OT: At least 22 Dead at Virginia Tech

[Archive]

Posted By: David Vargha

David -- sorry, but you're not completley correct in your interpretation of the firearm laws. In any event, I lump in assualt weapons (which are technically "semi" automatic) with automatic weapons, so I apologize if I mispoke.

Firstly, the term "assault weapon" has different contextual meanings. Denotatively, it is simply a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch.

However, through liberal legal posturing, the term "assault rifle" has come to mean whatever the writers of the anti-gun legislation they have proposed want it to mean. It can mean that it has a pistol grip, a folding stock or is capable of having a bayonet attached to it. Such symbolic labeling purposefully seeks to blur the definition and obscure the issue. It is simply for the purpose of evoking an emotional response and ultimately for the purpose of banning private gun ownership altogether.

As to semi-automatic guns, that just means that they fire as quickly as the shooter can pull the trigger. There is nothing inherently special about them. A bullet of equal caliber is no more powerful if it is fired from a so-called "assault rifle" than it is when fired from a handgun. Semi-automatic guns are simply no big deal. There are millions upon millions of them in the hands of responsible owners.

DavidVargha@hotmail.com

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Hufford

I grew up 30 miles from Virginia Tech, graduated from Tech in 1973, and had many, many of my engineering classes in Norris Hall. I've probably been in every one of the rooms where the students and faculty were killed, except for the dorm, where the first two victims died.

I don't see any way that this could have been stopped. Yes, the shooter had been in therapy several years ago, but with the current patient privacy laws, there's probably no way that the university could have been made aware of what happened or came out in those sessions. He had never been convicted of a crime (that we know of), so he couldn't have been removed from school on those grounds. One English teacher, in particular, was troubled by some of the student's writings, but I'll bet that if the university had tried to dismiss him because of that, they would have been pounced upon (and perhaps, rightly so) by the ACLU and similar groups. I don't know, but wouldn't be surprised, if now-famous writers like Stephen King and Dean Koontz may have drawn similar attention from a teacher somewhere along the way.

Unfortunately, over the years shootings/killings have taken place across this country in schools, shopping centers, churches, post offices, office buildings, in private homes, and on city streets, and as long as we wish to live in a country where we are free to come and go anywhere we please, these things will probably happen again. None of us would tolerate the inconveniences and intrusions that would be caused by implementing the measures that it would actually take to make us secure.

No amount of gun laws, metal detectors, or security guards will stop someone intent on carrying out his wishes - especially someone with no regard even for his own life - from doing so. We have come to tolerate and even glorify violence in our society - in books, movies, TV shows, theater, and music. But when it happens in real life, we are horrified, and wonder why. We look to assign blame to the gun maker, the school administration, the law enforcement officials, teachers, fellow students who "didn't do something" - anyone, it seems, other than the person actually responsible. I'm afraid that nothing will really change until we do.

I am saddened and mourn for my Virginia Tech friends. Please keep them in your thoughts and prayers.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Vargha

Who cares how these things are defined. Contrary to what you said (twice) in this thread, federal law doesn't prohibit ownership of automatic weapons, which was the point of my follow-up post.

You are being disingenuous, as most radical, anti-gun people usually are. Yes, existing automatic weapons are allowed to be owned by people who had them prior to the restrictions and yes, they can be sold to other law-abiding citizens after a background check, etc. However, the manufacturing of automatic weapons for sale to private citizens has been illegal in the United States since 1986. This has placed the cost of ownership out of the reach of most people.

About half the machine guns in the United States are owned by civilians; the other half are in the hands of police departments and the military. The number is on the order of 0.1% of all guns in the United States. Texas leads the U.S. in private ownership of automatic weapons, but we don't seem to be having a return to the days of Al Capone here. Furthermore, since the original law was enacted in 1934, only two legally owned machine guns have been used in a crime, and one was by a law-enforcement officer.

You see, more laws prohibiting and restricting gun ownership accomplish NOTHING! The killer at VA Tech was hardly deterred by the laws against murder or carrying the guns onto campus. Criminals are never deterred by the law. Why is that such a difficult concept for people like you to understand?

