Could absence of gun control have saved VT victims?

  • Thread starter Thread starter vluvski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mary_bobo said:
All valid points although naive. My question was now that millions of guns are out there, what now? To intimate that we should be lobbying for machine guns is jesting, I hope. Surely you are not serious, right? You have outlined the problem, now how about a solution.
Click to expand...
Same problem with drugs. Your attempts to stop them (assuming you support that stance) is naive.

You should just ‘expect’ parents to protect their children from drugs - and in your ‘ideal’ society of armed citizens, they can do just that - and therefore the government shouldn’t interfere
 
didididi said:
Yes. They have, and they do with guns acquired legally.

If (for instance) you write that you are a sports shooter but you do not go to any clubs for an extended period, they will revoke your gun licence.

Also once every while they come to check that guns are in a secure safe, and that ammunition is stored separately.
Click to expand...
I also understand that home invasions have increased as a result of this because criminals know that the home owner will either be unarmed or not have quick access to defend himself and his family.

Pity the elderly, the handicap and even a regular person who is outnumbered or overpowered.
 
vluvski said:
Not sure why you say “victims died because they were unarmed” is fallacious reasoning.
Click to expand...
I said I was done with this thread, but I can’t leave this alone.

They were not killed by their lack of a weapon; they were killed by another person.

To suggest that their unarmed state led to their deaths is fallacious reasoning – at best. The deranged decision by the shooter to do what he did ended their lives. Don’t put the blame on the victims or on the school for not having weapons or not allowing weapons. Cho did the killing. Cho, and his guns.

/interest in thread off

Peace,
Dante
 
… they were killed by another person …

Exactly! They were killed by another person who BROKE THE LAW. It was illegal for him to kill anyone. Did that stop him? No! It was illegal for him to bring a gun on campus. Did that law stop him? No! Did it stop law-abidding citizens from bringing a gun of their own? Yes!

Who did this law help? The criminal or the victims? The criminal!

As was already pointed out earlier, a similar situation happened a few years ago and the shooter was stopped by armed citizend before the police even arrived. If not for them, the death toll would have been much higher.

If the law barring guns on campus didn’t exist, the same thing could have happened here. Instead, it didn’t and the victims were sitting ducks for this nut case.
 
DanteAlighieri said:
I said I was done with this thread, but I can’t leave this alone.

They were not killed by their lack of a weapon; they were killed by another person.

To suggest that their unarmed state led to their deaths is fallacious reasoning – at best. The deranged decision by the shooter to do what he did ended their lives. Don’t put the blame on the victims or on the school for not having weapons or not allowing weapons. Cho did the killing. Cho, and his guns.

/interest in thread off

Peace,
Dante
Click to expand...
Goodness me! I don’t think anyone said that a single person did not do all this carnage. Yes, he was obviously mentally ill. With respect to your opinion, I do not comprehend people standing around waiting to be shot. Some may have died, but I believe the toll would have been less. And I don’t believe for a minute that anyone on this forum blamed the victims. It is extremely uncharitable to even infer that.
 
Sir_Knight said:
I also understand that home invasions have increased as a result of this because criminals know that the home owner will either be unarmed or not have quick access to defend himself and his family.

Pity the elderly, the handicap and even a regular person who is outnumbered or overpowered.
Click to expand...
Don’t feel sorry for this granny. I am trained and practiced and if it between me and them, I will defend myself.
 
Thankfully, you and I can. I feel sorry for those, who through no fault of their own, were deprived of their abilities to defend themselves.
 
DanteAlighieri said:
I said I was done with this thread, but I can’t leave this alone.

They were not killed by their lack of a weapon; they were killed by another person.

To suggest that their unarmed state led to their deaths is fallacious reasoning – at best. The deranged decision by the shooter to do what he did ended their lives. Don’t put the blame on the victims or on the school for not having weapons or not allowing weapons. Cho did the killing. Cho, and his guns.

