Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Advice for Huffington Post: If you want to make a cogent, rational argument for gun control, try not to start your argument with historical inaccuracies   (news.yahoo.com) divider line
77
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

1648 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Apr 2007 at 4:12 PM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



77 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
TheConvincingSavant
2007-04-19 12:34:50 PM  
Added gun laws would not have stopped Cho de.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2007-04-19 12:37:06 PM  
I love the debate going on over here (pops):

"No doubt, there are thousands of illegal handguns in Washington, but I bet most of them come from just across the Potomac River in Virginia, where handguns are easy to buy. Cal, it appears that Cho Seung Hui, the student who did this horrific deed, bought these guns within Virginia's laws. Last month, he purchased a Glock 9mm pistol in Roanoke. The gun shop owner said Cho was "a nice, clean-cut college kid." Serial killer Ted Bundy looked like a nice guy, too. So you're still saying the current laws are good enough?"

Er--Bundy didn't use a gun for a single one of his murders. But I guess you don't have to make sense if you hate guns.
 
mryoop789
2007-04-19 12:37:53 PM  
Aw, check that out. God gave Paul Helmke an extra dose of stupid when he was still in his momma.
 
sailorman_glh
2007-04-19 12:45:49 PM  
Subby: If you want to make a cogent, rational argument for gun control, try not to start your argument with historical inaccuracies

Without wild conspiracy theories or gross inaccuracies, it just wouldn't be the Huffington Post, now would it?
 
hillbillypharmacist
2007-04-19 12:46:40 PM  
MyNameIsNotMervGriffin: Er--Bundy didn't use a gun for a single one of his murders. But I guess you don't have to make sense if you hate guns.

I believe the point was that even 'nice, clean cut' guys can be murderers. There doesn't appear to be any claim that Bundy used a gun.
 
GaryPDX
2007-04-19 12:48:14 PM  
Gun control advocates can kiss my dick.

They interviewed one of the VTech kids and he said he wished he had been packing so he wouldn't feel that "feeling of helplessness". Those are some profoundly accurate and articulate words and very precisely the point of our 2nd Amendment.

The only thing that could have stopped this twisted fark, is someone else nearby packing.
 
gilgigamesh
2007-04-19 12:53:21 PM  
What, he's off by four years on the Columbine massacre?

You should always have your facts straight, of course.

BFD. Minutae shouldn't obscure the basic truth of his point: this Cho guy was a documented nutter who should not have been able to purchase handguns legally.

I know the NRA will now be dumping millions into propaganda to muddy this issue. But we need to take a hard look at our policy on guns.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2007-04-19 12:55:44 PM  
gilgigamesh: this Cho guy was a documented nutter

Excuse me? We should take away people's rights just because they take antidepressants? That's the closest to being a "documented nutter" as he ever came.
 
gilgigamesh
2007-04-19 12:55:54 PM  
The only thing that could have stopped this twisted fark, is someone else nearby packing.

Or maybe Cho not being able to walk into a gun store and purchase a gun when he had a documented history of mental illness.

And yes, I know, he could have gotten a gun anywhere illegally if he had been determined enough. The truth is that he didn't, and anything more is just unprovable speculation.
 
RocketRod
2007-04-19 12:57:12 PM  
gilgigamesh: But we need to take a hard look at our policy on guns.

The current policies are fine... now if you could find someone to enforce them, then you'd see the results for which you're looking.
 
gilgigamesh
2007-04-19 12:58:12 PM  
2007-04-19 12:55:44 PM MyNameIsNotMervGriffin

There was a commitment proceeding in Dec 2005 where he was adjudged by a magistrate either to be a danger to himself or a danger to himself and others (I have seen both and don't know which is correct).

That's a far cry from being on a little prozac.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2007-04-19 12:58:58 PM  
hillbillypharmacist: I believe the point was that even 'nice, clean cut' guys can be murderers. There doesn't appear to be any claim that Bundy used a gun.

He follows his point by asking if the current gun laws are good enough. But if Bundy murdered several dozen women without using a gun even once, the most restrictive gun laws in history wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference.

