Another School shooting

[Space05us]

Why do the people need guns still?

So we can shoot people who burn books.

[Demerzel]

Originally posted by Space05us

Why do the people need guns still?

So we can shoot people who burn books.

hehe touché!

[Thorn]

That's what I never understand about conservatives, whenever it comes to guns all of sudden they are SO DEFENSIVE of the Constitution, but they have no problem violating the rest of the constitution. I didn't think the constitution was pick or choose.

[alva]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
According to the latest news reports, this shooter drove to school in a police car and used a police gun. Gun control would have made no difference, as the police would still have guns in any case.

All of you who blamed a lack of gun control on this shooting can consider themselve PWNed.

Hmm, I know very few kids here who would even think of getting a gun, it's not just your gun laws, it's your atttitude towards guns and violence as well.

[Zulu Elephant]

It amazes me that Americans still care about what a few intellectuals thought 200 years ago. Lets remember that these were the same individuals who decided that blacks should be counted as 2/3 of a person in national censuses, didn't allow women to vote and allowed slavery to continue.

Why on earth should what these people thought have any impact on modern politcal debate?

[alva]

[Sava]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
According to the latest news reports, this shooter drove to school in a police car and used a police gun. Gun control would have made no difference, as the police would still have guns in any case.

All of you who blamed a lack of gun control on this shooting can consider themselve PWNed.

well if the grandfather had done a better job of keeping his gun secured, this wouldn't have happened...

that is a form of gun control...

hence

j00 = teh pwned!

[Thorn]

I keep thinking of how these kids remind me of me when I was in secondary school... makes me kind of sad, but at least I didn't turn out that way.... I've made it to the terrorist watch list, yippie for me.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
According to the latest news reports, this shooter drove to school in a police car and used a police gun. Gun control would have made no difference, as the police would still have guns in any case.

All of you who blamed a lack of gun control on this shooting can consider themselve PWNed.

Do you mean pawned? And what does that mean (dropped off for a check, I know, but in your usage?)

[TechWins]

Maybe if high school weren't such a social competition horrible tragedies like this wouldn't have to happen?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Gun control would have made no difference, as the police would still have guns in any case.

That's an assumption. Gun control that only applies to certain people:

[TCO]

Originally posted by Thorn
I keep thinking of how these kids remind me of me when I was in secondary school... makes me kind of sad, but at least I didn't turn out that way.... I've made it to the terrorist watch list, yippie for me.

Yeah...whatever Sergeant Sheets.

[Ted Striker]

Here is a relevent article:

Firearms and alcohol were key culprits in the report by the Medical Research Council, providing a fresh illustration of the dangers of life in a country known for some of the highest rates of violent crime in the world.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/03/22/safrica.crime.reut/index.html

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Demerzel
The last paragraph's argument just seems a bit redundant to me. Surely the National Guard is now the militia with formal training and an arsenal of their own weaponry. Why do the people need guns still? Are we assuming a draft is coming soon and there won't be time to train and arm these citizens?

Plus I don't know if it's true or not but are most gun owners actually well trained in their usage/maintenance/etc..? Or is it just something they have hidden in a drawer just in case?

Here's section 311 of the U.S. Code which is the relevent section:

Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

-------------

As for your second question, it's a mixed bag. Most rural gun owners at least have experience where they lack common sense. Most suburban shooters do their shooting on a range where they either learn to handle their weapons safely, or they are banned. Most states require that those applying for hunting licenses have taken a hunter safety course. Of course there are a large number of military veterans as well who have learned safety by the numbers.

The scariest group in terms of gun handling that I have met were kids from the innner city while I was in the army. Probably more than half of them had fired a gun, but not at a range or out in the wilderness, but in an alley or down a street! They learned to shoot (and I use this term extremely loosely here) not from their fathers, but by screwing around with weapons with other young teenagers. They were dangerously overconfident and had a lot of bad habits, though I was able to trust most of them by the end of basic training.

As for marksmanship, I think it really does help. My basic training company of 130 or so men turned out about a dozen "expert" marksmen, the highest rating. As we only fired about 5-600 rounds in basic training, I doubt that anyone would have been able to qualify as an expert if they had never fired a weapon before.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
It amazes me that Americans still care about what a few intellectuals thought 200 years ago. Lets remember that these were the same individuals who decided that blacks should be counted as 2/3 of a person in national censuses, didn't allow women to vote and allowed slavery to continue.

Why on earth should what these people thought have any impact on modern politcal debate?

/me refrains from saying something sarcastic

Hmmm, seems to me your right to free speech comes from those same minds. Still think we shouldn't listen to them?

If you actually read the relevant portions you'd see that those intellectuals realized that slavery would have to end, but in order to induce southern states to join included a provision that slavery could not be brought to question for a period of 50 years.