quote Originally posted by Patrick: Ummm.... maybe you need to step back and re-read my post. I was referring to law abiding people in the "no firearm zone" on the campus and up here in Canada.

oops....that line was just a line by itzelf, so I just read it as standing on itz own.....

I'm all for gun control in the sense, I want back ground checks done on those who want one. If you pass, you can carry a weapon. I also feel that you should have to take a safety class. I particulary, don't own any as I'm too broke, and don't live in an area that makes me feel like I need the protection. (Although I would love to own some rifles) The problem I'm having (and being a college student myself) is the 2nd amendment, particulary the part where it states ". . .shall not be infringed"

Last time I checked, saying you can't have guns on campus, is infringing upon this amendment, yes? My campus here in norfolk, (and virginia tech - both my sisters graduated from there - one of the girls killed was my sisters room-mates, little sister) it is impossible to lock down the campus. There are literally miles of border that you can just walk onto campus from. This makes law abiding citizens an easy target.

I truely am afraid this is going to be just another vise to take away another freedom. Whether its stricter gun control or new campus policies. The simple fact is, you can't predict nor prepare for something like this. Some people are messed up in the head. Yeah, if a student had a gun, it could have been stopped, but how many hormone induced and alcohol abided brawls have been at campus parties? It just takes one drunk with a gun.

Either of them, the students are still allowed guns (provided they live off campus) . I'd be all for carrying a concealed weapon on campus, but I guess big brother can pick and choose when we are allowed to have our rights.

[This message has been edited by RandomTask (edited 04-17-2007).]

quote Originally posted by GT86: edit: I read your post above this one and realized I misunderstood your point. My apologies.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: oops....that line was just a line by itzelf, so I just read it as standing on itz own.....

I could see a lynch mob forming!

quote Originally posted by Patrick: I could see a lynch mob forming!

A lynch mob? Here, in Totally Off Topic? That would never happen

Actually, for such a divisive topic (gun control), I'm pleasantly surprised that this thread (and the other one regarding the shooting) haven't spiraled down into the trash.

quote Originally posted by RandomTask: .... Last time I checked, saying you can't have guns on campus, is infringing upon this amendment, yes? .....

the difference is it is NOT the government "infringing" - it is private property. it is a right you willingly give up upon admission.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: the difference is it is NOT the government "infringing" - it is private property. it is a right you willingly give up upon admission.

I was under the impression Virginia Tech was a public school, not a private one. If it is public, the private property argument doesn't apply.

nope. K thru 12 are the ONLY public schools.
colleges & trade schools are private

quote Originally posted by GT86: Actually, for such a divisive topic (gun control), I'm pleasantly surprised that this thread (and the other one regarding the shooting) haven't spiraled down into the trash.

I don't know what's gone wrong.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: nope. K thru 12 are the ONLY public schools. colleges & trade schools are private

It's listed here as a public institution:
http://www.schev.edu/Studen...ublicCollegeList.asp

Since it is accepting tax dollars to help fund its operations, doesn't that to some extent negate the idea that it is private property?

[This message has been edited by GT86 (edited 04-17-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Patrick: I could see a lynch mob forming!

Patrick,
I noticed you weren't from the US and was trying to give you some background on some substantial differences in US culture from yours. I didn't know if you were aware of the differences or not, no malice intended.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: the difference is it is NOT the government "infringing" - it is private property. it is a right you willingly give up upon admission.

In a society where firearms are readily available to the general public, do not the owners of private property who forbid firearms then take on some responsibility to protect the people on their property who are following their rules? This is not so much of a finger pointing as it is a legal question.

quote Originally posted by GT86: It's listed here as a public institution: http://www.schev.edu/Studen...ublicCollegeList.asp Since it is accepting tax dollars to help fund its operations, doesn't that to some extent negate the idea that it is private property?

It should but currently its violated all the time ( like the library, stores that accept tax abatements, etc ). I dont know if anyone has pressed this in the courts as of yet. It should be pressed.