As to the lumping in of semi-automatic weapons as some evil development by the gun manufacturers, again the disingenuity leaps right to the front. They have been around for a long, long time. Semi-automatic weapons simply marked a technology advance from revolvers whereby the shooter can now fire as fast as he can pull the trigger. It is amazing how this simple advance in weapon technology (which is very old news) is continually put forth as some evil conspiracy to create war in the streets or some other such nonsense.

I'm sorry to go on so long on these posts, but I am sick and tired of the disinformation campaign being put forth by people such as PC either because they have an agenda and don't care to research the FACTS (stubborn things as they are) or because they are flat-out lying.

DavidVargha@hotmail.com

[Archive]

Posted By: T E

I grew up in urban America. These days, my travels take me to poor rural America.

In an urban setting, automatic weapons make no sense. In rural America, folks love their guns because they love hunting. They don't need automatic weapons either, but good luck in doing anything about it.

There is no way in hell that this freak should have been able to walk into a store and purchase automatic weapons. Too bad. That is America and that is not going to change.

The brilliant film Taxi Driver depicted a man returning from Vietnam, isolated and alone. He lives in a violent world, awash with guns. He calls himself God's Lonely Man. He comes to see himself as a savior, and through a quirk of fate, ends up killing some bad guys instead of his original target, a Presidential candidate, and thus becomes a vigilante hero.

As the late, great Kurt Vonnegut would have written, "So it goes."

Enough of this freak already. He would be quite happy to know that every time you put on AOL or your favorite news site or the television, you see him in his pose with his stupid guns, a pathetic imitation of Keanu Reeves in the Matrix, itself a pathetic imitation of the brilliant Robert DeNiro in Taxi Driver.

Tell me about the kids, those poor innocents, and the teachers, innocents as well, snuffed out by this jerk, and let us speak no more of him.

Since Iraq has been brought into this thread, it is worth noting that this happens once in America and we are shattered. This happens several times a day in Iraq, a nation with less than 10% of our population. No matter which side of the war argument you are on, it does give one pause.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Vargha

There is no way in hell that this freak should have been able to walk into a store and purchase automatic weapons.

PLEASE READ WHAT I WROTE!!! He did NOT purchase automatic weapons. He bought standard 9 MM handguns. These were standard issue to many militaries in WWII.

DavidVargha@hotmail.com

[Archive]

Posted By: John Kalafarski

David, A Glock where you can shove in a clip of 10 is not your standard handgun. Were not these banned by the Brady Bill? Didn't the current administration fix the law to allow these weapons to be considered legal? The law prevents the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives from sharing gun trace information with local law enforcement in order to protect the privacy of gun owners (thank the NRA). In the USA 30 people are gunned down every day. Is that not enough?

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe Tocco

The work massacre at a school in US history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_school_disaster

Just a data point to consider.

Joe

[Archive]

Posted By: T E

If I call it semi-automatic, does that make you feel better? The world would be a lot better off today if that freak had not been able to purchase those weapons so easily.

The kids and teachers are dead. Let's think about them and give this bickering a rest.

[Archive]

Posted By: Marty Ogelvie

Joe,
Thanks for the reference point. (wiki)

reading the list of those kids that died and knowing I have kids that age gave me chills..

martyOgelvie
nyyankeecards.com

[Archive]

Posted By: Zach S.

"The world would be a lot better off today if that freak had not been able to purchase those weapons so easily."

I believe they said he purchased the handguns (at least the 9mm... not sure about the .22) at a gun shop. In most states that's not such an easy task. Some states require that you have some sort of class before being able to purchase, all require a background check, and depending on the state there are also additional laws. It's much easier to buy a gun from an individual which is something that won't be controlled no matter how many laws are passed in Congress. In addition to collecting vintage cardboard I also like collecting guns and shooting them. I own several handguns and rifles (most of which are semi-automatic) and I know how easy it is to obtain them from individual sellers legally or otherwise. All the bans and restrictions in the world aren't going to prevent people from buying firearms... it will just make it more difficult for the law abiding citizens to get them.

Zach S.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike

Zach, you hit the nail on the head. Thanks for the common sensical viewpoint.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Zach,

You right criminals will still carry guns. But look at another situation that occurred recently in Japan, where there are harsh criminal laws against handguns.

