Is the Va shooting proof positive that Gun control doesn't work?
Let me explain: Under strict gun control, only the criminal, with criminal intent (ownership would be illegal) would be able to obtain firearms in the black market, and having and bearing those guns would put them at a much greater advantage than those who followed the law.
Ok, so we know that it was illegal to have a gun on the Va campus, but this guy had one nonetheless. He then used these guns against those who were following the law (in effect, gunless, and defenseless) and slaughtered them much like shooting fish in a barrel. (excuse my description, it is simply to prove a point, and does not diminish the tragedy of this mass murder of the innocent)
If we were to repeal the 2nd amendment, confiscate all guns from the 99.9% of American citizens who own and use them responsibly, would then we all be easy targets for evil creeps like Cho Seung Hui?
TJ what you fail to mention is that up to 2 million Americans defend themselves legally each year. In your rather bent world, that means we would have over 2 million victims of crime because of your rosie (no not O'Donnell, lol) thinking. Since you admit that he bought them well in advance of his crime, you must admit that he could have just as well purchased them as most criminals do, via the black market. Further, he could have done so without a criminal background check.
Your points seems flimsy in light of the actual facts.
On Australian gun laws. First of all let me say that I love the Australian people. Truly you are much like Americans in your toughness and character. However, you must look at the recent facts in relation to crime since you banned guns. Violent crime has increased greatly since the gun ban, and is higher than the US. This is also true in Britain. I think this just goes to prove that criminals don't need to see a gun to think you might have one. Once this is taken away, criminals are free to commit burglary (also up in Aus and Britain) and criminal violence without fear. I don't discount the fact, however, that many Aussies would be tough enough to do away with a burglar with a large knife, which as we speak have yet to be banned.
VI you are proof positive that Liberalism addles the brain; Not evil? The guy stalked women, wrote screenplays that were darkly immersed in what could only be described as complete antisocialism which got him referred to counceling, which he refused. He set a fire on campus, treated people who tried to befriend him with derision or aloof non response. He was apparently going to use the guns he purchased for evil or criminal intent, as he filed off the serial numbers. When he realised he was going to be caught regardless of this fact, he decided to do what he had been thinking about apparently for some time, kill people because he hated them so much, even going so far as to chain doors shut so he could kill as many as possible. If this guy was not evil, then nobody is.
notniuq8, you are incorrect about his purchase of guns, he passed the background check as he was not convicted of any crime prior to his purchase.
- patriot333Lv 41 decade agoBest Answer
Your smart and your 100% right.
Gun control causes crime. Gun control has never worked anywhere so why cite it as a solution? Gun control is for Stalin and Hitler, not free Americans.
I think it was a tragedy first and foremost and my thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families.
The killer alone caused the crime, but the high number of victims is directly caused by gun control. The Virginia Tech killer never registered his gun, so why cite registration as a solution?
They were just sitting ducks with no way to defend themselves much like the victims of Colin Ferguson. Concealed-carry advocates warned us all long ago to expect tragedies like this as long as we have gun control.
When only criminals have guns the rest of us can only ponder tactics like "notifications." Up to two million Americans defend themselves with guns and citizens with guns legally kill two times as many would-be killers as do police!
In a state where concealed-carry is allowed or promoted, the loss of life could have been much less. He may have shot one or two, but a concealed-carrier would have dispatched him right quick.
Sadly there is no way to prevent a killer with a gun. In tribal Africa where there are no manufactured guns, tribesman make them from pipes and rubber-bands so clearly gun control is not the answer. You can make a gun out of wood in an hour! He could have stabbed just as many with a knife.
Since you will never stop the OFFENSE, we must allow ourselves a DEFENSE. We are not all of one culture anymore, so violence will only increase.
HB 1572 was a Virginia state bill to allow college students to carry arms on campus to protect themselves from tragedies like what happened at Virginia Tech. The bill was defeated
The spokesman for Virginia Tech was happy to hear the bill [HB 1572] was defeated. "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 fact is NOT passing the bill allowing students to defend themselves caused many more deaths. States that pass concealed-carry laws experience lower crime rates, Texas is a good example of this.
The only way to prevent these killing rampages is concealed-carry. Would you rather protect yourself or wait for the folly of police or school "notification?”
- 4 years ago
The law-abiding citizens who do not carry a gun always end up screwed. The dishonest non-law abiding citizens, or should I say more often then not non-legal immigrants are the ones who will get and carry a gun not matter what the law is. Where does that leave the honest law abiding people, SHOT by some dumb @ss with nothing to defend themselves with. It's a no win situation. There is no gun safety education or not enough anyway. It's like telling a child not to touch something...what do you think they are going to do..well duh...touch it. If we teach people that a gun is a tool, a piece of sporting equipment they will not have the urge to use it inappropriately. I'm not saying there hasn't been instances where idiots used a baseball bat to beat someone to death because anything can be used as a weapon but there are just some things, such as gun safety, that people need to be educated on. My son is 7 and my boyfriend has taught him whether it's a dart gun, a BB gun or a marshmallow shooting gun that you never aim it anyone, the proper way to load it, and WHY! The WHY part always seems to get left out of everything. How many times have to been showed how to do something and the person showing you doesn't tell you WHY you have to do it that way...my point is a gun can and will kill you or someone else if not used properly. Could the first person shot at VT been saved, maybe not however if the second person who came to help her had a gun he could've shot the @ss and we would be grieving the death of one innocent victim. Instead 32 GOOD people are dead and so is that psychotic jerk that did it. Ok I'm sorry I probably got way off track here but I feel better now.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I understand what u are saying, but I don't think it matters if u have gun control or not!