The only point he's really making is one he probably didn't intend: viz., that if someone really wants to murder a bunch of people, you can't pass enough laws to stop it.

Bundy committed all his murders by strangulation or by clubbing the victims to death. You gonna pass a law outlawing fingers and ordering that the whole world be made of Nerf?
 
gilgigamesh
2007-04-19 1:01:02 PM  
RocketRod


gilgigamesh: But we need to take a hard look at our policy on guns.

The current policies are fine... now if you could find someone to enforce them, then you'd see the results for which you're looking.

I don't know about that. He bought the guns legally, meaning either there was no background check run as required by federal law, or there was one and his prior mental problems were not a red flaf.

Either way I bet I can find 32 families who probably don't appreciate the distinction.
 
LordPistachio
2007-04-19 1:04:09 PM  
MyNameIsNotMervGriffin: We should take away people's rights just because they take antidepressants? That's the closest to being a "documented nutter" as he ever came.

He spent some time in a mental institution apparently. There should be a better way to document such things. He was on people's radar screens as being a nut, and ideally that would have been documented and he would have been prevented from buying a gun. That's the only gun control-related measure I would be in favor of.
 
hillbillypharmacist
2007-04-19 1:06:06 PM  
MyNameIsNotMervGriffin: The only point he's really making is one he probably didn't intend: viz., that if someone really wants to murder a bunch of people, you can't pass enough laws to stop it.

Bundy committed all his murders by strangulation or by clubbing the victims to death. You gonna pass a law outlawing fingers and ordering that the whole world be made of Nerf?

I don't think gun control is practical, even if Constitutional. I agree with him.
 
gilgigamesh
2007-04-19 1:07:26 PM  
Bundy committed all his murders by strangulation or by clubbing the victims to death. You gonna pass a law outlawing fingers and ordering that the whole world be made of Nerf?

Bad analogies and rank speculation about what Cho COULD have done if he wanted to don't change the fact of what happened here.

You simply don't know what would have happened if his name got flagged when he tried to purchase a gun (twice), and neither do I.

We only know what did happen when he had ready access to legal handguns. And we won't make any progress here until people start to realize there is a problem.
 
gilgigamesh
2007-04-19 1:10:58 PM  
I don't think gun control is practical, even if Constitutional. I agree with him.

It certainly would be practical, even easy, to red flag people who have had run ins with the judicial system due to mental problems.

The fact that we obviously have so many people opposed to something that basic goes a long way to explaining why we have such a problem with gun related violence in the US as opposed to other western countries.
 
CHAZZZ
2007-04-19 1:20:44 PM  
GaryPDX: Gun control advocates can kiss my dick.

They interviewed one of the VTech kids and he said he wished he had been packing so he wouldn't feel that "feeling of helplessness". Those are some profoundly accurate and articulate words and very precisely the point of our 2nd Amendment.

The only thing that could have stopped this twisted fark, is someone else nearby packing.


A bunch of college students packing heat sounds like a great idea. Gun loving hicks can kiss my dick.
 
hillbillypharmacist
2007-04-19 1:20:45 PM  
gilgigamesh: It certainly would be practical, even easy, to red flag people who have had run ins with the judicial system due to mental problems.

Yes, that'd be a good thing, and pretty easy. Just like making people show ID to vote, or requiring permits to gather in large groups in public, it's at the people's discretion to regulate how our rights can be exercised.

I just don't think that banning guns wholesale is practical. Maybe I should have been more specific instead of just saying 'gun control'.
 
SmackLT [TotalFark]
2007-04-19 1:22:55 PM  
gilgigamesh: I don't know about that. He bought the guns legally, meaning either there was no background check run as required by federal law, or there was one and his prior mental problems were not a red flag.

Repeating what I heard on the news, he once vocalized suicidal thoughts. Roommate called the cops because he seemed kinda unstable, the cops arrived and took him in, and there was an evaluation done in which he was deemed an imminent danger to himself and counseling was recommended.

