Mr. Cho and saved perhaps a score of lives. That's pure speculation, sure, but anyone who wishes to argue that legal gun owners are not trained in their use is way off the mark. 80% or more of gun owners know how to use their weapons.
I don't know what the answer to curbing gun violence is, but I know we can't do away with the 2nd Amendment. The answer lies somewhere between strict control and complete anarchy, for it's clear our present system has flaws. But the banning of guns and limiting the size of clips is not the answer. Especially in light of the fact that all this talk is occurring while emotions are very high. There needs to be time for healing and rational consideration of the events, and possible remedies to preventing such an occurrence again-- which, realistically speaking, is impossible short of complete confiscation, ionvolving door to door searches, and strict searches of every import container, parcel of mail, as well as closing the borders, both north AND south. Even then there's no guarantee.
Remember, the two greatest instances of mass murder on American soil were perpetrated by the use of fertilizer, fuel oil, box cutters, and passenger jets-- Oklahoma City and 9.11. NOT handguns. Let's all take a deep breath and think before we act.
That's my peace... what's yours?
That's what I think.
Cold dead fingers and all.
All y'all remember that the next time you want to just lump me and all evviiilll liberals into the same basket.
Liberal on economic policy? Check.
Liberal on international trade, which means protectionism? Check.
Liberal in believing that the best thing to ever, ever happen to the free market is legislation that reins it in and keeps it from burning itself, and people, out? Check.
"Liberal" on the military? Hardly. War in Afghanistan, good, justified. War in Iraq, bad, unjustified, and we will rue the day.
Democrat? Yep.
"Liberal" on social issues? Maybe. Libertarian -- small L -- is more like it.
Liberal in doctrine? What's doctrine?
Liberal in theology? Absolutely. Grace, Grace, Grace.
Liberal in church polity? Absolutely. Jesus was/is. Me, too. Y'all come to the table.
Liberal on personal accountability? Nope.
Liberal on guns? Hell, no.
Cold. Dead. Fingers.
1. randomly armed 20 somethings roaming the building looking to shoot anyone else armed with a gun. Can you say friendly-fire?
2. Complete chaos when law enforcement actually arrived on the scene.
3. More civilian casualties, because even though one person may have gotten the psycho, and put away his gun. The other four vigilantes wouldn't know it, they'd just keep hearing gun fire.
4. Five adrenaline hyped 20 year olds with guns. Police, soldiers, the FBI all have intense training to deal with violent situations. Regular gun owners do not.
I'm not opposed to gun ownership. I'm just opposed to gun's that have no legitimate personal protection capability. Semi/full automatic weaponry. Concealed carry. Large clips.
Your examples are fallacies for gun-nuts. If three armed men break into your home, then you're dead. These three hypothetical men will come in ready to commit violence. You will be in the living room or in your bed asleep. You will be rooms away from your gun. And if you practice gun safety, that gun will be inside a gun safe or have a keyed trigger lock installed.
More americans are killed by guns each year than in any other country in the world (excluding active war zones). There's a reason other countries have less gun violence than us. Do you think it's cultural? Do you think it's gun laws? Do you think its the media? How do you explain this dichotomy?
Stronger gun laws may not have prevented Cho Seung-Hui from killing 33 people at VT. Stronger gun laws might reduce the number of shooting death stories we do on the news though.
Plus you have to factor in the increased danger of the idea of armed students on campus the other days of the year.
Anyone who then defends themselves and their friends or loved ones against armed murderers are vigilantes in your book.
Why doesn't this surprise me.
For the Year 2000
Deaths by Automobile = 43,000
Death by Falls = 16,200
Poisoning-Solids/Liquids = 11,700
Pedestrian Fatalities = 5,300
Drowning = 3,900
Fires/Burns = 3,600
Suffocation-Injested Object = 3,400
FIREARMS = 600
Poisoning-Gases, Vapors = 400
Why are you so willing to tie the hands of honest gun owners? Why do you label gun owners who defend themselves "vigilantes"?
I personally don't own a gun, but that's not to say I don't want one. For now, I have other things to worry about. But I certainly think the purchase of one is in my near future.
I had little doubt you would defend gun ownership.