We had a similar issue here in the state parks.. public land that i help pay for.. wtf? But our new governor signed a law repealing the 'ban' ( one of the few good things hes done ).

quote Originally posted by 88 Formula: Patrick, I noticed you weren't from the US and was trying to give you some background on some substantial differences in US culture from yours. I didn't know if you were aware of the differences or not, no malice intended.

I appreciate your concerns, thanks for the info. I definitely didn't suspect there was any malice intended.

Nobody was being nasty to me, but I wanted to nip any misunderstanding in the bud in regards to my comments on who was packing what where and why.

You would have to define enforcement, Patrick.

If you say there are no consequences to violating the no firearm zone IF YOU ARE CAUGHT, then you are definitely wrong. It would be enforced and taken very seriously. If you define enforcement to mean a strip search of every human being to eliminate any possibility of a violation of the law then no, it's not enforced.

In this country, as we approach the extreme end of the above enoforcement examples, we run into a lot of other problems with constitutionality that will not stand a supreme court test. Period.

I think this again describes more than anything the differences in the mindset between the US and Canada (and other countries). While your society may think it's OK to search everyone for weapons on a routine basis, ours does not. That is where the free and open society part comes in.

Let me toss this back in your court. If you speed 99% of the time, but are only caught 1% of the time, is the speed limit being enforced? If you don't pay your taxes for 15 years but are caught only one of those years, are the tax laws being enforced? Now before you answer that, think through further. Would it be OK for the government to install a monitoring device in your car and every time you exceed the posted speed limit, it reports you and sends you a ticket? Would it be OK for the government to just send you a note every month saying "your property taxes are $XXX.XX this month and that money has been deducted from your bank account or paycheck"? I don't think it would because by doing enforcement in THAT manner, they are PRESUMING that you will be a criminal and can't be trusted.

If I'm reading you correctly, you're suggesting that all 25,000 students and probably 5,000 faculty and staff should, on a daily and continuing basis, have to go through metal detectors, searches, and other invasions of privacy just to ensure they are abiding by the law which, at least it seems, well over 99.99% of the population of Virgina Tech do every day.

I am a law abiding person. My sanity, so far as I know, is somewhere inbetween full and add on the dipstick. I am armed in my home and most of the time in my vehicles because in KS, it is legal for me to be armed in that way. I have to be very careful when I travel and although I don't WANT to do it, I often leave my weapon at home as some states make it illegal to have a weapon in a vehicle or cross a state line with one. I don't like that, but it's the law and I abide by it. So your statement that Criminals and nutcases pack guns, law abiding sane citizen's don't isn't ALWAYS true, but your edit clarified that, I believe. If I were to enter a no firearm zone then yes, I would not enter with a gun, and as I read it that's what you're getting at. You definitely hit the nail on the head. "no firearm zone's" do not work. They turn the people that respect the law into targets and little else.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: John, you stated in no uncertain terms that I was “wrong” to suspect that this “no firearm zone” isn’t (effectively) enforced. Your post above only seems to confirm my suspicions. The “no firearm zone” at this campus appears to be a joke, much like the “gun control” laws up here. Criminals and nutcases pack guns, law abiding sane citizens don’t. (EDIT: I'm referring to the “no firearm zone” on the campus and up here in Canada where we have very strict gun laws.) Why do so many people not feel safe I wonder? (EDIT: This is a reference to the situations in which "criminals and nutcases" are packing guns where it's illegal for "law abiding" citizens to be doing so.)

Excellent essay John. Very well defined.

------------------
Ron
Land of the Free because of the Brave. Most gave some, some gave all. Some ran the other way.

quote Originally posted by GT86: It's a common fallacy--if we outlaw something, it will go away.

Common only with liberals. The idea that a band-aid will solve all the worlds problems is as old as spontaneously buying batteries while waiting at the check-out counter. The problem is that many people are less interested in investing the resources necessary to truly solve problems because of the reality of what it would really cost (ie, global terrorism). It is easier to shout "gun control" or "bring the troops home" and sign a piece of paper and exclaim victory than to invest the effort and money it takes to actually make a change for the better.

