Virginia

[desinor at sympatico.ca (Jean-Claude Désinor)]

  That is interesting.
  It shows we need to define the word "gun control". What you describe 
for OK is what I call "Gun Control". "CCW" is a permit to carry a 
concealed weapon, right?
  The way you describe it is stringent enough that it will reduce the 
likelihood of some deranged individual going on a rampage. That is OK 
with me.
  Where we might differ is that I would like to see *every* firearm 
registered.
 
    Jean-Claude
    84 8v (D -12 days)

fahrvergnugen@cox.net wrote:
> ---- Brendan Doyle <lord_verminaard@yahoo.com> wrote: 
>   
>> Normally I would not get involved in an argument like this, but I think what really gets to me is the first official statement that I read (and I believe was the first statement released) out of the white house after it happened (and this was when the death count was still in the 20's) according to an "official Bush spokeswoman": 
>>     
>
> "The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed."  Say what????  Could that be any more insensitive?  To me that is just another way for him to say "shut up you stupid liberals" before it even begins.
> ----------------------------
>
> I too thought this was stupid, and not in the Presidents' best interests.  If anything, it only gives cause to the lefties to argue more gun control.
> ---------------------------
>
>   Cause I know the first thing that was on my liberal mind was how this shooting will affect my ability to own a firearm.  I like guns as much as the next guy.  I do not own one although I might someday.  I sure as hell am not going to carry the thing around with me.  Likewise, I really am uncomfortable with the idea that there are dozens of other people walking around carrying a firearm.  If something goes down in a store where I am shopping, the LAST thing I would want is a gunfight breaking out because some "tough guy" citizen carrying a gun wants to be a hero and kill the bad guy.  So instead of one crazy with a gun (who, the majority of the time has no real intention of shooting anyone, just using it for leverage)
>   
>>  you have two, and both of them suddenly have a reason to start shooting.  If you want a gun in your house, fine- shooting at an intruder at least reduces the chance that you will hurt anyone else besides the attacker or anyone in your house at the time.
>>     
> -----------------------------
>
> That's just the thing, though.  Here in OK., to get a CCW, you have to go through a reasonably rigorous training, as well as to understand that if you are going to -show- your gun, you are going to -use- it.  To maintain your CCW, you have to go in every so often (I think every 2 years) and recertify yourself.  Certification includes being able to hit a target X number of times within X number of seconds, as well as some discussion of how to watch-out for innocent bystanders.  Ultimately, those with CCW are nearly as well trained as many police officers with regards to how to use the gun well in differing environments.  This is compounded by the fact that they have to recertify regularly.  Your example would be plausible in a movie, but not in most states.
> ----------------------------
> Gun control is not going to completely solve the issue, and I agree with what others are saying.  But the problem is this- until we have a way to profile people from birth to find out if they are going to snap or go crazy, it has to be done.  Spare me the "invasion of privacy blah blah blah" unless you can think of a better way.   Now, I have not heard if the shooter at Virginia legally purchased those weapons, but I'd be willing that he didn't.   A large, LARGE part of the problem is illegal weapons sales- but the only real cure is to keep "at risk" people from obtaining weapons. 
> ---------------------------
>
> He did legally purchase both guns.
> ---------------------------------------
>  I do not care if it's fair or not.  Put it this way- my girlfriend was shot by a stray bullet while she was walking through public land- the owner of the gun did not have it registered, and obviously did not have any training if he was shooting it off of his back porch.  Thankfully, she was not seriously injured- although if the bullet had hit three inches to the left it would have hit her spine,
>   
>>  then what would have happened?  As much as everyone hates the idea, start profiling people more.  If they do not meet the requirements, sorry, no gun for you.  Combine that with cracking down on illegal gun sales and it WILL reduce the amount of gun-related assault/homicide.  I also think people should be profiled before they get a drivers license, more specifically if they do not meet a certain IQ requirement but that is a whole different issue.  :P
>>     
> ------------------------------
>
> I can't argue with the IQ/DL argument, however tracking illegal gun sales is not a realistic goal.  Law abiding citizens are not the issue here, criminals are.  I don't have a link to provide, but everything I have seen says that folks with CCW are -mcuh- more likely to -avert- crime, than to start it.  I have seen this a few different times, but for the life of me cannot recall where the statistics were posted...
> -------------------------------
> I do not like political arguments, and I do not like to disagree with people- by nature I avoid conflict so please do not feel like I am attacking or trying to disprove anyone else's opinions, I'm just saying what I feel.
> -----------------------
>
> No worries, no offense taken.  :-)  I am just offering an opinion back.  As long as we can all agree that no -one- person has the answers, then I will be right...    :-)
