Are the gun lobby mentally ill??

Question

They claim that, had everyone on Virginia Tech campus been carrying a gun, the massacre would not have happened?

That is the dumbest thing I ever heard.

Edit:

As I mentioned elsewhere:

The USA has 5 times the population of the UK, yet 55 times the number of gun homicides.

Barring a few exceptions, guns are illegal in the UK.

Given the figures above, you tell me whose gun laws are more effective???

It's a no-brainer.

YOU WANT EVIDENCE, I'LL GIVE YOU EVIDENCE...How anyone can justify the right to carry a gun and then complain when people use guns to shoot people is breathtaking. It stands to reason that the only thing which enabled that guy to shoot up a load of students was the availability of the gun. Make the availability of guns as difficult as possible and you will reduce killing sprees like Virginia Tech. Annual gun homicide figures: UK = 200 USA = 11000. 5 times the population, 55 times the number of gun homicides. It's a no-brainer. Some of the opinions on this thread are astonishing. Of course crack heads will always get crack, deranged people will always find weapons to injure or kill with. Does that mean you just say 'oh well, they're gonna get it anyway, may as well legalise it?" Murders by shooting are the minority in the UK, most are stabbings. Of that minority, most are gang-related and not indiscriminate.

ie the victim is usually the intended target. Indiscriminate shootings are extremely rare, if not almost unheard of.

Of course, you cannot ban knives - unless you ban unsliced bread - but you can educate kids about the consequences of using knives and tackle areas of deprivation, as they are where most knife crimes take place.

If that guy in Virginia only had access to a knife, he would not have been able to kill so many people.

Also, there are plenty of deranged people in the UK. Some do kill, but it is extremely rare, and again, the vast majority of these incidents are stabbings.

I would imagine that the reason why NY and Washington still have high incidences of gun crime is because people can easily get guns from neighbouring states. Ban guns in ALL states and you'd see a reduction in gun crime.

*** the.lilbg ***

That has got to be the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.

The UK has a high crime rate because it has no guns???

Don't make me laugh.

Decades of social decay and irresponsible parenting is the reason for the UK's crime rate. Anyway, total crime statistics are unhelpful - stealing from a store is a crime, therefore a recorded crime, but it's hardly the same as murder is it?

The UK has a relatively low gun homicide rate because, barring a few exceptions, people are not allowed to possess guns.

Your Constitution needs amending, otherwise another V Tech or Columbine is just around the corner.

You also have the highest prison population per capita in the world, roughly 5 times that of the UK. What does that tell you?

Answer 1

What you failed to mention in your article is that the crime rate (other than shootings) is sky high over there and it is simply because there are no guns. When an idiot like you screams for gun protection you will be the first to hide behind someone else when an armed person walks in the room. Shame on you for forgetting our Forefathers and shame on you for spitting on the Constitution

Answer 2

WHY is it the dumbest thing you have ever heard? You present no evidence to support your opinion. Is it because you have no evidence because you have never thought about it?
Ever notice how nobody robs gun stores, or attacks police stations? Armed people are a deterrent. The simple fact is, that if some one at that school had been armed and been able to stop this nut with his totally illegal weapon that he got anyway, the massacre would NOT have happened. Its simple logic. You should try it some time. Logic, that is.
Just look at that elementary school shooting in which one of the teachers had a gun and stopped the gunman before he killed a bunch of kids. Same thing happened at a church where there was an off duty Sheriff in the congregation who was armed and stopped the murderer after he had shot a couple of people. The guy had a list of over sixty people to kill. You probably think we can trust the police to protect us. They cant do it if they arent there! THINK!

Answer 3

Makes sense to me! No one had a weapon except the bad guy and that didn't work out so well for the victims. By the way, it was illegal for him to murder 31 people but he did it anyway. Laws do not influence criminals. But three .40 slugs would have prevented this horrendous crime and saved 31 innocent lives. What makes more sense to you, allowing people to protect themselves or forcing them to line up while a lunatic drops them one by one as the others look on? You tell me.
I live in a State where any law abiding adult may carry a concealed weapon without so much as a permit. Guess what, personal assaults are very rare and violent crime has actually decreased. The only folks who are mentally ill are those who perpetrate these crimes. Why is it "dumb" to save innocent lives?
Tell you what, next time someone lines your family and friends up against the wall at gun point and begins shooting folks one by one call your legislator and urge him or her to pass another gun law.

Answer 4

Really? If I had been in that classroom, was not immediately shot, had been armed, and was within range I would have ended the killing right then and there. Thus, instead of 32 people murdered, it might have been 3 or 4. Your claim that this is the dumbest thing you have ever heard shows that you haven't heard much. I do not represent the gun lobby, am not a "gun nut", and do not belong to the NRA, but sometimes when protecting the innocent against the use of deadly force the use of lethal force against it is justified, and this is one instance when it would have been. In fact, this is one of the few times when it would have been justifiable to kill somebody.

Answer 5

Why is it dumb? Would you prefer that more people had died?

Look at it this way, in the world, the countries with the strictest gun laws have the highest incidence of violent crime with handguns(ref 1 & 2). Don't beleive me, look it up!

If only 3 people of the 32 killed had had a legal conceal and carry weapon, any one of them could have cut the death toll by as much as 20 people. Clearly the killer expected something like that since he was wearing a bullet proof vest as he went from classroom to classroom.

An armed populace can actually prevent these incidents from becoming another record-breaking crime. (ref 3)

Of the two weapons he used in the assault only one was legal. He violated dozens of laws and school policies to commit this crime. Would another law have slowed him down any?

Gun control laws don't work. Never have worked, and only empower criminals by removing any oposition. If you cannot defend yourself who is going to defend you? The police don't have to! (ref 4)

Don't cry about the lack of laws. Don't cry about how we are all crazy loons with weapons. Cry about how we are a nation of sheep who expect the dogs of the masters to protect us from wolves. Anybody who knows about sheep herding will tell you that you WILL lose a few sheep to the wolves.

I'd rather be a wolf defending more wolves.

Answer 6

Dumbest thing you ever heard? Really? Consider if one person had been armed, a security guard, a student, a faculty member, a janitor, they could have stopped this madman's rampage, and save a lot of lives. I suspect that like most universities that guns are banned from campus. Which only goes to show that gun laws only disarm law-abiding citizens not madmen, terrorists and criminals.

How about this for the dumbest thing a person has heard:

John Kerry for president. No wait Hilliary Clinton for president. No no try Obama for president. I got it, Algore for president. 4 way tie actually.

Answer 7

No, it's true. Just think about it logically. A crazed gunman walks into a room of people with guns. How many people can he possibly shoot before he himself would be riddled with bullets?

Maybe we should treat this question like an episode of CSI. We'll take two rooms filled with ten people each. We give one room guns, the other not. If you'd like to volunteer to be one of the gunman which room would you choose to go into? This is not a threat, it's an example of logic.

Now which question is dumb, yours or mine.

Answer 8

An armed society is a polite society.
If more people were armed, even amok runners would think twice and thrice before starting such a carnage.
Their chances of being stopped by another gun carrier might just change their mind. But the way things are, they are just slaughtering sheep!

Answer 9

I love it how cons think everybody and their mother should be "packin heat". That's a great idea cons have a huge gun fight on a college campus. Real swift. 1,000 scared kids firing bullets right and left. I bet like 1 out of the 5,000 shots fired would actually hit the guy doing all the shooting. If everyone was carrying a firearm there would be 100 dead bodies instead of 30.
I don't trust anyone carrying a gun, if he isn't a cop!

Answer 10

1