You on the other hand are citing statistics about gun accidents not homicides. Certainly more people are killed in auto accidents and laws and the capitalistic market works to make those dangers less. It appears from your comment you don't even want the basic protections of gun-safes and trigger locks.
Almost 40% of homicides in this country come from gun violence. If there were fewer high caliber, high capacity guns, that percentage would decline. There might be more stabbings. You have a much better chance to survive a stabbing, than a shot from a glock, mack, whatever.
Well, Ben, you don't know my family very well. My house is locked down tight at night. Anyone trying to break in will have to make enough noise to wake some of us up (the dog will already be awakened). If we're awake, I guarantee there is a loaded gun in somebody's pocket. If we're asleep, there are weapons on both sides of the bed. (Gun safety= I'm safe because I have a loaded gun)My grown son also has a gun in his room.
In twenty eight years of raising children, we've never worried about "accidents" in the home. My kids were raised to know that if they see a gun, it's loaded and it'll kill ya if you don't know what you are doing. They were all taken to the rifle range when they got older and taught how to responsibly use a weapon. Not one of them has ever shot themselves or anyone else, or used a weapon in a crime, or in the heat of an argument, or even thought about it. Why? Because they are responsible human beings. They aren't idiots and they respect weapons for what they are - tools to protect and to hunt game.
If you don't like guns and think they're bad, I respect your opinion. I have no right to force my beliefs about guns on you. I would appreciate the same respect.
According to FBI statistics I've read, 15-20% of all murders are done by cutting or stabbing. Do you practice knife safety at your house? Do you have all your steak knives, scissors, icepicks, etc. in some kind of safe? If not, why? Do you own a pocket knife? Do you really think it's right to let people walk the streets of the US with pocket knives and swiss knives in their pockets?
Do you see my point yet?
So your fact-based definition is all wet.
The answer to these type of problems is more Freedom, not less.
I am sorry that you have so little faith in American "20 somethings".
They ARE adults, you know.
If you do not trust them with the right to administer their own personal protection, nor in their ability to handle their own personal protection responsibly, then, in your opinion, should we then look in to the possibility of raising the Voting Age to an age at which the responsibilities of adulthood CAN be entrusted to them?
The driving age?
Drinking age?
Age of Sexual Consent?
At what point do you think these people become adults?
You do realize, don't you, that if guns were eliminated completely from the Earth, the occasional nutcase would beat innocent people to death with sticks and rocks...
I work in the same television station as EL. I know that we do usually 2-3 stories a week where someone is shot. Most of these stories revolve around domestic violence. Crimes of passion that leave someone dead or severely injured. Usually there's 1-2 stories a week about a crime (usually an convenience store robbery) committed with a gun. The amazing fact is that in the decade I've been a WTVY only twice have we done a story on people using guns to fight off criminals. Do you know why? because they're criminals. Regular people aren't prepared mentally to confront others with guns.
Ms. Green if an intruder ever entered your home, you would be more likely to shoot your dog or a family member than the intruder. When the adrenaline gets pumping, your hands start to shake. Your decisions become more erratic. Your vision becomes more narrowed. You see movement and react before your brain can comprehend what your eyes see. The intruder is probably gone as soon as you turned on the light. Your family, all of you carrying weapons, skulking around corners is a tragedy waiting to happen.
---
As to your other point, I do practice knife safety. I bet you do too. I keep all my knives in a certain place. When children are in the house that drawer has a child proof clasp. When I use a knife I don't cut towards the body.
The major difference between knives and guns is that when I screwed up with a potato slicer as a child, I only needed three stitches to put my index finger back together. Imagine if that had been a gun maiming my hand.
---
I hope no other children are ever allowed to roam your home if you keep unsecured loaded guns lying around. That's a tragedy waiting to happen.
I'm not downing on 20-somethings because of their age, I'm saying that 20-year olds don't make the same decisions that older people make when it comes to the value of human life.
Every 30-year old has a story about something stupid they did in their 20's that either put themselves or others in mortal danger. I know when I was younger I made awful decisions about driving dangers. I was convinced of my own immortality. I swerved in and out of traffic in a way that I would never do now.
