Deadly shooting at US university

[Chris the Chees]

I have shown so many times that places that have the strictest gun control, often have the higest crime rates. I showed that in Grt Britain, the crime rates involving guns has skyrocketed and they have the most restrictive gun laws in the world.

In the majority (near a full three quarters) of British gun crime is in the form of Air guns and replicas and British gun crime makes up approximately 0.5% of UK crime.

Neither of these facts the "source" you provided, cared to mention.

Source 1

Source 2

Not to emtnion that the "source" also stated this: -

"And all this while crime in the United States, including violent crime, has been steadily falling. The “Wild West” seems to be 3,000 miles to our east."

Guess what chums, so has UK violent crime, sinse a peak in 1995 (and guess what laws came in in 1996/7 for bonus points): -

Violent Crime



Crime Statistics for England and Wales - British Crime Survey: Violent crime

# Violent crime has fallen by around 43% since its peak in 1995 and has remained relatively stable between 2004/05 and 2005/06.

You may want to check that the sources you provide aren't full of rubbish next time, Brien.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: brien LOL on this one. "Gun control" does not "cut off the source" nor does it prevent people from killing. I have shown so many times that places that have the strictest gun control, often have the higest crime rates. I showed that in Grt Britain, the crime rates involving guns has skyrocketed and they have the most restrictive gun laws in the world.

" Britain's intolerance of firearm violence has impacted on its gun crime trends. Figures from the British Home Office reveal that there has been a substantial decline in gun crimes involving weapons other than airguns since new laws were introduced in 1996. Between 1996 and 1998, there has been an overall drop of 17% in gun crime involving shotguns, handguns and other firearms excluding air guns.

In contrast, air gun use has increased by 11% from 1996 to 1998, suggesting a substitution effect, where airguns are being criminally used instead of guns that have been banned. This increased use of air weapons in Britain has also been attributed to the fact that air guns are now made as exact replicas of real firearms, so pointing to the need to more carefully monitor or even ban replica guns.

The substitution of air weapons for real firearms in crime has not significantly reduced the number of people killed by guns in England and Wales. But this is not surprising as England and Wales have been described as having "notably low death rates by firearms with less than 1 death per 100 000 people".(3) Consequently, it is unlikely that the introduction of new gun laws would have a dramatic impact on an already low gun death rate. "
Gun Laws and Crime in Britain

[KSoDBartman]

Quote by: pikatore That, my friend, is ridiculous. Unless the place is locked down like a bloody prison, and everyone totes a gun (which is something that i find quite disturbing), you won't stop crazy dudes like this one from doing thier thing.

Of COURSE it's ridiculous. It's supposed to be in order to point out the idiocy of compelling people to give up defense.

[KSoDBartman]

Quote by: pikatore And I imagine you'd want to lower the chances of such an event happening?

That would be ideal, but I don't see how forcibly disarming people, creating a sea of victims will accomplish that.

[KSoDBartman]

Quote by: ZNFYRH I understood what you were saying... that the people who could have survived wouldn't have considered their lives a "pedantic nit". Next time choose your words with more care.

If you understood what I was saying, why would I need to exercise more discretion in the words I choose than I already do?

[ZNFYRH]

You added more to it than just the basic statement.

I chose to ignore the reference to the bickering over the "nit" comments and address, instead, the other part of your post.

Could you please, then, address the response those of us gave that isn't continuing the side-tracking?

[brien]

Here is the bottom line. I choose to take my protection into my own hands when it is demonstrated that there is no reasonable expectation that someone else who is seeking to take that choice away from me, can reasonably do it for me.

Those who wish to entrust and place their self protection in the hands of some who make false promises, or make assurances that they can't keep, deserve what they get for their exchange. I will not be fooled by false promises or inept organizations that make those promises. Those who cite all of the statistics that "prove" gun bans work, let them call upon the statisticians to protect them when their life is threathened by another. I will take a pass on that and retain my right to protect myself.

My self protection begins with me. I have a right to my life and liberty and it is encumbent upon me to protect my own life in the first instance. I am not so foolish as to think someone else can do this in the timely manner I may require, nor will I blindly trust someone who places their trust in the nanny state. I will not stand for a preemption of my right to life and liberty when I can do that for myself, particularly if I have to meet my own needs for self protection. I don't force this choice upon others, nor do I expect them to force their choice for their own self protection upon me. Those who trust others with their protection must rely upon them to deliver that protection but this is not always the case. I say fine and dandy if that's what they desire. Good luck to them but it doesn't work for me, thank you anyway.

