WTF!!!!!!!!! NOt again!!!!!!

Hope everything turns out ok!!!!!!

Yes, right to bare arms is in the constitution, but right to bare arms in schools is not......No freagin GUNS in school...period! What part of this do gun owners NOT understanding????

This is insane!

OK Huckleberry. It's happened twice now and both times guns were not allowed on campus. Obivously "No freagin GUNS in school...period!" just doesn't do anything.

Yep, it's the guns for sure, not the mentally insane people that are shooting people with them???

The constitution was misinterpreted. It's "right to bear arms."

Sorry just reminded me of stupid Family Guy...

Definitely not sending my kid to that school

It could happen ANYWHERE, James.

I gotta say...laws are for the people who care. A person willing to shoot a cop is a) willing to obey a sign that says "no guns allowed" or b) willing to ignore said sign.

The only solution I can think of is to automatically double any penalty when a firearm is involved, and REALLY crack down on existing laws. The NRA is as bad as the ACLU types...just the other wing of the nut. When you break a gun law, you need to be seriously punished, so that the gun laws can remain reasonable for those of us inclined to follow them.

I go here (to VT) and this is terrifying. Just in October they found a body (suicide?) at the Duckpond, and now this. Today is Reading Day, so most students are on campus but not in classes, since next week is Finals Week.

As far as gun laws -- we're not allowed to have guns on campus, but clearly that doesn't stop people from bringing them. Even if I had my Concealed weapon permit, I wouldn't be able to bring protection onto campus. The gun laws that are in place now are NOT HELPING ANYONE. This is Southwest Virginia, there are PLENTY of well-trained gun owners on and around campus who could potentially stop things like this. but instead of nipping it in the but, legislators tie our hands so that all we can do is clean up the carnage.

I am a Virginia Tech alumnus who was on the campus a building away from where the terrible shootings occurred a few years ago. This event has significantly shaped the way I think and feel about guns. I am a current concealed carry permit holder registered in the state of Virginia and own two pistols and a rifle of my own. I own responsibly and see it as a necessity as the way human life is treated in today's society. For those calling for a ban on firearms, I understand the visceral reaction you have based on this event, but isn't shooting a police officer illegal? Did that stop this from happening? I am saddened to see this happen to a school that gave me 4 wonderful years.

I love Virginia Tech and it is a great school. Do not rule it out as a bad place because of isolated incidents.

What if you get mad one day and lose your temper to such a dregree that you go on a shooting rampage. What assurance do we have from you that that will NEVER happen? It has happened to others, why not you. What proof can you supply us with that will leave us with no doubt in our minds that you will in no way use your firearms or other "life killing" machines to one day take life?

You can't!!!! So yes, Guns should be banned and their acquisition, transfer, and disposition should be Heavily regulated and violations should be fined extensively!!!

You're right, Judy; it could happen anywhere. But it seems to happen more often at VT.

What? */sarcasm on/ It wasn't a black male suspected of drug dealing? /*sarcasm off/

I guess gun violence comes in all colors after all.

So if no one has guns and only one person has a gun and starts shooting then all are at the mercy of the gunman. If there are other guns the ability to stop the shooter, before 33 people are dead, greatly increases. Now with that being said I wish there was a way to make sure no guns made it on school campuses period. But if you take away guns from law abiding citizens then only criminals and the gov't would have them and none of those scenario's are a good idea.

All inappropriate violence must stop immediately.

WTF!!!!!!!!! NOt again!!!!!!

Hope everything turns out ok!!!!!!

Yes, right to bare arms is in the constitution, but right to bare arms in schools is not......No freagin GUNS in school...period! What part of this do gun owners NOT understanding????

DocHoliday,

Murdering people is against the law in case you didn't know. What makes you think a murderer would obey the law then for "Guns not allowed at school"?

@DocHolliday-2979123: Yes, right to bare arms is in the constitution, but right to bare arms in schools is not......

I firmly believe in the right to bare arms in school -- even in elementary school. I don't see anything at all wrong with a child wearing a short sleeve shirt to school.

(Sorry, I just couldn't let that one get by.)

Starfox - I can guaruntee you that I will never take another life unless mine is absolutely threatened. I do not drink and carry. I do not get upset over pitiful issues and over react at the drop of a hat. I am mentally balanced. I know my limitations. If you want to take my gun away you need to guaruntee me that there will be no gun in the possession of anyone outside of a police officer while on duty (and you can't). There are millions of gun owners that use them responsibly, and I would be willing to bet this person is not a "legal" gun owner.

pfft ..i think the right to BARE arms should be revoked in winter times and everyone should have to properly cover up.

I can not believe some people. Someone goes crazy and shoots people and they blame the guns not the person. If the person would have used a baseball bat would they be trying to ban baseball ? I think we need to STOP blaming the guns and start looking into what drove the person to do it.

Starfox

so when a crazed person drives a car into a group of people we should get rid of all cars.... or idiots bully people on the internet should we burn all computers. Give me a break, guns do not kill people people kill people peroid.

Just out of curiosity, Stanley, how many of those 29,000 gun deaths were caused by "Bible Belt Republicans"?

well starfox, this is the land of "no conviction before the conviction." I have been legal to carry guns for a long time, and never has anyone ever insinuated that it should be illegal because I might lose my temper. Mental health records are precursors to getting a permit though, for all those people who possess a gun legally. The day that happens, we need to start trying people for what they MIGHT do.

Do you text or scratch lottery tickets or operate a cell phone while you drive? You might be a killer.

dano-3878024

Yep, it's the guns for sure, not the mentally insane people that are shooting people with them???

A seriously tired argument... goes right along with "Yep, it's the nuclear armed submarine, not the mentally insane..."

its not rules - its the easy availability of guns. America is like a wild west on steroids.

the second amendment was from colonial days when there was no police force and they rang the church bells to call out the citizens with their hunting rifles to protect people from animals and drunks etc.

The NRA and its mostly repub base of gun nuts gives us a 9-11 almost every month in the 29000 people killded annually by guns in America.

But thats repub capitalism for you - profits over peoples lives.

STOP IT.....JUST STOP IT, STOP IT, STOP IT, STOP IT......WHEN IS ENOUGH ENOUGH. STOP IT DAMMIT. YES - I AM SHOUTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If guns were banned in the US people would be running around shouting "Yeah! We won!" It wouldn't last long though. I give it a week tops.

I wonder what their response would be when someone blows up a building with a home made bomb or goes on a stabbing rampage with a knife or even poisons the air or the water supply and still manages to kill a large group of people? Ban all cutlery and eating utensils except plastic sporks? Ban the sale of all fertilizer? Ban the use of showers and drinking water that doesn't come from a bottle? Then what about electricity and household chemicals and other normal day to day items that can be used to kill? Are you going to ban everything that reduces us to running naked and living in caves? Nope that wont work either because we can still beat each other with rocks and sticks. You going to try to ban those too?

When are you people going to learn that murderers are going to murder? If you take away one tool they will just find another. It's much wiser to deal with these disturbed individuals rather than the tools they use.

I am not against gun ownership (I myself have several). However, I am against concealed carry or open carry within city limits becuase most people (including many police) don't have the skill or level headedness to effectively use a gun for personal protection in public areas. Requiring CC permits attempts to ensure a minimum of proficiency with hand guns, but I have taken a CC course and it by no means prepares you to actually use a gun in a stressful situation with bystanders present. At best those courses ensure that you have enough skill to not accidentally shoot yourself at the gun range.

Stanley, rhetoric like yours is what creates decisiveness. You take a guy who is probably a moderate and polarize him. Politicizing an issue like this is politicizing an issue like this. There are three kinds of lies....lies, DAMNED lies, and statistics.

Just think...if ONE responsible gun owner had been on campus during the VT rampage, he or she could have stopped that psycho, and saved countless lives. Guns are inanimate objects. Hate the criminal, not the tool. Being "against guns" is like being against kitchen knives because someone gets stabbed.

Yeah f*ck that. Outlawing guns with do nothing; banning guns with do nothing (we know that cause they're not allowed on school property and yet there are 2 shootings officially in this school's history). Protect yourselves, carry a gun if you want, but don't suggest banning them. It won't do anything.

Stanley James - you say it's the easy availability of guns that causes crime?! You think guns have some kind of voodoo control of people?! So according to your thinking, if I put a gun in a room with some people...someone is going to pick it up and kill everyone else JUST because it's there? Give me a break. Gun laws DON'T work to combat crime. Trust me, I know first hand.

Looks like this was not really a "campus shooting" with the details so far. It was a routine traffic stop, probably a druggie who was hauling his goods, who shot the officer and then ran onto campus, shot someone else, probably a witness or he wanted his car. In the town I live in, three times in the last twelve years a police officer has been shot and killed during a routine traffic stop. All three were drug dealers, had a rap sheet a mile long, and were carrying illegally. It had nothing to do with any campus. I guess we will see about this one...

Stanley, that number is a little misleading.

16,750 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
11,624 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
649 unintentional shootings, 311 from legal intervention and 235 from undetermined intent (4% of all U.S gun deaths combined).

"Bush passed a law" OR "Obama passed a law" never happened. Folks, Congress passes laws, not presidents. If a law passed during the Bush administration, it was passed by a Congress with a Democratic majority. If a law passed during the Obama administration, it was passed by a Congress with a Democratic majority during the first two years, and with a split majority in the last two years. Let's get the facts straight about who passes the laws in this country.

One writer posted we have 55x the gun death rate of England. This same writer was viscerally against gun ownership. I would point out that firearms have been banned in England, so the fact that they have gun violence at all speaks to the fallacy of banning firearms, does it not? You cannot, in all honesty, blame the NRA. The NRA WANTS existing laws fully enforced, BEFORE adding new laws, as the question arises, what will adding new laws do, if existing laws are not enforced? IF the individual shooter was not previously known to police, meaning he had no criminal record, including domestic violence, then yes, he may well have the right to own a firearm. A question arises with this - what are the carry laws in Virginia, and did he carry legally within the car? On the other hand, it is possible the shooter has a record, but is as yet unidentified. If he has a felony record, he is already carrying illegally, and new gun laws would not have prevented this instance. It is of no use to anyone to go off "half-cocked" about this, without knowing the entire story, which of course, is what these forums are designed for, is for folks who don't have a clue to rant about it, and prove they haven't got a clue. Now, I have carried for over 35 years, from military security career, to a weapons trainer career, to an immigration inspector, through to now, as a private practice attorney who carries concealed, as ex-spouses of clients sometimes like to blame and kill the attorney. I'd rather not die early, so I will continue to carry concealed, to protect myself.