/interest in thread off

Peace,

Dante
Click to expand...
They died because they could not defend themselves. It is as simple as that. They had a right to defend themselves. The church has said so for almost two thousand years. Now in the last 40 years people decide this isn’t so. Is this another one of your “in the spirit of Vatican 2” decisions. It is wrong. If those students did not have a right to defend themselves, then the same holds true regarding abortion. You CAN NOT have it both ways.
 
Sir_Knight said:
… they were killed by another person …

Exactly! They were killed by another person who BROKE THE LAW. It was illegal for him to kill anyone. Did that stop him? No! It was illegal for him to bring a gun on campus. Did that law stop him? No! Did it stop law-abidding citizens from bringing a gun of their own? Yes!

Who did this law help? The criminal or the victims? The criminal!

As was already pointed out earlier, a similar situation happened a few years ago and the shooter was stopped by armed citizend before the police even arrived. If not for them, the death toll would have been much higher.

If the law barring guns on campus didn’t exist, the same thing could have happened here. Instead, it didn’t and the victims were sitting ducks for this nut case.
Click to expand...
You keep chaning your point – first, you were arguing that gun ownership is a right, then you switched it to the realm of duty. I was answering your absurd claim that not having a gun caused those people to die, and then you say “Exactly!”???

Yeesh – I’m REALLY DONE NOW! ::eek:

Peace,
Dante
 
mgrobertson79 said:
They died because they could not defend themselves. It is as simple as that. They had a right to defend themselves. The church has said so for almost two thousand years. Now in the last 40 years people decide this isn’t so. Is this another one of your “in the spirit of Vatican 2” decisions. It is wrong. If those students did not have a right to defend themselves, then the same holds true regarding abortion. You CAN NOT have it both ways.
Click to expand...
What the heck (sorry – edited myself) are you talking about? That if I don’t want adults to have guns, then fetuses shouldn’t be allowed to pack heat either???

Furthermore, this has nothing to do with “the spirit of Vatican II” – a statement so dripping with contempt for an Ecumenical Council that it’s very irritating – this is about logic being misapplied to defend a baseless stance that it’s at least our God-given right if not our “Catholic duty” to carry a gun!!!

Am I the only person here who sees the irony here?
 
DanteAlighieri said:
What the heck (sorry – edited myself) are you talking about? That if I don’t want adults to have guns, then fetuses shouldn’t be allowed to pack heat either???

Furthermore, this has nothing to do with “the spirit of Vatican II” – a statement so dripping with contempt for an Ecumenical Council that it’s very irritating – this is about logic being misapplied to defend a baseless stance that it’s at least our God-given right if not our “Catholic duty” to carry a gun!!!

Am I the only person here who sees the irony here?
Click to expand...
If you don’t want adults to have guns, move to Europe, or Chicago, I don’t care which. You would rather leave me defenseless when someone tries to do me or my family harm. Is it you who desires to do me harm? It sure seems that way. And yes, I have as much a right to life as the unborn child.
 
Sir_Knight said:
I also understand that home invasions have increased as a result of this because criminals know that the home owner will either be unarmed or not have quick access to defend himself and his family.

Pity the elderly, the handicap and even a regular person who is outnumbered or overpowered.
Click to expand...
your understanding is incorrect and I believe it may be a fabricated fact from the organization which may have given it to you.

Firstly because it ignores the fact that a person with a mobile/cordless phone is more powerful than a guy with a baseball bat. Sorry but the criminal is highly likely also quite unarmed or only armed with a hand held stabbing weapon. And he knows what will go down once the police have been called. He’ll have about 10 minutes to run for his life.

In Australia it’s very uncommon for Police not to arrive 15 minutes or less(the average is 12) on the scene of a crime/disturbance when the emergency number has been called or a security alarm switched. We have one of the most efficient police forces in the world.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again… the best ways to protect yourself from criminals are through Good Laws and a bloody fantastic Police Force. Not by going and owning your own gun.
 