Tetsuya Shiroo who is an alleged gang boss, takes a handgun and shoots the mayor of Nagasaki Itchoo Ito. But that's it, one person dies and then Mr. Shiroo is captured and there are no other casualties.

I would submit that harsh criminal penalties against guns period are responsible for limiting the killings from a madman. Itchoo Ito was in a public place if Tetsuya Shiroo had an assault rifle, he probably could have shot a half dozen people before being stopped.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: T E

Zach, Mike, etc...

Americans love guns. The laws will not change.

That said, here is the state of Va gun laws as best I know it...

Zach, you said...In most states that's not such an easy task. Some states require that you have some sort of class before being able to purchase

Well, Va is not one of those states. Classes not required. Background checks not required at gun shows or private sales. I don't know about store purchase background checks. Hand guns are not registered. No permit needed. Police may not restrict the carrying of concealed weapons.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Vargha

From the Brady Bill (Ill conceived, passed by a Democrat-controlled House and Senate and signed into law by a Democratic President, Bill Clinton), these are the handguns that were made illegal . . .

`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppresser, forward hand grip, or silencer;

`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non trigger hand without being burned;

(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm;

The Glock magazine is loaded in the pistol grip (handle). A threaded barrel is not required. It doesn't have a shroud on it. Glock's weigh less than 50 ounces. There is no "automatic" version of a Glock. So even the onerous and ridiculous Brady Bill didn't outlaw Glock handguns. Guns with magazines that can hold 10-16 rounds are no big deal. We aren't living in the days of six-shot revolvers and haven't been for decades.

DavidVargha@hotmail.com

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

TE,

Your contradicting yourself in your own post. You first say that the laws will not change, then later on you state that there are no restraints for the purchase of guns in VA. In other words, your hoping that the laws will change.

All I'm advocating is a more extreme version of what you would like.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: T E

No Peter, I am simply stating what the law is, as I understand them in the state of Virginia, without comment, and I stated that I do not believe the laws will change.

SHOULD the laws change? Well, it would be nice to have one set of rules and regulations covering guns, in my opinion, that would cover the entire country. Since that will never happen, it might be a good idea for states to take at least some sort of control over the weapons which it allows sold within its borders. Review the Va laws, google them, and make your own judgement as to whether that is the case.

WILL the laws change? No.

[Archive]

Posted By: Zach S.

Most of the laws passed during the Clinton adminitration regarding gun laws were ridiculous and I believe most people misunderstood what they actually meant. Many believe there was a "ban" on assault rifles which wasn't the case. The laws just regulated certain modifications to existing rifles (mainly dealing with overall length, folding stocks, etc.) and banned the importation into the U.S. of "new" assault rifles that made their list. Assault rifles that were already in the U.S. before the "ban" were grandfathered in and could be bought and sold. The current administration didn't renew these laws and now there is more leniency and while some modifications are not legal (for example many states have a limit on how short rifle and shotgun barrels can be) other mods can now be legally made like adding folding stocks.

The whole purpose of the "ban" was all about military-looking/style rifles. If you do some research you will see how idiotic some of the laws were. A perfect example is that they slapped the "ban" on Colt AR-15's but not on Ruger Mini-14's. The both fire .223 Remington rounds, both have detachable mags, and are both semi-automatic. The only difference is cosmetic in that the AR-15 has a more military looking black synthetic stock and the Mini-14 has a wooden stock.

I know this may be getting off topic and I in no way want to detract from the terrible events that took place on the campus of Virginia Tech but I would just like to point out that what some of you think the government is doing or trying to do to ban guns is not an acceptable answer to tragedies like this. I for one believe it actaully interfers with law abiding citizens who if permitted to carry concealled weapons more freely could actually do something to defend themselves and others from pyschos like this one that went on a rampage. I know if I had been sitting in one of those classrooms and had my concealled weapon on my person I definately wouldn't have sat there and waited for that kid to come through the door.

My two cents...



Added images of the Mini-14 (left) and the AR-15 (right). You can also see some of the modifications that would not be allowed (pistol grip version and folding stock version) on the Mini-14 even though the gun itself was perfectly legal as seen in the upper most of the three variations.

