Go Back  R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Chat Lounge
GUN CONTROL PARENTING, AND THE VT INCIDENT >

GUN CONTROL PARENTING, AND THE VT INCIDENT

GUN CONTROL PARENTING, AND THE VT INCIDENT

Reply

Old 04-18-2007, 09:43 PM
  #31  
Tech Master
iTrader: (1)
 
scoobydo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Bay Area San Jose
Posts: 1,505
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by R40Victim
And what exactly will that do, give the nutter more time to plan his attack? Are you seeing all the info comming out about this guy? Even with strictor laws, he'll just take, what, another few weeks to carry out his mission? C'mon man, it's pretty well established that gun laws aren't effective as is. Why would you want to set it up for a criminal, and or Nutter to know it's less likely you'll be able to defend yourself?
This guy had a psychiatric evaluation, stalked women and had history of disturbing behavior?
If that information would have been available and screened during a gun purchase, I guarantee he would have been denied.
But it doesn't stop there. After his denial of a firearm, a report should be sent to local authorities who should have investigated.
If somebody with his track record can get a gun legally, something is wrong with the system.
scoobydo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2007, 09:57 PM
  #32  
Suspended
iTrader: (10)
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central Minnesota
Posts: 2,049
Trader Rating: 10 (92%+)
Default

I think its rediculous that this day in age, we are STILL not doing mental screening to the people who are coming into our country.. NO WAY was this guy sane from the get go. Not only should he have NOT been in college, he shouldnt have been in the country. He should have been in a mental ward in China. We have enough wackos here in the states, we dont need other countries pawning off there criminals and crazys ass' here.
4u2nv is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2007, 10:12 PM
  #33  
Tech Master
iTrader: (13)
 
SRAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 1,055
Trader Rating: 13 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by scoobydo
I have yet to read a story where an armed civilian stopped an armed assailant.
I'm sure they exist, but that doesn't prove that carrying weapons work?
Like they stated earlier, cops spend thousands of hours training and learning to use weapons and they get it wrong from time to time.
I would hate to have a civilian carrying a weapon who just went to the local gun range a few times!
Get over it, gun control is needed!
I'm not saying you don't have the right to own one, but stricter measures are needed.
Why would you be against that????
If you were taught to respect weapons and handle them with care, why would stricter laws affect you?
A few more steps are added, but if your responsible like you say you are, you will still get your firearm.
I know of NO situation where somebody needs a weapon immedietly and cannot wait for a screening or period of time before getting them?
People keep saying that gun control doesn't work. Criminals will still get weaopons.
If stricter gun control would have prevented just 1 (ONE) person from getting a hand gun that did not warrant one,
Guess what, in my book it worked.
What if that ONE person was the shooter at Virgina Tech?
I would gladly trade your frustration in getting a handgun for 33 lives anyday.

You say "stricter gun control".....well let's hear your version of a stricter gun law. NO GUN LAW would have prevented what happened at Tech!! The guy was hell bent on doing what he did. Heck he if would have mowed down a group of students in the parking lot with a car...would you be saying there should be strict laws for getting a drivers license!! Most states already have gun laws that prevent crimmnals and such from buying guns LEGALLY!!! Several things failed in Virginia that contributed to this....gun laws or lack of them not being one of them.
SRAD is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2007, 10:12 PM
  #34  
Tech Adept
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 196
Default

Even with a little stricter gun control laws it wouldn't stop you or I from going out and getting a gun. So what it slows us down a little more. Maybe if that Nutter at VT had a few more days he might have been either caught beforehand or reconsidered. Most people nowadays that I have met that are under 25 do not know how to use a gun or even how to safely handle one. I grew up in Northeren Michigan and now I live in Wisconsin.
redneckracer197 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2007, 10:50 PM
  #35  
Tech Champion
iTrader: (1)
 
R40Victim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N.W. FL___L.A.___Lower Alabama
Posts: 7,827
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

This guy had a psychiatric evaluation, stalked women and had history of disturbing behavior? If that information would have been available and screened during a gun purchase, I guarantee he would have been denied.
But it doesn't stop there. After his denial of a firearm, a report should be sent to local authorities who should have investigated.
If somebody with his track record can get a gun legally, something is wrong with the system.
So you think that would've stopped this from happening? What would stop him from going underground to get a weapon? I bet if I knew the "right people" I could get a handgun right now. I understand your point, and aggree. If the people that sold him the guns knew he was a raging lunatic, they wouldn't have given them to him. I do feel that he'd have gone to the streets to get them anyway, he filed the serial #s off.
R40Victim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2007, 10:53 PM
  #36  
Suspended
iTrader: (10)
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central Minnesota
Posts: 2,049
Trader Rating: 10 (92%+)
Default

Strict gun control is only going to make it stricter for people who actually pay attention to the laws and rules. Obviously anyone whos going to abuse a weapon, isnt going to care about stricter laws. Guns will ALWAYS be on the street and ALWAYS going to be available to criminals.
4u2nv is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2007, 11:05 PM
  #37  
Tech Adept
 
nitrothugg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chicago by way of NY
Posts: 195
Default