Besides that, my contempt is not for the council, just those who misinterpreted it. I also have contempt for those who continue today to push an ill conceived, harmful modernist agenda within the Church, which of course has nothing to do with this thread, but oh well.

Homosexuality has no place within the Church, Abortion the same. Why is it people decide to do this anyway. It is because we have truly lost a sense of right and wrong. We make it what we want it to be. This is wrong. Sin is sin. What was sinful a thousand years ago, is sinful today. The truth never changes.

The Church until 40 years ago was the same. Semper Veritas, this is the Motto of the Church. It means ever true. That means that everything people reject from before the council is still true today, regardless of whether they or you say so or not.
 
colliric said:
your understanding is incorrect and I believe it may be a fabricated fact from the organization which may have given it to you.

Firstly because it ignores the fact that a person with a mobile/cordless phone is more powerful than a guy with a baseball bat. Sorry but the criminal is highly likely also quite unarmed or only armed with a hand held stabbing weapon. And he knows what will go down once the police have been called. He’ll have about 10 minutes to run for his life.

In Australia it’s very uncommon for Police not to arrive 15 minutes or less(the average is 12) on the scene of a crime/disturbance when the emergency number has been called or a security alarm switched. We have one of the most efficient police forces in the world.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again… the best ways to protect yourself from criminals are through Good Laws and a bloody fantastic Police Force. Not by going and owning your own gun.
Click to expand...
10 - 15 minutes is all it takes for a person to kill you, even after the call is made and them escape. The police in the US have no duty to protect. This has been ruled by several courts. You are in the minority calling for gun bans. There will be another revolution/civil war in this country before an all out ban takes place.
 
DanteAlighieri said:
You keep chaning your point – first, you were arguing that gun ownership is a right, then you switched it to the realm of duty. I was answering your absurd claim that not having a gun caused those people to die, and then you say “Exactly!”???

Yeesh – I’m REALLY DONE NOW! ::eek:

Peace,
Dante
Click to expand...
Why do you consider rights and duties to be entirely seperate. We have the right to vote, it can also be said we have the DUTY to vote.

Pope John Paul said that I have a duty to defend my family. And I use my right to arm myself to fulfil my duty to my family.
 
mgrobertson79 said:
10 - 15 minutes is all it takes for a person to kill you, even after the call is made and them escape. The police in the US have no duty to protect. This has been ruled by several courts. You are in the minority calling for gun bans. There will be another revolution/civil war in this country before an all out ban takes place.
Click to expand...
You see that’s another problem. In Australia, thats the most important role the police plays. It is the duty of the police force to “serve and protect the community”(Victoria police website)
And why would a person stand there for 10 minutes killing me when they know they are going to get caught and thrown in the brig for life? that’s just stupid. 95% of murders in Australia are solved within the first year of the case… why even bother?

Yes with a gun they could kill you in seconds, so you’re probably thinking of that… but remember we don’t have guns in Australia. These guys tend not to stick around once you tell them you’ve called the cops, they don’t want to get caught.

Of cause, if they are there to murder you, they may just be nuts and may not care about it and will try to kill you anyway, but the majority of home invasions are nothing to do with murder and something to do with burglary.
 
colliric said:
your understanding is incorrect and I believe it may be a fabricated fact from the organization which may have given it to you…
Click to expand...
Here are figures from the NZ Ministry of Justice (showing rates between NZ and AUS)

courts.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2002/intl-comparisons-crime/section-6.html

It gives a violent crime rate in Austrailia in 2002 at 947 incidents per 100,000 persons.

US violent crime rates in the same time period were **494 **per 100,000 (FBI)

fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nviolent02.html

What is really interesting is that Austrailans rape each other at at about 2 1/2 times the rate of Americans.

(81 per 100,000 vs. 33 per 100,000)

Now imagine what that rate would be if the rapists thought their victims were armed. But I suppose you expect the victim to call the Police on her cell phone during the rape instead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top