32 Killed 29 wounded in early reports at Virginia Tech.

[Dr. Shane]

Mexico has made a lot of progress cleaning up corruption within their police departments. I don't think they are to the point where the US is, but a lot has been done.

However it comes at a cost. In the last nine years since I have lived here there have been three police chiefs in Mexico, within 200 miles of where I live, shot dead execution style by the Mexican mafia.

However, even without corrupt police, as long as guns are legal somewhere in the world, there will be smuggling operations. Criminals will always have access to guns. Do we want to live in a society where only criminals and the police have guns?

As I said earlier, a crazy guy can do as much damage with a pipe bomb which is rather easy to make. Outlawing guns won't stop random acts of terror and it won't stop criminals. It will create a huge black market which will boost organized crime's ability to make even more money.

I agree with Bravus that more guns doesn't mean more safety. I built a bank that did not arm any of its security guards. I asked the regional manager why they didn't. He told me that bank robberies in banks with armed guards have higher fatalities than banks with unarmed guards. Putting an armed guard in a bank increases the chances of someone getting killed during a robbery and the first one killed is more often the guard himself.

If everyone carried a gun, how many arguments would end up as homicides? It wouldn't be a society I would want to live in.

[Robert]

If everyone carried a gun, how many arguments would end up as homicides? It wouldn't be a society I would want to live in.

Bingo! Common sense prevails....

[Robert]

MSNBC is reporting that the gunman was isolated, bullied and picked on by other students.

Students being bullied and the availbility of guns might be what is driving some over the edge?

[bevin]

Quote:

Do we want to live in a society where only criminals and the police have guns?

Such societies exist today. NZ and Australia, for instance.

Yes, you do want to live in such a society.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

No, I don't. Hot burglaries, organized crime rules, citizens have no protection during riots or after natural disasters. Thanks but no thanks. I choose the US of A.

[Bravus]

From 1994, *before* significant tightening of Australian gun laws in 1996-97: http://www.nisu.flinders.edu.au/data/phonebook/queries/guninjuries94.php#Heading7

Note that England and Wales, with essentially no private firearm ownership, also had essentially no firearm homicides. On the other hand, the half of US homes that owned firearms seemed not to do a great job of protecting them from firearm homicide.

And on those changes: http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm

"The Australian rate of gun death per 100,000 population remains one-fifth that of the United States." That's deaths from all causes, accidents as well as homicides.

Again, the argument about 'guns are needed for defense' is only really relevant in defending against others with guns. If there are far fewer in circulation, it's far less probable that criminals will have them. Some still will, but it's illogical to suggest it would be at the same rate. Because, besides making it a lot harder to get one, I imagine they make the same argument: 'the homeowners will have guns, we'd better get some'. Vicious cycle.

Ooops, I said I was out of the debate!

[Dr. Shane]

From what I understand, it isn't too hard to get a shotgun or rifle in Australia as long as one has a "reason" like target shooting, pest control or hunting.

As I have already shown, hot burglaries in countries with low gun ownership are higher than those in the US. One of the reason we have so many gun fatalities in the US is due to accidents. That is why I am in favor of gun license and mandatory training. I also believe the continued training should be required or the license will expire. While a person with an expired license wouldn't have to give up the guns he or she already has, they wouldn't be able to buy more or purchase ammunition.

The US also has a law enforcement problem. Those convicted of a crime with a firearm involved need to have mandatory sentences.

[Robert]

I think we need to remember not only students who were killed, but the young man who did it and his family. Unlike the masses, Christians are called to "love their enemies".

[Dr. Shane]

Yes, it must be especially painful for his family. Not only have they lost a son and brother, but they probably feel somewhat responsible for what happened (even though they are not).

[David Koot]

As a point of interest, I used the tragic events at Virginia Tech as a springboard for discussion at our neighborhood dinner and Bible discussion tonight. One question I asked was, what can we do to safeguard ourselves from doing something like that. Within all of us, there are dark tendencies lurking, which events may bring to the surface. I made a gospel presentation, and invited each one present to give his/her life to Jesus and accept Him as Lord and Savior, and the transformation of the life that Jesus offers us.

Dave

[there buster]

Quote:

the argument about 'guns are needed for defense' is only really relevant in defending against others with guns

It always astonishes me to see such fundamental errors.

Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman might well be alive if they had had a gun to protect them from the knife-wielding O.J. Simpson. I think they would have found such a rirearm 'relevant' indeed. As a matter of fact, a gun is particularly useful ('relevant') in keeping people with other hand weapons far enough away so that they cannot be used.

Reginald Denny, who miraculously survived being hit in the head with a brick during the riots which followed the Rodney King verdict, could have kept his attackers at bay with a gun. People are killed with all manner of weapons that are wielded at close quarters-- baseball bats, kitchen knives, rocks, chains, and so on. A gun is just as relevant and as adequate a defense against all of those weapons as well, not just 'other guns.'

The prevalence of guns has little to do with murder rates. Last I knew, every adult Swiss male was required to own and was trained to shoot a gun. I'm not aware that the Swiss have a high rate of 'gun deaths.'

Once again, I have never owned a gun, and fired my son-in-law's shotgun exactly twice in my entire life. I'm not fond of guns. But I'm less fond of sloppy reasoning, and far, far less fond of the impulse to take away people's rights.

There are 'essentially no firearm homicides' among my farmer neighbors, either, even though they all own and use firearms, for hunting and 'varmint' control.

Statistics will also tell you that you are far more likely to be murdered by someone you know, especially a spouse or other family member. So why not bar marriage on the same basis? No family members, no spouses, and the homicide rate would drop like a stone. And that's homicides from all causes, including blunt instruments, poisonings, and O.J.'s knife--not just from firearms. Using your logic, banning families would be even more effective than banning guns.

[David Koot]

After further reflection, I wanted to comment a little more on something Clio reported--that the victims were EACH shot twice in the chest, and once in the head. I find that quite incredible. Shooting with a handgun is quite different from using a rifle. I know, because in the past, I did lots of shooting with handguns. The 9 mm semi-automatic is good for close range. In order to hit a specific area with a gun like that it would be necessary to two-hand it, holding it at arms length, and sight (really skimpy sights, actually) carefully, take careful aim, and fire. On top of that, the victim would need to be facing the shooter. So, are we to believe that the students obediently stood or sat facing the shooter, waiting as he drew a bead on their chests? I think not! That process would have taken several minutes, anyway, based on the number of victims. In addition, even a little 9mm has a kick, a recoil. To get off as many shots as seem to have been reported, it would be challenging to properly aim. AND, to compensate for the trigger pull. Factory trigger pull is stronger than 3 lbs. In order to get a 3 lb. trigger pull, custom work needs to be done on the sear and the tang. I have done that, myself. Takes a bit of work. Then, after each shot, there would be a recoil, the shooter's arm would be flung up, and he would have to again level the gun and once again take aim, AFTER EACH SHOT! All that would take a bit of time. In fact, this guy had two pistols. I would guess that he may have had one in each hand. Nah, highly improbable that every victim was neatly shot in the chest AND in the head. Head shots are particularly challenging in combat situations, especially with a sidearm like a Glock. A world-class marksman, perhaps, using a customized gun, with compliant targets, and time to take careful aim, MIGHT have pulled it off. But not in this case, IMO.

Dave

[Bravus]

You did look at those links, Ed? Firearm homicides compared to those done in other ways? The dramatic difference in the US? Yes, there are other social factors in the US that are highly relevant. But I would argue (based on stats, not anecdotes) that a reduction in the total number of firearms in the community would reduce the total homicide rate, even with those other factors in play.

And who said anything about banning them? All I argued against was the "more guns = more safety" logic.

[bevin]

Quote:

No, I don't. Hot burglaries, organized crime rules, citizens have no protection during riots or after natural disasters. Thanks but no thanks. I choose the US of A.

Australians and New Zealanders would not recognize your imaginative "description" of their countries

You might read http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/1997/review-of-firearms-control/

Quote:

There are probably between 700,000 and 1,000,000 firearms in New Zealand. On a population basis that puts our rate of gun ownership at about one-third of that in the United States, in the same general rank as Canada and Australia (at least before the latter's recent ban and buy-back of semi-automatics), and well ahead of the United Kingdom and most European countries.

...

There are some 4,000 firearms offences each year, a level which is higher than was the case prior to 1980, but has not increased over the past six years.

4M people, 1M firearms in NZ!

As you write later

Quote:

The US also has a law enforcement problem. Those convicted of a crime with a firearm involved need to have mandatory sentences.

