I have a theory for that incident that agrees with yours actually.

Virginia has laws that say you can conceal guns, while Virginia Tech said that they didn't allow that. Their thinking was that it promoted a "safer enviroment". Let's do the math shall we...Concealed gun gunman + gunfree school = ...open shooting range!!! Where in any sense of mind does this become a good idea!?!?

Sometimes it sickens me to know that I'm from the same species as this idiots that think their "ideas" are anything resembling intelligence, when they're really a load of crock and stupidity!! I'm looking at you majority of America!!!

well, though I do agree with you, for the sake of the other side of the argument, look at Japan. Guns are illegal but they have an incredibly low crime rate. Maybe it's not guns, but punishment for crime itself. Again, just to pose a response from the other side of the issue. Again, I agree with you, I just want to pose a counter argument

Well, I have no experience with Japan, other than the occasional bit of anime, so I wouldn't know anything about that. But for the purpose of debate, let's go with this.

You say that guns are illegal there, but the crime rate is low anyway. You say that's because of the methods of punishment they use. I disagree. I'm willing to bet that it's because of the vast culture difference between Japan and the USA. Japan is naturally crime-free already, because people over there are already highly respectful of everyone else. Shit, respect is built into the damn LANGUAGE there, in a million different ways.

Here in America it's very different. Here, we're willing to tolerate the psycho fuckwads until they actually do something. At that point everyone starts freaking out. That's the big difference.

What I'm saying is that, let's say that in Japan some criminal asshole gets it into his head to go on a shooting spree. He gets a gun or two from the black market and goes to work. Since nobody else over there has guns due to the laws, nobody can stop his ass until he runs out of bullets. That's essentially what happened at the college in Blacksburg.

Now, if someone else had a gun there, they could have popped the nutjob before he'd managed to shoot more than half a dozen people. Also, if the nutjob knew that EVERYONE else had guns too, he might have not gone apeshit in the first place, because he'd know that as soon as he whipped out his gun, everyone else would have whipped theirs out too and perforated his crazy ass.

Firearms in the hands of regular, law-abiding people are a DETERRANT against violent crime.

i think you're oversimplifying the issue a bit. i'm not saying the correlation between stricter gun control laws and lower violent crime rates doesn't exist, i know it does, but correlation does not imply causation.

guns don't create violence, but to say they prevent it is equally short-sighted. there's obviously something about regional cultures that results in both looser gun control policy and lower violent crime rates. i mean, there's also a powerful correlation between sales of ice cream cones and rate of sexual assault and rape, but that doesn't mean buying ice cream cones will prevent rape.

< / 2 cents >

You're missing the point. It's not the guns themselves, but what they represent that stops the crime.

Compare:
"You have a gun, and I don't. That means you have power over my life."
"You and I both have guns. That means if you attack me, there's a very good chance you'll die too."

Guns are merely the fastest way to end someone's life that humanity has invented. If there was something even more lethal, this debate would be over that instead.

That lethality that guns represent is the thing that acts as a deterrant. Not a prevention, there's a difference there. Prevention means the potential for harm is removed, but since there's no way YOUR gun can take away your ENEMY'S gun, it's unfortunately reduced to simple deterrance.

i see your point, and i'm not saying i agree or disagree with it, just that you're simplifying the issue. i still think there's far more to consider here.

do you honestly think the shooter thought he was going to walk away from this alive because it was a gun-free campus? in cases like this, the gunman doesn't consider his own survival. guns don't act as a deterrant when it comes to people who are willing to die.

No, I absolutely don't think that he was expecting to walk away from it. That's where the deterrant stops and the OTHER use starts.

Nobody else had firearms. If they had, they could have dropped his psycho ass before he'd plugged more than half a dozen other people. Now, that would have been tragic, of course, but it would have been a hell of a lot LESS tragic than the helpless massacre that DID happen.

again, i'm not disagreeing with that, but to say more guns = less violence is just as overly simplistic as those who clame more gun control = less violence.

the problem is not policy issue, it's how our culture is producing these people in the first place. i just see your view as treating the symptoms and ignoring the disease, i guess.

sorry if i'm bugging you with all this, the psych major in me is drawn to this kind of thing.