Notice that I don't single 20-somethings out as being unable to administer their own personal protection. Someone with mace or a taser, or even a thrown book, might have dissuaded the gun man at VT. Most cleaning supplies are caustic to the eyes. Someone with a cup of bleach could have disabled Cho Seung-Hui and then disarmed him. No one was prepared to defend themselves with what they had available. Average people aren't. It takes training and experience to deal with such violent fear-filled encounters.
Lots of panicked, adrenalinized, college students with guns, roaming a campus looking for someone else with a gun would be a recipe for disaster.
If yesterday's incident at VT was not a disaster, then what would YOU call it?
I'm not saying that we should hand out Handguns along with the Anal Lube and Condoms in the "Welcome Packets" that College Freshmen get when they arrive at orientation...
But College Students who have completed the Training Courses required to obtain Concealed Carry Permits should be allowed to carry their guns if they want.
I know that people sometimes shoot one another with guns.
But that is because of the people, not the guns.
Gun Laws do not stop Suicidal or Homicidal Maniacs from committing crimes, they only prevent Law Abiding Citizens from defending themselves.
By your logic, the killer at VT, had there been some sort of Law against shooting people with Guns,(?), would have stalked through the College stabbing people to death with a knife, or clubbing them to death with a baseball bat.
Why do you believe he would obey a law restricting Gun Ownership, when he disobeyed one against taking Human Life?
Why do you believe that defenseless people are safer than armed people?
I read Boortz as often as I can. Yeah, he's a loud mouth and some of his positions are just flat out wrong, but he nailed this one. I first heard the following from his blog which posted a link to the very unreliable WorldNetDaily which posted the story. Driving home from the post office this evening I was listening to the Mike Gallagher Show, and who does he just happen to be interviewing? Delegate to the Virginia House Todd Gilbert who introduced House Bill 1572 that would have allowed students and faculty with carry-conceal permits to carry weapons onto college campuses, whose rules banning the presense of firearms on campus contravenes state law that allows such by licensed gun owners.
From the WND article...
"More than one year before today's unprecedented shooting rampage at Virginia Tech, the state's General Assembly quashed a bill that would have given qualified college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus.
"At the time, Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker said he was happy to hear of the bill's defeat, according to the Roanoke Times.
" "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus," the Virginia Tech spokesman said.
[And yet] "At least 32 people were killed today at Virginia Tech in the worst campus shooting in U.S. history.
...
"Backers of the bill wanted to prohibit public universities from making "rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit ... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun." "
To be fair, Mr. Gilbert is quoted as saying he doesn't believe the presense of legally carried student handguns would have prevented a determined killer from wreaking havoc and destroying lives...
The article continues...
" "The one thing that this tragic event does illustrate is that there is not a single gun law, rule or regulation that will stop someone with this kind of evil intent from going about their business and taking life at will, if they are committed to doing that," Gilbert said.
"While advocates of gun control often believe they are improving safety, they are depriving law-abiding citizens from defending themselves in dangerous situations, he contended.
" "Had I been on campus today, and otherwise been entitled to carry firearms for protection and been deprived of that, I don't think words can describe how I would have felt, knowing I could have stopped something like this," Gilbert said.
"People who are willing to jump through all the legal hoops necessary to get a weapons permit usually are not people society needs to worry about, he argued."
And that's the point the gun-control lobby fails to grasp-- Take away the guns from law-abiding citizens and the only people who'll have guns are the criminals.
On the radio Gilbert offered the scenario he used as justification for passage of House Bill 1572 for why it should be illegal for colleges to deny licensed and permitted gun owners from carrying on campus:
A 20 year old woman who has been raped once before has to walk from a late lab to her dorm across campus twice a week. One of the first things she did after being raped the year before was to purchase a handgun and jump through all the hoops to carry it concealed (hoops that, in the state of Virginia, require training). Because the state has certified her, there is no justification for Campus Authorities to deny her the right to protect herself..
And I agree.
To further illustrate the point, I'm posting Boortz's thoughts on Gun Control as it relates to yesterday's killing spree at Virginia Tech in the next post.
This isn't the point I'm making though. What I'm saying is that the easy availability of handguns causes thousands of deaths each year, that could have been avoided. Hundreds of children accidentally shooting someone. Thousands of crimes of passion. Thousands of woundings, and maimings. All this because we have such lax regulations for regular people to get guns.
