A response from VT shootings

[bouche]

How can any group collectively believe this?

[boiler]

The irony there is that he's an obstitrician

[d_rawk]

At first glance:

- Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas)

- Paul, who ran for the Libertarian presidential nomination in 1988

- "The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington." (in reference to the Gun Owners of America lobby)

"We just can't prevent every tragedy of a maniac. So to pretend this happened because of lack of laws would be the wrong thing to assume."

I think he's right about this, mind you. There are deeper issues than guns here, and something that stands outside the realm of the ability for legislation to prevent, though guns certainly do multiply the repercussions of those issues .. and multiply them rather rapidly.

For a Rep. Paul, it is a deep and sincere commitment to liberty that informs his belief. Those are rough waves to ride, given the repercussions, but he probably comes from a good place. The culture of it all is important here too, given the constitutionally entrenched rights he must see himself as defending. It's foreign to us, but a very real stopping point to those who are in a position of defending constitutional guarantees in the face of those who are seen as trying to reverse them (generally a permanent thing, where constitutional matters are concerned).

No love for guns here, though, just to be clear. I, too, think America would be happier without them. The rationale for keeping them is pretty much void now anyways, for better or worse. A well armed militia is not going to defeat the national army, or even hold them back to any significant degree. The US is vulnerable to the US, and are no longer a collection of states as much as a single state. At some point there is going to have to be a realization of all of that, and a recalculation. It won't be very soon, though, given all the interests and concerns involved.

Guns are here to stay, for the medium term at least. Ron Paul is just one of the many voices making that loud and clear.

[Jared]

Its sad to say but in some ways I agree with the guy. It is true, that people being armed is a huge deterrent. after the law was passed in Florida that people can carry concealed weapons, i defiantly acted differently when I am there. I'm not going to start a fight, or do anything hostile to anyone when there is a greater chance there armed.

If a few people had guns on them, potentially some one would have taken out the gun man before so many people got injured. and it may have changed the gun mans way of thinking if they had thought that the people they were shooting might shoot back.

as sad as it is to say, but a have a neighbor who is licensed to carry, and I defiantly treat him differently then any other neighbor. I don't think one dog has gone on his lawn in years.

I'm all for gun laws, and protecting people, and sure there are many other ways this could have been prevented, but its still a valid point.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

More guns means more horrible, irreparable things going wrong, imo. Sure, we can imagine the drama of some stranger dramatically pulling out his .45 and blowing away some sociopath on the rampage, but it just seems to me like another window for other deranged people getting that kind of gratuitous power into their hands.

It sounds at this point that the inquiry is focusing on why it took so long for security or the cops to get to the school. There's also the question of the shooting having been so alienated and off-kilter, which is another whole bag of problems.

[Davey Boy 2.0]

I think that every american should be issued a gun when they get their driver's licence, that would even the playing field a bit.

[phishtaper]

who wants to go gun shopping at walmart with me today?

[Boochawan]

The irony there is that he's an obstitrician

I think the irony is that people like this should be shot.

[d_rawk]

I think the irony is that people like this should be shot.

Heh! :laugh:

[dancingbear]

The irony there is that he's an obstitrician

I think the irony is that people like this should be shot.

:grin:

if everyone had a gun, the guy probably would of been shot, before so many could die. I'm fairly sure that would be more than compensated by the sheer increase in shootings that would happen. eg. that guy cut me off...bang.

i wonder how all these activists who talk about 'freedom' and individual rights feel about pot laws?

[The Chameleon]

I knew this kind of knee jerk NRA response was coming.

Of course if the campus police can't protect us then we'll all have to pack guns...

To follow that logic then if airport security can't protect us from hijackings then we'll all have to pack guns on planes.....

The right to bear arms also means the right to be afraid for your life 24-7.

[bouche]

Its sad to say but in some ways I agree with the guy. It is true, that people being armed is a huge deterrent. after the law was passed in Florida that people can carry concealed weapons, i defiantly acted differently when I am there. I'm not going to start a fight, or do anything hostile to anyone when there is a greater chance there armed.

Why in the hell would you want to start a fight or be hostile to begin with? People that want to fight or be hostile will just even the playing field and get a gun. You weren't a citizen so you couldn't get one, but other people can.

[Jared]

I didn't mean that I was walking aroung looking for fights, but I ment In general, I would be more careful.

I guess a better example would be if I saw a fight or a person being robed on the street, I'd would be alot more likley to try and defuse the situation or help someone, if I didnt think the people were armed.

I lived where people could carry weapons, If I saw a fight, I'd be alot more likley to hide