Prohibition failed, not because drinking is a good thing but because you can't slap people on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper and expect complaince. Drinking, smoking, etc. are less of a problem than they once were due to education, not legislation. Violence will be minimized through the same method.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Common only with liberals. Drinking, smoking, etc. are less of a problem than they once were due to education, not legislation.

If we could just get this to work in a similar manner with ignoramuses...

Why the constant political BS ?

quote Originally posted by Toddster: It isn't even MOSTLY true. It is downright ridiculous.

Do you have to pollute every freakin’ thread you engage in?

Did you even bother to read the entire line/post of mine that John was referring to?

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: good point. is there a lawsuit here, being that the victims were FORCED to be defensless? maybe they should just wear signs saying "take my stuff - I cant stop you"

I'd like to see one... The problem is as follows..

Anti gun people will say "anyone can carry a gun IF they have a permit."

So that nixes the "forced to be defenseless" suit.

It's a federal law which prohibits guns in schools.. Cant sue the government so that nixes that idea as well...

Heres what WILL happen..
Metal dectectors at all enterences and armed guards roaming around checking ID's at random..... Let me zee yer papaz commrad..

Much better idea.. don't ya think?

I'd much prefer to be a criminal than dead..

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Do you have to pollute every freakin’ thread you engage in? Did you even bother to read the entire line/post of mine that John was referring to?

Patrick, you seem to be an audience of one. Naturally I read the post. The comment (which you later changed) is well down the text. To accuse me of polluting a thread when you make silly statements about gun owners is childish at best. Speak like an adult and you'll be treated like one.

The fact that there are fewer gun related homicides in Canada than the US is NOT an endorsement of gun control laws. It is anicdotal at best. I own 3 guns. And 2 of them were handed down to me after my grandfather died. One is a hunting rifle he built himself in 1935 and one is a pistol he kept for protection for 40 years. These are family heirlooms and by virtue of the fact that I own them your ORIGINAL post classified me as a nutcase. Thanks, at least, for fixing it.

If you ACTUALLY have in interest in learning something about gun owers then perhaps you should be asking question instead of making silly assumptions.

Then again, you are the one one accusing the rest of the posters of forming "a lynch mob". Perhaps your mind is not the open one here. Hooda thunk?

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: What lala land are you from?

Somebody call animal control. 84IQ is off his leash again.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian:

I was reading over the Fl statutes and apparently one "can" carry a gun as long as it is in "plain sight"


2) "Concealed firearm" means any firearm, as defined in subsection (6), which is carried on or about a person in such a manner as to conceal the firearm from the ordinary sight of another person.

(3)(a) "Concealed weapon" means any dirk, metallic knuckles, slungshot, billie, tear gas gun, chemical weapon or device, or other deadly weapon carried on or about a person in such a manner as to conceal the weapon from the ordinary sight of another person.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: You would have to define enforcement, Patrick.

John, perhaps it might have been prudent to have asked me this when I first posed my question instead of just telling me I was “wrong”. Firearms aren’t allowed on commercial airliners. Measures are taken to prevent guns from being taken aboard. I doubted that would be the case at this huge college campus. That’s all that I was inferring.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: I think this again describes more than anything the differences in the mindset between the US and Canada (and other countries). While your society may think it's OK to search everyone for weapons on a routine basis, ours does not.

Where the heck are you getting your info from? Nobody likes to be searched, in any country. What makes you think Americans are somehow different in this respect than the rest of the planet?

quote Originally posted by jstricker: If I'm reading you correctly, you're suggesting that all 25,000 students and probably 5,000 faculty and staff should, on a daily and continuing basis, have to go through metal detectors, searches, and other invasions of privacy just to ensure they are abiding by the law which, at least it seems, well over 99.99% of the population of Virgina Tech do every day.

You are not reading me correctly at all.

