View Full Version : Virginia massacre
A gunman has gone on the rampage at the campus of Virginia Tech university in Virginia, US, killing at least 31 people and injuring another 10. More (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6560685.stm)
This is such a sad story and unfortunately seems all too common in America's schools. :(
jamesp129
16-04-2007, 23:32
Thought this was a family forum.
Thought this was a family forum.
ermmmm.........eh? :confused:
jamesp129
16-04-2007, 23:38
Just didnt think reading about a crazy man killing 31 people would be ideal for children.
same amount of posts as me :p
master baits
16-04-2007, 23:47
if its on family news then .....
bout time america got its act together and corrected its constitution , to read the right to bear arms ....... ie wear a tshirt.
perhaps its time for them to have a referendum on having hand guns , and of course militia membership being being the overall right to bear arms qualification like it was meant originally.
poor families tonight will be asking themselves whether america is really the wonderful place it was meant to become frmo its constitution.
if its on family news then .....
bout time america got its act together and corrected its constitution , to read the right to bear arms ....... ie wear a tshirt.
perhaps its time for them to have a referendum on having hand guns , and of course militia membership being being the overall right to bear arms qualification like it was meant originally.
poor families tonight will be asking themselves whether america is really the wonderful place it was meant to become frmo its constitution.
I agree, I don't see how having the right to obtain/own firearms can be justified, and I don't see what purpose it has. Considering this is supposed to be the 'deadliest school shooting in U.S. history' maybe a change of law is on the horizon.
Cable Monkey
17-04-2007, 10:31
British Law is fluid. It changes to suit the times and the only thing that can't (and shouldn't) be subject to change are those basic principals of human rights. American law revolves around the constitution and certain elements of that are sadly out of date. This latest shooting simply demonstrates that the right to bear arms for self defence makes absolutely no difference to those legally too young to own or carry weapons. In short the vunerable pay the price. The US response to this is normally to beef up security around the vunerable rather than consider changing the constitution. I don't expect their response to be any different now, especially with a Republican President.
if you think its your god given right to go to Walmart for your weekly shop, and pick up hand guns, and bags of amunition at the same time. you have to expect things like this will happen. as sad as it is. peopel can walk down any street in americal and pick up a Semi automatic rifle. you live in a crazy county. you live with crazy people. crazy thigns will happen.
The comments on the /. post said that one student carrying a legally concealed weapon could've ended it before it got started. It was also said:
“I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.”
It's a sorry state that the US find itself in when people say things like that and I feel like I agree with them.
I'm glad that gun crime is low in the UK, so I don't have to feel like I need such protection.
DarkEntity
24-04-2007, 21:54
Maybe now the stupid yanks will realise that their oh so cuddly feelings about guns might not be the best approach after all.
nicky munchkin
24-04-2007, 22:33
Maybe now the stupid yanks will realise that their oh so cuddly feelings about guns might not be the best approach after all.
Two words: Trigger happy
TriggerHappy
25-04-2007, 12:49
It's a huge problem, and its only going to get worse as far as i can see. I dont think the constitution will be changed, not by a long shot. Even if it was, theres so many guns in america and so many places and ways for them to come in, im not sureit would makea great deal of difference.
this is what happens when students confuse unreal tournament with reality.
the problem in the states is free ownership of handguns, not the ownership of handguns per se.
over here we have a stricter setup for legal gun ownership which includes medical opinions as to your suitability. yes, this falls over as in the case of dunblaine (but the fact that the killer and the chief constable were both masons over-rode the recommendations of the firearms officer and the doctor) but is far more reliable. The actual figures for gun crime in the uk were falling, and the number of crimes involving guns legally owned was in the single figures. The kneejerk reaction of the government in banning handguns has actually worsened the problem, not improved the situation.
I don't think a ban on gun ownership in the US is the problem, same as over here. The problem is the ease of getting a weapon and the lack of psychiatric evaluation prior to ownership. This of course would be in direct contravention of the constitution because 'everyone' has the right to bear arms, not just the certified sane....
Even if it was, theres so many guns in america and so many places and ways for them to come in, im not sureit would makea great deal of difference.
The same can be said for over here in the UK and we have some of the tightest gun controls going. Changing the law will not stop the illegal actions of a small minority from being carried out.
Just look how hand gun related shootings have rocketed in this country since the introduction of the hand gun ban in 1997.
Even with the introduction of the VCRB which restricts the sales of replica firearms and edged weapons even further, criminals will not be stopped from getting hold of these items.
The main problem in this country is the vast amount of unprotected borders where anyone could sneak illegal firearms, drugs, people etc into the country without even raising an eyebrow over at HMRC'.
as kynoch has said... it is easier for me to get a handgun now than when they were legal. Boy did I jump through hoops getting my original FAC for my Browning 9mm. Once I had that it was a lot easier to get my Desert Eagle. Then dunblane happened and the beggars gave me compo when I handed them in.