Easy way to solve this is to let Eric Holder handle it people will get guns

its not that hard its the person but VT must have some crazy stuff

going on in the school

Stanley,

you are a ideological fool for politicizing this. You make blanket statements that people who commit these crimes are "fired up by the NRA and millions in profits for the gun industry." What a fool. You do realize that Cho Seung-Hui, the tech shooter, had NOTHING to do with the NRA right? He had nothing to do with money or the rights of gun owners. You do realize that the shooter of Kathy Giffords was essentially a democrat right, since he was enamored with her, saving campaign letters from her, and then feeling rebuffed, he tried to kill her...

Stop blaming republicans for a desire to abide by the constitution and allowing people the right to own firearms.

You bring up HOLDER, WHO IS AN OBAMA APPOINTEE AND DEMOCRAT, who let guns walk to Mexico in hopes that this kind of thing would happen, thus creating an environment where people would be against guns. The vast majority of Americans are fine with law-abiding citizens owning guns, even Democrats. So, take your socialistic values and move yourself to another country...

Try doing a little research first BEFORE posting. Violent crime went UP in DC after the gun ban. Violent crime WENT UP in England when guns were banned (nice try on cherry picking England's gun crimes, DUHH...they have a lower gun crime rate BECAUSE GUNS WERE OUTLAWED, fool). YOUR SILLY argument does NOTHING BUT TAKE GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS.

Your response is EMOTIONAL (which is typical of libs), but not RATIONAL. Criminals will always find guns, and they will ALWAYS use them to kill. The only effective method is to have a populace that is allowed to carry as well, thus creating a fair and level playing field. I thought you libs stood for everyone being equal, everyone the same right? So why are you arguing that we should do away with guns, knowing this will never take guns out of the hands of criminals...

Stanley James: Cars kills more people than that every year. Should we ban them as well?

Mentally ill people and criminals use guns to commit these crimes, maybe we should instantly kill all mentally ill people and criminals to stop this from happening yes?

You talk about Obama and Holder here, who like to sell the guns your denouncing to the mexican cartels and use it as a way to justify more gun legislation here. But guess what, the rules we have are already being broken.

Here's an idea of some unique legislation. Kennesaw, Ga. Records show that Kennesaw crime rates are less than half of US averages. Crime rates declined from 2003 through 2008. What is unique about Kennesaw you may ask yourself. In 1982 the city passed an ordinance.

"... In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore."

with of course the following exceptions

"...Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony..."

So you want to lessen crime and protect public safety...here's some gun control legislation that seems to actually work in deterring crime, preventing problems and promoting safety.

Stanley,

you are a ideological fool for politicizing this. You make blanket statements that people who commit these crimes are "fired up by the NRA and millions in profits for the gun industry." What a fool. You do realize that Cho Seung-Hui, the tech shooter, had NOTHING to do with the NRA right? He had nothing to do with money or the rights of gun owners. You do realize that the shooter of Kathy Giffords was essentially a democrat right, since he was enamored with her, saving campaign letters from her, and then feeling rebuffed, he tried to kill her...

Stop blaming republicans for a desire to abide by the constitution and allowing people the right to own firearms.

You bring up HOLDER, WHO IS AN OBAMA APPOINTEE AND DEMOCRAT, who let guns walk to Mexico in hopes that this kind of thing would happen, thus creating an environment where people would be against guns. The vast majority of Americans are fine with law-abiding citizens owning guns, even Democrats. So, take your socialistic values and move yourself to another country...

Try doing a little research first BEFORE posting. Violent crime went UP in DC after the gun ban. Violent crime WENT UP in England when guns were banned (nice try on cherry picking England's gun crimes, DUHH...they have a lower gun crime rate BECAUSE GUNS WERE OUTLAWED, fool). YOUR SILLY argument does NOTHING BUT TAKE GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS.

Your response is EMOTIONAL (which is typical of libs), but not RATIONAL. Criminals will always find guns, and they will ALWAYS use them to kill. The only effective method is to have a populace that is allowed to carry as well, thus creating a fair and level playing field. I thought you libs stood for everyone being equal, everyone the same right? So why are you arguing that we should do away with guns, knowing this will never take guns out of the hands of criminals...

Stanley,

you are a ideological fool for politicizing this. You make blanket statements that people who commit these crimes are "fired up by the NRA and millions in profits for the gun industry." What a fool. You do realize that Cho Seung-Hui, the tech shooter, had NOTHING to do with the NRA right? He had nothing to do with money or the rights of gun owners. You do realize that the shooter of Kathy Giffords was essentially a democrat right, since he was enamored with her, saving campaign letters from her, and then feeling rebuffed, he tried to kill her...

Stop blaming republicans for a desire to abide by the constitution and allowing people the right to own firearms.

You bring up HOLDER, WHO IS AN OBAMA APPOINTEE AND DEMOCRAT, who let guns walk to Mexico in hopes that this kind of thing would happen, thus creating an environment where people would be against guns. The vast majority of Americans are fine with law-abiding citizens owning guns, even Democrats. So, take your socialistic values and move yourself to another country...

Try doing a little research first BEFORE posting. Violent crime went UP in DC after the gun ban. Violent crime WENT UP in England when guns were banned (nice try on cherry picking England's gun crimes, DUHH...they have a lower gun crime rate BECAUSE GUNS WERE OUTLAWED, fool). YOUR SILLY argument does NOTHING BUT TAKE GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS.

Your response is EMOTIONAL (which is typical of libs), but not RATIONAL. Criminals will always find guns, and they will ALWAYS use them to kill. The only effective method is to have a populace that is allowed to carry as well, thus creating a fair and level playing field. I thought you libs stood for everyone being equal, everyone the same right? So why are you arguing that we should do away with guns, knowing this will never take guns out of the hands of criminals...

What is crazy is the belief that this has any thing to do with responsible, respectable gun owners. Crazy people exist and taking away protection from the rest of the country is not the answer. Does anyone remember reading about Germany or prohibition in the US. The best hope you have is to be able to protect yourself. If you lived on a farm where there are snakes and wild animals killing your live stock you would see the need for guns. I think most students should carry guns then they wouldn't be such easy prey. I wish my chickens knew how to shoot one and since students are gathered together like livestock they need to be protected.

I guess no-one who is against guns can think logically. Seems all these shootings happen in places that are gun free zones. So I guess this can't really happen because the guns are not allowed. The fact of the matter is and the FBI stats prove this out is that places that have tougher gun control laws have higher violent crime rates. Likewise places that allow citizens to protect themselves have lower violent crime rates. I am sure that anytime a shooting spree might be coming up the people don't do it because they think gee I might be breaking the law. As a former LEO I can tell you that most of the rank and file cops in the country go with the stats and support gun carry by legal means.

So many NRA types saying people kill people, not guns. It like the bumper stickers I've seen that say "guns save lives"

more on the FBI figures re guns 2006 29000 died from guns, 1000 legit police shoots. 100 legit self defense.

FOR EVERY PERSON SAVED BY GUNS ABOUT 280 WERE KILLED.

And you cant tell by routine psych tests whose a nut. Many mass killers seemed normal until the seething internal hatred of whatever exploaded.

Or the guy I know whose dad is a small town southern Cop with a two word vocabulary (n-word) and 3 letter F word for gays. this redneck (sri) comes home so I'm told and leaves his gun on the table. Where his 8 year old stepchild or her pals could get at it.

no guns far fewer killings/ We have to start somewherel Otherwise guns more and more to protect against the previous guns becomes A SELF FULFILLING PROPHECY of murder and profit ad infinitum

No wonder again, that our society lose to guns at a population adjusted rate 55x that of England - where while ytou can have hunting rifles and shotguns, its almost impossible to obtain a concealed weapons permit

And their culture is such that most criminals are called "ordinary decent criminals" they might rob you etc, but its almost never that they will use a gun - a personal weapon of mass destruction on a victim.

And of course its the repubs and their shouthern bible belt base who for the most part are the gun owners and dealers.

Kiss America goodbye - its corruptiion extends to masss murder personal weapons of very easy availability

You didn't answer my question, Stanley. How many of those 29,000 murders you say happen every year directly involve what you call "Bible Belt Republicans"?

Stanly James, you are so full of it. I just looked at the FBI statistics and there were 12,996 murders in 2010 total, including gun and non gun murders. Your statics are false and misleading. Even if they were correct, they are irrelevant as you cannot compare the gun/murder statistics of different countries for an even comparison. England had a very low gun murder rate prior to banning guns. Switzerland has more guns than the US and less murders. Why don't you go back to you hole and stop spouting out BS that doesn't help anyone.

How many of those 29,000 are suicides?

What if you get mad one day and lose your temper to such a dregree that you go on a shooting rampage. What assurance do we have from you that that will NEVER happen? It has happened to others, why not you. What proof can you supply us with that will leave us with no doubt in our minds that you will in no way use your firearms or other "life killing" machines to one day take life?

You can't!!!! So yes, Guns should be banned and their acquisition, transfer, and disposition should be Heavily regulated and violations should be fined extensively!!!

starfox7000, do you have a license to drive motor vehicle?

"What if you get mad one day and lose your temper to such a degree that you" drive through a crowd of innocent people?

"What assurance do we have from you that that will NEVER happen?"

When you give up your license to drive, I'll think about giving up my gun permit for which a back ground check against FBI data is performed.

First Place: The NRA is just as much against violence as most everyone. They are getting a bad rap.

Second Place: The Laws of each State MUST be changed to include up to Life for ANYONE carrying ANY weapon that can cause DEATH onto any Campus K-12 and Higher Education.

Third Place: Tighten existing Laws or write new ones regarding the storage and securing of ALL Guns.

Fourth Place: GO AFTER THE BLACK MARKET SELLERS OF WEAPONS. Life imprisonment for these dealers and suppliers. No chance of parole. This includes those doing so at Flea Markets, Stores, etc.