Unless there’s some practical method of screening all those students and staff everyday (which there isn’t) then I believe the “no firearm zone” at this campus is ludicrous.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: So your statement that Criminals and nutcases pack guns, law abiding sane citizen's don't isn't ALWAYS true, but your edit clarified that, I believe.

You state that like you still have doubt about my intentions or motives. I thought I made it pretty clear I was referring to locations where the possession of firearms was prohibited (such as the Virginia Tech campus and Canada). Seriously John, I don’t know why you seem to distrust me so much at times.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: You definitely hit the nail on the head, "no firearm zone's" do not work. They turn the people that respect the law into targets and little else.

Finally, something we both seem to agree with.

Although this report is from 1994, it seems to reveal that you are safer in Countries that have strict gun control.


Gun Deaths - United States Tops The List
The United States leads the world's richest nations in gun deaths -- murders, suicides, and accidental deaths due to guns - according to a study published April 17, 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

The U.S. was first at 14.24 gun deaths per 100,000 people. Two other countries in the Americas came next. Brazil was second with 12.95, followed by Mexico with 12.69.

Japan had the lowest rate, at 0.05 gun deaths per 100,000 (1 per 2 million people). The police in Japan actively raid homes of those suspected of having weapons.

The 36 countries in the study were the richest in the World Bank's 1994 World Development Report, having the highest GNP per capita income.

The United States accounted for 45 percent of the 88,649 gun deaths reported in the study, the first comprehensive international scrutiny of gun-related deaths.

The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:

U.S.A. 14.24
Brazil 12.95
Mexico 12.69
Estonia 12.26
Argentina 8.93
Northern Ireland 6.63
Finland 6.46
Switzerland 5.31
France 5.15
Canada 4.31
Norway 3.82
Austria 3.70
Portugal 3.20
Israel 2.91
Belgium 2.90
Australia 2.65
Slovenia 2.60
Italy 2.44
New Zealand 2.38
Denmark 2.09
Sweden 1.92
Kuwait 1.84
Greece 1.29
Germany 1.24
Hungary 1.11
Ireland 0.97
Spain 0.78
Netherlands 0.70
Scotland 0.54
England and Wales 0.41
Taiwan 0.37
Singapore 0.21
Mauritius 0.19
Hong Kong 0.14
South Korea 0.12
Japan 0.05
Health officials believe that guns in the U.S.could become the leading cause of death attributed to injury by the year 2003, surpassing injuries due to motor vehicle crashes.
Living in Spain, I am aware that, of the few shooting deaths recorded, over half were shot by Police..can't prove that, but will try to find a link..
Any increases in gun crime in Spain can be directly linked to the influx of Eastern Block criminals..three deaths by shooting in the Tarragona area were by a crime ring which came from Romania, and were prostitute-control related. I am glad that our low guncrime enables me to live without being paranoid about being shot, although the Media would attempt to have me believe otherwise
Nick

quote Originally posted by Patrick: John, perhaps it might have been prudent to have asked me this when I first posed my question instead of just telling me I was “wrong”. Firearms aren’t allowed on commercial airliners. Measures are taken to prevent guns from being taken aboard. I doubted that would be the case at this huge college campus. That’s all that I was inferring.

And therefore you made the statement "I suspect not" when you asked if the zone was enforced.

I didn't realize it was a question about the definition of enforcement. You stated Was there any kind of enforcement of this zone? I suspect not. You did two things. You asked a question and then hypothesized on the answer yourself. If I speed, and am caught, then the speeding laws are being enforced. If a person were caught carrying a weapon in a no firearms zone and is caught, then the zone is being enforced. I'm not going to go looking for examples of enforcement at VT, however based on many, many examples throughout the US of expulsions and prosecutions when weapons are found on people in no firearm zones, I stand by my comment that your answer to your own question is wrong.

Now if it's being enforced to your, or other's, or even MY satisfaction only the individual can answer, but the response to your answer of "was there ANY kind of enforcement of this zone? I suspect not." I still maintain to be "you would be wrong".