Edited to add: I just noticed that as I was talking about the Mini-14 variations it reminded me of discussing baseball card variations. Either way I think they're both fascinating hobbies.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan

Not to be difficult, but:

FORMAL NAME INFORMAL NAME % ALL DEATHS
(1) Diseases of the heart heart attack (mainly) 28.5%
(2) Malignant neoplasms cancer 22.8%
(3) Cerebrovascular disease stroke 6.7%
(4) Chronic lower respiratory disease emphysema, chronic bronchitis 5.1%
(5) Unintentional injuries accidents 4.4%
(6) Diabetes mellitus diabetes 3.0%
(7) Influenza and pneumonia flu & pneumonia 2.7%
(8) Alzheimer's Disease Alzheimer's senility 2.4%
(9) Nephritis and Nephrosis kidney disease 1.7%
(10) Septicemia systemic infection 1.4%
(11) Intentional self-harm suicide 1.3%
(12) Chronic Liver/Cirrhosis liver disease 1.1%
(13) Essential Hypertension high blood pressure 0.8%
(14) Assault homicide 0.7%
(15) All other causes other 17.4%

TYPES OF ACCIDENTAL DEATHS, USA 2002
(MVA = Motor Vehicle Accident) ACCIDENT PERCENT
(1) Motor vehicle (MVA) 44.3%
(2) Falls 17.8%
(3) Poison,liq/solid 13.0%
(4) Drowning 3.9%
(5) Fires, Burns,Smoke 3.4%
(6) Medical/Surgical Complication 3.1%
(7) Other land transport 1.5%
(8) Firearms 0.8%
(9) Other (nontransport) 17.8%

HOME ACCIDENT PERCENT
(1) Falls 31.8%
(2) Poison(sol/liq) 21.0%
(3) Fire,burns 16.4%
(4) Obstructed airway 8.7%
(5) Suffocation 3.6%
(6) Firearms 2.6%
(7) Poison(gas) 2.1%
(8) All other 13.8%

The data is a few years back (circa 2002), some very interesting reading can be found on: <a href="http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html?source=DeathClock" target="_new" rel="nofollow"

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html?source=DeathClock
Interesting table attached, it would appear to me that we need to ban CIGARETTES before handguns. I was shocked at the numbers overall and just how far down the list handguns actually were.

**1993 study by the Carter Center estimated that two-thirds of deaths are due to six risk factors subject to influence by the will: tobacco, alcohol, injury risks, high blood pressure, obesity/cholesterol and poor primary care (prenatal/reproductive). (Only 26% of smokers live to age 80 -- in contrast with 57% of nonsmokers**


Hate to say it, but firearms just don't jump off the page as a major contributor. In light of this recent event, every anti-gun advocate is using this as a springboard and I just DO NOT AGREE with them. By the looks of the data and what seems to be taking lives, we need to BAN CARS and CIGARETTES long before weapons.

ZACH, welcome back to La Maddalena! My tug boats pulled his ship back in to port the other day for those of you wondering where he was!

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike

No classes required in Minnesota. background check required to purchase hand guns. License to purchase is issued and must be renewed every 12 months. One interesting thing that happened to me about 14 months ago. I was in banking for 25 years, so my background had been dug into like you wouldn't believe. I'm clean, and have nothing to hide. No record. ever. A couple speeds. Anyway, I went to one of the largest gun dealers in the state and attempted to purchase my hand gun. (target shooting) The retailer said it would only take a day or so. After three or four days, I called them, and there was some type of delay. Who knows what. He said he would get back to me. Another day or so went by, I called again, and he said he wasn't sure what the problem was. He made a call, and the sale went through. But what was really interesting was the retailer told me "If they wouldn't have given him an answer that day, he was going to "sell it to me anyway". ???? I was happy to get through this but " I would have sold it to you anyway?" I didn't ask what he meant. Rather odd don't you think? It kind of plays into what I earlier said, if someone wants a gun, they will get one, no matter what it takes. It seems it is rather easy. Legal or illegal.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan

idiotic comment removed due to temporary retarded'ness on my behalf!

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Guys,

I see there are lots of pro-gun people on this board, let me ask you a different question. Suppose they change the laws to make it easier for you to obtain guns.