Fifth Place: Restrict access to K-12 and Higher Ed Campuses even more. Install metal detectors at all access points AND USE THEM. AND perform test Lock-Downs at irregular intervals and alert everyone via a Siren or other audible device, and by phone...

Guns do not kill people. People kill people. A gun cannot shoot itself. It is the person behind the trigger that is problem.

If you disagree....sit a gun on your table at home. Make sure nobody touches it and sit there until it kills someone. You will be sitting there until you are dead from not the gun but old age.

Get real people, its not the guns that are killing people its the person using the gun. I personally have several guns and they have never killed anyone. They kill only what I point and shoot them at. Which is at that point not the gun killing something but ME using the gun to kill something.

We need to apply the Chris Rock formula for hand guns, AK-47's and every other freakin weapon that has nothing to do with hunting. Charge $5000 a bullet!!! This would be one way to keep the crazies from killing innocent people.

Armando - I found this link to garner some good data on gun related deaths - both on the shooters and the victims. This doesn't answer the question you are looking for an answer on, but it enables one to draw some conclusions based on facts (somewhat supportive of your question).

One good point reviewed heavily was the clear, high majority of killers - around 75% - were convicted criminals or were awaiting trial. They also had an average of 3-6 adult arrests in their lives before killing. I'm sure some of these came from the pews in church, but i'd bet the clear majority were not taken from the congregation...

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html

Stanley, please read and research BEFORE POSTING YOUR IGNORANT PARTISAN DRIVEL,

Stop lying.

"Compared with the United States of America, the United Kingdom has a slightly higher total crime rate per capita of approximately 85 per 1000 people, while in the USA it is approximately 80.^[39]"Since 1998 (the YEAR AFTER THE BAN), the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%,^[40] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06. English official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries recorded by police had risen more than fourfold since 1998."

"The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent. In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold. In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled. The number of people injured or killed by guns, excluding air weapons, has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent."
Read more: #ixzz1fyUFeFGKRead more: #ixzz1fyU0BteR

From the Washington Times: "The year after the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and gun-lock requirements, the capital city’s murder rate plummeted 25 percent. The high court should keep that in mind today as it hears oral arguments about a Chicago handgun ban.

Gun controllers screamed to high heaven that impending disaster would follow the court’s decision to junk some of the district’s gun controls. One of those screaming the loudest was Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, who incorrectly predicted more gun freedom would lead to more death and Wild West shootouts. Instead, in Washington, murder rates rose when the handgun ban was in effect and fell once the regulations were removed.

Chicago’s 1982 ban faired no better. The forthcoming third edition of “More Guns, Less Crime” shows that in the 17 years after a ban on new handguns went into effect, there were only two years when Chicago’s murder rate was as low as it was in 1982. The Windy City’s murder rate fell relative to America’s other 50 largest cities before the ban and rose relative to them afterward. For example, Chicago’s murder rate went from equaling the average for those other U.S. cities in 1982 to exceeding their average murder rate by 32 percent in 1992. There is no year after the ban that Chicago’s murder rate fared as well relative to other cities as it did in 1982.That increase in murder rates isn’t surprising. Every time gun bans have been tried anywhere, murder rates have risen. Whether one looks at Ireland, Jamaica or England and Wales, the experience has been the same. Not only did murder rates fail to decline as promised, but the rates actually increased following gun bans.In general, gun-control laws disarm law-abiding citizens - not criminals who don’t care about the law. The lesson is that freedom and safety go hand in hand.

I have exposed your LIES AND FALSEHOODS WITH QUANTITATIVE STATISTICAL DATA. PLEASE TAKE YOUR IGNORANCE ELSEWHERE.

Guns don't kill people. People don't kill people. Let's outlaw bullets. </sarcasm>

I'm not an NRA member, I don't own a firearm of any kind any longer, nor do I forsee myself buying one in the future. I don't think guns need to be banned, but existing regulations need to be strictly enforced. Right now you can easily buy a firearm without any kind of background check, just buy it from a "private party".

I find it amusing that so many of you came here just looking to pick a gun control fight. I came here just to see how many people start screaming that it's "NOT THE GUNS FAULT!!" and you didn't disappoint.

By the way, if you can't post a sensible and coherent comment without resorting to calling your fellow posters idiots and the like, stay the f--k of the boards until you can.

Shooting will continue... unfortunatly innocent people will always be the victims here! nor unless we do something about Guns control

I undestand we have the right to own a gun part of the human right we voted for! but if it s this law we legalized is hurting us! are we going to continue supporting this law?

We dont need guns!!! we are safe and better off guns, we have guns to protect ourselves from other people who own guns, if we all didnt have guns we wouldnt worry so much and many lifes will be saved, will congress listen? I dont think so! we have not learned anything yet! our Gov. is more concerned about the money tax revenue that comes from gun purchase than the safety of our own people!

Since we love to have influence on other countries, is this a good influence to pass to other countries? we are leading by disaster nothing more nothing less!

Every time you see something like this on the news, know that we are responsible for this! we created this mess that we are dealing with! we created our own problems and we are paying a big price for it just so we have guns amd be happy but are we happy with guns? if we didnt have guns we would still be happy and things would be a lot easier on us think about it!

Just wanted to chime in on the whole "Let's ban guns to make this whole violence thing go away"

1. Violence occurred before the invention of firearms

2. Bans on firearms have historically led to greater injustice and, in many cases, an increased prevalence of violence.

3. Mexico. How's that ban on firearms ownership treating you?

4. There are close to 300 million firearms in circulation in the united states. You want to make their ownership illegal? Well, First: you just made millions of Americans criminals. Second: good luck rounding up 300 million + firearms; it ain't gonna happen.

5. The second amendment has been upheld in the supreme court time and time again as guaranteeing an individual right to firearms ownership.

6. You think that the ability to fight a government with small arms is impossible and that the 2nd amendment no longer functions as a deterrent to tyranny or hostile government agression? Libya. Vietnam. Syria. Afghanistan.

7. Do firearms make it easier to kill people? Yes. But that balance of power goes both ways.

8. "Gun Town USA" Kennesaw Georgia: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=41196

WMG 21 I hope you dont think like 21 but if you are, you have a lot to learn about where this taking us and how much we have to please 300 million gun owners, all I am saying: if we didnt own a gun it wont be no shooting and many lifes would be saved but I guess

When Gifford was shot there were other people who were armed. One such person stated that he initially started to take out his weapon but reholstered it because he realized that other people including the police could have mistaken him for the shooter and would only have made matters worse.

So on the Va Tech campus, even if other 'students and faculty' were armed the outcome would have been worse as a pitch battle could have resulted, as each armed person would have shot at the other person they saw with a gun, suspecting that the other party was the shooter and visa versa.... etc etc etc.... Factoring in the police arriving on the scene and seeing all these folks with weapons drawn shooting at each other.... could or would shoot back perhaps mistakenly believing that these folks were the actual original shooter or believing that there was more than one shooter. Plus the police swat team are also better shots sooo.....

Massacre anyone????

Anyhoo....this is real life not some fantasy movie or trying to re-live the wild west of yester years.....

So citizens have a right to bear arms.... I am sure the founders were not speaking about the automatic military grade weaponry and large capacity clips that some folks seen to have these days... rather they were talking about muskets and swords....

If they knew what was to come in the future they would probably have stated ...''right to bear arms until the formation of a permanent solution like a standing military at the federal level and a national guards at the state level'' don't you think?

I am sure the founders were not speaking about the automatic military grade weaponry and large capacity clips that some folks seen to have these days.

Automatic weapons have been againt the law since the 1930's (unless you have a federal maching gun permit).

Nor are they oft used in crimes.

If they knew what was to come in the future they would probably have stated ...''right to bear arms until the formation of a permanent solution like a standing military at the federal level and a national guards at the state level'' don't you think?

No. They would have been appalled at the concept of a standing military and redoubled their efforts to protect the rights of individual citizens..

Maxeemas

I guess you will need to apply that logic to cars, trucks, airplanes, basball bats, glass mugs with handles, pool queues, kitchen knives, butter knives, shovels, hoes, pitch forks, rakes, frying pans, irons, ice picks, pointy forks, arrows, heavy boards, pointy sticks, limbs from trees, rocks, uhmm can't think of too many more items but I am certain if some deranged person has a desire to kill after all of that has been removed from utopia I am sure they will do it.

We have plenty of laws already on the books about guns and gun ownership, what we don't have is enforcement of those laws, even the BATFE breaks the laws in the name of gun control. Enforce the existing laws as they are written.

JohnQ1 - Long bows, recurve bows, compound bows, cross bows, scissors, a chair, staircases, the human hand, piano wire, cement shoes, the Ford Pinto, alcohol, all perscription medication, all non perscription illegal drugs, all poisons, broken glass, hand saws, chain saws, band saws, cross cut saws, table saws, drills, drill presses, ropes, chains, belts to hold your pants up, suspenders to hold your pants up, nylon stockings, duck tape, all fires, etc...

This is fun!

I was certain I missed several thank you for your input.

Pens, Pencils, hammers, nails, screws, mallets, machetes, lawn mower blades, bottles, cans, paint cans, paint thiner, ant-freeze, micorwaves, gas heaters, oil heaters, gas stoves, shoe laces, boot laces, shoes, boots, electricity, screwdrivers, wrenches, any building over one story, etc...

Your right concernedone, this is fun!

JohnQ1 and others.. you make no since by comparing Guns with other things relevant to the seriousness of guns and what follow, you may all disagree with me but Guns are kiling us fast but we dont know it yet and I dont think it s gona stop because as you said the laws already came out to back up guns rights to own and not sure if there is a way out of it.

I dont mind owning a gun but when I see these crazy people out there! it makes me want to own one just in case! but if we didnt have them around for those crazy people to use, I woudnt want to own one. We are creating our own problems and blame it on the law we made, it doest make since at all

The "law" you are referring to Mexeemas, is the constitution, which affords citizens the right to bear arms. The federal government can never legally take this right away, the dems can only restrict it...

Guns are not killing us as fast as medical malpractice(doctors), and cars on an annual basis...no one is saying that we should get rid of doctors and cars though...

