I've tried to resist because it's absolutely useless in this forum, but I've broken down, at least for two points.
1) A single firearm in the trained and determined hands of any one of scores, perhaps hundreds, of persons who came within Cho's bloody ambit, and there almost certainly would have been far fewer vicitms, if any.
2) Someone bent on vengeance and racking up a big score is looking for helpless and terrified sheep, not armed men and women who have chosen not to be victims. Cho knew guns were banned on campus (guess he didn't get the word that meant him too) and knew there was little likelihood that he would come across an armed security officer while he was executing people. Do you really think Cho would have done his little stroll at any place where he knew he would come across perhaps dozens of trained citizens who would be willing to act to protect innocent life from animals like him? Robert Heinlein wasn't joking.
*We'll have to make sure we really publicize any future ban so the bad guys will know they can't have guns; surely they'll go along with a ban then, right?
My thoughts on gun control are alot like my thoughts on pretty much all other aspects of modern society. Things like gun control, or right to bear arms only ever truely work when you actually pick one or the other. Getting stuck in the middle basicly means that neather system works at all. Of course, this is all in my fairytale fantasy world, where everyone does what theyre supposed to. And most people dont like that because its an awful lot like fascism (which also works in theory, but hey).
On the one hand, you have total firearm restrictions. No civilian can own a militant firearm (that is to say, a firearm designed to engage other humans, like a pistol). This means that the whole of civil protection must be placed upon police forces. This means armed officers everywhere, all the time, able to respond to any situation to protect civilians. This starts to tread reaaaaal close to bad stuff, because this system is so easily abused by the authorities. This only works if we have some kind of super, un-corruptable computer to govern us, with leigons of police robots.
On the other hand, you have total gun culture, in which every civilian owns a militant firearm for the purpose of maintaining order. In theroy, this system works a whole lot better, BUT, only if everyone (i mean fucking everyone) is well trained and knows what the hell theyre doing. Essentially, your civilians ARE your police force, so they better not all be incompetent. If your civilian populations are the ones enforcing the law, they better know what the laws are, and how to enforce them so they arnt just a society of vigilantes. So this system works when you have an intelegent and educated public as a whole (the whole population must participate in this, not just onsies and twosies), not when the general public is misinformed and terrified, as is the case with the US ("gun" to 90% of the public is an evil evil thing, which is very unfortunate).
But hey, neither of those is going to happen in the near future. Nothing works now anyways because everything is going in different directions. "United" states my ass.
On topic: I dont watch the news and am usually pretty out of the loop when it comes to current events, so I didnt even find out about this shooting until today. But regardless its always a damn shame and makes me outright pissed off when things like this happen. I think placing blame is a moot point. hindsight is 20/20. The only one that can be held responsible is the shooter. Everyone else has to learn from this event so that it doesnt repeat in the future.
Its 5 am and I think I just spent the last 30 minuets rambling on about random goobly gook. I need another person to actually carry on a discussion with...
Wherever it would go, civilianscan't and musn'tbe allowed to bare firearms. It's unthinkable.
Firearms that use live ammo with calibers that are meant to kill is beyond chaotic. No one can give a 100% sure psychological analysis of the person that comes to the store and buys a gun, therefore it's recless to think that you can give a firearm to a civillian and that he won't do something wrong with it-- a civillian which mind you, cannot be surveiled while in possesion of the gun.
There are several weapons made especially for selfdefense... which incapacitate the victim but not kill him (ie stun guns, net-guns etc).
There is more money put on weapons that kill than in weapons for selfdefense. And is it not the policy of weapon manufacturers to make weapons for selfdefense and not mass murder?
A Desert Eagle for instance-- with a 12.7 mm bullet-- can be bought by a civillian from what I know. Now tell me, how does a 12.7 mm not kill?
On the other hand-- if one is so paranoic-- there are special security firms that can protect you; thus, I don't see why civilians should have the right to bare firearms anywhere, not just in the US.
I think guns can be cool, and personally I would love to own one, both for self defense and for use at the range. This however doesn’t change my stance on gun control, which in “the perfect world™” should be total. Even here in Europe I think it should remain as it is, most people that get killed in shootings here appear to be involved in the criminal world, so no loss there. Other cases are tragic, but I don’t believe that “guns for all that don’t have a sheet and are willing to wait a few weeks” is going to help that.
As for the united states.. well they are screwed basically.
Everyone that wants one, already has a gun at the moment. Able to hide behind an ancient “right” written about in their sacred constitution, the US borders are as leaky as a sieve. Illigal guns find their way inland as easily as illegal aliens, so there is no way gun control will ever work over there. At least, not until the government establishes total control.
And no, your 9mm or semi auto rifle is not going to stop that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Bernard Shaw
No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means.
Gun bans will never happen over here, theres too many people who wouldnt support it. Some of whom have huge political clout, and the rest are the majority of voters.
The screaming about bans almost unanimously comes from European countries with bans. Personally i think its because Europeans have bans and cant have guns, and cant stand we that we can own guns.
I look at it this way,... Im the one living over here with all these gun owners around me, so its up to me whether i feel unsafe with that or not. And i dont feel unsafe, the odds that i might be a victim of something like this are pretty small.
When weighing the loss of my rights to own a firearm, vs ,the chance of a tragedy like this happening, and being a victim of it. I see the loss of my rights as the bigger risk. And many N. Americans think this way about their rights.
An example,.. Certain groups want to remove or ignore some of our rights in the interest of national security since 9/11.
The overwhelming reaction from N. Americans is?.. We would rather live with the security risk, than lose our rights and freedoms.
N. Americans entire history involves fighting and dieing for those freedoms, we arent just gonna give them up because 32 civilians got killed.
This site is part of the Defy Media Gaming network
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!
FH Off Topic 
Re: Thoughts on Virgina Tech 
"No, I do NOT want to talk about it."
Linear Mode