He went to counseling voluntarily and was deemed not a danger to himself or others with medication, and a prescription for antidepressants was written (although the news didn't specify that he ever filled the prescription or took the meds).

Because he went voluntarily, the record was expunged (or never formally filed or something). Since he never showed up on the police radar again, the situation never came up again.
 
gilgigamesh
2007-04-19 1:25:42 PM  
hillbillypharmacist

I just don't think that banning guns wholesale is practical. Maybe I should have been more specific instead of just saying 'gun control'.

Well, and there I would certainly agree with you, from pretty much every standpoint. I think it would be both impractical and wrong to do so. The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding people and if they want to own guns for whatever legal reason, god bless 'em.

But I think this nation has a real cultural sickness if we have to argue the point about whether psychotics have a right to own semi-automatic pistols. It should be pretty obvious why so many Americans die from firearms.
 
hillbillypharmacist
2007-04-19 1:28:38 PM  
gilgigamesh: But I think this nation has a real cultural sickness if we have to argue the point about whether psychotics have a right to own semi-automatic pistols. It should be pretty obvious why so many Americans die from firearms.

Maybe the problem lies more with the healthcare system and its handling of the mentally ill. Lord knows that little area could use some improvement.
 
gilgigamesh
2007-04-19 1:35:34 PM  
hillbillypharmacist

Maybe the problem lies more with the healthcare system and its handling of the mentally ill. Lord knows that little area could use some improvement.

Well, first he went through some sort of competency hearing before a judge. Which means he was evaluated by a mental health professional who sent findings to a judge, and so there was a record of his condition. So the problem is within the legal system, or perhaps the laws themselves.

Second, I think the problem is broader than that. I think the mental health aspect of this is a symptom rather than a cause: the fact is that a gun, legal or otherwise, is far more likely to be used to commit a crime than to prevent one.

Now like I said I don't think the solution is ban all guns forever. But the first step to resolving a problem is to admit it's existence.
 
NikolaiFarkoff [TotalFark]
2007-04-19 1:39:38 PM  
Didn't his parents ever teach him to play the cello or do calculus at age 7?

Sounds like a recipe for stereotype disaster.
 
rocinante721
2007-04-19 1:39:57 PM  
The above handcuffs; rope; dildo ref was a throwaway pic of John Wayne Gacy

[image from i27.photobucket.com too old to be available]
 
HulkHands
2007-04-19 1:47:37 PM  
I thought we already established guns are for pussies. Fight like a man, dammit.
 
Weaver95
2007-04-19 1:47:42 PM  
Added gun laws would not have stopped Cho de.

Shhhh! the sheep need to feel safe! Don't go bringing 'facts' and 'logic' into this....it'll only confuse people!

The gun grabbers want MORE LAWS RIGHT NOW! And don't go saying things like 'second amendment' and 'constitutional law' or 'constitutional procedure' either. Because gun grabbers ARE SCARED shiatLESS! And because gun grabbers are scared, they can IGNORE THE LAW and just shred the entire second amendment. And by God if you get in their way, why - they'll PANIC PANIC PANIcoontil they get their way! Oh, and if you don't PANIC with them, then OBVIOUSLY you want to give flamethrower nuclear weapons to every lunatic in the asylum! PANIC PANIC PANIC! OMFG! DON'T YOU GET IT!? ONE PERSON OUT OF MILLIONS WENT ON A RAMPAGE! WE AREN'T SAFE! PANIC NOW!

There. that should sum up the entire thread.
 
RocketRod
2007-04-19 2:18:13 PM  
gilgigamesh: I don't know about that. He bought the guns legally, meaning either there was no background check run as required by federal law, or there was one and his prior mental problems were not a red flaf.

I'm guessing that upwards of 80% of college students would show some type of anxiety/depression disorder in a standard diagnosis... it's part and parcel of growing into an adult. As for a background check... did he have a criminal record? I know there were a few internal campus records on him, but if he didn't pop up on the police database then the gun store isn't at fault.
 
