Virginia Tech Survivor Becomes Anti's New Poster Child

Status
Not open for further replies.
I love how any time gun violence takes place, the person speaking references Columbine or the "gun show loophole."

The Columbine incident happened through a straw purchase, and the woman gave them the guns on her own. It was her decision. Her ignorance of the law was no excuse for breaking it.
 
He should have no trouble getting 100,000 sigs with the million bunch march behind him, heck he can get over a million in a few days why wait till next year. :rolleyes:

Also, if it harms him so much to even think about it, why is he pushing for laws that wouldnt have changed his experience to begin with. The law that would have stopped the looser from taking out good people in his suicide has already been passed. I cannot imagine what it must have been like to go through what those students did and I have so much sympathy for them and ill will towards the shooter but they (the brady bunch) are exploiting him.
 
He recites the usual Anti party lines, then he said something that struck me:
"I just want to live in an America that's safe".

Well, try prison. Full body searches. 24/7 police watch. Big iron bars. Unannounced searches. ABSOLUTELY no weapons allowed! Total gov't controlled environment. What could be safer?
 
The USA doesn't actually have the highest crime rate. That we do is Soviet propaganda that people are still believing. The highest crime rate? Well during the Soviet era THEY!!! had twenty times the murder rate of anyone else in the world. This was after the took away almost every gun in civilian hands. Interesting!
 
So you have to refer to Columbine because no laws would have stopped the Virginia Tech shooter.

Some laws might have made a difference.

Mr Goddard could help prevent future tragedies if he focused his efforts on reforming the laws in Virginia to insure that severely mentally ill people are not allowed to avoid treatment after a court determines them to be dangerous.

Preventing innocent people from defending against those that "slip through the cracks" and attack will only lead to more tragedies.

Unfortunately, there is more opportunity to profit as a "champion" for gun control - than there is in being a champion for effective treatment for the mentally ill.
 
Well... if Mr. Collin Goddard had been armed that day I'm sure he'd be whistling a different tune... Too bad he didn't go to one of those dreaded gunshows and bought anything from a Glock to an AK-47 to defend himself with...

Makes me want to:barf::barf::barf:
 
The Columbine incident happened through a straw purchase, and the woman gave them the guns on her own. It was her decision. Her ignorance of the law was no excuse for breaking it.

Whether Anderson's actions were a straw purchase or a perfectly legal sale is something that cannot be proved; Since there is no actual documentation of her agreeing to buy weapons for the two, it all depended on what she would admit to. That is why she was not charged.

It is not illegal to sell a shotgun or rifle to a minor under federal law. If you don't hold an FFL, you could sell your AR to a 9 year old. Not that any responsible adult would, but it's legal. There is no federal minimum age for private purchase and possession of long guns.
 
That guy lived through a horrific event. Not many people walking today can probably understand where his is mentally now. Unforunately he's damaged goods, and it doesnt suprise me that the Brady group would manipluate a surivivor for their agenda/cause.
 
I just sent a letter to the Brady organization using many of the facts found in this tread about the false statements made by Colin Goddard.

I very much doubt that the Brady bunch of idiots will reply but if they do I'll copy it to this thread.
 
While I applaud your tenacity & gumption MM, you might was well be quoting The Origins of Species to the Pope, or "Holy Text" to Richard Dawkins.

OTOH, thousands of people convert to other religions every day. :evil:
 
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658

The link above is to a story in the Roanoke Times about not allowing handguns on campus. It is dated 31 January 2006...BEFORE the shooting. I love the quote by the VT spokesperson:

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill 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."

Man, I love that quote!

-Jim

Edit adds:

Articles from the day of/day after VT shooting.

http://aggressivevoicedaily.blogspot.com/2007/04/deadliest-massacre-in-us-history.html

http://aggressivevoicedaily.blogspot.com/2007/04/larry-hincker-still-voice-of-virginia.html
 
Last edited:
The VT shooting never happened, it's an urban legend. It has to be as it was/is a GUN FREE ZONE, and we all know that laws always work, especially ones aimed at making the world a safer place and especially the one restricting guns.

Okay, sarcasm over.

My heart felt sympathies go out to those victims and their families.

But the asinine assumption that we can legislate our way to safety has to come to an end. :banghead:

And the exploitation of victims obviously still traumatized is disgusting.
 
...this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus...

There is "feeling" safe - and then there is "being" safe. I'd rather be safe than feel safe.


Some laws might have made a difference.

Such as a law allowing people to legally carry on campus.

Of course most of us probably agree that CCW on campus would help make students safer.

It is less obvious that overcoming the squeamishness this society has over incarcerating the severely mentally ill who have proven to be dangerous may do even more to make us all safer from senseless violence.