The difference between high capacity weapons and many of these other 'weapons' is that the high capacity weapons can kill many people at once unlike a bow or piano wire etc or even ''medical malpractice(doctors)'' which kill or may kill persons one at a time etc.... Guns are impersonal while these other weapons are more personal.... ie must be in close contact with or closer than one needs to be with a gun.....

Some folks are trying to pretend that this is an isolated incident. The lucky thing was that there were not more people killed.

If the person killed only the police officer and indeed killed himself then it appears to be a more personal crime. Perhaps there is a history between them? Hmmm

Shootings are not usually that specific are they, and there are either more bodies or injured etc......

Wonder if this case is going to be investigated or is it going to be just ruled as one of these murder/suicide cases? I dare say that everyone would like to know the reason.... if nothing else ... for closure etc...

BZe1

High capacity, assault rifles account for less than 2% of gun violence crimes in this country. Doctors kill more people every day in all 50 states than guns. Cars kill more people every day in all 50 states than guns. Doctors kill more people at one time in all 50 states every day. Cars kill more people at one time in all 50 states every day. Random shootings of cops ARE isolated incidents for ANY of the states. It is very abnormal. Car deaths and malpractice deaths are common in ALL 50 states every day. Those deaths are very 'normal.' Handguns make up the vast majority of gun violence crimes in America, and for those guns, you must get in pretty close. Handguns are accurate only at a close distance...

You ignore the fact that BZe1 made an excellent point. What happens when reports of a shooting come in and when officers arrive they find dozens of civilians with guns pointing in different directions?

What happens when 911 gets a call about a shooting and then receive multiple descriptions of a suspect which match the multiple people at the scene with guns?

What happens when those people see someone with a gun who MIGHT be the shooter and refuses to drop his weapon because he is yet another civilian also looking for a shooter?

Is allowing students to arm themselves legally going to make things safer or will it instead turn an incident into an unholy nightmare for everyone involved? The last person I'd want to be would be the first responding officers and trying to decide who is the bad guy.

Do you want a bunch of students who took a gun safety course and filled out the right forms on the scene trying to make split second decisions usually meant to be made by officers specifically trained in how to respond and even then sometimes make mistakes, to be the ones who decide who lives or dies?

I'm sorry but no. Home owners, store owners and people defending a piece of property. Those should be the ones carrying weapons. We do not need a civilian vigilante ideology in which Joe Plumber going to class or walking down the street feels the need to draw a weapon and play cop. That may not sit well with some people, but considering the alternative it's probably the best we can do.

Your scenario is typical gibberish from those that do not want students to be able to defend themselves. You make it sound like many students will whip out guns and start blazing if there is ever a problem. Not true, the concealed carry holders make up the least criminal demographic in the country. Please name me just one instance in America in which multiple concealed carry permit holders have whipped out there guns, started firing indiscriminately, and caused the cops lots of confusion when they showed up?? Nothing? Yeah, thats what I thought. Your scenario is just fear-mongering. Concealed carry is about protection, DEFENSE. It is about a student being able to lock a classroom door, but if a crazed shooter breaks the door down, maybe the one student in class with a gun might have at LEAST a chance to defend the students. Your argument continues to put students at the mercy of a crazed shooter who WILL ALWAYS BE able to begin his rampage knowing several minutes will pass before cops can get to him. That is precisely why these madmen choose college campuses. THEY KNOW THEY ARE DEALING WITH A DEFENSELESS and UNARMED populace of which there will be many targets. You dont get that? The shooter will always have precious time to kill many people BEFORE help arrives, and yet, you advocate continuing to force kids to be defenseless and leaving them as sitting ducks (which is what the madmen want). Madmen will always exist in our society. ALWAYS.

45 minutes passed from the time this particular gunmen killed the police officer, from the time he was spotted again in a parking lot before he took his one life. That is an enormous amount of time the shooter could have continued his rampage. See, just waiting for the cops does not HELP the students at that momement, only another gun wielded by a student or professor can possibly save these defenseless students in the precious moments before help arrives.

You make it sound as if there would tons of kids walking around with guns ready to have a wild west shootout at the moment of trouble. This is another anti-gun falsehood. The number of people with concealed carry permits have to go through a process, and must be 21 years or older. This means that the only level of student permitted to carry a gun would be seniors or older.

Plus, the data on this subject flies in the face of your argument. Look at DC, Chicago, Australia, and England. All implemented gun bans, and all saw violent crimes rise by astronomical numbers. This further shows that criminals, who will always illegally obtain guns, who know they are dealing with an unarmed populace, will always be more brazen and more likely to commit violent crimes because they know the chances of deadly force returned against them by the citizenry will be minimal.

Chris:

The number of concealed weapon permit holders has vastly increased in recent years. And yet the dire scenarios you suggest have yet to occur.

With over 6 millions concealed weapons permits in the US I have never heard of an instance such as you describe.

Your flights of fancy have no connection with reality.

You ignore the fact that BZe1 made an excellent point. What happens when reports of a shooting come in and when officers arrive they find dozens of civilians with guns pointing in different directions?

What happens when 911 gets a call about a shooting and then receive multiple descriptions of a suspect which match the multiple people at the scene with guns?

This is one of those many things about carrying a weapon that is GREATLY misunderstood by nearly everyone. If you have a good instructional course with a competent instructor, there should never be any question in your mind about this situation:

Your weapon is for YOUR personal protection. You're carrying a gun, not a badge. You haven't taken an oath to uphold the law in whatever jurisdiction you're standing in, and no one is paying you to do so, either. It doesn't make any difference what is going on - if you, personally, are not facing imminent threat of severe bodily injury or death, you keep your gun where it's at.

For one thing, you're not the judge, jury, and executioner. We've got a legal system for that. You can't shoot someone because they committed a crime. That would be depriving them their right to a trial by a jury of their peers. You can shoot someone to stop them from depriving you from your right to life, which they can do by inflicting injury upon you. But you'd better be certain that that's about to happen, because you're likely to have to be explaining it to a jury if there's any question about it.

Secondly, while one is not prohibited from intervening as a third party in a crime being committed against another person, one assumes great personal risk while doing so and unless they happen to be a good friend or a relative, it's definitely NOT recommended. The risk is immense and any action you take besides reporting the incident and being a good witness for the prosecution could cost you dearly. If a police officer does this in the line of duty, he has the municipality that employs him and their insurance carrier standing behind him. Private citizens don't. You're on your own, so why chance it on someone you either don't know or don't know well? It's often the ultimate case of the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

It also appears that "if only the other guy was armed, the offender would have never fired" argument is also failing. Even an armed, trained officer can't prevent the initial transgression. An armed society isn't a polite one, it's a dangerous one.

@DT - So let's just leave our citizens unarmed and let them die anyway. Don't worry about even giving them the chance to defend themselves.

@hokie: The officer was armed. Trained. Dead. How did arming him and training prevent his death or injury?

You attend school in a state that allows the sales of guns at gun shows to felons, the mentally ill, and those who might be predisposed to committing terrorism. I'm not sure the response should be "we need more guns out there."

Than they shoot and kill another bystander accidently. Than what?

@DT There are alot more officers who are Armed, Trained and ALIVE but just keep blaming guns. There are plenty of people who shouldn't be driving but that doesn't seem to bother you.

To all of you saying the officer was armed and that carrying a gun did not help him. A lot of campus police are not allowed to carry weapons. A campus ban includes everyone on campus, students, faculty, staff, and officers. Do any of you in the V Tech area know if this is the case there?

let's address the gun show argument here. Any dealer at a gun show is required to do the same background check as he would at his store. That is a federal requirement. A person selling his privately owned firearm is not required to do a background check. it is a private sale. if he has a bunch of guns for sale, he becomes a dealer. Now, if we ban private sales without a background check, does that mean I have to conduct a background check on my son before I give him a gun? That would be stupid. Yet, that is what those who are trying to close this so-called loophole would demand. There is one movement that would ban all private transfers of firearms. That would preclude me passing my hunting rifle to my son in my will. Also stupid. By the way, you can't sell assault weapons at gun sales, unless both buyer and seller have the federal license for that. Don't even bother arguing with me on that one, because if you do, it will merely show you do not know what an assault weapon is. My Ruger Mini-14 is NOT an assault rifle, even though it has a removable magazine, and I own a 30-rd magazine for it. Don't yap unless you know what you are yapping about.

@DT The officer was approaching the guy for a traffic stop. Would you prefer every time an officer talks to someone, they do it with weapons drawn? He probably had to be very courteous due to the UC Davis fiasco. I am fortunate enough to go to school where guns are not prohibited, I carry every day, and will continue to do far as long as I can. Yes, that does not guarantee me or anyone else from getting hurt, but NOT carrying one- does guarantee that I am at the mercy of any "gun nut" whose cheese falls of their cracker.

The officer was armed. Trained. Dead. How did arming him and training prevent his death or injury?

The vast majority of our servicemembers in Iraq and Afghanistan that have been killed (or wounded) in action were also extremely well armed and trained.

Unfortunately, being trained and armed does not make you invincible.

The first problem is being in a dangerous situation. That increases your risk of harm exponentially.

If you are a soldier or a law enforcement officer, part of your job is occasionally entering dangerous situations where there is a definite possibility of being injured or killed. If you take the job, you accept the risk. If you don't accept the risk, you don't have that job. It's about that simple.

What makes traffic stops dangerous is that as an officer, you really have no idea precisely who you're approaching. You can run the plates and get a name and address, but there's no guarantee that that's who's driving that car. They may have no record, but that doesn't mean they're not a criminal, even if the registered owner is who you're about to confront. Of course, they know, for all practical purposes, precisely who you are: a law enforcement officer with the authority to make arrests. You know that there's a very small chance that the motorist may pull out a gun and shoot you. They know there's a 100% chance that you'll read them their rights and take them into custody if they've committed a crime and you know about it.

A large number of officer shootings, unfortunately, are committed by people who are almost certain that there has to be a warrant out for them for a crime they've committed, when in fact no one knows who did it and no warrant has been issued.

The leading cause of in-the-line of duty fatalities for police officers is still traffic accidents, though. They drive many more miles on roads of all conditions and at all times of the day and night than they confront dangerous criminals in violent encounters.