Would you want your wives and daughters to carry guns in order to protect themselves.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan

But Hell YES!!! Since the law-dogs cannot keep the scum in jail, if carrying mace, pepper spray, a gun is necessary, then YES.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike

I do not advocate my wife or daughter carrying a hand gun. Nor would I carry one. I'm blessed to live in an area with virtually no crime. And I am not paranoid of crime. Plus I figure there would be a greater chance of an accident if I did carry one. Quite frankly, I would be looked on as a lunatic if I walked around our town with a hand gun due to lack of crime. It's Norman Rockwell around here. Truly. And I don't think I would classify myself as a gun advocate. A couple times a year, I got out and shoot at paper targets, or beer cans. yes I do think I have a right to shoot at beer cans. I am a responsible adult. (I don't like beer by the way)

Edited to add: Yes, some [people should have the "right" to carry a handgun. I just choose not to.)

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Mike, Dan,

I agree with both of you. Mike some people should have the right to carry guns, and that should be the police. And if the police didn't have to worry about being outgunned you would have more good people willing to become police officers.

More police officers and tougher laws mean fewer scum on the street so that your wives and daughters don't have to carry guns.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Marty Ogelvie

I can't help but wonder how many of those students wished they carried a gun as they were trapped in that room.

I don't own a gun and I don't plan on buying one either. I'm not smart enough to debate anyone about gun control.

Perhaps I have read too many westerns, but it seems to me that just one 'gun toting Cowboy' could have stopped this blood bath before it reached 32. That's probably a stupid way to look at it but that's just what keeps coming to mind.

martyOgelvie
nyyankeecards.com

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Marty,

It's true that mentally and emotionally mature people can handle guns, but we are talking about adolescents and criminals here.

Do you want high school kids with guns to protect themselves.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

.

[Archive]

Posted By: T E

that everyone in the USA should strap one on in case a lunatic pulls out a weapon? So by that logic the problem is, not too many guns but not nearly enough.

That feeds right into the psycho mentality that drove this freak.

Can't we stop debating the guns until these kids are buried?

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike

PC you say you live in an area with low crime. I live 25 miles north of Saint Paul, Minn. About the worst thing that happens around here, is someone might lose or misplace their tackle box. my son totaled his car on a deer last Fall. That was big news around here. I live in an area with virtually no crime. (Watch, now I will be robbed next week) So to carry a gun would be ludicrous. I can't visualize myself living in a high crime area even if for some reason my family moved. I used to travel out of state for the bank I was with. I went to a few places that scared the crap out of me. East Lansing Mich. I was in my hotel one evening, watching the news. The news went from 8 murders that day, to the weather then the sports. Nothing else. I must confess I still can recall each (Most) murder as described, and all involved guns. This is no lie, the inside of my hotel room had 5 chains. Yes I said 5 chains. I'm done working for today, so let me give everyone an average day in East Lansing. 1)A druggist had been robbed so many times, he went and bought a handgun. Sure enough, on camera, here come the bad guys again, he pulled out his gun and blew them away. They interviewd him, and asked him if he would do it again. he said hell Yes. 2) An old lady had been burglarized so many times, she bought a gun and had it on her bedside. She was startled by an intruder, he wrestled the gun away from her, and killed her. 3)A middle age guy was sitting watching television, the weather was very hot, so he had his front door open, so he could get a slight breeze. He also had been robbed so many times, he always sat with a shotgun. In walks a huge guy, a stranger, and he keeps coming at the homeowner. takes his shotgun and shoots and kills the guy. Shot him in the stomach as I recall. 4) A driver on an interstate pretended to be a cop, and he somehow got a young lady in an another car to pull over as she thought he was a cop. he asked her to get out of her car. he asked her to climb over a highway fence. I think she knew something was wrong now. And as she is climbing over the fence, he shoots her in the vagina with a shotgun. (Nice guy?) I guess she lived. 5)A man always had a handgun next to his bed. He was also starled out of his sleep, saw a shadow coming at him, he panicked and killed the person. It was his wife coming back to bed. She had gotten up for some reason, and was coming back to bed. Just awful
Thats enough, as I can't recall the others. This was an average day in East Lansing. Not too far from the college. There was one neighborhood, that I turned into, and for the first time in my life, I was scared to death. I backed up and turned around. I guess our country still has a ways to go. But I will remember that newscast for as long as I live.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