It is not the possession of firearms that is the issue. It is the type, the laws controlling them, and the penalties associated with their use for criminal purposes.

/Bevin

[Kountzer]

I could say some stuff about work, but you never know where stuff on the net is going.

an event that happened here about a month ago, on a metro bus. A 20 something bus rider, white, accidently bumped into, or was bumped by another bus rider, who happened to be black. I'd prefer to leave race and color out of it, but that is what happened. The white guy had a license for a concealed handgun, which he pulled out, and Boom! he blew the other guy away. He then calmly sat down in the back of the bus, and waited for the police to arrive. He later said that the other person threatened him, talked of a knife. the other bus riders said that the other bus rider, the one killed, had apologized, and got shot dead anyway. the police put the shooter in jail, and he has be charged with murder.

[Stan]

One must travel to NewFoundland at least once in their life..

High unemployment

High alcoholism

Very low crime rate...

even the police are not allowed to carry guns.

It is really interesting going there..

[Gail]

Yeah, I'm getting queasy reading about the violent crimes, etc.

We have violent crimes here, too, but not to the extent that one reads about in the States. Hot burglaries? What's that? I've known people who've had their homes broken into but not with people inside, except in Vancouver you will get an article about a senior living alone who is victimized every once in a while.

I don't know what it is about guns that makes Americans feel they need them. Remember that movie by Michael Moore, Bowling for Columbine? He talked about the paranoid attitude of the Americans vs. the attitude of Canadians. I think that is generally true. We just don't fear living here. There is crime but when you read the papers about murders, it's primarily within the community where crime abounds anyway- Asian drug and mafia. Next I would say domestic disputes or fights involving alcohol.

You can argue all you want about gun control and reasons to have guns. I know the life I live here. We just don't fear like Americans seem to. People just don't think about guns as the thing to solve their problems.

[Woody]

It doesn't take a gun to be violent. Just look at the Romanian ... all he did was to try to choke a man to death.

If Americans are "paranoid" ... it is over immigration.

[Kountzer]

Here yesterday 2 immigrant smuggler gangs had a shootout on a major freeway. Ordinarily this would of been the leading story, but no one hardly noticed because of the tragedy at VT.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4724950.html

[there buster]

Quote:

I don't know what it is about guns that makes Americans feel they need them. Remember that movie by Michael Moore, Bowling for Columbine? He talked about the paranoid attitude of the Americans vs. the attitude of Canadians. I think that is generally true. We just don't fear living here. There is crime but when you read the papers about murders, it's primarily within the community where crime abounds anyway- Asian drug and mafia. Next I would say domestic disputes or fights involving alcohol.

We don't fear living here either. I've never owned a gun. And I've lived in the Chicago area, and walked the streets of NYC at night. And just as you say, most murders occur in communities where 'crime abounds anyway.'

But we have about 15 times your population. You mention Vancouver. Well we have about 40 cities large enough to accommodate a major league sports team.

A lot of it amounts to 'what you read about.'

And this guy wasn't an Americn, either.

[Dr. Shane]

The American Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. The primary purpose of the right, at the founding of the nation, was for self-defense against Indians, foreign armies and an overbearing government. Duals were allowed by law to settle disputes. So it was quite a different world.

Should self-defense still be a reason to preserve this right? That is an issue subject to debate. I do believe in allowing a home owner to use a firearm in his home for self-defense. I am not willing to go so far as to let people carry weapons around with them everywhere they go.

[Ron Lambert]

Only the Holy Spirit restraining human hearts could have stopped something like this murderous rampage on the campus of Virginia Tech. None but the most draconian of human laws, no policies about emergency procedures that are really practical, could have prevented this.

Does anyone else feel, as I do, that things seem to be getting worse--as if the four angels of Revelation 7:1 are beginning to loosen their hold on the winds of strife? How many times must something happen that is worse than ever before, before we perceive an actual progression, a real change--that is no longer so gradual?

[Clio]

The releasing has begun.

[Woody]

They are reporting that the killer had been determined to be "mentally ill" after his mental health assessment. This goes along with my feeling that he was not right mentally. I think that perhaps this has SOME to do with sin. But maybe more to do with illness.

[Robert]

They are reporting that the killer had been determined to be "mentally ill" after his mental health assessment.