I am a licensed gun owner who has a permit to carry. If I am forced to travel in place that has proved to be dangerous to others, as in the NYC subways, I will carry my firearms, whether it is legal to do so or not, because my self preservation takes preceedence over the state's mandate to preempt my right to life and liberty. I would rather be alive and cited for carrying a concealed pistol rather than a dead sucker who gave up his right to protect himself in the expectation the state would offer that protection. There really is no choice for me in this instance. I choose life over possible death and injury to my person.

On the other hand, if I deem it is reasonable for me to expect protection from the state, as in a court of law, I will not carry my firearms into that building and comply with the law. Some who choose to place their life and liberty under the false pretenses of nanny state protection, as did the students at VT, get what they trade for in that deal; ie, nothing. I won't be so arrogant as to tell another they shouldn't accept that trade but that is one deal I won't buy and no one can force me to accept it if I deem it unreasonable and a threat to my personal well being and safety. I have the unalienable right to life and liberty, as defined in the Declaration of Independence, and guaranteed in the US Constitution. I choose to exercise those rights and will never surrender them to the state over false promises that seek to lull me into a false sense of security.

[fushigi]

Hey, that's cool, just so long as you're willing to so vehemently defend the rights of 23 year-old Korean immigrant college students to have the same right.

[The Decider]

Quote by: brien Here is the bottom line. I choose to take my protection into my own hands when it is demonstrated that there is no reasonable expectation that someone else who is seeking to take that choice away from me, can reasonably do it for me. Those who wish to entrust and place their self protection in the hands of some who make false promises, or make assurances that they can't keep, deserve what they get for their exchange. ...I have the unalienable right to life and liberty, as defined in the Declaration of Independence, and guaranteed in the US Constitution. I choose to exercise those rights and will never surrender them to the state over false promises that seek to lull me into a false sense of security.

This is a lot of tough talk here. The 32 victims at VT "deserved" what they got because they weren't packing heat that day. On the other hand, you have the "constitutional right" to ignore laws at your discretion.

I won't address your opinion that the VT students "deserved" their fate. That comment speaks for itself. But I will say this about your theory that the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights gives you the right to ignore US and state law: bring it on, brien. Walk into a classroom armed with your favorite guns. Make it a preschool---you won't find a more underarmed classroom anywhere. Just make sure you keep your toys concealed. Because if anyone sees your guns, the likelihood of you remaining free is zero to none. Jail will be your new home and quoting the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights there won't impress your love-starved cellmates.

[brien]

Quote by: fushigi Hey, that's cool, just so long as you're willing to so vehemently defend the rights of 23 year-old Korean immigrant college students to have the same right.

I oppose for anyone with a "green card" to be able to purchase firearms in the US. I also oppose for anyone who has some proven mental health issues to be sold firearms. Otherwise, I will defend the right of anyone who is qualified to own firearms. It is their 2nd Amendment Right.

[brien]

Quote by: The Decider This is a lot of tough talk here. The 32 victims at VT "deserved" what they got because they weren't packing heat that day. On the other hand, you have the "constitutional right" to ignore laws at your discretion. I won't address your opinion that the VT students "deserved" their fate. That comment speaks for itself. But I will say this about your theory that the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights gives you the right to ignore US and state law: bring it on, brien. Walk into a classroom armed with your favorite guns. Make it a preschool---you won't find a more underarmed classroom anywhere. Just make sure you keep your toys concealed. Because if anyone sees your guns, the likelihood of you remaining free is zero to none. Jail will be your new home and quoting the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights there won't impress your love-starved cellmates.

If you quote me, please quote me verbatim. This is what I wrote:

Those who wish to entrust and place their self protection in the hands of some who make false promises, or make assurances that they can't keep, deserve what they get for their exchange.

This is what I wrote about the VT students:

Some who choose to place their life and liberty under the false pretenses of nanny state protection, as did the students at VT, get what they trade for in that deal; ie, nothing.

It always seems the case when someone has no real answers they attack another person with vacuous statements.

If you think this includes the VT students, then you say it. I didn't. I wrote the VT students made a trade. It wasn't their fault because they had no idea the University could not deliver on their protection when the University restricted their right to carry on campus. Your insults aside, you have reading comprehension problem or your post is a disingenuous attempt to twist my words. Either way, its your problem not mine. My words speak for themselves.

