VT Shooting: What do you suppose would have happened...

[americanwoman]

If the guard had been in the building armed at that time,I think there is more a chance the nutjob would have been stopped. Most people who carry guns responsibly and legally take training courses. The said guard would have been trained to do their best to stop the said attacker.
That's not to say that would have happened but there is a better chance the gunman would have been stopped had someone been armed. Look at that guy who started shooting up at that mall, and there was a armed off duty policeman. Had that policeman not been there to shoot him, I can bet there would have been a lot more fatalities.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Brady act was against assault weapons,

The Brady Act had nothing to do with 'assault weapons'.

It created the Federal requirement that gun purchasers go through a background check.

A such, it has everything to do with it-- because, clearly, it fails to keep guns out of the hands of nut heads and criminals.

Its just that simple.

 

[TurtleDude]

The Brady Act had nothing to do with 'assault weapons'.

It created the Federal requirement that gun purchasers go through a background check.

A such, it has everything to do with it-- because, clearly, it fails to keep guns out of the hands of nut heads and criminals.

Its just that simple.

I suspect if the public was actually informed about

1) the guns that are being discussed

2) the laws in place currently

3) the goals of those who push more gun bans

4) the evidence establishing that gun bans have not made us safer

Gun control as a political issue would cease to exist

right now the less one knows about guns and the less informed they are about gun laws the more likely they are to support the Brady conspiracy against civil rights

 

[Kandahar]

I suspect if the public was actually informed about

1) the guns that are being discussed

2) the laws in place currently

3) the goals of those who push more gun bans

4) the evidence establishing that gun bans have not made us safer

Gun control as a political issue would cease to exist

right now the less one knows about guns and the less informed they are about gun laws the more likely they are to support the Brady conspiracy against civil rights

I think it's already ceasing to exist as a political issue. Most of the Democrats have figured out that gun control is a losing issue, politically (unless they're from a very urban state). Same with Republicans, although there were never as many of them against guns to begin with. Even if the next president is a Democrat, I doubt there will be any major push to ban more guns.

 

[DeeJayH]

Probably nothing different.
I was listening to a radio talk show about it, and they were talking to some guest who was a decorated vietnam vet and had been a cop for 20 years.
He said he had been in many situations in Vietnam of being shot at.
He said you never know how you will react.
He said if he had been in that building at VT at the time the shooting erupted, he could not say what he would have done.

Of course, this was sort of a backlash against a bunch of a$shole callers saying the students should have rushed the gunman or something.

Our popular idea is of police and military personnel being so highly disciplined that they would behave or react in a predetermined manner when being ambushed by gunfire.
But, this guy was saying that it doesn't matter how much or what kind of training you've had, or even how much experience you've had with combat; there is no training that overrides primal instinct, and when one is being shot at, primal instinct takes over, and there is no predicting what you will do, what anyone will do.

It could be he's full of sh!te.

But just in case he's not, this would no doubt include cops and would certainly include armed security guards.

pathetic example
seems to me he was there for the paycheck, not the job
I will agree that most people do not know how they will react in a situation until they are in it
but the majority of people who put themselves in that position are there because of their beliefs

how effective would our fire fighters be if the majority of them thought going into the fire is scary and I could die
how effective woudl our police force be if the majority of them thought going into the dangerous situation is sacary and I could die
How effective would our EMT forces be if teh majority of them thought going into a dangerous situation is scary, and I could die, so I will sit back and wait
how effective would our military be if the worried about being killed

certain fields attract certain types of people
Myself, I would have no problem laying down my life for any child or college student
will some freeze in a crisis, sure
but they will lose their job as a result

Where cowards run away Policemen and Firemen and Military RUN IN
thank god for them

Some people are heroes, other are not, although i can not fathom how they can be so selfish
but i believe they are those who never faced death
or those who think they are special

 

[Cephus]

The cop might have killed him. He might have killed the cop. Or they might never have encountered each other. Are you suggesting we put armed guards in every college building in America, to prevent an exceedingly rare psychotic rampage?

