Yeah, right.
If anything gun rights activists are more upset than those that dance in the blood of these tragic events. Nearly all mass shootings occur in victim disarmament zones. Much of the loss of life and injuries could have been prevented. We are constantly trying to prevent future tragedies and people like this artist are doing their best to hinder us.
IIRC one of the people killed in the VT shooting was a professor who had been liberated from a concentration camp in WWII.
He held the door to his classroom shut as Cho attempted to enter and yelled for his students to escape out the windows.
I dunno if I can speak for the late Professor Librescu, but something tells me he might be sensible to the idea of how gun-free zones put all good people in danger. I will also point out that holding the door closed only bought time until Cho decided to shoot through the door, killing the professor.
Cho had a .22 Caliber training pistol that is well known for reliability issues, and a Glock 19 with multiple magazines (with the exception of two all magazines were 10-round mags bought on Ebay) Cho had no professional training, and very little range time.
The gun control people who felt that the professors and students would be best unnamed have blood on THEIR hands.
More info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liviu_Librescu
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/7139871.html
Keep singing it, Joe. You might convince yourself eventually. Most of your readers probably already accept your repetitive nonsense, like “dancing in the blood” and “gun control = KKK” and “We are constantly trying to prevent future tragedies and people like this artist are doing their best to hinder us.”
You know who’s got blood on their hands, Joe? The guy on-line who sold Cho his guns, even though Cho was a disturbed maniac already. I forget his name, but he appeared on videos defending his mercenary behaviour as being perfectly legal. You know the guy, Thompson, I think.
And let’s not forget to include in the bloody hands department you and your friends because you fight so hard to make guns available to people like Cho.
By the way, I answered your “one question” again. It’s on my blog today.
I can’t believe I’m actually answering this naive, ignorant troll, but I am.
Mike, that does not answer the question. What brought reported crime down was the fact that the law actually started cracking down on criminals; it had nothing to do with gun control. If that is your idea of proof, your logical reasoning is deficient, something we already know. Maybe you could try actually finding some proof next time, rather than stringing events together and trying to argue causation where none is proven to exist.
Mike, unless you can show that they are using the same criteria as the U.S. for both defining and reporting crimes, and for calculating the statistics, international statistics are meaningless – Britain’s now infamous method of basing their statistics on the number of convictions rather than the number of reported crimes is just one example of why it doesn’t work.
Also, you can’t base the argument only on the gun ban unless you can show that nothing else happened at the same time that would have a significant impact – like changes in enforcement or sentencing.
If gun bans work, why do the levels of all violent crimes suddenly drop when gun bans are lifted or concealed carry is enacted?
Mikeb302000, if you’re really all that concerned about tragic, senseless firearm deaths in the usa, shouldn’t you be focusing your efforts on the identification of and outreach towards those most at risk of suicide?
That is what the majority of tragic, senseless firearm deaths in the usa are, after all — male suicides. And the record clearly indicates that people like Cho go into their murderous rampages with suicidal intentions, so identification of and outreach towards people most at risk of suicide would most likely reduce the occurrence of such murderous rampages as well.
It appears to be a win-win proposition to me. You could probably even get some gun rights advocates and activists to SUPPORT your efforts towards identification of and outreach towards those most at risk of suicide, just by asking them sensibly.
What do you think, mikeb302000? I think it’s a better than viable proposition, but I know I don’t know everything, so I would appreciate your feedback.
MikeB as usual is being fundimentally dishonest, as well as showing his mental prowess by repeating the same lie ad-nauseum. Mike knows “The guy on-line who sold Cho his guns” shares no blame for this horrible event. Given that Cho submitted to a background check at a local FFL in compliance with the Gun Control Act, and the Brady bill, also Cho bought his two firearms a month apart in compliance with Virginia’s one-gun-a-month law. MikeB302000 PERSONALLY knows that these laws do little to stop a criminal who can’t acquire a gun through legal channels.
http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/10/mikeb302000_lying_criminal.html
Cho was glad that the VT campus had disarmed his victims. Why should a criminal creep like MikeB302000 think any differently?
For mentally ill and morally compromised people with criminal intent they prefer the good people are disarmed as they were in VT.
