Here is information about the Virginia Tech killer

"Toni Nikkanen" wrote in message
...
Scott Schuckert writes:

"But... guns are bad, guns are dangerous; how could a gun make us safe?"

When I explained that armed citizens might have defended themselves and
STOPPED this guy, the discussion turned to speculation on how to
"authorize" people (to defend themselves), and, God help me, liability
issues.

Now I'M the one who can't comprehend...


I think both things will become true: if more people had guns, more
people would be shooting other people when they go crazy. However,
they will be stopped faster. Who knows it the net total would be for
the better or worse? Please, do make an experiment like this in the
US, we can watch from the sidelines and see if it was a good decision.

Simply go back an look at the 1950's and early 1960's. Gun ownership, with
the exception of fully automatic firearms was legal with almost no
restrictions. Hell, you mail order a rifle or shotgun and pay with money
order from out of state.

Toni Nikkanen wrote:
Scott Schuckert writes:

"But... guns are bad, guns are dangerous; how could a gun make us safe?"

When I explained that armed citizens might have defended themselves and
STOPPED this guy, the discussion turned to speculation on how to
"authorize" people (to defend themselves), and, God help me, liability
issues.

Now I'M the one who can't comprehend...


I think both things will become true: if more people had guns, more
people would be shooting other people when they go crazy. However,
they will be stopped faster. Who knows it the net total would be for
the better or worse? Please, do make an experiment like this in the
US, we can watch from the sidelines and see if it was a good decision.
There have been a large number of such "experiments" in the United
States. Up until the mid-1920's, armed Klan and Klan-like mobs were
lynching blacks for the crime of being black, with no trial no evidence.
In the 1800s posses and vigilantes roamed the West, shooting or hanging
people for imagined crimes with no trial, no evidence. Then there was
the Spanish Inquisition in Europe--people hanged or burned at the stake
by people with arms, just because they thought the victims had different
ideas. Or, lets go back to the Middle East in about AD 33, when an angry
mob conned the government into lynching a man because they didn't agree
with him.

How many "experiments" do you need?

Allen

"Allen" wrote in message
...
Toni Nikkanen wrote:
Scott Schuckert writes:

"But... guns are bad, guns are dangerous; how could a gun make us safe?"

When I explained that armed citizens might have defended themselves and
STOPPED this guy, the discussion turned to speculation on how to
"authorize" people (to defend themselves), and, God help me, liability
issues.

Now I'M the one who can't comprehend...


I think both things will become true: if more people had guns, more
people would be shooting other people when they go crazy. However,
they will be stopped faster. Who knows it the net total would be for
the better or worse? Please, do make an experiment like this in the
US, we can watch from the sidelines and see if it was a good decision.
There have been a large number of such "experiments" in the United States.
Up until the mid-1920's, armed Klan and Klan-like mobs were lynching
blacks for the crime of being black, with no trial no evidence.

A mob doesn't require a gun to hang someone.

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article 200704162124398930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom,
says...

A single armed student could have stopped him. Thirty armed students
would have turned him into Swiss cheese the moment he threatened them.

As it is, the American public is so helpless that it will not be long
before the whole country could be taken over by a couple goons armed
with spoons.

On the other hand here in Germany where firearms are not as widespread
as in the USA such massacres are unknown. There have been some small
isolated accidents in the past, but nothing comparable to what you have
in the USA.

And this has been true of Britain and Canada and Australia both before
and after they drastically restricted civilian ownership of firearms.
It appears to relate to national character or local social conditions or
something rather than to availability of weapons.

Meanwhile, Americans defend themselves from assaults with firearms
something like 700,000 to 5,000,000 times a year (measuring successful
defenses is hard, hence the large uncertainty; difficulties include that
successful defenses may not be reported to the authorities especially if
shots aren't fired, and that somebody who scared you enough to cause you
to show your firearm and tell him to go away may not have intended an
assault).

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Meanwhile, Americans defend themselves from assaults with firearms
something like 700,000 to 5,000,000 times a year (measuring successful
defenses is hard, hence the large uncertainty; difficulties include that
successful defenses may not be reported to the authorities especially if
shots aren't fired, and that somebody who scared you enough to cause you
to show your firearm and tell him to go away may not have intended an
assault).

5 million times per year? Dividing that out, that's 100,000 times per
state. Even taking 700,000 as the low end, that's still over 10,000
times per state per year. I find that very hard to believe.

