Is Gun Control the answer to prevent violence at Virginia Tech or anywhere else?

If anyone out there is suggesting banning all arms, what should people do when a person starts shooting lots of people in a large crowd of unarmed people? If you are reading this question, please take time to read the source below. Thanks.





Interesting reading


http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/comment鈥?/a>Is Gun Control the answer to prevent violence at Virginia Tech or anywhere else?
This is so true that it must change..A gun in law abiding hands, is a good gun.A lone gun in one hand that happens to be a sick-o or criminal or terrorist is a 100% certainty that your going to die.VT,Columbine,and 911 proved that.Its time to wake up..or die at the hand that does not abbey the law.The police cant and wont be there when you need them.And farther more when thy do get there thy arrest the wrong person and send them to death row .That's what would have happened if CHO had stopped earlier.VOTE GUN CONTROL OUT OF THE U.S.A....Guns kill ,but can save more live .I believe with all my convection that 911,Columbine,VT would not have happened if just a hand full had a gun in there hands.And I wish thy where alive now so to ask them ???Did you wish you had a gun???Is Gun Control the answer to prevent violence at Virginia Tech or anywhere else?
Ever notice when a person trying to commit mass murder is subdued the news never tells you how they were...it's because if you read the police report they were subdued by someone who had a gun.





The second amendment allows people the right to defend themselves against oppression whether that oppression comes from the government or from a guy who breaks into your home.





Check out this quote..





';I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.';





That was said by Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker after hearing that a law that would allow students and employees who qualify for a carry permit to carry their weapons on campus had been defeated. The bill was defeated one year and three months before the Blacksburg Massacre. If the law had passed Cho would've most likely been shot by a student or students now look at this piece of logic. If a person is wanting to murder several people do you think they'll stop and say ';Wait i can't go on a killing spree because i'd have to break the law to get a gun.';





Current federal gun laws currently prohibit anyone judged psychologically incompetent from owning a gun...i'd like to repeat that because it sounds vaguely important..Federal gun laws already in place would've prevented Cho from getting a gun however the wording in Virginia state law would only prohibit the sale if he had been committed to psych care by the judge... Cho committed himself.





Cho also bought one of the guns online from a store in Wisconsin.





A background check for a right to carry permit should include a psychiatric background check as well and must be uniform state to state to keep guns out of the hands of those who would use them irresponsibly.





Let's say you have a student who is former military and is mentally fit, has no criminal record and passes all the tests required and wants to carry a firearm to protect his fellow students...what possible reason would you have for telling him no? Plus for everyone who says only the police should have guns okay let's say a guy breaks into your house God forbid with a knife to kill you and rape your wife are you going to just hide in the closet until the cops show up or are you going to take matters into your own hands, be a man and defend your family? Oh yeah there's lots of people who say ';I don't need a gun i can defend myself.'; a lot of those people are dead because the other person was a bit faster and a better fighter.
I think guns are too prevelant in the USA. Guns and other weapons are too easy for any individual to buy. Personally, I think only the police should be allowed to have firearms.
No. -Not because I'm a gun enthusiast; but simply because I believe we're a violent Society, %26amp; we're going to keep killing each other until we ';grow out of it'; like other countries have. Fewer guns floating around would HELP -alittle... -But it's no ';quick fix'; to what ails us (%26amp; by the way; GUESS what is the ONLY country that has MORE gun violence than WE do? - Iraq !!! Now THAT'S interesting reading!).
That's right.


In a high-crime neighborhood there may be murders, but there will not be mass murders. A mass murderer would know better than to try it there. Even at a school, somebody might be carrying a gun.


Rather than ban all guns, why not arm the teachers? Or, in a college, allow permitted persons to carry guns.
I have a gun, but never thought to go on a rampage and harm anyone. The only problem with giving guns to teachers or having others armed in order to ';prevent'; violence is that the person who is armed better be a sharp shooter because then the problem arises with ';friendly fire';......and if everyone is shooting at the ';assailant'; then too many innocent people are at harms way.


I really don't think there is an answer to cure ';crazy';
No.


If some of the people in that school were armed there would have been far fewer innocent people killed. This is assuming that one rational and armed person were willing to shoot the nut to disarm or disable him.


We are ultimately responsible for our own safety.


If guns are outlawed, do you really think the 'bad' guys will turn their guns in? Only the law abiding ones will. Bad move.
The whole reason the framers of the constitution put in the 2nd amendment was so that if any government got out of control they could be removed, if not by peaceful means then force could be used. ours is a government FOR and BY the people the second that stops being true we need to use any means necessary to correct that problem and that very fact scares the hell out of politicians and the people in power.


Read Machiavelli


QUESTION FOR ALL OF YOU, how do you tell when a politician is lying----is he breathing.
personally I don't see where my NEED for arms is. I know how to protect and defend myself without using a weapon. I also know how to dial 911 for help. I actually feel really unsafe with guns around because you never know when someone is going to snap and grab a gun and start shooting. So, I don't see what is so wrong with me excercising my RIGHT to NOT own a gun. A good friend of mine died because her brother got ticked off one day and pulled out a gun and shot her point blank and yes, she died and yes she was unarmed. But still, I do not see how her having a gun in the situation would have helped...her brother most likely would have shot her, she might have also shot him. He also might have then took a hostage and demanded her to put her gun down, leaving him open to the option of shooting both my friend and his ex-fiance. Actually I don't think it's a question of gun control, but bullet control(A.K.A People control.) The Virginia Tech. incident is a tragedy, however it could have been prevented, had the authorities listened to the murderer's instructors and friends...but that would stir up a debate about the student privacy act...which actually it has. In my opinion the act and his privacy should have been violated to keep not only others, but also himself safe and to get him the help he needed.


I personally don't see how giving instructors guns would help...they are people too and can snap just as easily as a student. I think the only people who should have guns are the authorities, they are normally properly trained to use them.
If you mean gun control as using 2 hands then yes, if you mean to ban guns, no.