Agreed. My feelings are that the nutjob would have killed the cop, the cop is trained to seek a peaceful resolution first and give the nutjob a chance to surrender. The nutjob is under no such compulsion, he's out to kill people, period. He'd be firing first, screw asking questions.

You're also absolutely right that we can't be putting armed guards all over the place on the off chance that anything like this happens again. Who is going to pay for it all? There's a very definite cost/benefit analysis that has to be done here and for the potential benefit, it just isn't worth the insane cost.

 

[jfuh]

wrong-the brady act was at first a waiting period that morphed into the instant BGC-part of it was struck down as violating the tenth amendment. the "assault weapons ban" was part of the Clinton crime bill a year later

In which case then it'd make even less sense that you brought it up.

 

[jfuh]

another error or lie-it was not the NRA that opposed mental health records being part of the data base.

Where did I state that the NRA was opposed to mental health records? I said the NRA is against all gun control laws.

 

[jfuh]

The Brady Act had nothing to do with 'assault weapons'.

It created the Federal requirement that gun purchasers go through a background check.

A such, it has everything to do with it-- because, clearly, it fails to keep guns out of the hands of nut heads and criminals.

Its just that simple.

Yet, one small detail. The Brady bill expired as of 1998 and there is no longer a wait period.
Finally the "gun show loophole" of the bill and that there are a plethora of other circumventions of this bill.

 

[TurtleDude]

Where did I state that the NRA was opposed to mental health records? I said the NRA is against all gun control laws.

well then you would be lying or ignorant of reality then.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yet, one small detail. The Brady bill expired as of 1998 and there is no longer a wait period.
Finally the "gun show loophole" of the bill and that there are a plethora of other circumventions of this bill.

More errors-prior to the brady bill, there was no requirement of anyone -dealer or private seller-(in terms of FEDERAL LAW) to conduct a background check on anyone they sold a gun to. After the brady bill, Federally licensed dealers were required to comply with the Brady check be it at a gun show, a trade show, or their shop. Private citizens were not included (and its almost impossible to enforce such a requirement if applied to private citizens) and never were

hardly a loophole and gun show has nothing to do with the law since the law applies (or does not apply) equally at a gun show, a gun club, a flea market or JOe's backyard or rec room

 

[TurtleDude]

In which case then it'd make even less sense that you brought it up.

Nice attempt to cover up your misstatement or error

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yet, one small detail. The Brady bill expired as of 1998 and there is no longer a wait period.

That has nothing to do with the fact that thr Brady Act, contrary to your post, had nothing to do with 'assault weapons'.

The Brady Act did NOT expire in 1998, it is still current law. The act specified that the 3-day wait for a background check be replaced with the current NICS - which does the same thing, except that it doesnt take three days.

The fact of the matter is that this indicent illusrates that Brady Act doesnt keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them -- that is, it has failed to do what its supporters promised it would do.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where did I state that the NRA was opposed to mental health records? I said the NRA is against all gun control laws.

This is, of course, either an outright lie on your part, or an indication of complete ignorance of the subject.

Given that you thought the Brady Act had something to do with 'assault weapons', I'd wager its the latter.

 

[jfuh]

That has nothing to do with the fact that thr Brady Act, contrary to your post, had nothing to do with 'assault weapons'.

The Brady Act did NOT expire in 1998, it is still current law. The act specified that the 3-day wait for a background check be replaced with the current NICS - which does the same thing, except that it doesnt take three days.

The fact of the matter is that this indicent illusrates that Brady Act doesnt keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them -- that is, it has failed to do what its supporters promised it would do.

And why has the Brady bill failed to do so, what provision within this act is lacking and be specific as to why that is the case that such provisions are lacking. Come on you can be honest can't you? I'll even hint you - NRA lobbying.

 

[Kandahar]

This is, of course, either an outright lie on your part, or an indication of complete ignorance of the subject.