As Tigor pointed out, owning a gun does not make you invincible. Yet, that is the argument made by those who feel that a better armed citizenry is the key to safety. However, when the well-trained, well armed officers are gunned down, I cannot see the leap that a less-trained populace armed with lethal force will make us more safe. I assume a different position - that lethal force will be inappropriately used more often and with dire consequences to the innoccent.

Shooting will continue... unfortunatly innocent people will always be the victims here! nor unless we do something about Guns control

I undestand we have the right to own a gun part of the human right we voted for! but if it s this law we legalized is hurting us! are we going to continue supporting this law?

We dont need guns!!! we are safe and better off guns, we have guns to protect ourselves from other people who own guns, if we all didnt have guns we wouldnt worry so much and many lifes will be saved, will congress listen? I dont think so! we have not learned anything yet! our Gov. is more concerned about the money tax revenue that comes from gun purchase than the safety of our own people!

Since we love to have influence on other countries, is this a good influence to pass to other countries? we are leading by disaster nothing more nothing less!

No, gun-rights advocates NEVER say that owning a gun makes you invincible. Lets stop making things up. Gun-rights advocates only say that owning a gun MIGHT POSSIBLY AT LEAST GIVE YOU A CHANCE...so you are not simply a sitting duck in a class room.

Maxeemas

Is that all you can post?

Go read #1.63

Okay, folks, let me add this:

A defensive firearm is a piece of survival equipment.

It's purpose is to at least give the person who has it a fighting chance to survive a violent attack, provided that they've held up their obligation to use all 'best practices' in employing it for that purpose and have at least the minimum acceptable level of expertise and proficiency in its use.

Like other safety and survival equipment, it is far from infallible. If it is not maintained or used properly, or its use is attempted by an unqualified individual, it will probably fail in its intended purpose at best, and become an extreme hazard to the bearer and those nearby at worst.

Seat belts are a great piece of survival equipment. They're useless if you don't wear them, and they'll hurt you very badly - maybe even kill you - in a collision of 130 mph, assuming they're normal OEM belts and not a specially designed racing harness. For them to work, you need to do your part and 1) use them and 2) try to avoid having to fall back on them (drive defensively) and 3) don't do anything stupid like driving recklessly and going twice the legal speed limit. The analogy with a defensive weapon: 1) have it immediately accessible at the moment you need it (often easier said than done), 2) stay alert and steer clear of situations where you may need to defend yourself to minimize your risk exposure, and 3) don't go starting trouble by getting directly involved in bad situations not already affecting you and don't be picking any fights.

Military personnel often train for survival situations. Arctic survival, desert survival, water survival, POW survival, etc. The whole idea is to give the service member a fighting chance should they eventually find themselves in such situations. The reality, though, is that when you're stuck in such bad situations, odds are excellent you're not going to make it through. You might - attitude is everything - but what most people actually get from survival training is an understanding of how badly they want to avoid having to use that training in the first place. The training isn't fun, and the real crisis situations are absolutely the dumps!

If you have to use a gun in self defense, you may or may not survive the situation. Generally, you'll default to your level of training and experience and a lot of it will based heavily on circumstances and luck...sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats you. At the minimum, expect a major hassle in getting everything settled - whether anyone is physically harmed or not. At the most, assuming that you've survived, expect anywhere from a few months to several years of living hell to follow.

I guess whether or not that's worth it is entirely up to you if you're deciding whether or not you might want to use a firearm for self defense purposes.

here we go again. Your trashing out our first amendment right. Why are all the above comments collapsed. I read thru them and none of them were any worse than others I have read. Is this the government. Who does this? It is totally wrong to collapse these comments. I want answers now and I am sure the rest of the readers do also. Wake up moderators !!! RON PAUL 2012.

JohnQ1 : get a new life

The officer was armed. Trained. Dead. How did arming him and training prevent his death or injury?

How would armed bystanders prevent the same? It wouldn't. No one could have prevented this death, but imagine the scene when cops arrive to find a dead cop and a dead civilian (the shooter) and a bunch of people with guns out. The cops won't know the dead guy was the shooter at first, but I can sure imagine what would happen if one of those armed bystanders failed to put their gun down fast enough. Instead of 2 dead, we'd have a few more corpses, victims of their right to bear arms.

And with the high numbers of concealed weapons permits in the US have you ever heard of the scenario that you describe having happened?

And with the high numbers of concealed weapons permits in the US have you ever heard of the scenario that you describe having happened?

You have no idea how many concealed carry permits have been issued in the US, neither does myself or anyone else. The NRA has fought for years to prevent a national database that would collect that info.

From its beginnings in the 1980s, the “right-to-carry” movement has succeeded in boosting the number of licensed concealed-gun carriers from fewer than 1 million to a record 6 million today, according to estimates from gun-rights groups that are supported by msnbc.com’s research.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life/#.TuUb12NFudA

I'll ask again, how many examples of "the scene when cops arrive to find a dead cop and a dead civilian (the shooter) and a bunch of people with guns out." can you come up with?

How many situations have occurred where all the civilian bystanders have been armed? None. My scenario is based on a "what if". What happens when a cop pulls up to a scene and 2 people are shooting at each other? Who's the bad guy and who's the law abiding armed civilian? How does the officer make that determination? You would have them all conceal-carrying and how would that make things better? You are correct in that this situation hasn't occurred, but if enough others like you have their way, it's a possibility.

And before you attempt to call me out as a gun hating fool, I spent 13 years in the military and own both a .22 and a M1911, so I personally have no issues being a gun owner. What I do have issues is with an entire population that's allowed to carry them around anytime they like. There are plenty of people with a legit reason and need to carry, but I can think of 100 times as many who should not have that option. For those folks, keep them at home.

imagine the scene when cops arrive to find a dead cop and a dead civilian (the shooter) and a bunch of people with guns out. The cops won't know the dead guy was the shooter at first, but I can sure imagine what would happen if one of those armed bystanders failed to put their gun down fast enough.

As stated in my comment at 1.74, properly trained CCW licensees who stick to that training will be keeping their guns holstered unless they personally are in a bona fide jeopardy situation. Merely hearing loud popping noises that may be shots fired somewhere isn't good enough. Seeing someone with a gun doing the shooting might be, but unless you're a cop, the preferred course of action is to remove yourself to a safer location and only use your gun if that becomes impossible or if the person brandishing a weapon in public ends up following you so you can't reach a 'safer' place.

You have no idea how many concealed carry permits have been issued in the US, neither does myself or anyone else. The NRA has fought for years to prevent a national database that would collect that info.

There are quite a few permits issued, but very many, likely even the majority, are not actively used. Having a permit has some other benefits that can be worthwhile, and some people maintain one just for those reasons instead of having it just so they can carry a gun in public. For one thing, it offers some legitimacy to a person who keeps a gun for home defense, although one is not needed for that. It does effectively prove that the bearer has some modicum of training and responsibility that someone without a permit may not be expected to have, and this can be helpful in the aftermath of using a firearm to save one's self from a housebreaker. Additionally, in some states, if you have a permit to carry a weapon, presenting it to a Federal Firearms License holder (a dealer) absolves you from having to submit to yet another National Instant Check System background check because your background was checked when you were issued the permit. And, as a mentor of mine often points out, they're not overly expensive and it's 'just something you can have'. I have licenses and certifications that I really don't use, but they're nice to have. A lot of teaching certificates issued never got used, a lot of people who hold Private Pilot's Certificates haven't flown a plane in years. I keep renewing my first aid and CPR certifications but to date, I've never had to use either!

Well said post, the TiGor

Hey Liberals go away...I hope everything is ok. Best of luck to you and your sons' safety.

Is Virginia Tech some kinda looney magnet?

Comment edited and erased. Not the appropriate time for my particular comment. My apologies. My prayers are with those involved.

What makes you think the police officer was not armed?

That's not true. I grew up in Blacksburg. Yeah, it's pretty red out there but the worst people for shooting first and asking questions later are the Montgomery County police, not the average citizen. Especially Blacksburg, where it's mostly college kids and college professors.

You don't shoot someone who doesn't himself have a gun. I don't think they would be "horsing around" with firearms. And if they were they deserve to be in the next Darwin Awards anyway.

The standing military we have now was never supposed to exist. The only military we were supposed to have was the militias. The second ammendment isn't invalid, the standing army is according to the supreme law of this land.

I hope your arrogance keeps you cozy when you've got no civil rights left, Mr. Progressive.

On campus, yes, very progressive and intelligent, same here at UVA. Off campus, redneck rifle lovers, driving their beat up pickups with confederate flags and bumper stickers reading "You can take my guns from my cold dead hands" and also, for some reason, Calvin peeing on either a Ford or Chevy Logo. For most of these folk, the closest they ever came to college was living in a town that had one. The uneducated are typically the ones that feel they need firearms to be free, incidentally, the weak minded are typically the first to resort to violence.

This is NOT a Virginia Tech problem. This is happening in schools all across America. College, High School, Elementary Schools!

Cvilleguy,

Great thing about the State of Virginia and the UVA campus . . . no fences. If you don't like it there, LEAVE. Your bashing of the off campus citizenry shows your sense of elitism and arrogance.

Nope. The 2nd states that a well regulated militia is necessary to control government therefore the right to bear arms shall not be abridged. This means that, since to create a militia people need be armed, the government shall not deny it's citizens the right to own guns. A subtle difference, perhaps, but a vital one. Criminals laugh at gun laws. What is an extra year or two compared to the robbery/murder etc. they are arrested for. On the other hand, the average person who runs afoul of the tangled web of laws in this country gets to spend a year or two in prison, to them a big deal. Eliminate the root causes of gun violence and the problem will pretty much vanish.

The weak minded start violence. There's nothing wrong with defending yourself. Also there's nothing wrong with beat up trucks, confederate flags, or bumper stickers that say "You can take my guns from my cold dead hands". There IS something wrong with being an elitist who looks down on others for being hard-working, civil rights loving Americans. The people you're talking about are my friends. They're good people. They're smart people. They're educated people. In fact, I think they're probably a lot smarter than you because they at least realise the need to protect your family and they're probably better people than you because they don't go around looking down their noses at people for what kind of vehicle they drive. Where did you learn to be such a snob? Go move to France if you want to think you're better than the salt of the earth.