On 17 Apr 2007 11:47:02 +0300, Toni Nikkanen
wrote:

Gunner writes:

Look at Norway, Canada and Finland where gun ownership is nearly as high
or higher than the US and such massacres are unknown.

I'd be surprised if gun ownership in Finland was nearly as high as in
the US; after all, you need a permit to own one legally and the more
powerful the weapon, the harder it gets.. add to this that most people
aren't interested in owning one anyway.

Got any numbers?


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


One should also note that Mexico, which has a total ban on firearms
ownership, has one of the highest murder rates.

Oh..and silencers...terrible....

Gunner

"I don't want to abolish government.
I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can
drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.
-- Grover Norquist

On 17 Apr 2007 17:05:17 +0300, Toni Nikkanen
wrote:

Scott Schuckert writes:

"But... guns are bad, guns are dangerous; how could a gun make us safe?"

When I explained that armed citizens might have defended themselves and
STOPPED this guy, the discussion turned to speculation on how to
"authorize" people (to defend themselves), and, God help me, liability
issues.

Now I'M the one who can't comprehend...


I think both things will become true: if more people had guns, more
people would be shooting other people when they go crazy. However,
they will be stopped faster. Who knows it the net total would be for
the better or worse? Please, do make an experiment like this in the
US, we can watch from the sidelines and see if it was a good decision.


Norway and Switzerland.


Need more?

Oh..btw...Piva!

Gunner...Soumilinen

"I don't want to abolish government.
I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can
drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.
-- Grover Norquist

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:52:36 -0500, Allen wrote:

Toni Nikkanen wrote:
Scott Schuckert writes:

"But... guns are bad, guns are dangerous; how could a gun make us safe?"

When I explained that armed citizens might have defended themselves and
STOPPED this guy, the discussion turned to speculation on how to
"authorize" people (to defend themselves), and, God help me, liability
issues.

Now I'M the one who can't comprehend...


I think both things will become true: if more people had guns, more
people would be shooting other people when they go crazy. However,
they will be stopped faster. Who knows it the net total would be for
the better or worse? Please, do make an experiment like this in the
US, we can watch from the sidelines and see if it was a good decision.
There have been a large number of such "experiments" in the United
States. Up until the mid-1920's, armed Klan and Klan-like mobs were
lynching blacks for the crime of being black, with no trial no evidence.

And when the blacks started arming themselves, such incidents fell to
nearly zero.

In the 1800s posses and vigilantes roamed the West, shooting or hanging
people for imagined crimes with no trial, no evidence.

Actually..most of the shootings and hangings were of the right people
for real crimes. Dead criminals are NOT repeat offenders.


Then there was
the Spanish Inquisition in Europe--people hanged or burned at the stake
by people with arms, just because they thought the victims had different
ideas.

Actually..the Spanish usually used a garrot.

Or, lets go back to the Middle East in about AD 33, when an angry
mob conned the government into lynching a man because they didn't agree
with him.

How many "experiments" do you need?

Allen

Thank you for demonstrating that unarmed people are helpless against the
mob.

Gunner


"I don't want to abolish government.
I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can
drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.
-- Grover Norquist

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:17:06 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

(snips)

Oh, come on; there's been tremendous progress in shall-issue carry laws
in the last two decades, since Florida kicked off the current round of
expansions in 1987. The chance of meeting an armed civilian is, I will
venture to guess, at a 30-year high.

Not on a school campus, which is why those are the favored
shooting spree venues.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:34:31 -0700, "Billzz"
wrote:

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
m...
In article 200704162124398930-christophercampbell@hotmailcom,
says...

A single armed student could have stopped him. Thirty armed students
would have turned him into Swiss cheese the moment he threatened them.

As it is, the American public is so helpless that it will not be long
before the whole country could be taken over by a couple goons armed
with spoons.

On the other hand here in Germany where firearms are not as widespread
as in the USA such massacres are unknown. There have been some small
isolated accidents in the past, but nothing comparable to what you have
in the USA.
--

Alfred Molon

I am guessing that you did not live in Germany when we lived in Germany.

http://www.germanculture.com.ua/libr...y/aa060499.htm

You're forgetting little bit of violence which occurred from
1933 through 1945. Oh, wait -- that was done BY the
government, so I guess it was OK. Yeah: Germany, the one
place on earth where violence NEVER happens. Riiiiight...

--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/