Despite legal precedent, disarmament became the official national policy starting in 1934. Right up until the 90s, layer upon layer of restrictions have been added–including “total bans”–pushing aside alleged legal guarantees against causeless, warrantless search and seizure, and personal defense of life. It’s been 76 years of one big neck-stompin’ police state hoedown, and not a hint of the New Progressive Man. Needless to say, everything the VT mass murderer did was against the law. A simple blank slate argument isn’t sufficient to overcome 76 years of failure.
I strongly encourage any disarmer to take up the cause using Manila as the archetype. Publicly making kissy faces at a corrupt, press-controlling, election-fixing police state which declares martial law whenever the president gets a hangnail sure saves us the trouble of arguing specifics–even if those specifics involve randomly throwing people in prison whether or not they’ve been found guilty by a trail of facts, but blaming the problem on something only one-in-four of them possess–regardless of the fact that one-hundred percent of the accusers have them.
But hey, from Big Tim Sullivan to Fast Eddie Perez, the corrupt official has been the mainstay of the disarmament movement.
When you want to steal our wealth and trample our freedoms, you want us disarmed first. Makes it safer for you when you trample us. If anyone speaks out and opposes you, you portray them as evil or stupid, or both. Rinse, repeat.
“What’s a better example of sheep-like behavior than mindlessly repeating catchy one liners, regardless of their veracity?” _MikeB30200
Cut from a post where he chastised a person for their stance on gun control….only he quoted the wrong person and refuses to correct his mistake.
I’ll let you search if you want to read it from the Whore’s Mouth.
Acksiom, Thanks for bringing up the suicide problem. I often try to get the pro-gun apologists to admit that suicides with gun count in the overall damage; they usually try to separate them from the plain old murders.
The solution to both problems, or part of the solution at least, is the same: fewer guns. If, working together we can arrange for the fewer guns to be in the hands of healthier and more responsible individuals, we’ll see vast improvement.
Guess which side of the argument, not only refuses to work together towards a solution, but usually refuses to admit that the problem exists.
Notice how Mikeb pretends GCA ’68 and all infringements that came since, never happened. There’s no licensing of manufacturers and dealers, no form 4473, no background checks, et al. Therefore we need to “work together” to do something.
How about the antis “work together” with us to restore full protection of civil rights as intended by the nation’s founders? Hmm?
OK, Mike; tell us exactly, specifically, the precise set of laws you believe should exist to further harass and restrict law abiding citizens.
We all know that by definition, criminals don’t obey laws, so restrictions on your civil rights only apply to the law abiding. You could ban all guns forever, and launch a door-to-door confiscation campaign (over my dead body) and then what? You have a government enforced monopoly on guns, reserved exclusively for criminals and the ruling class. The Founders knew all this of course, but in this enlightened age, no one pays any attention.
Mikeb is calling for more of this.
Yeah; that’ll make us all safe.
“What’s a better example of sheep-like behavior than mindlessly repeating catchy one liners, regardless of their veracity?” -MikeB30200
I suspect I’ll get some miles out of this quote. Mikey, try adding “Baaah” at the end of your mindless comments. It will only add prof that you’re a man of your word.
… they usually try to separate them from the plain old murders.
Do you *REALLY* think that not having a gun will keep a suicidal person from not killing themselves? Or are you fuzzy on the concept of “suicidal?”
Dixie, I think you’re the “fuzzy” one. Suicide with a gun is more likely to succeed. Many people who attempt it are not determined, they’re just mixed up and temporarily insane. Remove the guns and you have fewer successful suicides.
Lyle, You are one paranoid dude. That video, I suppose, represents the way you think.
You asked in your usual exaggerated way, “OK, Mike; tell us exactly, specifically, the precise set of laws you believe should exist to further harass and restrict law abiding citizens.”
I don’t want any laws for the purpose of harassing and restricting law abiding citizens. To answer your question, though, I think background checks on every gun transfer combined with registration and licensing would be a good way to start.
Many people who attempt it are not determined, they’re just mixed up and temporarily insane. Remove the guns and you have fewer successful suicides.
So that “temporarily insane” person, while “temporarily insane,” will not slash their wrists, take pills, hang themselves, lock themselves in the garage with a running car, or jump in front of a train? Studies done in Canada and Australia found that as firearms suicides dropped, suicide by other methods (hanging, suffocation, etc.) increased. In the Australian study, no statistical change in suicide rate occurred until programs were put into place to make suicide less acceptable and provide socially acceptable help to those who were depressed.
Asserting that without guns, suicidal people won’t kill themselves is… well, par for the course for you.