Here in the city of Charlottesville, life is great, a progressive Utopia, if you will. Would never want to leave. A short drive out of town, however, is a very different world. A sad world where ignorance, hate, intolerance and self destruction runs rampant. We see it in most of rural America, people who tell us that the government shouldn't help people, but scream bloody murder when someone suggests taking their government assistance away. Afterall, a very large part of government assistance is paid to these folks in red states who insist that the government is evil. They go to little Teabagger rallies and tell government to back off and stop redistributing wealth, when statistics show that a great deal of wealth is redistributed in their direction.

PS "On campus, yes, very progressive and intelligent" Did you not get the part where I said I grew up in Blacksburg? I know you're making this up because I lived there. Also, where do you think all those people go when they're not in class? Maybe some of the kids stay in dorms but it's not like they professors and their spouses and their kids live in dorm rooms? Also, saying "on campus" about Blacksburg is basically saying "not in Christiansburg" because the campus basically takes up the whole city. This is how I know you've probably never even been to Blacksburg you fabricator.

Yes ... it's a looney magnet surrounded by low-life rednecks. Yes, most people, including the state legislators love the Confederate flag and consider confederate generals demi-gods. I've been wanting to go back to school (moved near here few years ago), but I'm glad I didn't decide to go here. This has been going on for a long time. There are other killings here that have not received as much press, including a beheading in the cafeteria about 2 years ago or so. Can't wait to leave this place ... I'm still trying. It's like being stuck in the middle of the movies "Deliverance" or "Wrong Turn."

Let's bring cultural differences into this, that's great. I'm 15 minutes away from VT, was present for the 2007 events, and your bigotry and insensitivity is absolutely disgusting, Mr. Charlottesville. No, I have no idea why this happens here. It is heartbreaking. Also, a male in a maroon VT hoodie and sweatpants, wearing a bookbag and hat with neon green brim, is NOT an off campus redneck rifle lover. If you posted such a horrid comment detailing your prejudice toward another cultural group, say black people, you would be slaughtered by the internet hordes. Love how hurtful, damaging, and absolutely incorrect comments about rural folk are completely allowable. Several of those local redneck police officers are out there risking their lives (and losing them) while your uninformed, yuppie-centric self is sitting behind your iPad spewing hatred and ignorance. There are two now dead. Let's focus on that.

Yes, I used "on campus" as a very general term, I would say the same thing, essentially, is true here in Cville, the university pretty much takes up the whole town, as it does in Blacksburg/Christiansburg. We're debating semantics here because you're upset about what I said about your friends. I would guess it stings the most because you know it to be true. These people are typically not well educated, as you suggested. They are mostly led by emotion and indoctrination by the likes of hatemongers such as the late Jerry Falwell, just a short drive away.

Aislynn, I have no problem with the police, and respect all that they do. They chose an honorable profession and deserve every penny they earn, if not more, as long as they obey they laws they enforce.

Funny you'd mention hatemmongers. Hypocrisy much?

Camille and Rob

It's not that V Tech is a looney magnet. It is just when there is someplace that gets into the news for something like this, all those nut jobs who want their 15 minutes will flock there since it is assured that the incident will get in the news because of what happened there previously.

I may be completely wrong, but a neon green hat is kind of a give away of someone most likely dressed in VT garb to blend in on campus. I mean, who wears a grey hat with a neon green brim? Again, so sad that 2 are dead, but chances are this person did not belong on campus, and my guess is he has an agenda.

I get the impression, Cvilleguy78, that you don't really interact with "rednecks" on a regular basis, seeing them as below you.

Armando,

Your impression is, for the most part, correct. I actually descend from rednecks, and worked hard to make myself a better, more civilized person than they are.

How many generations?

How do we identify a redneck? I am an attorney. I have a bachelor's degree in history, a doctorate in law. I have been a federal immigration officer. I served in the Armed Forces. I drive a battered old pickup. I wear jeans and cowboy boots. When I am in court, I still wear cowboy boots, but I shine them up first, and put on a nice suit. On an average day, I wear a battered brown cowboy hat, on court days and to church, I wear a nice black cowboy hat. Some days I carry concealed. Some days I carry openly. I have a permit to carry concealed, but my state says I can also carry openly, I just have to have the permit if I am going to hide the gun. Maybe I am a redneck attorney. Regardless, I am not the uneducated hick that certain folks seem to think rednecks are. I am probably better read, and better educated than 90% of the population, and that isn't bragging, just facts, and I still think government is too big, and we have the right to own and carry firearms. Which of your pigeonholes do I fit in?

Ayslinn, there is nothing wrong with stating obvious facts. You don't like the message so you attack the messenger. No where in Cvilleguy's post does he indicate that "rednecks" are in any way beneath him. You instead made the assumption that is how he feels. Which is typical of the type of people he is describing, people who operate out of emotion instead of slowing down and getting all of the facts. I live in Kansas, it doesn't get any more redneck than here, and people here, over all, do stupid stuff. These people, for the most part, cannot see beyond the end of their nose, make decisions on "gut" feelings instead of an examination of facts, and always gripe about the government while they cash their welfare and farm subsidy checks. You will excuse me for not thinking that these people are the smartest folks consuming air and space.

Jon, you're no more a "redneck" than you can flap your arms and fly. You might be a Texan though. just kidding.

No where in Cvilleguy's post does he indicate that "rednecks" are in any way beneath him.

Yes, he did. Cvilleguy said that he

worked hard to make myself a better, more civilized person than they are.

Jon,

you would be an educated person of rural descent. One's definitition of the term "redneck" can vary. Typically, it refers to a poor, white trash, who generally have an unjustified superiorty complex (whether it be white supremacy, religious or confederate pride.) They are often uneducated, very opinionated and tend to vote against their better interests (if they vote at all, although, to be fair, most states don't allow felons to vote, and "redneck" status tends to come with a felony or two.)

Armando,

Nah, I didn't say they are beneath me, at least not biologically. They make choices I would never make, and I would never choose to deliberately spend time with them as the things they say and do would generally disgust me. They tend to lack that filter between the brain and mouth, and too many stupid thoughs make their way to the surface.

Most "rednecks" are probably just poor clod-busting farmers, who are content to farm the ground and raise the food you eat. Actually, the farmers I know are richer than the university professors here (yup, I live in a university town). And, yes, the farmers, although they are richer, are also more conservative. They are also educated, as farming is, today, getting fairly high-tech. Still, before I gave up my previous life to become an attorney, I was sort of a farmer - I was a beekeeper on the side. Only had 20 hives, but they made money for me. Some folks live a hardscrabble life, qualify as rednecks to some of you, but they love their life even so. Honest truth, I love sitting in a warm kitchen in the evening, shooting the breeze with a local farmer friend. Good, honest conversation over a hot cup of coffee, homemade bread. Call him a redneck if you will, but I doubt he'd want your life, either.

Cvilleguy78

There are a lot of good hardworking people out here that are proud to be called rednecks. No we are not uneducated slobs, white supremacists, or any of the other types of people you perceive us to be. You say that "They tend to lack that filter between the brain and mouth, and too many stupid thoughs make their way to the surface." Just by that statement sir you seem to have lost your filter in reading several of your posts.

Two people were killed today in an act of violence. My heart goes out to their families. This very same act could have happened with just about anything someone decided to use as a weapon.

Oh...Served cville...Assumptions make an ass out of you and me...Looks like you percieve something wrong again...Like when you called me a Right winger...But thats okay...You aren't a rube...Like everyone else huh?

Nicely said John Q1...And yes..This is another tragic event that bruises all of society...Like a ripple in the pond of life it will effect many.

RIP to the officer...

both victims are deceased. The police officer and the 2nd victim they found in the Cage. My concern is that if the shooter got intot he Cage, he might be stealing a car, and who knows what kind of vehicle he'll be in.

It says a cop was possibly shot....

The School's website says a cop was shot and potentially one other person.

possibly... potentially... my point is, particularly if you saw the break-in coverage on TV, even before the acknowledgement of an officer shot, headlines and commentary was borderline sensationalism to connect "shots fired" to the tragedy of a few years back. News should be reporting facts not enticing readership and viewership.

I think the cop is dead. The report above now says the cop is reported dead, and CNN tv just showed what looked like a body covered in a white tarp.

Schools are not safe any more these days!

Cop and another person both dead.

yeah so why would that comment be so offensive to you

Virginia tech has a history

Virginia Tech is not a shooting school. It has unfortunately had 2 people, including today, who for some reason, went crazy. My son is there right now. Instead of calling VT names, please pray for those who are there right now. This person is still on the loose, the police officer and the other victim are both dead.

Liberals is responding to every post that way it seems. I guess no one should post their opinion. Oh wait, its an opinion board. darn... lets see what else could be a solution.... Oh yes, how about you get offline and get involved with what's happening at the school??? Unless of course your one phone call is the extent of your concern.

since not all the information is in, is it possible that the second person found shot might be the original shooter? Sometimes, a person commits a crime, flees, then suicides. I think I will wait. As for cops getting shot, they normally do not approach a car with their gun already drawn, while the person in the car could be waiting to kill. I know in some areas, the police would like to have all glass on a car be fully clear, so they can see better as they approach, yet we have many vehicles with very dark glass. How is an officer supposed to identify danger?

yeah there's a good idea on lots of levels.

Hitler did!!!!! Maybe here after the next election turns blood red.

No, we would regress back into the 1800's again.

The police officer was armed, so what is your point? He needed more than one gun???WTF

another nonsense post.

If everyone was armed with a conceled pistol the criminals would not be as brave, they might get someone that is brave enough to shoot back.

I totally agree. We are only as free as we are able to defend our rights and our lives.

OUTRAGEOUS!!!! Most people who own guns are not trained to evaluate or react to a situation where their life is in danger from someone with a firearm. Talk to someone who's had a gun pulled or used on them. the amount of time you have is smaller than you might think and it's not as easy to aim under those circumstances. This is not a VTech problem, this is a societal problem

Several people in the AZ Safeway parking lot were armed when Jared Loughner shot people, including Gaby Giffords. It made no difference. They were either out of position, had no time to react, or froze.

Just because some people are armed, it doesn't mean that guns are effective deterrents.

I shoot occasionally myself, but I do not subscribe to the belief that arming everyone makes us safer.

