Discussion of VT shootings on Commondreams

[Malone LaVeigh]

This might surprise you. The discussion is mostly pro-gun, or at least not anti so far.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/18/602/

The article's just a reprint, but scroll down for the comments. Some examples:

The police can not protect us when we need protection against these types of situations, deranged individuals, possible terrorist acts etc. Gun free zones do NOT work when psychopaths walk and act. I want PRIVATE , sane individuals packing heat near me and my family in those types os situations.

The recent University of Chicago study that examined all the multiple-victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1999 found that when states passed right-to-carry laws, these attacks fell by 60 percent. Deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell on average by 78 percent.
Attacks still occurred, they overwhelmingly happened in the special places within right-to-carry states where concealed handguns were banned. This latest event is again a good example of this. Kansas with its newly passed Right-To-Carry law has seen a remarkable decline in crime.
There is absolutely no evidence that there are any more accidental gun deaths that occur from right-to-carry laws. Permit holders also tend to be extremely law-abiding. Consider what is required in order to get a Right-To-Carry Permit. FBI background check, state law enforcement background check, training and gun handling requirements, legal law classes and a list of requirements that only attracts law abiding citizens.
Not only did the gun-free zones fail here, but there is an even simpler point to make. It is the physically weakest, women and the elderly, who benefit the most from having a gun to protect themselves. The U.S. Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey has shown for decades that resistance with a gun is by far the safest course of action when one is confronted by a criminal.

We need to stop viewing this as a gun control issue. This person did not kill because of a gun; his killing spree was triggered by emotional issues that many seem to have noticed before all this took place.

 

[TacMedic4450]

Did you see this post? Makes me feel very patriotic.

"Nobody in the civilized world understands your second amendement of your constitution. For the rest of the world this seems a barbaric flawed invitation for crimes against humanity. Bearing a gun is offensive, and a severe threat to most people. It’s not the ‘ugly American’ any longer, now it is the ‘barbaric gun toting obnoxiuos American’.
You live by the gun - you’ll die by a gun - the saying goes - unfortunately dragging millions of innocents down to hell with you in the process. Grow up America!

martin"

 

[thedpp]

Id rather live by the gun and die by the gun than live with out a gun and die by a gun.

 

[coelacanth]

well now, my dear martin" .....

do you suppose that attitudes like yours and the laws they produce are the reason hundreds of thousands of your countrymen have emigrated to America?

 

[Archer1945]

Another 'well now my dear martin'

Since you do not say what country you are from this may not apply to you. Is your country one in which there has never been a mass shooting? There is practically no country which has made it impossible for private citizens to own guns that has not had at least one mass shooting. If the citizens of these countries are not allowed to have firearms how are these people getting them? Why are British police, who never used to carry arms now finding it necessary to carry them?

 

[Archer1945]

Here is the response I just posted on Commondreams:

Martin, Since you do not say what country you are from this may not apply to you. Is your country one in which there has never been a mass shooting? There is practically no country which has made it impossible for private citizens to own guns that has not had at least one mass shooting. If the citizens of these countries are not allowed to have firearms how are these people getting them?

If all these countries that have taken guns away from their citizens are so safe why do not only the police carry guns but in many countries the police are more of a military organization than an organization to protect the community? Why are British police, who never used to carry arms now finding it necessary to carry them?

It was just a little interesting that those who aren’t above twisting news and statistics to their own advantage when trying to promote anti-gun laws immediately start screaming when some one posts facts about what gun contol really does. For the writer who claims the NRA figures about the crime rate in Australia are false I would suggest some honest research be done. However I can guarantee it will not done be because the writer might be forced to do something which they seem to be incapable of; that is think for themself and not parrot someone else’s comments.