To drive a car, we give teenagers training and tests before certifying their competency. To get a gun you just go to a gun show with a few hundred bucks.
Even after licensing drivers, there are common laws regarding vehicle operation and safety specifications. In neighboring Dale County, AL if you are outside the city limits there are almost no controls whatsoever about how you operate a firearm.
--
Blacksburg, VA between the campus security and the city police have ~100 officers. Imagine the chaos if they had arrived on the scene and there were even three or four students, plus the gunman with firearms drawn.
Students have the right to personal safety protection, but that right must be balanced against the safety of others. Police and SWAT teams are trained in shooting in crowd settings. You can't tell me that concealed carry training simulates that. If students wanted more personal protection they could have gotten tasers. Or mace. Learned martial arts.
The fact that NO ONE fought back shows how people react in these situations when adrenaline, and fear, and fight-or-flight takes over.
Utterly false. According to the data I provided, and you pooh poohed, only 600 accidental deaths occurred as a result of firearms in the year 2000. Even if 'hundreds of children accidentally shooting...' doesn't imply death, 'hundreds' is still an erroneously high number, and I don't buy it.
Unfortunately the students had no means of 'flight', as Cho chained the exits. Except where students and faculty barricaded the doors, for Cho, it was like shooting fish in a barrel.
So, in your world, it's better that 32 people died than to have allowed students and faculty to carry concealed, permitted, firearms... issued by the State, whose laws supercede that of college campuses.
It's one thing to deny elementary and high school students to right to carry weapons to school. But were talking about adults, and only those who, under Virginia state law, are old enough (21 yrs) to purchase and carry a firearm.
Yes EL. It was better that the only people on the campus holding guns were the police and Mr. Cho Seung-Hui. I've written out my reasons previously.
--
Imagine walking through the mall, and you hear a BANG from the food court. You pull your gun out of ??? (Where? Your pants pocket?) and take a ready stance. So do three other people. One lady has to dig through her purse. You look up and see three people holding weapons. Swinging them around from each other to you and then back. Of course you're doing the same. You were all too busy concentrating on quickly readying yourselves for "self-protection" so you didn't see each other. You don't know what is going on. Is there a bad guy here? Where should you be aiming?
You start to draw-down towards the person nearest you. Everyone is shouting. "PUT DOWN THE GUN!!" "DROP IT!!" "FREEZE!" Bystanders are screaming. Parents are huddling over their children.
Adrenaline is surging through your system. Your heart is pounding furiously. You're suddenly sweating like a pig. You'll have a headache later from the increased blood pressure. Your hands start to shake from holding the gun so tightly. The fight-or-flight response draws blood to your core, so you might be feeling a tingling in your extremities, i.e. fingers.
And then someone twitches. Two people start firing, squeezing the trigger as fast as they can. You mindlessly shoot back. The lady with the tiny .38 forgot to take the safety off. Doesn't even realize it. Amazingly all three shooters escape unscathed. The lady with the safety on has half her face vaporized. She was just protecting herself. The family cowering next to the Taco Bell counter lost their mother, because you had tunnel-vision on the "criminal" in front of you.
The bullet holes around center court can be patched over, but the memories will always be there. Soon the media will be there. The entire scene took 17 seconds.
All because a little kid burst his balloon.
T(o)wit:
"Ms. Green if an intruder ever entered your home, you would be more likely to shoot your dog or a family member than the intruder. When the adrenaline gets pumping, your hands start to shake. Your decisions become more erratic. Your vision becomes more narrowed. You see movement and react before your brain can comprehend what your eyes see."
Nice. You can't possible know how any individual would react under such circumstances, unless you know the individual intimately.
Your scenario was caused by a Balloon, not guns.
Why are you not in favor of banning or restricting ownership of balloons, or even children, for that matter?
I mean, everybody knows that people with guns always go charging in, firing wildly into crowded places at every little noise...
The child should have known better than to pop a balloon in a world where people have access to guns!
BenT, the Fantasy-based... Fear-based?
Liberal Idiocy-based.
But we can't wish that away. It happens.
And the Framers of our Constitution in their Wisdom provided me with the right to defend MYSELF from these lunatics should I ever face one.