LordPistachio
2007-04-19 2:20:38 PM  
Weaver95: Added gun laws would not have stopped Cho de.

Shhhh! the sheep need to feel safe! Don't go bringing 'facts' and 'logic' into this....it'll only confuse people!

Did you read the rest of the thread? Would you argue that a man who was documented as being a batshiat psycho should have a right to buy guns. If he weren't able to buy the guns, he may well have been stopped.
 
slayer199
2007-04-19 2:22:32 PM  
I think the pro gun-control crowd misses the point.

If you are going to rely on someone else for your own safety (aka the government), you won't be any more safe than before, and we'll all lose freedom.
 
The Onanist
2007-04-19 2:24:55 PM  
RocketRod: I know there were a few internal campus records on him, but if he didn't pop up on the police database then the gun store isn't at fault.

Is there any question as to whether the gun store is in the wrong??

I haven't really been paying TOO much attention to this anymore (I mean there's the Anna Nicole Smith stuff that I have to keep tabs on)...

I just saw one statement from the gun store owner stating that they did the background check and he came up clean.

That's about all the gun store folks can do...
 
Hobodeluxe
2007-04-19 2:27:04 PM  
Personally I could use an ak47 and a few grenades.
/avid hunter
 
RocketRod
2007-04-19 2:38:28 PM  
The Onanist: Is there any question as to whether the gun store is in the wrong??

Naw... I was just trying to answer gilgigamesh's wondering of why his prior diagnosis of a mental disorder wasn't a red flag on the background check. The shooter's mental disorder, not gilgigamesh's.
 
Weaver95
2007-04-19 2:55:55 PM  
Would you argue that a man who was documented as being a batshiat psycho should have a right to buy guns. If he weren't able to buy the guns, he may well have been stopped.

Except that in this case, the kid didn't show up on the background check as a lunatic. So maybe you should question the mental health system and stop trying to blame the gun stores.
 
LordPistachio
2007-04-19 2:56:48 PM  
Weaver95: Except that in this case, the kid didn't show up on the background check as a lunatic. So maybe you should question the mental health system and stop trying to blame the gun stores.

I don't see anything about gun stores in my post.
 
Weaver95
2007-04-19 2:59:12 PM  
I don't see anything about gun stores in my post.

Of course not - curious, don't you think?
 
hillbillypharmacist
2007-04-19 2:59:42 PM  
Weaver95: So maybe you should question the mental health system and stop trying to blame the gun stores.

I don't think anyone is blaming the gun stores. They aren't in any reasonable way at fault.

Having mental health flags on background checks is a reasonable and practical measure to prevent crime: do you agree? (circle one)

Yes No
 
Weaver95
2007-04-19 3:03:57 PM  
Having mental health flags on background checks is a reasonable and practical measure to prevent crime: do you agree? (circle one)

Yes No


I wish it was that simple.
 
Snarfangel
2007-04-19 3:05:33 PM  
gilgigamesh
BFD. Minutae shouldn't obscure the basic truth of his point: this Cho guy was a documented nutter who should not have been able to purchase handguns legally.

Should we take away their right to vote as well? I'm not trying to be snarky, I just wonder how much leeway we give someone who hasn't even been charged with a crime.
 
hillbillypharmacist
2007-04-19 3:06:18 PM  
Weaver95: I wish it was that simple.

It isn't simple, certainly. But what are your initial impressions?
 
gilgigamesh
2007-04-19 3:09:16 PM  
Weaver95

Except that in this case, the kid didn't show up on the background check as a lunatic. So maybe you should question the mental health system and stop trying to blame the gun stores.

Evidently there is a court record of a commitment proceeding. I don't think it's the mental health system.

RocketRod

The shooter's mental disorder, not gilgigamesh's.

My mental illness is well documented. But I'm no danger now because they've sewn my hands into these thick mittens, which are sewn to the front of my shirt.

I swear it's like you can't even threaten the pope anymore without someone thinking you're serious just because you are.
 