My right to life, liberty, and self protection exceeds any law that compromises my life and liberty. The fact that you disagree, doesn't make it wrong, nor does it make you right. So, you obey nanny state laws that are designed for the sheeple and if you lose your life because of it, so be it. It was your choice. I prefer to make a different choice.

Your "holier than thou attitude"is as condescending as it is patently false because you can't tell me you don't break any laws. Furthermore, it also suggests that you know better than I, what is best for my own self protection. Well, I have news for you. You don't know what is better for me and to think you do is an elitist attitude that has no valid position in our society. Your hypocrital attitudes aside, you make your choice and I will make mine.

[ZNFYRH]

brien,

I think I see what you're saying.

At first glance, it seems as though you're saying the VT students deserved what they got.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you're saying is more along the lines of understanding the trade-off... the more responsibility for your own protection that you designate to others, the less "right" you have to fault those others when they fail in that responsibility.

[brien]

Quote by: ZNFYRH brien, I think I see what you're saying. At first glance, it seems as though you're saying the VT students deserved what they got. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you're saying is more along the lines of understanding the trade-off... the more responsibility for your own protection that you designate to others, the less "right" you have to fault those others when they fail in that responsibility.

Thank you. I think this is a fair assesment of what I wrote. Furthermore, I wrote that some of the VT students traded their security for nothing.(in return)

[The Decider]

Quote by: brien If you quote me, please quote me verbatim. This is what I wrote: Those who wish to entrust and place their self protection in the hands of some who make false promises, or make assurances that they can't keep, deserve what they get for their exchange. This is what I wrote about the VT students: It always seems the case when someone has no real answers they attack another person with vacuous statements. If you think this includes the VT students, then you say it. I didn't. I wrote the VT students made a trade.

You said the VT students "made a trade" and some unnamed person or groups "deserve what they get for their exchange." If you weren't referring to the VT students in the first quote, who were you talking about?

Quote by: brien Your insults aside, you have reading comprehension problem or your post is a disingenuous attempt to twist my words. Either way, its your problem not mine. My words speak for themselves.

Your words are contradictory at best.

Quote by: brien My right to life, liberty, and self protection exceeds any law that compromises my life and liberty. The fact that you disagree, doesn't make it wrong, nor does it make you right. So, you obey nanny state laws that are designed for the sheeple and if you lose your life because of it, so be it. It was your choice. I prefer to make a different choice.

And if a citizen ever sees you packing a firearm in a classroom, they have the "right" to turn your ass in as a lawbreaker. You can preach all about your "right to life, liberty, and self protection" to the judge, shortly before she passes sentence on you. Try calling her a "sheeple" too and see if you get any mercy from the court.

Quote by: brien Your "holier than thou attitude"is as condescending as it is patently false because you can't tell me you don't break any laws.

I think I spit on the sidewalk yesterday. I didn't come to a complete stop at a stop sign two days ago. I'm a lawbreaker. But I'm not a whiner who claims that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights commands me to break laws as I see fit. If caught, I'll pay the fine. I suppose that makes me a "sheeple" and you "non-condescending." Unfortunately, Libertarians such as yourself are all too often "holier than thou" and "condescending" towards the "sheeple" of non-believers in the "Truth." Gun control debates bring this trait out like no others---except maybe the income tax.

Quote by: brien Furthermore, it also suggests that you know better than I, what is best for my own self protection. Well, I have news for you. You don't know what is better for me and to think you do is an elitist attitude that has no valid position in our society. Your hypocrital attitudes aside, you make your choice and I will make mine.

Yep, and if given the choice in a classroom, I'd turn you and your illegally concealed weapons into the authorities. You can tell the judge all about my "elitest attitude" and all the rest of your weak arguments for law breaking. It won't save you from the slammer where your guns will be of no help to you.

[ladyphoenix]

The Decider, I'm absolutely astounded by your response here. I can't believe there are actually people who believe the things you've claimed here.

The difference between you blowing the stop sign or spitting on the sidewalk and me refusing to follow laws which I feel contradict my constitutionl rights are that *I* am acting in good faith. You are not. You are breaking the law arbitrarily, because you feel like it, laws which in no way violates any of the rights afforded you by the supreme law of this land. You're doing it to be contrary, a delinquent. I'm doing it to insure that you continue to have those rights that you so blatantly ignore.