Most of the sensationally violent incidents are just that - senseless - even seemingly motiveless. That is because most of them are perpetrated by very sick individuals who are unhinged from reality and would be hospitalized if our legal/medical systems would take more responsibility for treating those in need of involuntary hospitalization.
 
Brady/Background checks

If background checks and the so called Brady law are working so well, why is more difficult (and expensive) for me to purchase a handgun with a rap sheet consisting of 3 parking tickets since I became of legal age over 25 years ago, than it is for someone who has been convicted of one or more felonies?

All these laws have done is create a black market in firearms that an "army" of law enforcement personnel will ever manage to even put a dent in.

I would be the first to support any law that would make it next to impossible for those with extensive criminal backgrounds to purchase firearms, but the laws we have on the books now are almost having the opposite effect. Unfortunately I don't have an answer, but I do resent being "punished" for the acts of others.

What we have now is clearly not working. Perhaps if both parents where not required to work to make ends meet every month rather than have one parent at home doing a little parenting like it was when I was a child, our youth would have some values by the time they reached adolescence. Now all the they have are the "ways of the street".

F. Prefect
 
As another poster mentioned, it isn't the gun laws or loopholes that were the source of the problems that VT suffered. It was the shoddy processing and failure to take required actions in the Mental Health Community that unleashed that hate-filled individual to walk free.

In Fort Hood it was a mentally-unstable individual that killed all those folks. No mention there of gun loopholes. Mentally-unstable individuals are the root cause of so many mass shootings. No amount of gun laws will fix that loop hole!

Red
 
Did we have stricter gun laws 100 yrs. ago? You know, when the murder rate for all the U.S. was 254 for a single year.....maybe we should go back to the gun laws back then. But some people think more laws will make the wolves into sheep. An asking the Government for more laws to help stop crime....well..."The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help" Ronald Reagon
 
I've known Collin for a long, long time. This illogical behavior and emotional rhetoric is par for the course for him. Sounds like he has political intentions.
 
Let's Not

It was the shoddy processing and failure to take required actions in the Mental Health Community that unleashed that hate-filled individual to walk free.

Let us not even look down that road, never mind walk it.

"Mental Health" is part of the problem, and looking to become the new end run around RKBA.

We look to "government" to protect us from bad people. Government does this by making laws that restrict good people, and then gloats over how it's "tough on crime."

Bad things continue to happen, government keeps "doing something" and adding layers of oppressive liberty-limiting laws that make it even harder for good people to protect themselves. More gloating and posturing.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Enter "Mental Health."

After four decades of "improving" the American education system, with stunning results, soaring academic performance, scholastic supremacy internationally, the Mental Health operatives are deemed "just the thing" to fix what's wrong with "protecting" the public from all those evil gun-totin' bad guys.

Now we can "diagnose" bad guys as dangerous before they actually commit any crimes, cutting through all that "chasing and solving" stuff. Even better, because we can pretty much declare any "undesirable" mental state (as evidenced by behavior, speech, political leanings, ownership of "dangerous" items, etc.) to be a threat and, because medicine isn't hampered by those pesky legal obstacles (probable cause, warrants, silly things like that), we can use this new "tool" to get a better handle on those troublesome [strike]peasants[/strike] -- er, ah -- criminals.

And you can trust "Mental Health."

Says who? Well, the government for starters. And, of course, the Mental Health professionals themselves. Naturally. No one else is qualified.

And government is, by definition, trustworthy. They know what's best for you.

However, I think I have a better idea.

Instead of listening to all the important, authoritative, self-certifying, trust-me-because-I-said-so politicians and charlatans, look to their results. Look to their products. Look to their actual outcomes.


The public has this knack of pleading "SAVE ME!" to the very people who will, instead, enslave them.

The people holler to government to protect them, government responds by disarming the people, "for their own protection."

Some jerk kills a bunch of people, and government deflects blame by accusing the killer of "mental illness" and blaming "the system" for not detecting him and stopping him.

Perfect. Government is off the hook, some nebulous "system" is to blame, government regrets that current legislation keeps them from using the "Mental Health" tool. Waits for the public outcry to DO SOMETHING!

"Well, I guess we could tighten up the mental health interface and give the "medical community" greater authority to intercept these "crazy people" before they threaten the "public safety."

Well, what are you waiting for?! DO SOMETHING!

And another piece of our liberty is gone, and government has yet another tool to disarm "undesirables."


Let us not continue to appeal to government and their "experts" to protect us.

Government is genetically wired to accrue unto itself the maximum possible power and control. Government funds those enterprises that aid in the increase of that power and control.

Sure, it's easier to point to some identifiable central authority and demand their intervention, but every such intervention has a cost.

And the currency of that cost is our liberty.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top