It's crazy, I know, that's why I didn't see it at first. But that package that Mr. Cho sent to NBC made it clear that in his warped mind he was protecting himself and his way of life.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Marty Ogelvie

Peter,
No I wouldn't want high school kids carrying guns to school to protect themselves but after days like these, the thought of an armed security person on site sure seems attractive.

martyOgelvie
nyyankeecards.com

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Marty,

You might have come up with a workable compromise position. In addition to police having guns, you have an additional heavily regulated group that can have guns, possibly security guards. The problem with this type of approach is that there would soon be a black market where guns are bought and sold.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: howard

There already a black market where guns are bought and sold. Every big city has one.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Howard,

I know of only one way to eliminate a black market, let the government sell guns to civilians. It may sound crazy, but it might work in this situation. Certainly it would be easier for the gov. to check whether an individual is properly licensed to carry a weapon, also they have access to the data banks that carry people's criminal records.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Legalize drugs and you will eliminate most of the gun related crimes.

Jay

I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Vargha

I know of only one way to eliminate a black market, let the government sell guns to civilians.

Yep. It's worked really well for liquor. States that have state-owned liquor stores have eliminated the black market. Sheesh! Doesn't anybody understand basic economics anymore?

DavidVargha@hotmail.com

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Jay B and I actually agree on something. Actually, if they only legalized marijauna there would be much less crime, non-violent (though some might be pushing people out of the way at a food court)people in jail...and the taxation could be huge. (not that I like taxes but look at liquor and cigarettes)....One of these days I believe it will happen.......Until then many otherwise honest folks will be criminals.....Making guns illegal, or harder to get, won't work. It will keep honest people from having them though. As for what kind "should" be illegal there is no need for the full automatics when there are semi automatics that can do great damage, as we just saw.......best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

I agree with Jay and Leon though I don't know that I would legalize all drugs. Certainly marijuana since no one can convince me that smoking pot is worse than drinking alcohol -- certainly there are less deaths attributed to pot smoking than drinking every year by a long shot. Tax the hell out of it as well as increase the taxes on cigarettes to at least cover some of the health costs associated with smoking.

And it's true that many, many gun charges come about because dealers are protecting their stashes. Eliminate the need to protect illegal drugs and you eliminate the guns required to protect the drugs. I've made the argument to many judges on pot cases when prosecutors ask for draconian sentences, even life, for huge pot rings. Rarely does a judge not agree with me on this and a judge usually cuts the defendant a break simply because the drug is pot which is never thought to be as bad as heroin or coke. And think of all the money our country would generate from taxing marijuana!

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I think politicians would be afraid to touch a "legalize marijuana" law with a ten foot pole, even if they were passionate about it.

It's like the rent stabilization and rent control laws in New York. Everyone knows they are unfair- I've been living in the same rent stabilized apartment for 33 years at way below market price- but any politician that supported an end to it would get booted out of office.

I don't think we will see legal marijuana in our lifetime, although I am a big supporter of it. Crack and methamphetamine- keep it far away from everybody.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

It's true, Barry. As an example, in the federal penal system an inmate has to do 85% of his sentence with the remainder reduced for good time credit. Every year since I graduated law school I've heard rumors how Congress is about to reduce the number to 65% of time to be served. It's never happened and never will. Why? Because whoever sponsors that bill will be drummed out asap as he'll be termed 'soft on crime.' Even though the prisons are overfilled with drug abusers and pot salesmen, etc.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

"Actually, if they only legalized marijauna there would be much less crime, non-violent (though some might be pushing people out of the way at a food court)"

hee. Best post of the week.

Sorry to interrupt a serious thread, but I had to give that one a shout-out.

J

[Archive]

Posted By: David Vargha

82-Year-Old Ex-Beauty Queen Stops Intruder by Shooting Out Tires

Saturday, April 21, 2007
Associated Press

WAYNESBURG, Ky. — Miss America 1944 has a talent that likely has never appeared on a beauty pageant stage: She fired a handgun to shoot out a vehicle's tires and stop an intruder.



