tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16113999.post2311995485682928443..comments2023-10-31T12:35:17.907-04:00Comments on Crane's Inanities: Virginia Tech and the Debate on Gun ControlMiller Sturtevanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07407592837398461072noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16113999.post-45781566992123974742009-02-25T11:08:00.000-05:002009-02-25T11:08:00.000-05:00Are you fucking stupid? you ban war you need to de...Are you fucking stupid? you ban war you need to de militarize and once we do that then what beg the other nations to do the same? they would just takeover the united stats. also, more gun control is not a solution that will only make it harder for honest citizens that would use guns to defend them selves to get them v.t was tragic but i dont any amount of gun control would have stoped him. people that have good uses for guns are stoped by gun control bad people can get by them with ease. more guns less problems.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>who ever said this dos have a point but with fewer guns in the us people wont get them as muchAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16113999.post-63144600855679214682009-02-25T11:05:00.000-05:002009-02-25T11:05:00.000-05:00Ideas for solutions. 1) Ban War - then you ban the...Ideas for solutions. <BR/><BR/>1) Ban War - then you ban the legitmacy of killing people, then you ban the profiting from selling arms and you make any type of offensive aggression illegal. <BR/><BR/>Are you fucking stupid? you ban war you need to de militarize and once we do that then what beg the other nations to do the same? they would just takeover the united stats. also, more gun control is not a solution that will only make it harder for honest citizens that would use guns to defend them selves to get them v.t was tragic but i dont any amount of gun control would have stoped him. people that have good uses for guns are stoped by gun control bad people can get by them with ease. more guns less problems.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16113999.post-44357465326727090852008-03-12T16:52:00.000-04:002008-03-12T16:52:00.000-04:00The main reason gun control advocates fail in the ...The main reason gun control advocates fail in the debate is because they have no idea what they are talking about, and this article is a prime example<BR/><BR/>Here is a summery of the factual errors the article contains:<BR/><BR/>"When Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold picked their way through the halls of Columbine High School with assault rifles, I thought that was a fairly clear-cut case for the banning of public ownership of automatic machine guns."<BR/><BR/>Neither Harris nor Klebold used automatic machine guns or "assault rifles" during the Columbine Massacre. Furthermore, the manufacture and sale of automatic machine guns to civilians was effectively banned in 1986. Automatic guns made before the ban are tightly controlled.<BR/><BR/>"The siege in North Hollywood not long after made the case more succinctly"<BR/><BR/>The North Hollywood shootout took place in 1997, two years BEFORE the columbine massacre, and involved two career criminals who were using ILLEGAL weapons. They already violated many gun laws before their attempted bank robbery and shootout with the police. No new laws would have stopped them.<BR/><BR/>"What possible reason, after all, would a person need a street sweeper-style machine gun for? Or armor-piercing bullets?"<BR/><BR/>"Street Sweeper" is the name of a shotgun, not a machine gun. So-called "armor peircing bullets" are really just high caliber ammunition which can be found in common hunting rifles. Police soft body armor (which partolmen use) is only made to stop pistol rounds, not rifle bullets. Under this author's deffinition, all rifle ammo would be considered "armor piercing".<BR/><BR/>Also many lawful citizens enjoy shooting automatic weapons (made before the 1986 ban) for sport. As someone who has used them before, I can assure you they have a lot of sporting appeal.<BR/><BR/>"how long after that would some maniac kill another 33 people with a hunting rifle (didn't that happen once in Texas?)."<BR/><BR/>The incedent you are reffering too is most likely the University of Texas massacre in 1966 by Charles Whitman. He did use a rifle, but he only killed 16 people, not 33.<BR/><BR/>"I think there's much more debate to be had about guns -- regulating gun shows, requiring child-proof trigger locks on handguns, etc. -- but yesterday's violence moves the debate forward only minimally."<BR/><BR/>This is because gun control advocates never do their homework and use facts to support their argument. As long they continue to make false statements that could easily be corrected by minimal reaserch, the debate will go nowhere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16113999.post-24065841569193581642007-04-18T11:30:00.000-04:002007-04-18T11:30:00.000-04:00Ideas for solutions. 