LordPistachio
2007-04-19 3:10:13 PM  
Snarfangel: Should we take away their right to vote as well?

Well, they could flip out and stab people with the little ballot-puncher thingee. But other than that, votes aren't deadly weapons. The right of a crazy person to own a gun is trumped by the rights of other people not to be mercilessly slaughtered.
 
gilgigamesh
2007-04-19 3:15:34 PM  
Snarfangel


gilgigamesh
BFD. Minutae shouldn't obscure the basic truth of his point: this Cho guy was a documented nutter who should not have been able to purchase handguns legally.

Should we take away their right to vote as well? I'm not trying to be snarky, I just wonder how much leeway we give someone who hasn't even been charged with a crime.

I don't think it's snarky at all I think it's a valid question.

I guess my answer is that maybe gun ownership should be treated more like driving than voting: as a privilege, not as a right.

But then you'd rightly ask, "Should we revoke driver's privileges for someone who hasn't even been charged with a crime", which of course we don't do either.

So I guess I don't know; I don't have any answers. I'm just asking questions too because I really don't know what we should do.

But I do think we need to ask these questions, rather than just poo-pooing the problem with dismissive and baseless speculation that this would have occurred no matter whatf.
 
brap [TotalFark]
2007-04-19 3:17:19 PM  
Don't bring a pencil to a dick-kissing fight?
 
RocketRod
2007-04-19 3:25:48 PM  
gilgigamesh: I swear it's like you can't even threaten the pope anymore without someone thinking you're serious just because you are.

WHAT DID YOU SAY ABOUT THE POPE?!
 
gilgigamesh
2007-04-19 3:34:32 PM  
slayer199


I think the pro gun-control crowd misses the point.

If you are going to rely on someone else for your own safety (aka the government), you won't be any more safe than before, and we'll all lose freedom.

There's a difference between an individual relying on the government for safety and using government policy as a tool to reduce a systematic problem on a societal level.

The main difference being that these "people who rely on the government to protect them" don't actually exist. Except in the stroke-fantasies of those who imagine they are big tough guys who don't need nobody for nuttin.

People expect the government to enact sane policies that have an overall effect on a given problem. But do you really believe there are people out there who expect the government to swoop in like superman and save them when they are getting robbed at gunpoint? Come on.
 
gilgigamesh
2007-04-19 3:36:52 PM  
RocketRod

WHAT DID YOU SAY ABOUT THE POPE?!

It isn't so much what I said as what I burned in effigy and then had sex with in the main chapel in St. Patrick's cathedral.

What are you looking at? I have my rights.
 
Weaver95
2007-04-19 3:42:04 PM  
It isn't simple, certainly. But what are your initial impressions?

sometimes everyone does everything right and yet the bad guys can still slip thru the cracks.

I think we're gonna have a couple of months of ghoulish opportunistic asshats trying to use this incident to justify their warped political agenda. I think we'll see colleges pull false alarms and overcompensate for years. I also think colleges will become less and less tolerant of loners and people who deviate from the herd.
 
PenguinTheRed
2007-04-19 3:48:05 PM  
This case represents a failure to enfore the laws that are on the books, not a call for more laws. He had been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility and that disqualifies someone from gun ownership. This is a matter of the proper authorities not having the right information, but God forbid we should infringe on his privacy rights when he wants to buy a gun. Every gun I've ever bought I've assumed that during the check they leave no stone unturned and completely open the books on me, but that's okay because of the responsibility it takes to safely own and carry a gun.

At the same time, look at this kid's manifesto and the videos he made. He was an angry, dangerous person hell-bent on killing people. If you can't get a gun legally it's not very tough to find one illegally, and you can be damned sure that's what he would have done had he not slipped through the cracks and had been able to obtain one legally. All the gun control laws in the world couldn't have prevented this tragedy.
 
portscanner
2007-04-19 4:28:11 PM  
What I dont understand is the VT campus is gun free zone. How did he get a gun into a gun free zone?
 
Displayed 50 of 77 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

All the submissions, none of the calories.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.