You and the people with whom you agree have not yet figured out how to warp and re-write that Constitution in order to take that Right away from me, but you are working on it.
And diligently.
The Administration at VT figured out how to take that right away from the Students at VT, at least while they were on Campus, and now 31 of them are dead.
That is the cold, hard fact of this situation, BenT, the twisted liberal-fact-based.
Gun control isn't a burning issue for me, but it's an interesting thought experiment.
Um these are the things that happen when there is an adrenaline surge. The Fight-or-Flight Response. Some people have a less violent reaction, but these are still the symptoms.
The data I've been digging through to make my points, have confirmed in me my views on gun safety. But EL, and Ms. Green aren't moved by facts and charts. They use a much more emotional thinking process. I'm just trying to engage that process on this issue.
Accidents with guns are so much more costly than with other forms of personal protection. I know how often guns are used to harm people. I can't see where increased gun ownership, would make people safer. I can't understand thinking that says more people carrying concealed weapons, leads to a safer society. I can't understand people saying that regular gun owners can be mentally, and physically prepared t use their weapons in the same manner or quality as a swat team.
I own a gun. It's my grandfather's service pistol. He used it on Iwo Jima. It's in a glass display case, hung high up a wall. It is unloaded. I'm also a fairly good shot. With a rifle I can peg a coke bottle cap at 40 feet. It takes me about 20 seconds to aim and fire. I have no illusions about my ability to use a gun in a life or death situation.
A gun will make the owner feel safer and more in control of situations, but this is a mirage. Imagine going into work every day. Knowing that someone else at the office is carrying, a loaded weapon, with the safety off. Would you feel more secure? What if it was a restaurant? A classroom?
You accuse Tug of being silly? Have you looked at your own arguments? Oh... of course you have.
WEll, here's a proverb for you...
"Foolishness is rarely seen as such by those speak foolishly"
I think it's foolish to assume that an armed society is anything but a polite society. You seem to assume an armed society is a recipe for anarchy.
Several states have passed deadly-force laws that allow home owners to fight back rather than be compelled by law to run away. No one should be made to wait on police or SWAT to defend their lives. How long does it take for someone to call the police? How long does it take for law enforcement to arrive, set up a perimeter, evaluate the situation, move in and begin saving lives? Common sense dictates that each and every person who draws breath has the right to defend him/herself. It is every law-abiding citizen's right to keep and bear arms. A hand gun or two in the hands of students or faculty would quite likely have saved lives.
Nothing you have proffered here had any hope of reducing the number of lives lost at Virginia Tech. So what if Cho would have had to reload 5 to 6 times rather than 2 or 3! It takes less than 6 seconds to change clips! And your citing of 'fight or flight' is irrelevant in light of the fact that of the 32 people killed by Cho, only 2-- according to reports --had the presense of mind to baracade their doors... after the fact! Of which one died... a teacher.
I think it is you who is being emotional. And irrational. And all your other assumptions about my household and my and my family's ability to react under stress are false and unfounded. How do you know that we have not been in a situation like that already? Of course I do not leave loaded guns lying around on the coffee table. Of course I do not invite the neighborhood kids over for a free for all and leave guns lying around. Good grief.
Do not project your own responses onto someone else. People do not all act the same in the face of danger.
"Common sense dictates that each and every person who draws breath has the right to defend him/herself." Yes. I agree. I just think that there are better options than guns to secure one's self defense. Especially in public settings.
"only 2-- according to reports --had the presense of mind to baracade their doors... after the fact!" Do you think someone armed with a gun would have been ready to take defensive measures?
Would you, armed with a gun, be ready to confront a convenience store robber every time you stopped to get gas?
I don't argue against people owning and safely storing guns in their home. I argue against swaggering, studs, carrying guns in public.
Most crimes do not happen in public.
I don't want to live in a polite, fear based society.
No one here is defending 'swaggering studs'.
"I don't want to live in a polite, fear based society."
LOLOL!!! You already ARE! LOL!
"How do you know that we have not been in a situation like that already?" Most people would use such a strong argument like past violence in their first communique. If you have been the victim of violence in the past, you have my sympathy. I could also understand your fear for your personal safety better if you had experienced such.