Originally Posted by SRAD
WRONG!!! Many states have a Castle Doctrine....and if they don't you still have the right to protect yourself if you feel you will be harmed. Some states you can defend property...so like Shookie said and I've said this before....break into my house where you don't belong.....well....take it from there!! Eve if you banned guns like the Brits and Aussies....it's a fact that crime doesn't go down...and usually it goes up. Aussies spent millions buying back and banning guns....ask them what it got them.

i believe you are correct but towns can actually override the state law. there is a town here in illinois (a few actually) where a guy did just that (shot an intruder) but the town had a ban on gun ownership and he was actually cited.

sorry i dont have all the particulars to the case
nitrothugg is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2007, 11:05 PM
  #38  
Tech Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (63)
 
FUJIMO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 896
Trader Rating: 63 (100%+)
Default

There are plenty of recorded cases of armed civilians stopping or deterring armed assailants. The only reason you don't hear about them is the government doesn't want you to hear that then start carrying around an AR-15 in your trunk or have a Glock 19 under your pillow and not have a clue how to use either one if someone did try to carjack you or break into your home. That part I agree with. No training, no common sense, and no proper care of a weapon is what will get yourself killed. Not everyone in the country have the nerve it takes to properly handle and shoot a firearm. And I have seen a lot that treat them like the plague when they see one. Those people are the same ones that would like to melt every gun in the country down and sculpt a giant sunflower out of the steel so they can gather in a circle around it and sang "michael row the boat ashore" !! Those people also live in a place called la la land and can't see the forest for the trees.

But what happened at vt, what happened at the world trade center, what happened at columbine,waco, the indian school upstate, the omish school upstate, all that is real. And it makes me angry to think that these are the only times that most take a hard look at society in a different prospective. There are 10,000 + Cho's out there, waiting to go off !! Institutions are filled with them. Prisons are filled with them, we keep them like they are going to one day snap out of their psychopath fits and settle back down into soceity. Another fairytale brought to us by lawmakers that is not going to happen.

For those that want guns outlawed let me ask this. If they let Charlie Manson out today, and the government said he was A. O.K. to be back into soceity and was cured , would it bother you if moved in right beside you ?? Would that prompt you to buy a gun even though "guns kill people" ?

I used Charlie because he is a prime example of evil and not so much crazy.He didn't have to lay a finger on anyone and yet he took , what , 7 or 8 lives and was charged for it.

SRAD also brought up a good point I thought about earlier. What if Cho stole a dump truck and ran down 50 students in the parking lot ? what if he stole a plane and crashed it into the same building he did the majority of the shooting in ?? Everyone knows that is possible to do, because we have seen it done.

And like SRAD also stated, gun laws had nothing to do with what happened.

That is just a crutch everyone uses to make the pain go away. I understand in a situtation like this people are looking to blame someone. Problem is, the person to blame blew his face off !! So i guess the University will be the next best thing.

Wonder when they are going to truck in the lawyers to start suing the school for wrongful death ?? It's bound to happen !!!

Marcel
FUJIMO is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2007, 11:07 PM
  #39  
Tech Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (63)
 
FUJIMO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 896
Trader Rating: 63 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by nitrothugg
i believe you are correct but towns can actually override the state law. there is a town here in illinois (a few actually) where a guy did just that (shot an intruder) but the town had a ban on gun ownership and he was actually cited.

sorry i dont have all the particulars to the case
Who on here has a handgun carrying permit ?????
FUJIMO is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2007, 11:14 PM
  #40  
Tech Master
iTrader: (1)
 
scoobydo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Bay Area San Jose
Posts: 1,505
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by SRAD
You say "stricter gun control".....well let's hear your version of a stricter gun law. NO GUN LAW would have prevented what happened at Tech!! The guy was hell bent on doing what he did. Heck he if would have mowed down a group of students in the parking lot with a car...would you be saying there should be strict laws for getting a drivers license!! Most states already have gun laws that prevent crimmnals and such from buying guns LEGALLY!!! Several things failed in Virginia that contributed to this....gun laws or lack of them not being one of them.
Regardless of your opinion, its all speculation. You don't know if he would have? Nobody does.
How do you know he knows the "Underground Scene"?
How do you know he knows "People on the Street"?
How do you know he knows "The Right People"?
For all we know his denial of a gun would have led to him re-thinking his actions.
Maybe on his way out of being denied a gun, he meets the girl of his dreams and gets laid forgetting about "Rich Kids".
Maybe on his journey to find the "Underground" or "Right People", he asks the wrong person and gets notified to authorities.
Its a never ending string of "What IF's"
Simply accepting the fact that he would have done this no matter what is wrong.
Like I said in an earlier post,
If these stricter Gun Laws or Gun Restrictions help change the mind of 1 person in 10,000, They are worth it in my opinion.
You never know who that 1 person would have been.
scoobydo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2007, 11:14 PM
  #41  
Tech Adept
 
nitrothugg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chicago by way of NY
Posts: 195
Default

.