Given that you thought the Brady Act had something to do with 'assault weapons', I'd wager its the latter.

Which gun control laws has the NRA supported?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Which gun control laws has the NRA supported?

How thoughtful of you to ask.

The current system of background checks -- the NICS -- exists ONLY because the NRA lobbied for it, and the sunset of the 3-day waiting period, to be attached to the Brady Bill.

The NRA also supprts every shall-issue CCW law, and lobbies for the states that doesnt have one to create one.

The NRA ALSO supported the Gun Owners Protection Act of 1986. This act included the ban or private posession of machineguns built after 1986, the ban on "Cop killer bullets".

The NRA somilarly supprts the gun control act of 1968, among the provisions of which prohibit the purchase and posession of a firearm by felons, et al.

I can, of course, list more examples. :mrgreen:

 

[Kandahar]

How thoughtful of you to ask.

The current system of background checks -- the NICS -- exists ONLY because the NRA lobbied for it, and the sunset of the 3-day waiting period, to be attached to the Brady Bill.

The NRA also supprts every shall-issue CCW law, and lobbies for the states that doesnt have one to create one.

The NRA ALSO supported the Gun Owners Protection Act of 1986. This act included the ban or private posession of machineguns built after 1986, the ban on "Cop killer bullets".

The NRA somilarly supprts the gun control act of 1968, among the provisions of which prohibit the purchase and posession of a firearm by felons, et al.

I can, of course, list more examples. :mrgreen:

Interesting. I wish the NRA would talk more about things like this and make people more aware that they support some gun control laws. I think fewer people would view all NRA members as crazy ideologues (which some, but not all, of them are) if they were aware of things like this.

One question: Isn't their support of "shall issue" CCW laws the opposite of gun control? I thought "may issue" was the restrictive one?

 

[jfuh]

How thoughtful of you to ask.

The current system of background checks -- the NICS -- exists ONLY because the NRA lobbied for it, and the sunset of the 3-day waiting period, to be attached to the Brady Bill.

The NRA also supprts every shall-issue CCW law, and lobbies for the states that doesnt have one to create one.

The NRA ALSO supported the Gun Owners Protection Act of 1986. This act included the ban or private posession of machineguns built after 1986, the ban on "Cop killer bullets".

The NRA somilarly supprts the gun control act of 1968, among the provisions of which prohibit the purchase and posession of a firearm by felons, et al.

I can, of course, list more examples. :mrgreen:

What a complete total and utter distortion of the truth. The NRA was not in support of a ban on cop killer bullets and nor is the NRA a supporter of gun control the NRA after the energy and medical industry is the largest lobbying group in the US and is a stringent opposition of any gun control
Per the "support" by the NRA on gun control.
From the NRA's own web site we see in just about every single instance that they do not support gun control, trying to over turn every ban there is.
In 2001 New Jersey from lobbying by the NRA was trying to overturn the ban on military style semi-automatic guns pouring in loads of money to lobby politicians even to the opposition from more than 80% of the state populace - but failed ultimately.
The gun control act of 1968, the NRA was not a supporter it was in opposition to that bill source

By 1968 the leadership of the NRA was fully against any and all gun regulations. The group undertook a mass-mailing lobbying effort to undermine the legislation. Their organized lobbying efforts proved successful in wiping out much of the support for gun licensing and registration restrictions. Congress eventually enacted the Safe Streets and Crime Control Act, a watered-down version of the Johnson administration's anticrime and gun control proposal. The act prohibited the interstate shipment of pistols and revolvers to individuals, but it specifically exempted rifles and shotguns from any regulations.

That the NRA is a supporter of gun control is total farce.
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3

The 1986 bill was to undermine the 1968 gun control act.

Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, now the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) was given wide latitude on the enforcement of regulations pertaining to Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders. Allegations of abuse by ATF inspectors soon arose from the National Rifle Association (NRA) and certain targeted Federal firearms licensees. The gun rights movement lobbied Congress to pass the FOPA to prevent the abuse of regulatory power -- in particular, to address claims that the ATF was repeatedly inspecting FFL holders for the apparent purpose of harassment intended to drive the FFL holders out of business (as the FFL holders would constantly be having to tend to ATF inspections instead of to customers).
The Act mandated that ATF compliance inspections can be done only once per year and, at a minimum, must be done once every 3 years. An exception to the "once per year" rule exists if multiple record-keeping violations are recorded in an inspection, in which case the ATF may do a follow-up inspection. The main reason for a follow-up inspection would be if guns could not be accounted for.

The NRA also supported the supreme court challenge to the 68 act in Lewis v. United States (1980). In that case the Court addressed whether the provision banning the possession of firearms by convicted felons was constitutional. The Court held that the right to bear arms was not a fundamental right and deemed the act's provisions constitutional because they had a rational basis and had relevance to the purpose of the statute. The Court also restated its earlier holding in United States v. Miller (1939): "[T]he Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.'" The political debate about gun ownership remains rigorous.

 

[M14 Shooter]

One question: Isn't their support of "shall issue" CCW laws the opposite of gun control? I thought "may issue" was the restrictive one?

Any CCW legislation, by definition, is gun control.

And yes, they prefer shall issue over may issue.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What a complete total and utter distortion of the truth.

Not that you've shown here.

I note that you diudnt even TRY to address the NICS issue.

You only barely addressed the GCA 1968 issue and completely ignored the fact that the NRA does indeed support the idea that felons houls not have/be able to buy guns.

And you can characterize the NFOPA86 any way you want, but it IS gun control and it WAS supported by the NRA. Same with shall-issue CCW laws.

And please note, I didnt say he NRA supported ALL gun control or even gun control that YOU like, but that it does NOT, as you claimed, oppose ALL gun control.

the NRA is the largest lobbying group in the US and is a stringent opposition of any gun control

Obviously not.

 

[jfuh]

Not that you've shown here.

I note that you diudnt even TRY to address the NICS issue.

You only barely addressed the GCA 1968 issue and completely ignored the fact that the NRA does indeed support the idea that felons houls not have/be able to buy guns.

And you can characterize the NFOPA86 any way you want, but it IS gun control and it WAS supported by the NRA. Same with shall-issue CCW laws.

And please note, I didnt say he NRA supported ALL gun control or even gun control that YOU like, but that it does NOT, as you claimed, oppose ALL gun control.


Obviously not.

Semantics;simple spin. I fully and completely addressed each issue citing sources that further elaborate on the matter. You call the NFOPA or 86 gun control where in effect it underscores gun control as was stated in GCA of 68.
Gun control laws without effective means of enforcement as is demonstrated by the 86 vs 68 measures is no gun control. It's not about what I like or what you like or what you feel "is" gun control, it's about what really takes these weapons off the streets what allows authorities to enforce.
The VT shooting is a clear case in which gun control was not enforced or lack of expiration of the assault weapons ban allowing for the gun clip purchase - allowing a nut head to purchase the weapons. Thus the case to be made for more stringent gun control laws.

 

[Kandahar]

Any CCW legislation, by definition, is gun control.

How do you figure? CCW laws often allow people to carry guns who otherwise would not have been allowed to.

Or are you suggesting that there's an inherent right for every American to bear arms at any time, in any place, without the state's permission?

 

[M14 Shooter]

How do you figure? CCW laws often allow people to carry guns who otherwise would not have been allowed to.

Or are you suggesting that there's an inherent right for every American to bear arms at any time, in any place, without the state's permission?

Without laws prohibiting such things, anyone could carry anywhere, anytime.

CCW laws restrict who can carry, where, when and under what conditions.

That's gun control.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Semantics;simple spin

I'm sorry -- I didnt see where you conceded that the NRA DOES support certain gun control laws, thusly negating your assertion that the NRA opposes ALL gun control.