Well, once AGAIN you're not listening to what I'm saying. I'm not talking about stopping violence, I'm talking about deterring and stopping crime and criminals. People say violence doesn't solve anything, but I call bullshit on that. Violence can and does solve an awful lot... it's unforunate, and unfortunate that it has to devolve to that so often, but it's true.

Is it a bad thing that society is producing these freaks? Of course it is. Do we have to deal with that anyway? Yes, we do.

Is my little opinion going to sway enough minds to change anything, one way or the other? I'd be the most arrogant person on the planet if I thought the answer to that was anywhere NEAR a "yes". But I'm still going to express the opinion.

A few decades ago, it used to be that it was considered almost a rite of passage for a kid in school to stand up to a bully for the first time and punch him in the face. A few decades ago, you weren't seeing psychos walk into their school and fuck up half the people there. Nowadays you get "counselling" and "suspensions" and shit, and look where we are.

Violence is the very nature of life on this planet. Without violence, we wouldn't eat. Without violence, evolution couldn't happen.

Without the threat of violence ever-present, a psycho blasts hot metal death into 32 people in Blacksburg.

The disease would correct itself if we were to introduce an "everyone MUST carry a gun at all times" law, because the nutters who want to splatter half their school would go down in a hail of lead as soon as they whipped their piece out. Or, maybe they'd think twice, knowing that everyone ELSE has a gun too, and the situation would never happen at all.

there's a time and place for everything, and there are many situations in which violence is the only solution, or in which it's just the best solution, but you are still severely oversimplifying by saying that the threat constant threat of violence would solve anything.

lets say everyone on that campus did have a gun. then what? another person like this shooter comes along, and knows a gun won't accomplish anything, so he turns to explosives instead. that kind of escalation won't help anything.

your logic is only valid when dealing with normal people, not people like this gunman. seriously, to suggest that an "everyone MUST carry a gun" law would solve anything is downright ridiculous, and it certainly wouldn't do anything to deter people like him.

and by the way, just because i don't agree with you, doesn't mean i'm not listening. if i wasn't interested in your opinion i wouldn't be posting at all.

You think this idiot was coherent enough to think of bombs?? I may be wrong on this, but I don't think so!

Even if he was, explosives are a lot harder to use effectively. They're much bulkier and more obvious, and they need to be emplaced for maximum effect, which takes time. Time in which it's almost certain someone else would notice what he was doing and stop him.

Oddly enough, the explosives would end up with LESS death anyway... think about it. More property damage, sure, but less death. He blasts an apartment to shreds with a bomb, it'll take out half a dozen people or so. Probably less. But THEN, see, THEN he's exposed. Then people know "Holy shit, something's happening!" That makes them more alert for something else happening, so he'd have an even harder time placing more bombs, IF he survived the first one himself.

Also, people like this freak are the exception to the rule... you as a psych major should know that. Do you think anyone OTHER than a brain-screwed nutjob hopped up on Jesus fumes would try something in an environment where everyone had a gun? Anyone actually IN CONTROL of their own mental facilities?

first off, you're shifting to a whole other argument. you are the one who used the virginia tech shooting as an example, now you're saying YOUR example is an exception to YOUR argument?

second, on what do base the assumption that he wasn't in control of his thoughts? you're making some wild assumptions about his mental state and cognitive abilities that i doubt you can back up. yes, he's fucked up, that doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's doing.

assuming, as you suggest they should, that everyone has a gun, an explosive in a crowded area would be far more deadly than an attempted shooting spree. and i'm afraid i'm not as confident as you that someone would recongnize an unguarded backpack as a potential threat.

and by the way, crazy isn't stupid. just because this guy was fucked up, doesn't mean he didn't know exactly what he was doing.

(sighs) I meant an exception to the general populace. Most people aren't psychos.

On what do I base my assumptions... hmm, let's see... how about the fact he whacked out 32 people?? There's a start...

This is getting away from the main issue anyway. The evidence that more guns = less crime is everywhere, if people just look around. It might not hold true in ALL places, but in most, it does. Guns are a deterrant to crime, and they will continue to be so until someone invents a faster, easier way to kill people.

I think you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on this. (shrugs) I'm not gonna convince you that I'm right, and you're not gonna convince me that you're right either.

i suppose not. well, no hard feelings here.

Heh, none here either. (grins) Good debate, I thank you.