Last edited by nitrothugg; 04-20-2007 at 05:02 AM.
nitrothugg is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2007, 11:36 PM
  #42  
Tech Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (63)
 
FUJIMO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 896
Trader Rating: 63 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by scoobydo
Regardless of your opinion, its all speculation. You don't know if he would have? Nobody does.
How do you know he knows the "Underground Scene"?
How do you know he knows "People on the Street"?
How do you know he knows "The Right People"?
For all we know his denial of a gun would have led to him re-thinking his actions.
Maybe on his way out of being denied a gun, he meets the girl of his dreams and gets laid forgetting about "Rich Kids".
Maybe on his journey to find the "Underground" or "Right People", he asks the wrong person and gets notified to authorities.
Its a never ending string of "What IF's"
Simply accepting the fact that he would have done this no matter what is wrong.
Like I said in an earlier post,
If these stricter Gun Laws or Gun Restrictions help change the mind of 1 person in 10,000, They are worth it in my opinion.
You never know who that 1 person would have been.
he didn't have to know all that crap . matter of fact he was an outcast and a loaner. only thing he knew was malice in his heart and he was going to carry it out no matter what the terms. he wanted a gun, he got a gun. he wanted to kill people, he did kill people. a law is not going to stop you if you are determined.

scooby, if they change your local speed limit to 30 m.p.h. from say 70 , are you going to drive 30 in that area all the time from now on no matter what ?
no, you are going to go as fast as you can and watch for cops. in other words, you are going to abide by the law only we you are being watched. all those other times you are a lawbreaker. misdemeanor criminal even depending on the speed !!

laws are made all the time and they are broken just as quick. fact of life.

and i have to go with the students statements about Cho. they said he was hell bound for a long time. no piece of poontang would turn him into a choir boy. and he was smart enough to stay just under the radar of authorities long enough to plan out his attack. they say the guns were bought 5 weeks ago. but i venture to say this was in his mind for several months. probably since the beginning of the symester.

Marcel
FUJIMO is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2007, 11:39 PM
  #43  
Tech Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (63)
 
FUJIMO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 896
Trader Rating: 63 (100%+)
Default

Reason i ask about permit carriers on here is, in the course administered by local officals they go over all the do's and do not's of shooting an intruder or immenent threat against your life.

You can actually be charged with attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon and never fire a shot.
You will be charged with attempted murder if the intruder is shot in the back.They say that when an intruder is shot in the back you were not in imminent danger because the intruder had his back to you. so no shooting them as they are running away.
You might possibly be charged if the intruder does not have a weapon. all depends on if he picks up a lamp or knife or chair , something like that and that is recorded during the investigation.
You might possibly be charged if the intruder is shot in the head. depends on how you rank in the target range area of the course.if you shoot 46 for 46 , then you are considered and expert shot and , for lack of a better word, are licensed to kill !! meaning you should have the skill to take the intruder down but not out. but dead intruders don't testify ! wounded ones will sue your azz.

Notice i didn't list any "can't be charged" because they didn't tell us those. The administrator actually tells you that in a break in situation , to go to the furtherest room away from the entry point of the assailant and dial 911. ans also to remain as quite as possible and hope they get what they want and leave.Simply put, they know if someone breaks in your home and you have a gun you are going to use it. But the law states that they have to tell you to refrain from shooting and retreat to a safe room in the house.

getting a permit isn't easy and they are strick on the requirements and the proper use of a gun in that course. i think they screen the applications quite well. they found a domestic dispute on my fathers record from 20 years ago and investigated into it and found out his was innocent of the charges and then let him into the course.

in short, they don't hand them out at local gun shows like most people think !

Marcel
FUJIMO is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2007, 12:06 AM
  #44  
Tech Master
iTrader: (1)
 
scoobydo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Bay Area San Jose
Posts: 1,505
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Default

Good Points Marcel.

I guess it comes down to personal opinion.
I can respect yours and others as well.

I would much rather have hand guns banned here in California.
Call me naive, call me un-American, call me whatever you wish.
I feel it will make a difference. Maybe not a huge one, but its a start.

My thoughts and prayers to the familes of VT Students/Faculty.
scoobydo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2007, 02:33 AM
  #45  
Tech Elite
 
ProudSavageOwnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Leboland Sydney NSW
Posts: 2,826
Default

long story short this is wat fujimo is trying to say....

eg: i was a student in the class
some crazy ass mofo walks in n starts shooting up the place
first thing i do without 2nd thoughts it turn him into a f*king strainer
1 life down is better than 33 IMO

^^^^is what would happen if people had brains and common sence and responsibility and can show they can be trusted with a firearm.

heres the opposite of the above

i was a student in class
some crazy ass mofo walks in n starts shooting up the place
the only thing i can do is get shot cause the laws dont allow us to handle guns.
33 lifes down.

^^^^is what would happen if gun laws didnt allow people to handle guns....
ProudSavageOwnr is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service