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Where the heck are you getting your info from? Nobody likes to be searched, in any country. What makes you think Americans are somehow different in this respect than the rest of the planet?

Like it? Probably not. Accept it? A WHOLE lot more likely in Europe, or Israel, for instance, than the US. There has been a HUGE constitutional question here in the last couple of years on whether or not the government can even listen in on phone conversations made overseas by US RESIDENTS, let alone citizens. In a great deal of the world, it is assumed your conversations are being listened in on. Do they like it? I'm sure not. Do the accept it? Yep. Here, it's a big enough issue that it warrants a supreme court ruling, Patrick.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: You are not reading me correctly at all. Unless there’s some practical method of screening all those students and staff everyday (which there isn’t) then I believe the “no firearm zone” at this campus is ludicrous.

I phrased that because of your use of the word "ANY" enforcement and your quote above shows that I AM reading you correctly. I'm also not sure I disagree with you. The only way to "enforce" the zone, in your words, is "screening all those students and staff everyday".

The no gun zones are there for a couple of reasons. One, a useless one, is to make people get the impression that SOMETHING is being done to "keep our children safe". The other, somewhat more useful, is so that when a person IS caught with a firearm in the zone, very stiff penalties will be levied and, most likely, the violator will be GONE, one way or the other.

I think we agree, though, that it's a pretty lame way to run things.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: You state that like you still have doubt about my intentions or motives. I thought I made it pretty clear I was referring to locations where the possession of firearms was prohibited (such as the Virginia Tech campus and Canada). Seriously John, I don’t know why you seem to distrust me so much at times.

Not a question of distrust, Patrick. I honestly think that YOU don't know what it is you think on this when it comes to US Society. I refer you to your post where you said By the way, if I lived in the States, I'd want to be armed to the teeth (and not with a shoelace) to protect myself from anyone else who's armed to the teeth and having a bad day.

Patrick, I've used, handled, and owned guns my entire life. I've never even considered pulling one out because I was "having a bad day", yet it seems by your posts that you think this is common. The US is a big country not just in area, like Canada, but in numbers of people. On top of all that, we have more media outlets to the rest of the world than anwhere else in the world. The media sends out bad news. Blood sells. EVERY incident like this that happens here is carried by every world media outlet instantaneously, as it happens. Naturally anyone watching or listening to the US Media is going to think it's the Old West in the US. When was the last time you heard or saw a report of someone that DIDN'T get raped, robbed, or killed because they had a way to protect themselves (usually without a shot being fired)? Never? That's about how often the media carries a story like that, although it happens not infrequently. Listen to the interviews of the people there. Do they SOUND to you like this kind of thing is normal? That it happens every day? No. It is very, very rare, in spite of the large numbers of weapons in the US.

Yet, if you lived here, you make the statement that By the way, if I lived in the States, I'd want to be armed to the teeth (and not with a shoelace) to protect myself from anyone else who's armed to the teeth and having a bad day.. To say I'm putting words in your mouth, jumping to conclusions, or distrusting you isn't that at all. I'm just reading what you write.

Patrick, when you make statements like:

Was there any kind of enforcement of this zone? I suspect not.
By the way, if I lived in the States, I'd want to be armed to the teeth (and not with a shoelace) to protect myself from anyone else who's armed to the teeth and having a bad day.
Criminals and nutcases pack guns, law abiding sane citizens don’t. (EDIT: I'm referring to the “no firearm zone” on the campus and up here in Canada where we have very strict gun laws.)

Your opinions and beliefs of how our society is ordered down here is conveyed, rightly or wrongly, to those of us that live here. Read the three statements together, Patrick, particularly if you read them as they were written before you added the edit. Can you actually expect someone to come to any other conclusion about what it is you're trying to convey?

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Kloddster: Somebody call animal control. 84IQ is off his leash again.

Better call more than that because when I'm done they are going to name a law after you and it wont leave you feeling any safer.