Even if half the ppl who were killed at Va had guns, it still doesn't matter because chances are they wouldn't have had their gun with them at the time!
In Australia, after what happened at Port Arthur Tasmania, we now have strict gun laws and that works for us!
- Anonymous1 decade ago
In response: If we only based this guy on those facts I'd agree with you, but doesn't change the fact that we don't know everything about this guy. We don't know every thought that went up in his head nor of other actions that he committed. There lays a fine line between what the media paints and what the realistic figure is. He might be inherently evil, but we can't say that until we know all the facts which we clearly don't. He might've been succumbing to the pressures of life, and took a wrong way to clear his troubles he might be the spawn of satan, point is, WE DON'T KNOW. It's offensive to anyone to assume upon some of their actions that they are evil.
For one instance let's say that we made gun control vanish. Now doesn't that make it all the more easier for people like the VT shooter to get the weapon? If anything doesn't it open the door for more people to get guns and do this kind of thing? You say that gun control makes people who follow the law at a disadvantage, but are you really ready to make every single individual in this entire world a gun holder? Are you really ready to make every single person in this world, a Cho Seung Hui? I hardly doubt that Cho Seung Hui was the only person in society who has had thoughts of doing something like this. Are we really ready to open the door for everyone else out there?
And some say we need to protect ourselves. We need the guns to protect our own welfare against others using guns. The statement itself is ridiculous (in my opinion). If we are trying to shooters like Cho Seung Hui, we give everyone guns? In order to stop violence, we give everyone guns? If rapists rape people and put people at a disadvantage, do we give everyone the legal ability to rape (I apologize if this is offensive to anyone)?
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- ArnieLv 75 years ago
The bad guys prefer unarmed victims!!.
When seconds matter calling 911 and asking the bad guy to wait is not a viable option.
Better to have a gun and not need it than to need it and not have it!!!
**Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens.**
So you are against the private ownerships of gun! Do you believe in fire extinguishers? Why, you can always call the fire department!!
Hide message history
No Weapons Allowed
Criminals this is a defense free zone
All law abiding people have been disarmed for you
- blueevent47Lv 51 decade ago
I can't say, although I think your reasoning is faulty. But perhaps a similar example from a close ally and democracy to the U.S is instructive. I am talking about Australia--a particularly good comparison because, like the U.S., it was a frontier country that had a long familiarity and use of firearms.
Up until 1997, Australia had no real gun control. Although not a right enshrined in the Australian Constitution, it was nevertheless legal to own a variety of firearms without control or censure.
In 1996, an equally deranged man in Tasmania went into school and ended up killing 16 children and teachers before turning the gun on himself. The shooting was looked at as so outrageous that the conservative Prime Minister, John Howard (who is a close Bush ally), instituted gun control in the following year.
Since that time, no mass murders on the scale of Arkansas, Columbine, and now Virginia Tech have occurred. Yes, "criminals" own guns and yes, they occasionally use them. But the amount of gun crime that occurs has dropped precipitously.
There are those who still complain about the loss of gun rights. But for the most part, few miss it and the notable lack of gun violence--in sharp contrast to the United States--is unquestionable.
I am curious--what figures are you using to suggest that violent crimes have risen significantly since these laws have gone into effect? I am not aware of them. It is true that violent crime has gone up recently in Britain (NOT in Australia), but since it has always had gun control, one cannot really say that the rise is due to the recension of a right that they never had.
Now it IS true that burglaries and property crimes have risen in recent years, but this has more to do with a series of changes in the demography of large Australian cities than anything else. And consider: one does not have to dispatch a burglar with lethal force--a property crime is not necessarily worth the death penalty, especially one carried out in a summary fashion.
- 1 decade ago
VT Massacre is proof there isn't enough gun control...
this guy just walked into a store and bought a gun with no background check or anything....
And this means criminals (Whats your definition of a criminal? Someone with a criminal intent or a history?) can walk in/drive through (Hey we're not shy about our obesity) and just get themselves a gun...
- Anonymous1 decade ago
what a low level of logic you have..
Cho bought his guns in the past three months over the counter at a public store!!
THAT is the only fact of the matter!!
That a depressed individual.. with a penchant for violent imagery.. could suddenly snap.. walk into a store.. buy an automatic handgun.. which are known globally to be lethal and thus are banned in most countries.. he buys TWO! he then plots his attack and executes it with devestating results.
END OF STORY!
If he was unable to buy guns by simply walking into a store, buying up hundreds of rounds and two automatic lethal handguns.. then this massacre and many before it would not have happened..
END OF STORY!!
stop looking for scapegoats.. banning of weapons is the only way to stop this happening again..
END OF STORY!!!
- Anonymous1 decade ago
He bought the guns legally 32 days before.
- and socialismLv 41 decade ago
Both guns were illegal serial numbers were scratched or filed off. So He didn't get them at a gun shop or a gun show they were likely black market!