"Of course I do not leave loaded guns lying around on the coffee table." You did earlier state, "If we're asleep, there are weapons on both sides of the bed. (Gun safety= I'm safe because I have a loaded gun)" Pardon me if I assumed you were cavalier about weapons.
"People do not all act the same in the face of danger." This is certainly true, but the fact is that with two people firing guns the risk for bystanders of being shot increases.
Assuming bystanders don't have enough sense to drop to the ground and move for cover. Assuming two people firing have never played a first-person shooter. Assuming two people firing can't point a weapon at the the persons firing at them....
There're no facts here, BenT... Only supposition.
Who said anything about deterrence? Detereence is nice. But shooting somebody's kneecaps off would probably go a long way to stopping a crime already started.
I'm aware of gun statistics. The part of your sentence that bothers me is the word "homicides". People murder. Most of the time, they murder someone they know. Guns are not the problem. People, and how they deal with problems, is the problem. Guns, knives, icepicks, poison, bombs, etc. These are all just inanimate objects used by deranged and disturbed individuals to violently punish those they perceive have done them some injustice.
And I don't consider having a loaded gun by my bedside at night being cavalier about weapons. It is only there at night. During the day it is somewhere else. And even if it wasn't, so what? I have no children in my house. Again, you make a lot of suppositions that are unfounded and incorrect.
On a side note, ER: I was almost giddy when I found out that you and I agree on something! (grin)
On a side-side note: I occasionally make it known that I am against capital punishment. That's for one reason; I don't want the federal or state governments to have the legal power to kill their citizens. That ultimate power, once on the books, can be misued -- and arguably, it *is* misused.
But, I do believe in using violence if necesarry to protect others, although using it to protect myself is a horse of a different color. Of course, my impulse would be to do so. But the Savior seems to have advised otherwise, with the "seven times seven" and the "turn the other cheek" admonitions.
As for societal justice: rather than the federal government or state governments having the power to kill their citizens to exact justice, I would prefer that they allow, maybe even provide the means, for the victims of capital offenses, and the survivors of the murdered, to exact such punishment themselves.
In other words, if you're for capital punishment, and you are such a victim or survivor of a victim, then you should be the one who pulls the trigger, throws the lever at the gallows, throws the switch at the chair or injects the poison to the man or woman on the gurney.
I will encapsulate it here:
Crazy people kill people.
Crazy people should be stopped when killing people.
An armed citizenry would be more effective at stopping said crazy person than an unarmed citizenry.
I don't own a gun but my fiancee does. I am a crack shot. I would not hesitate to remove a crazy person with a weapon from the gene pool.
I made predictions about the aftermath of the tragic events here in Virginia. Come see and comment on them.
Liberals tend to want to tell the rest of us how to live and what's best for us. They show a great deal of arrogance in that they always think they know better, and are smarter than everyone else.
Case in point:
You said "Average people, even if they are regular hunters and gun users, are not trained to deal with violent, charged situations, like what happened at VT." and then you said "Ms. Green if an intruder ever entered your home, you would be more likely to shoot your dog or a family member than the intruder. When the adrenaline gets pumping, your hands start to shake. Your decisions become more erratic. Your vision becomes more narrowed. You see movement and react before your brain can comprehend what your eyes see. The intruder is probably gone as soon as you turned on the light. Your family, all of you carrying weapons, skulking around corners is a tragedy waiting to happen."
Now, here's what you said about YOURSELF:
"I own a gun. It's my grandfather's service pistol. He used it on Iwo Jima. It's in a glass display case, hung high up a wall. It is unloaded. I'm also a fairly good shot. With a rifle I can peg a coke bottle cap at 40 feet. It takes me about 20 seconds to aim and fire. I have no illusions about my ability to use a gun in a life or death situation."
Know how that sounds? Arrogant. I would not react properly in a life or death situation,in fact, I would probably shoot my dog. But YOU have no illusions about YOUR ability - after all, you can peg a coke bottle cap at 40 feet.
I didn't get my CCL by being an idiot and not being able to shoot straight.
"Liberals (Cultural conservatives) tend to want to tell the rest of us how to live and what's best for us. They show a great deal of arrogance in that they always think they know better, and are smarter than everyone else."
Which is why extremes suck. Both of 'em.