John, I can't respond to your whole post because the dog really is waiting to be walked, but I wanted to ask one favour - Please stop taking the "Criminals and nutcases..." comment out of context. Yes, I added something to help clarify it after I originally posted it, but it was always meant to be connected with the preceding sentence (as explained in my response to Todd). If you've got to post that particular quote again, I wish you'd at least post the whole thing, and not just a part of it.

Like this:

quote Originally posted by Patrick: The “no firearm zone” at this campus appears to be a joke, much like the “gun control” laws up here. Criminals and nutcases pack guns, law abiding sane citizens don’t. (EDIT: I'm referring to the “no firearm zone” on the campus and up here in Canada where we have very strict gun laws.)

Patrick,

I certainly will do as you requested, it's only fair. I didn't realize you felt it was quoting you out of context and I apologize for that.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Patrick: John, I can't respond to your whole post because the dog really is waiting to be walked, but I wanted to ask one favour - Please stop taking the "Criminals and nutcases..." comment out of context. Yes, I added something to help clarify it after I originally posted it, but it was always meant to be connected with the preceding sentence (as explained in my response to Todd). If you've got to post that particular quote again, I wish you'd at least post the whole thing, and not just a part of it. Like this: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Patrick: The “no firearm zone” at this campus appears to be a joke, much like the “gun control” laws up here. Criminals and nutcases pack guns, law abiding sane citizens don’t. (EDIT: I'm referring to the “no firearm zone” on the campus and up here in Canada where we have very strict gun laws.)

[/QUOTE]

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Common only with liberals. The idea that a band-aid will solve all the worlds problems is as old as spontaneously buying batteries while waiting at the check-out counter. The problem is that many people are less interested in investing the resources necessary to truly solve problems because of the reality of what it would really cost (ie, global terrorism). It is easier to shout "gun control" or "bring the troops home" and sign a piece of paper and exclaim victory than to invest the effort and money it takes to actually make a change for the better. Prohibition failed, not because drinking is a good thing but because you can't slap people on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper and expect complaince. Drinking, smoking, etc. are less of a problem than they once were due to education, not legislation. Violence will be minimized through the same method.

C'mon Todd, you know better than that. While I am a conservative, and harbor a distrust of the liberal agenda, I am aware that we can't simply slap a partisan label on this.

Nixon has been quoted as saying "Guns are an abomination"

Who signed the '86 FOPA? Reagan. While it did have some benefits for gun owners, it eliminated new autos from being sold. Reagan also signed the Mulford Act in 1967, while governor of CA. In part, it prohibited "the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street."

Who signed the '89 import ban? Bush Sr.

Who has said he would sign a new AWB if it made it to his desk? Bush Jr.

How many Republicans currently support the so-called War on Drugs, which is essentially Prohibition 2.0? The fact is, it's much easier politically to support the band-aid, feel good type fixes than it is to address the underlying issue. Especially in our age of the sound bite and uninformed voter. That's true no matter which side of the partisan fence you're on.

[This message has been edited by GT86 (edited 04-17-2007).]

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Although this report is from 1994, it seems to reveal that you are safer in Countries that have strict gun control. Gun Deaths - United States Tops The List ... The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:

That report is a bit misleading. It doesn't suggest you are SAFER. It suggests you are at less risk of being SHOT in a country with strict gun control. To know whether or not you're safer, you'd also have to look at the deaths per 100,000 people from all sources to see how they compare to the gun deaths.

Some countrys probably have a much higher chance of you getting stampeded by Elephants than the U.S. That doesn't mean U.S. Elephant laws are making us safer.

Fierofetish:

One thing left out of the crime statistics is that a HUGE percentage of the shootings are Black on Black. So much so, that if you removed them from the statistics the US would have one of the lowest rates. Unfortunately in some neighborhoods it's considered no big deal to shoot someone, and our medical care lets an unbelievable number of them do it multiple times.