1) Ban War - then you ban the...Ideas for solutions. <BR/><BR/>1) Ban War - then you ban the legitmacy of killing people, then you ban the profiting from selling arms and you make any type of offensive aggression illegal. <BR/><BR/>2)If you Ban War then you will inevitably have to dismantle the modern notion of a nation state - as this infrastructure for the last 2,000 years has been the main reason for man's inhumanity to man. Whatever "evil" impulse there is - the notion of a nation state excacerbates it. So, isn't it ironic that everyone wants the "state" to create more laws to solve the problem? And, come to think of it -people want to keep guns just in case the state turns against them. Easy solution- GET RID OF THE STATE - Anarchists have always been in my opinion about 100 years ahead of everyone else in terms of the innate and ethical understanding of living under a social system that makes choices for you - and in turn turning you into silly putty in its hands. <BR/><BR/>3) Banning the State - will get rid of class divisions and the structutal problems it creates: famine and poverty, crime, and alienation and broken communities/families which is what fosters and perpetuates people that do things like the Virginia Tech Massacre. <BR/><BR/>4) People need Self-Management, grass roots democracy, taking responsiblility for the collective and individual liberty of everyone around them. You don't get this from a uber-individualist credo of narcisstic materialism and consumption. Sorry, you can't pursue this around the globe and then ask for states to solve your problems. It's just not in their nature to do so. They are instruments of control and coercion, they have a monopoly on violence and are the only legal entities to lawfully partake in such. <BR/><BR/>Our problems are deeply systemic in the society and human evolutionary development. Arguing about the minutae such as the pro or anti gun legislation is a joke. <BR/><BR/>Moreover, this kid was mentally ill, isolated, alienated - and had major issues. I'm sure - in the 60's - when there was more collective solidarity among the students and power was starting to be shared with the terrible heriarchal structures of academia - something like this would have had a better possibility of being caught before thae fateful act occured.<BR/><BR/>You see, all of these may seem to be extreme measures or ideas and sure to be blown off - but at the core - this is the fundamental debate. Let's face it. <BR/><BR/>- PAPAAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16113999.post-81499907295401580982007-04-18T11:05:00.000-04:002007-04-18T11:05:00.000-04:00Whoa. Same time commenting. Get out of my head, Cr...Whoa. Same time commenting. Get out of my head, Crane!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16113999.post-82823234367862067132007-04-18T11:04:00.001-04:002007-04-18T11:04:00.001-04:00Oh, I see. You change your error and make NO notio...Oh, I see. You change your error and make NO notion about the correction so that my comment makes me look like an imbecile.<BR/><BR/>You're suspect, Crane. Suspect...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16113999.post-79735657580586857532007-04-18T11:04:00.000-04:002007-04-18T11:04:00.000-04:00Yeah, other than laziness, not sure why I kept on ...Yeah, other than laziness, not sure why I kept on with VMI. I fixed it though.<BR/><BR/>But you're right on this. I think part of the reason some people have used this occasion to restart the gun control argument is because we don't know any other framework with which to talk about guns. You are either for guns or against them. And whenever something really terrible happens with a gun, some are compelled to condemn all guns and others are compelled to defend all guns. I don't know what, if anything, ought to be done because of this Tech shooting, but I'd appreciate hearing some new ideas and some new arguments.Miller Sturtevanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07407592837398461072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16113999.post-17400861581891952982007-04-18T07:10:00.000-04:002007-04-18T07:10:00.000-04:00Hate to be the first nerd to point this out so ear...Hate to be the first nerd to point this out so early in the morning...but it's Virginia TECH, dude. Not the Virginia Military Institute. Had it happened at VMI that would've been a whole other debate.<BR/><BR/>But I think you make a good point. For every person who sees this as an obvious and tragic reason why guns should be severely limited in this country (and I believe the prime minister of Australia has already publicly said as much, while touting his country's own strict laws and basically just asking for a terrible act of gun violence to occur now), there will likely be just as many who see this event as the precise reason they need a firearm to protect themselves from the likes of disturbed college students. The debate is old and tired and as long as people can manufacture a need for owning a gun, there will be those willing to fight to have that need legally protected. If John Wilkes Booth shooting Lincoln isn't enough to change the 2nd amendment, this kid from Virginia Tech won't be either. <BR/><BR/>I don't mean to suggest that trying to decrease the odds of guns falling into the wrong hands or accidentally firing isn't a worthwhile cause; It's an admirable effort and has no doubt saved lives. But the debate needs to move further. <BR/><BR/>How do we help people not choose violence? Isn't there much, much more we can do along these lines and actually do this WITH the support of the gun lobbyists and 2nd amendment loyalists?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com