Now I can go into certain pubs and buy replacements cheaper than i could legally back in 1996.
Actually to buy any gun, rifle, or shotgun in any state in the US you must fill out a form which is submitted to the FBI to see if you have a felony or are a danger to oneself or the community (nuts) then the purchase will be refused.
After 5 days you can return to pick up your purchase.
Each state has its own rules as to what you may buy, in New York state you may buy a rifle or a shotgun but NOT a handgun, that requires a special permit which is VERY difficult to get.
In Virginia you may buy a handgun as well as long as the above 5 day wait and form is done.
Most states that allow handguns have laws preventing concealment.
The problem occurs at flea markets (boot fairs) and illegal dealers, A man from NY state can buy a handgun and bullets with NO ID or mention of a name from a Flea market in Virginia, only the cash matters there. This handgun would get the posessor a one year mandatory jail sentence in NY state should he be caught with it.
The constitution is generaly interpreted to mean the right to form an armed militia requires that each person must have the right to bear arms.
In order to change this other amendments would also be open to change such as Freedom of speech and freedom of the press etc.
Crossing a state line with a handgun is a federal crime licensed or not unless you have a Federal Interstate Carry pemit (VERY difficult to get).
Just some facts from an ex US resident who owned guns.
perhaps its time for them to have a referendum on having hand guns , and of course militia membership being being the overall right to bear arms qualification like it was meant originally.
That's not actually true.
It is true that the founders wanted an armed body of men to protect the State from tyrants. However, their means of ensuring that such a force existed was to allow for unregulated civillian firearms ownership. The Second Ammendment reads:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Note the comma, and the use of the word "the people" (not "the militia"). The section before the comma sets out the aim of the Ammendment, the remainder sets out how the aim is to be achieved. The Bill of Rights exists to protect individual rights, not collective rights of an ill-defined "militia" (every Ammendment to the constitution, free-speech, freedom of religion, etc applies to the individual, not the collective.)
Does anybody seriously believe that more red tape and laws written down on paper would have prevented this tragedy? Crazy people are driven by intent more than anything else, and even if guns were banned, he would have no qualms about illegally getting one (he might even resort to crude, home made explosives).
as kynoch has said... it is easier for me to get a handgun now than when they were legal. Boy did I jump through hoops getting my original FAC for my Browning 9mm. Once I had that it was a lot easier to get my Desert Eagle. Then dunblane happened and the beggars gave me compo when I handed them in.
Now I can go into certain pubs and buy replacements cheaper than i could legally back in 1996.
Crazy isn't it?
I'll be applying for my firearms certificate soon. I'll be going for a .22 semi auto rifle (probably an AR15 with a .22 upper reciever) and a .38 lever action carbine (a Winchester or a Marlin). I shoot competitions at a little club on the West Coast of Scotland...
I will also be applying for an F.A.C later in the year when i have passed my local clubs probation period. I am currently mainly doing .22 precision target shooting, but also want a couple of other rifles just for getting some lead down the range.:)
Crazy isn't it?
I'll be applying for my firearms certificate soon. I'll be going for a .22 semi auto rifle (probably an AR15 with a .22 upper reciever) and a .38 lever action carbine (a Winchester or a Marlin). I shoot competitions at a little club on the West Coast of Scotland...
you won't get one for semi auto. self loading rifles are prohibited. you can get the ar15 lever action though...
you won't get one for semi auto. self loading rifles are prohibited. you can get the ar15 lever action though...
.22LR is exempt from the ban on semi-autos. The Ruger 10/22 semi-auto is probably the most popular .22 target rifle in this Country. A wee Gunsmith Called Southern Gun Company does AR15 carbines with .22LR upper-recievers:
http://www.southern-gun.co.uk/displayproducts.php?catid=1&PHPSESSID=9e81300e64a0c32da06fc80341d89fef
Unfortunatley, the .22LR round, is not a cartrige that lends itself well to feeding in auto-loaders, but alas, it's the only way we can get semi-auto in the UK...
I was trying for 7.62 myself.. thats why they turned me down...
shifty.ricky
26-04-2007, 21:21
it's the only way we can get semi-auto in the UK...
Semi auto shotguns are allowed.
shifty.ricky
26-04-2007, 21:27
Your all thinking along the wrong lines. I shot with these guys when I lived in Cardiff...ah those were the days.
http://www.fcsa.co.uk/
I have a semi auto shotgun...
50 cal sounds like fun. haven't got a club round here though that is authorised for that size.
should be able to go 7.62 though on the outdoor range at sywell as well as in the fields that I have permission for.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.