Venus Ramey, 82, confronted a man on her farm in south-central Kentucky last week after she saw her dog run into a storage building where thieves had previously made off with old farm equipment.

Ramey said the man told her he would leave. "I said, 'Oh, no you won't,' and I shot their tires so they couldn't leave," Ramey said.

She had to balance on her walker as she pulled out a snub-nosed .38-caliber handgun.

"I didn't even think twice. I just went and did it," she said. "If they'd even dared come close to me, they'd be 6 feet under by now."

Ramey then flagged down a passing motorist, who called 911.

Curtis Parrish of Ohio was charged with misdemeanor trespassing, Deputy Dan Gilliam said. The man's hometown wasn't immediately available. Three other people were questioned but were not arrested.

After winning the pageant with her singing, dancing and comedic talents, Ramey sold war bonds and her picture was adorned on a B-17 that made missions over Germany in World War II, according to the Miss America Web site.

Ramey lived in Cincinnati for several years and was instrumental in helping rejuvenate Over-the-Rhine historic buildings. She returned to Kentucky in 1990 to live on her farm.

"I'm trying to live a quiet, peaceful life and stay out of trouble, and all it is, is one thing after another," she said.

DavidVargha@hotmail.com

[Archive]

Posted By: T E

Not to be contrarian, David, but you do realize the article you posted is a "Man Bites Dog" story, don't you?

[Archive]

Posted By: David Vargha

I guess so, if you want to only analyze it at a very superficial level. The point is that on a daily basis, people use legally owned weapons to defend themselves and their personal property. The stories are rarely reported by the press as it doesn't support their anti-gun agenda. These stories happen thousands of times a year and help paint the full picture of gun ownership in the U.S. That's what I get out of it. In this case, Smith & Wesson became the great equalizer in the equation of strong, healthy men robbing an 82-year old woman.

DavidVargha@hotmail.com

[Archive]

Posted By: T E

You miss the point of Man Bites Dog. This is a story that any news organization would run with. They simply don't happen very often.

Much more common is a husband blowing away his wife or girlfriend at the end of a heated battle, or the reverse. That is the most common lethal use of guns in America. THOSE stories are not reported, except on a local basis, because they are too common and boring.

Further, lethal gun use in poorer communities rarely gets headline treatment, and never national coverage, unless it is spectacular. It is too mundane, boring.

Violent crime fell in America during the 1990s. It had nothing to do with the guns, it was a booming economy. Booming economy=less poverty= less crime.

Guns are a dead issue. There will never be any meaningful gun control in America.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Vargha

Much more common is a husband blowing away his wife or girlfriend at the end of a heated battle, or the reverse. That is the most common lethal use of guns in America. THOSE stories are not reported, except on a local basis, because they are too common and boring.

I hafta run off to Stats class, but you are sooooooooo wrong. Here are some quick statistics for you.

Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.* Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using a firearm defensively stated that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

In 83.5% (2,087,500) of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first, proving that guns are very well suited for self-defense.

Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers.

Less than 8% of the time does a citizen wound his or her attacker.

For every accidental death, suicide or homicide with a firearm, 10 lives are saved through defensive use.

* Fall 1995, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

DavidVargha@hotmail.com

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Guys, guns are a part of America. Like them or not, America was built and expanded with guns. Guns are here to stay. Better controls need to be put in place to prevent bad guys from getting them. Today I read that the Va Tech killer should not have been permitted to buy a gun in Va due to a court ruling deeming him mentally unfit. That info was apparently unavailble during the background check. More time and energy needs to be spent on controlling the flow of guns - and punishing more harshly gun crimes -- than just a silly fight of whether guns should even exist in America.

[Archive]

Posted By: howard

Well put David but I think the life saving effect is even greater than you state. The statistics do not take into account homes and businesses that are left alone by criminals simply because they know there are guns on the property. Nor do they account for the fact that criminals who are jailed, maimed or killed by a citizen with a gun are less likely to victimize anyone else in the future.

Howard

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I think you will see incidents like Virginia Tech with greater frequency. There are many very sick people out there and once it's been established that such a thing can be done, I think more crazy people will do it. While I am all for gun control, it will have no effect on stopping these psychos.