If EVERYBODY had two firearms, it's likely a lot more people would be hurt or injured. By they way, the cop that was killed, was he not armmed? Not likely. As another poster pointed out, the average gun owner is not trained to know when and how to use that weapon in a crisis situation. Of course, the uneducated morons will tell us "guns don't kill people, people kill people." While there is some truth to this, guns make it a whole hell of a lot easier for bad people to kill others. Then others will say, well these are just disturbed people, psychos. I ask then, why does the right wing and NRA try to block laws that would prevent the mentally ill from purchasing and owning firearms? If we exuse the gun by saying the owner is crazy, we must ask, could this crazy mofo have done as much damage with a pointy stick?

sgthardman,

you say that criminals would be less brave if everyone were armmed because they might come upon a victim that's willing to shoot back. I disagree, I say more innocent people would be killed by pulling guns. Let's say a robery takes place, the victim is not likely to be shot, untill he pulls a gun and makes himself an immediate threat to the robber.

Michael-3640898, WTF indeed. My post was sarcasm. Members of the NRA and GOP will look you straight in the face and tell you we need more guns to prevent this from happening.

This is your WELL REGULATED MILITIA. Is it as well regulated as the constitution says it should be?

Just the facts, libs, just the facts...

"Compared with the United States of America, the United Kingdom has a slightly higher total crime rate per capita of approximately 85 per 1000 people, while in the USA it is approximately 80.^[39]"Since 1998 (the YEAR AFTER THE BAN), the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%,^[40] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06. English official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries recorded by police had risen more than fourfold since 1998."

"The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent. In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold. In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled. The number of people injured or killed by guns, excluding air weapons, has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent."
Read more: #ixzz1fyUFeFGKRead more: #ixzz1fyU0BteR

From the Washington Times: "The year after the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and gun-lock requirements, the capital city’s murder rate plummeted 25 percent. The high court should keep that in mind today as it hears oral arguments about a Chicago handgun ban.

Gun controllers screamed to high heaven that impending disaster would follow the court’s decision to junk some of the district’s gun controls. One of those screaming the loudest was Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, who incorrectly predicted more gun freedom would lead to more death and Wild West shootouts. Instead, in Washington, murder rates rose when the handgun ban was in effect and fell once the regulations were removed.

Chicago’s 1982 ban faired no better. The forthcoming third edition of “More Guns, Less Crime” shows that in the 17 years after a ban on new handguns went into effect, there were only two years when Chicago’s murder rate was as low as it was in 1982. The Windy City’s murder rate fell relative to America’s other 50 largest cities before the ban and rose relative to them afterward. For example, Chicago’s murder rate went from equaling the average for those other U.S. cities in 1982 to exceeding their average murder rate by 32 percent in 1992. There is no year after the ban that Chicago’s murder rate fared as well relative to other cities as it did in 1982.That increase in murder rates isn’t surprising. Every time gun bans have been tried anywhere, murder rates have risen. Whether one looks at Ireland, Jamaica or England and Wales, the experience has been the same. Not only did murder rates fail to decline as promised, but the rates actually increased following gun bans.In general, gun-control laws disarm law-abiding citizens - not criminals who don’t care about the law. The lesson is that freedom and safety go hand in hand.

UK 2010 Gun murder total: 14

US 2010 Gun murder total: 9,396.

I rest my case.

yakfitguy, you are obviously using skewed stats there. You are obviously not taking into account total populations.

WOW. Did you selectively miss the entire post before yours??? Nah...

Here is a bit of it, again...:

"Compared with the United States of America, the United Kingdom has a slightly higher total crime rate per capita of approximately 85 per 1000 people, while in the USA it is approximately 80.^[39]"Since 1998 (the YEAR AFTER THE GUN BAN), the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%,^[40] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06. English official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries recorded by police had risen more than fourfold since 1998 (the year after the gun ban)."

Your statistics fail. I rest my case.

Nope, read it all. Source is Interpol. Mixing overall crime rate statistics (which, I admit, is high in England these days, vast majority being muggings and knife attacks), to indicate gun crime rates, is misleading. Gun crimes (as in gun possession, illegal trafficking, illegal gun dealing, and brandishing a weapon make up the VAST majority of these crimes), are up.

Guns have been banned in England (except sporting clubs, where they are under lock and key), for a long, long time. I know, I lived there years ago. 1903 Pistol Act and the 1920, 1927 and 1968 Firearms acts did that. You have always needed a special permit to carry a firearm and it was severely restricted. The 1997 ban you are referring outlawed target shooting and replica firearms. However, you can still get that special PPW permit.

The murder statistics in England speak for themselves. The statistics you cite can be lifted right off the NRA and Gunowners.org websites. It's a sad attempt to create the illusion that the rest of the world is just as violent and that a lack of guns is to blame. It's ludicrous.

If you want more proof, I have it.

Yakfitguy,

No, it would seem that your argument is rather skewed, again. I made the correlation, that England's most restrictive ban, of handguns and other longguns in1997, show a direct correlation with the rise of violent crime from 1997 to now. That is the statistical fact. The most widespread gun ban in English history was followed by a very large increase in violent crime there. See, objectivity, no spin, as you so falsely accuse me of.

"The current licensing procedure that existed and still does to an extent today involves: positive verification of identity, two referees of verifiable good character who have known the applicant for at least two years (and who may themselves be interviewed and/or investigated as part of the certification), approval of the application by the applicant's own family doctor, an inspection of the premises and cabinet where firearms will be kept and a face-to-face interview by a Firearms Enquiry Officer (FEO) also known as a Firearms Liaison Officer (FLO). A thorough background check of the applicant is then made by Special Branch on behalf of the firearms licensing department.Any person who has been sentenced to three years or more in prison is automatically banned for life from obtaining a firearms licence.^[10] Similarly, persons applying for licences with recent, serious mental health issues will also be refused a certificate." Hmm, wow, sounds almost exactly like what persons here deal with. You cannot argue that guns were not a big deal in England for many citizens and that it is much easier in the US to obtain firearms. The background check, the no-felony convictions, etc are all used here in America. There is just no subjective things like an interview or 'referrals on one's character' which trounce the rights we have from our Constitution, WHICH IS WHY WE BROKE FROM ENGLAND IN THE FIRST PLACE: FREEDOM, RIGHTS.

" Following the Dunblane massacre, the government passed the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 which means that as of 1997 handguns have been almost completely banned for private ownership, although the official inquiry, known as the Cullen Inquiry, did not go so far as to recommend such action.^[29] Exceptions to the ban include muzzle-loading "blackpowder" guns, pistols produced before 1917, pistols of historical interest (such as pistols used in notable crimes, rare prototypes, unusual serial numbers and so on), starting pistols, pistols that are of particular aesthetic interest (such as engraved or jewelled guns) and shot pistols for pest control. On 31 December 1996, prior to the large calibre handgun ban, there were 133,600 FACs on issue in England and Wales; by 31 December 1997 it had fallen to 131,900. The following year, after the .22 handgun ban, the number stood at 131,900. On 31 December 2001, five years after the large calibre ban, the number had fallen to 119,600 and 117,700 the following year" You see there is no mention of target shooting and replica firearms, other than the ones explicitly listed above that ARE STILL LEGAL. (oops, there eh?)..this would seem to fly in the face of your argument, especially when you say "guns have been banned in England (except sporting clubs, where they are under lock and key) for a long long time." It would seem that the data speaks for itself...

Read the excellent The Telegraph article on the subject, written by Tom Whitehead. There is absolutely no evidence connecting the rise in gun crimes to the 1997 Firearms act. Like I said, NRA B.S. There are other factors though, such as the recession, immigration, urban decay in places like Manchester, etc.

I again point to gun deaths between the US and UK, an obvious statistic, from official sources, you simply chose to ignore.

Can't help you with that. If you're arguing that somehow England's crime rate is up due to firearms restrictions, you obviously were never British ( I was). It's simply not true. It makes absolutely no sense.

That is a counter-intuitive argument, and you know it. America's population? 311 million. England's population? 52 million. America has more guns by default, due to America's right to own firearms. Add in the massive disparity in population and millions of guns in America, and sure, the statistics skew to England having less gun violence. My argument still remains. REMOVING GUNS FROM THE GENERAL POPULACE ONLY TAKES GUNS AWAY FROM LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. (The percentage of law-abiding legal gun owners in America committing violent crimes with guns is tiny). THUS CRIMINALS, WHO WILL ALWAYS OBTAIN A GUN IF THEY CHOOSE, KNOW THEY ARE DEALING WITH AN UNARMED POPULACE. THAT IS WHY VIOLENT CRIME STATISTICS IN ENGLAND DIRECTLY CORRELATE WITH THE EXPANISVE GUN BAN OF 1997. That is why violent crime went up in DC after the gun ban, and then went back DOWN after the Supreme Court ruled the ban was unconstitutional. That is also why violent crime went UP in Chicago after the ban. The quantitative statistical analysis speaks for itself, regardless of your attempt to justify or rationalize your position...The studies and data just do not support it...

UK 2007 car deaths total: 2,946

US 2007 car deaths total: 41,059

I rest my case.

Your case being that we should now ban cars in the US?

Clearly that is what the numbers indicate. And we don't even have a constitutional issue with banning cars.

Well, can't argue with numbers. Down with all cars and sue the automobile makers.

LOL!!! Nice play, badchess.

Clearly we should ban doctors (malpractice) and cars, since they both kill more people in the US every year than guns....

A man was killed in my hometown last week with a chair. Yep, a burglar broke into an old man's home, the man smashed a chair onto the burglar's head, and the burglar died. Oh, the HORROR!!! Think of all the chairs sitting in classrooms and offices across America!! They must be removed immediately before they can hurt anyone else!! LOL!!!!

Was it an "assault" chair?

How many legs did it have?

Clearly chairs with more than 3 legs should be against the law.

No, you are paying for the education, and you're a fool if you think this is the fault of the University.

that he has no friends?

jrpage - I think it may have started as a traffic stop. But to blend in and get away he walked through campus grounds blending in. That's how I read it.

Good luck to the school and students.

I wonder if this could be the same guy that the camp kids saw in the summertime. I don't know if they ever found that person or not.