>
> David
> ----------
> Brendan
> 84 Scirocco 8v <-- TDI in progress
> 01 Jeep TJ 4.0
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "fahrvergnugen@cox.net" <fahrvergnugen@cox.net>
> To: scirocco-l@scirocco.org; desinor@sympatico.ca
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 9:40:39 AM
> Subject: Re: Virginia
>
>
> ---- "Jean-Claude D?sinor" <desinor@sympatico.ca> wrote: 
>   
>>   Like it or not, eventually some form of gun control will happen.
>>   I understand that US Citizens have a constitutional right to bear arms.
>>   I understand also that someone can kill with a baseball bat or a 
>> hockey puck.
>>     
>
> We already have forms of gun control in place, they vary greatly from state.  They may not have been strong enough to prevent this tragedy, but ultimately they cannot.  The only manner this sort of crap could be contained is if -more- folks we armed, while properly trained.  Do you imagine that good, law abiding citizens who carry would have done nothing if they saw this happening?
>
>   
>>   I am a Canadian, but we did lose a Canadian teacher in that mishap, so 
>> that gives me (some) qualification to speak my mind :-)
>>   Given that, please consider the following:
>>   - a baseball bat (or a shovel or a kitchen knife) requires some skill 
>> to be used for killing. Not a firearm, the primary purpose of a firearm 
>> is to kill. Even small kids can do it.
>>     
>
> So, because a tool is designed to kill, it is inherently evil?  Guns can take no actions in and of themselves, they are inanimate, and therefore free of responsibility, unlike man.
>
>   
>>   - since we register automobiles, there is no big technical challenge 
>> to register guns. (although some crooks made a bundle screwing up 
>> Canada's gun registry.)
>>     
>
> An ex-con might disagree with you.  Or someone with mental problems, etc...
>
>   
>>   So everyone has the right (constitutional or not) to own a car or a 
>> driver's license. Yet you have to learn to drive and pass an exam before 
>> you get a license, and your car is registered. What's the big hangup 
>> about requiring a license for a firearm and registering a gun?
>>     
>
> Again, most states already have controls in place.  They cannot, nor should they be capable of determining the likelihood that someone will snap.  And if and when that happens, I would like to have a weapon to defend myself.  
>
> I have no idea what it is like in Canada, but let me explain to you how the police work in the States.  They are -not- responsible for defending US citizens, and the battles in court to that effect back-up my assertion.  --There was a woman in CO. who had three kids by her estranged husband, two girls and a boy I think, all under 10 years of age.  The two were divorced and had joint custody.  He came and got the kids one day when he was not scheduled to do so, and took them to a nearby amusement park.  The kids called the mom a few times from the park, saying everything was okay, but there was a restraining order to prevent him from taking the kids (IIRC).  Long-story-short, she calls the cops several times to tell them that the father took the kids and she feared for their lives, they did nothing.  The father ended-up killing all three of his kids, and then commited suicide by cop at the doorsteps of the policestation.  Now, I tell you all this sad story to illustrate one
>   
>>  simple thing; who is responsible for protecting you and your family?  Who can you trust to do the most important job anyone here can think of?  The police were taken to court, and they won.  The police are -not- responsible for each and every persons' defense.  Search our legal system and discover it for yourself.
>>     
>
> No thanks, I would like the ability to defend myself if I need to.
>
>   
>>   Last September, in Montreal, a young man went berserk and went on a 
>> rampage. He had a legally registered firearm. He was known to have a 
>> violent web site and to have mental problems,  but that . The gun he 
>> used was a Beretta CX4. Splendid machine, see for yourself: 
>> <http://www.cx4storm.com/>
>>   Why the heck is someone allowed to have such a weapon in a non-combat 
>> situation?
>>     
>
> I've no idea, but it has little to do with this argument IMO.
>
>   
>>   I do not know what weapon was involved in VT, but I bet if there were 
>> reasonable controls he would be at least limited in his ability to hurt 
>> so many people.
>>     
>
> 'Reasonable' as outlined by who?  While I would love to agree with you, guns are not the issue here.  He had two pistols, nothing as impressive as posted above.
>
>   Unless of course some determined victims stormed him, 
>   
>> but civilians faced with a powerful killing machine might not react like 
>> that.
>>     
>
> What if they themselves were armed?  How many lives do you think could have been saved if someone was properly trained, and had an sidearm?
>
>   
>>   Yes, you have the right to bear arms, but take some precautions. You 
>> do protect yourself for sex, no?
>>
>>     
>
> Depends on how dangerous I am feeling at the moment...  :-)  
>
> Guns are tools, they can be used for good, or evil.  If you believe that they are only used for evil, then your lack of experience with guns is clouding your judgement.  I am not necessarily an advocate for automatic weapons, but I -do- advocate more folks having licenses for concealed/carry.
>
> David
>
>   
>>     Jean-Claude
>>     84 8v (step on the gas if it smells like danger!)
>>
>>     
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scirocco-l mailing list
> Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>