?? I read 'less at risk' as being safer..or at least, that is the way I look at it After all the thread is about gun crime, not the risk of elephant trampling, or being wrapped in bacon !! But seriously, the cold hard facts seem to imply that out of 100.000 Americans, 14.24 get shot to death, and the rest are paranoid about being shot to death!! (<<<Please, note the winkie )And of the 14.24 who DO get shot and killed, how many were in such a position as to invite being shot in the first place? And how many were shot by the Police? I don't believe that every one of those 14.24 deaths were of innocent people, but I would be interested to see the breakdown of how or why those people were killed.My point being: if half of the deaths WERE of innocent people going about their daily way of life, then I rather think the risk of being one of those 7 in 100.000 innocents killed does not warrant walking around with a gun! It also occurs to me that, it would only be an armed 3rd party to any potential gun crime who would be able to do anything about it. After all, the person with the intent to kill would almost certainly be holding the gun they were going to use, and the person who was in danger would not be holding THEIR gun that they would want to use in self defence..and if they went to pull it out, they would probably be shot before they even got near to pulling their weapon. That is why I don't believe carrying a gun is very practical as a way of defending one's-self, only as a way to attack.Psychologically, yes..but that might lead to over-confidence too, leading to disaster.Surprise is the winner most of the time, IMHO.
Of course, these are the views of somebody who hasn't experienced how things are in the US, so it is not an attempt to flame anybody..I am just putting out some thoughts, and ready to be educated
Nick
(As to the terrible atrocity yesterday, I do believe that there should be authorised gun handlers amongst that vast population..it might just have stopped it escalating so badly...I feel sick for the innocents who are suffering or, have died.God rest their Souls)

Edit..just read your post above..the same seems to apply to a greater extent in the UK too...Which tempts me to make the facetious comment that only black people need to carry a gun to defend themselves (note another winkie )

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 04-17-2007).]

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Although this report is from 1994, it seems to reveal that you are safer in Countries that have strict gun control. Gun Deaths - United States Tops The List The U.S. was first at 14.24 gun deaths per 100,000 people.

I think those stats also include gangs taking each other out. It may also include good guys taking out bad guys.

[This message has been edited by wkayl (edited 04-17-2007).]

More importantly, not may kids in college would be interested in carrying a concealed weapon. I mean, I can't think of anyone at school that has expressed an interest in it and, despite what people here think, I don't run around with a bunch of hippies.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Was there any kind of enforcement of this zone? I suspect not.

quote Originally posted by Jeremiah: More importantly, not may kids in college would be interested in carrying a concealed weapon. I mean, I can't think of anyone at school that has expressed an interest in it and, despite what people here think, I don't run around with a bunch of hippies.

Not surprising. I mean no offense to you, but people in your age group tend to have more of a feeling of invincibility, that horrible things won't happen to them.

[This message has been edited by GT86 (edited 04-17-2007).]

quote Originally posted by wkayl: I think those stats also include gangs taking each other out. It may also include good guys taking out bad guys.

Yep, these numbers include criminals killing criminals and criminals shot by their intended victims or law enforcement. But sadly it also includes children killed by a family members or friends family members firearms that were not properly stored.

As far as any death by gun comparison from country to country, I wish I had a link to the report but I remember a study done in the 80's that compared two comparably sized cities in the US and Canada. Murders commited with a firearm were common in the US city and almost non existent in the Canadian counterpart. The kicker though was that the murder rate was about the same for both cities. The focus on the GUN as the problem is absolutely rediculous, people will kill people even if they have to do it with a stick or rock!

This has got to be one of the most divisive subjects in America and seems like it has been for quite some time. Not to minimize the seriousness of it but it's almost like trying to convince someone that the icecream flavor you like is better than the one they like, it just ain't gonna happen until some major event or personal experience changes the mindset of one of the two people. And if you gather enough data you can prove almost any position no matter how rediculous (not saying anyones position here is rediculous LOL).