To make his get-away or for entering the campus. CRIMINALS have been known to exit their vehicle and run away. In this case he shot the police officer and ambled away -- no immediate need to run. PS: Maybe that backpack is holding more weapons or ammo, or both, or some illegal drugs for sale on campus????? Who KNOWS at this stage.

I've considered that it may be connected.

Couldn't agree more. I live in HUD housing (low income) and it scares me to death the fact that we can't own firearms here (apparently you can't protect yourself in government subsidized housing...complete violation of the 2nd ammendment) due to some stupid government regulation. If somebody were to walk into here with the intent to do serious harm...it would NOT end well for any of the tenants. The problem with firearm regulations in general is that if you overregulate, then only the criminals have guns, and the law-abiding citizens don't.

This gun thing is such a polarizing issue. It seems we just can't agree. I've got an idea. Instead of each side trying to convince the other that he is right, why don't we put pro-gun and anti-gun on opposite sides of the country and see where the most deaths occur. I wonder how THAT would go down. Any thoughts?

Hey newswinner101 - everytime that HUD ban on ownership in low income housing has been challenged in court, the rule has been tossed. Low income housing areas cannot require you to surrender a constitutional right in order to live there. Check your state laws, they may have preempted that rule, or there may be a court case challenging it in your state, and the local administrator is either unaware, or unwilling to admit he is wrong.

Hey Jon, I live in Iowa and I did not know that. I will look into it, thanks. Do you know where specifically to look for it at? I've spent the last 30 minutes on google and I have not been able to find anything on it. I did find something from a lawyer mentioning something along the lines of "Constitutional rights trump private rights always" though. Would I need to challenge this decision in court or something?

Newswinner101. Not sure where you'd find it for Iowa. I do know Iowa recently changed it's concealed carry and some other laws (I am in South Dakota, often am in Sioux City). See if you can find your state statutes, possibly just type in Iowa State Statutes, see what pops up. Many states have "preemption" laws, which mean local governments like cities and counties cannot pass laws that usurp state laws. These are often geared specifically toward firearm laws. Check also your state judiciary site, often these sites will have the case law listed, although searching for them can be tough. Constitutional rights are often private rights, that is what the bill of rights was mostly about - ensuring privacy rights.

So running red lights/stop signs, speeding, and other "petty bull crap" would all be OK to do? Is that what you're suggesting?

(BTW...the traffic stop wasn't the cause of the shooting. They guy pulling the trigger was.)

Stop running red lights and speeding Eddie, and you won't have that perspective. Clearly the cop was right in pulling this guy over, being that he was ready to shoot.

Even if it was petty bs he was being pulled over for, the response is to shoot? Nothing, certainly not being stopped for a traffic violation, justifies that.

This is only the fault of the person with the gun who chose to shoot it.

At least your handle admits to your immaturity. But I guess your right if you get stopped by a police officer for a traffic stop the first thing you should do pull out your gun and shot him or her. Jerk!

eddie eddie eddie u so bright I gotta wear shades..

Do you WANT more morons driving down the street. Traffic Stops actually has deterred illegal driving across the country. Drive sanely and you probably will never be stopped. Drive insanely and you probably will be stopped. If you call it hassling, then you MUST be guilty of driving insanely!~~~

probably got out of the car so as not to be identified cause of the car.

Same here, traffic stop but seen with backpack and walking away. Did he abandon the vehicle? This might be a case of chaos making people report things eroneously. CNN tv is showing pictures. They just showed what looked like a body covered with tarp. I can't be sure so don't quote me.

I can see that.

Maybe he was breaking into peoples cars! Or maybe he was waiting for a customer for his drug dealing and did not want to get caught with drugs and have his life destroyed....he destroyed it now!!!

When an officer makes a stop, before he approaches the car he will report in the make, model, and license number of the vehicle. The shooter obviously knew this. So, he abandoned the car. I would have thought he'd have driven it away from the scene, then abandoned it, where folks would not have noticed one more car being parked and the driver walking away. Now THAT might have slowed down the investigation further. There'd be no description of the shooter.

well, they do have the highest % of mentally ill. take you for example.

A tax is a fine for doing good.....a fine is a tax for doing bad!

wow nothing like the far right extremists showing off their sub 100 IQ

well, they do have the highest % of mentally ill

Got a source for that?

Far right? Not me pal. However, locking up criminals would surely make those traffic stops less dangerous, would they not.

Let's see, is it the left who consistently vote to keep lenient policies on criminals or is it the right?

I believe this fits into the "law of unintended consequences" category. Oh well, poor, poor criminals...

Oh left, right, center, blah, blah. ENOUGH with the divisions. We're ALL in this together!

You think that when a lunatic is on the loose, he cares what party you belong to before he fills you full of lead? (well thats a can of worms but still, you get my point)

I would not be too quick to criticize sub-100 IQ's. If I recall correctly, a 90 IQ is pretty average. A 70 IQ is considered mildly retarded. The average IQ for police, when the study was done, was 104. I was tested at 132 some years ago, and am one of those far right whackos, apparently, being as that I drive a beater pickup and only have an education at the doctorate level. Being a gun owner and supporter of 2nd amendment personal carry rights overrules everything else, I guess.

it's obvious, to anyone with a brain, what eddie's point was.

You couldn't figure it out either, huh?

Eddie's point was he doesn't have a point actually he is probably the dullest tool in his shed

eddie's point was that this wasn;t someone just looking to kill people. he didn't just walk on campus and start killing everyone he could.

Yeah, Eddie's point was that he hates cops. It was very clear.

No, Eddie's point was that it was the cop's fault for "hassling people over petty bull crap." Obviously, Eddie has had many run-ins with the law and hates cops.

Liberals go away

Seattle, please you really want to talk about looney magnets, look around your city

...But thats comparing Apples to Oranges. Cities are where people live, thus naturally having an expected percentage of loonies. Universities are where smart people go to better themselves and get smarter, and smartness is very counter looney.

sorry, wrong section

No. The kids shouldn't have to wear body armor. And don't blame the gun. I blame the out of touch politicians for disarming the victims. The world isn't a safe place. People need to stop pretending that it is. If you take away someone's ability to protect themselves, they won't be able to take care of themselves or others when the time comes. And if you force victims into a place where the nutballs will know that everyone else isn't packing a gun, you have systematically caused the problem in the first place. Stop trying to demonize the gun. Dead is Dead. Would if make people feel better if all the victims were pushed out a window? Give the victims their Rights. When you make a Gun Free Zone, you make everyone in that area victims and you are responsible for their deaths.

There really is no such thing as a "gun free zone", unless you have that technology from "Total Recall" that lets police see weapons through clothing. Also, it isn't necessary to have a gun to kill people. A nutcase can pick up a rock and crush a person's skull just about any time, any where. And giving guns to people indiscriminately is just as bad. Guns are safe when people are trained how to use them safely. THAT is the main reason people are more likely to shoot themselves or a loved one by accident. You need more training to get a drivers license than a gun permit.

I didn't blame the gun, but the fact one was used, points to a serious problem.

No, the world is not a safe place. Especially America, where you can be gunned down in a mall, in your office, or on the way to school. This stuffcis extremely rare other Western industrialized countries such as Canada, and they too have guns, yet the population doesn't have a real gun culture.

Question: How many people could you "push out a window" in 30 seconds? How many people could you shoot in 30 seconds?

See the difference? Guns don't kill people. They just make it easy to kill lots of them quickly.

I shoot at the range occasionally, but I also realize a country that's awash in guns, combined with a culture of violence and these days, extremism, is in trouble.

In support of your argument, i think killing someone by shooting them is easier because you do it from a distance and it is sort of impersonal. Especially compared to knifing someone or killing someone with a baseball bat.

One needs to be a altogether different kind of a person to actually grapple with their victim at close quarters swing a bat at them and hear the bones crunch and get the blood splattered all over you or wrestle with someone and drive the knife into their body and feel the blade penetrating the flesh and crunching against the bone.

So yes, banning people from willy nilly owning guns will definitely reduce murders committed by average joes in a fit of anger or rage, for parking lot disagreements and such. They would definitely prevent tragedies such as these where a seemingly sane person - a gun owner - loses his mind over something and ends up murdering innocents from a distance. Such killing are possible because guns allow you to kill impersonally. You don't have to know a person. You don't have to look at their face. You don't have to look into their eyes. Just stand at a safe distance and take out your angst from a safe distance - boom boom boom ...there !!!

As for the argument that if citizens don't have guns criminals will and that will somehow make America a lawless society - well there are plenty of nations - developed nations which do not allow gun to be owned by regular every day citizens and they are doing just fine without chest thumping macho citizens enforcing the rule of the law with their guns blazing.

there are plenty of nations - developed nations which do not allow gun to be owned by regular every day citizens

Like England and Australia, where the rate of violent crime is much higher than the US...

Badchess - There are multiple studies and they each tell a different story. For example the study you are citing aggregates all violent crimes like rape, kidnapping etc under one head. Also, when they talk about rates they are expressed as percentage of population and not by sheer numbers which clouds the real picture since our population is order of magnitude higher than other smaller European countries.

In any case, i still maintain that it is easier to commit a murder in a fit of rage when a have a gun in your possession instead of a baseball bat or knife or any other such weapon that requires you to get in close quarters with your intended victim. Do you disagree ?

expressed as percentage of population and not by sheer numbers which clouds

I would tend to disagree. If India had the amount (in flat numbers) of violent crime as the US I'd view it as a very non violent country. I think percentages of population is a much more useful number.

I agree you that it is easier to commit a murder in a fit of rage when you have a gun in your hand.

On the other hand, it is also easier to fend off a criminal. And the number of people killed simply because someone has a gun handy isn't that large of a number.

or more likely to shoot you and take your stuff rather than just pull the gun on you. if they know you have a gun you are actually in more danger of dying even though you are less likely to just be robbed.

I've always had mixed feelings on the issue weaponizing our society...if I have a bad guy after me, I'd like to have a gun. However, stats indicate I'm more likely to kill someone innocent than a bad guy. I don't need an AK47 to protect myself, however I do need a pistol.

People who are disturbed enough (or inebriated enough) probably don't give a rat's ass whether or not you are armed; that might work for a robber, sure, but for someone who has, for all intents and purposes, "lost their mind", seriously doubt they're going to be thinking that rationally.

True. But fortunately not all violent criminals are that disturbed.

A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"