[brien]

And if a citizen ever sees you packing a firearm in a classroom, they have the "right" to turn your ass in as a lawbreaker. You can preach all about your "right to life, liberty, and self protection" to the judge, shortly before she passes sentence on you. Try calling her a "sheeple" too and see if you get any mercy from the court

Unlike you, I am not preaching to anyone. I never said it was appropriate for anyone but me. This is my personal point of view. I made it abundantly clear it was my choice and your choice. Something you are not used to doing, ie leaving the choice to others.

You said the VT students "made a trade"

Finally got it right there Decider. Yes I did say they made a trade . They traded their security for nothing in return.

But I'm not a whiner

There you go with your ad hom insults agains. I don't know why I waste my time with you.

I'd turn you and your illegally concealed weapons into the authorities

It is obvious what kind of person you are there, Decider.

I will say it once again to you Decider. My personal choice to secure my life through my own responsibility to protect myself has nothing whatsoever to do with you. You make your choice, and I make mine. I won't force mine on you, and you damn well won't force your choice on me.

[pikatore]

I find it disgusting that anyone can blame the students for this tradegy because they weren't walking around with bloody guns strapped to thier waists. What a dysfunctional and heartless line of reason.

It's a damn educational institution, where students can study feeling safe and secure. If a crazy-ass madman like this guy decides to go Columbine on the students, the students should NOT be expected to be armed.

Then again, American society seems to be pretty screwed up in the first place. Maybe it is neccessary to walk around the US with a gun at the ready to truly feel safe and secure. Maybe that is how things work over there. What a screwed up country.

And you pro-gunners obviously have a hard time conceptualising gun control itself.

A nutter like this in another Westernised country like Australia or the UK would have a damn hard time getting a firearm to go crazy WITH, and it's very likely to be an air gun or replica.

The US 2nd amendment can go screw itself. Then again, it seems that after looking at the statistics, it's screwing the US instead.

[KSoDBartman]

Quote by: pikatore I find it disgusting that anyone can blame the students for this tradegy because they weren't walking around with bloody guns strapped to thier waists. What a dysfunctional and heartless line of reason.

I'm not sure anyone's done that.

It's a damn educational institution, where students can study feeling safe and secure. If a crazy-ass madman like this guy decides to go Columbine on the students, the students should NOT be expected to be armed.

I don't think Cho expected any of them to be armed.

Then again, American society seems to be pretty screwed up in the first place. Maybe it is neccessary to walk around the US with a gun at the ready to truly feel safe and secure. Maybe that is how things work over there. What a screwed up country.

You make the leap of logic that, because we want the option to carry on the occassion we feel we may need to do so, we feel it's necessary to carry all day, every day.

It is a longer leap than you thought. I hope you didn't hurt yourself.

[brien]

Pikatore wrote this drivel:

[The US 2nd amendment can go screw itself. Then again, it seems that after looking at the statistics, it's screwing the US instead

Sure, let's now blame the Constitution for the actions of one sickperson. Let's just tear it up because you are hand wringing over "gun control" Oh the sky is falling, the sky is falling. I yi yi, where does it end?:rolleyes:

Watch out now, we better start banning automobiles and not allow people to drive.

DRIVER'S RAMPAGE / Swath of central San Francisco terrorized as SUV guns for pedestrians

And it was no accident. Within minutes, the driver of the Pilot would speed into the hills straddling the Western Addition and Pacific Heights, ripping back and forth through a 15-square-block area like a ripsaw on four wheels, leaping curbs, cutting corners and tearing the wrong way through traffic. Throughout the chaos, only one thing seemed clear: The driver was on a hunt. A hunt for humans

And this student with those damned cars:

Carolina in the News - March 8, 2006

Defendant Offers Details of Jeep Attack at University
The New York Times
The man charged with nine counts of attempted murder for driving a Jeep through a crowd at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill last Friday told the police that he deliberately rented a four-wheel-drive vehicle so he could "run over things and keep going," according to court papers released yesterday by investigators.


Related Link: NATION IN BRIEF - washingtonpost.com


We better ban cars now. Oh those damn cars, they kill so many people.

[pikatore]

And let's ban baseball bats, since you can probably kill enough people with it if you wanted to.

Cars are designed to get someone from A to B. Baseball bats are designed to hit BASEBALLS.

Guns are designed to KILL OTHER PEOPLE.

What part of this don't you get. Do you think I'm in denial about the danger a car can pose in the hands of a nutcase?!