------------------
Don't take life too seriously -- you'll never get out if it alive.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: stuff

this whole story shows exactly how mistaken you are. these people felt completely safe, because noone will have a gun.

surprise!

laws do not make guns disappear. you are completely mistaken if you think no one on YOUR street - where ever in the world you are - has a gun.
the laws may give you a imaginary feeling that people around you are as passive & unarmed as you, but they are not. in every crowd, in every corner of the planet, there is an armed person. Europe. Asia. Africa. Australia. EVERYWHERE. a gun is a simple machine. any slightly mechanical person with access to VERY basic tools can make one. but, of course the MUCH easier & cheaper way is to just buy one. or, another fun way to aquire a gun is to steal it from the government.

just like they arent gay, and dont buy hookers, or do drugs - they dont have guns either.....just ask 'em

John, neither one of us has the time to go over every “you said, I said” comment that we’ve posted (especially me as I’m slow at typing). However, I will key on one part of your post:

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Not a question of distrust, Patrick. I honestly think that YOU don't know what it is you think on this when it comes to US Society. I refer you to your post where you said By the way, if I lived in the States, I'd want to be armed to the teeth (and not with a shoelace) to protect myself from anyone else who's armed to the teeth and having a bad day. Patrick, I've used, handled, and owned guns my entire life. I've never even considered pulling one out because I was "having a bad day", yet it seems by your posts that you think this is common.

John, do you take everyone’s word this literally, or do you hold me to some higher standard? Over the last couple of years (at least), I’ve often found myself here in the forum explaining to you what I meant in a post. Perhaps my writing style IS confusing, but let me get one thing absolutely straight before I explain yet another statement of mine - I have never ever tried to CHANGE the meaning of any comment of mine when I’ve been called on the carpet to do so. That’s the honest truth, and I really hope you believe me. If you don’t believe me, then this whole exercise is pointless.

I try to retain a sense of humour in most situations. That doesn’t mean I wish to make outlandish jokes about any topic in any situation, or always fill my posts with “smileys”, but humour can be subtle and I honestly believe that having a sense of humour helps to retain our sanity when it sometimes appears that the world around us is going crazy. The problem with using subtle humour in an internet forum is that all we see are the words, we don’t see the body language, we don’t see the facial expression, we obviously don’t see the smile.

“By the way, if I lived in the States, I'd want to be armed to the teeth (and not with a shoelace) to protect myself from anyone else who's armed to the teeth and having a bad day.”

First of all, I realize now I made a mistake by forgetting that the “shoelace” reference was originally mentioned in the other related thread, so it’s possible some people reading just this thread would have no idea what I was talking about. Anyway, the “shoelace” reference had sort of become a running gag (by me) in the other thread where I was using it to tease DRA who had mentioned it in the first place (as a weapon to kill someone). I had included a reference to the “shoelace” here in my quoted statement as an indication that I was continuing to have a little fun (in a subtle manner).

Along those same lines, I used the phrase “having a bad day” as a joke (again, in a subtle manner) because it would be such a preposterous reason for anyone to have shot and killed 32 innocent people. I obviously don’t believe this is “common” as you had suggested, John.

Regarding “being armed to the teeth”, I may have been exaggerating, but I was actually being serious there. I believe in level playing fields. If I’m among people who are armed, I want to be similarly equipped. Living in Canada, I haven’t felt the need (in the past) to be armed while walking the streets because by and large, it hasn’t been an issue here. However, that’s rapidly changing now in large Canadian cities such as Vancouver with the proliferation of armed criminals and the ever-expanding drug trade. The situation may never arise where I actually need one, but I’m ticked off that I can’t protect my girlfriend and her kids with my own “equalizer”.

So back to my original comment, yes, if lived in the States, I would be packing a gun. I’d be packing a gun because other people are, and I’d be packing a gun because they’re available (unlike here in Canada).

John, I know you’re a decent guy, both from your thoughtful posts here and from you PMs to me (especially last June). I just wish you wouldn’t jump to conclusions about my views on the US or its citizens. You sometimes come across as being rather gun-shy in this regard. (Subtle humour John, subtle humour...) I don’t have it in for any country or any individual. If we were talking in person I think you’d realize I’m not such a nasty guy.

Okay, now that I’ve put everyone to sleep..