We need to ban all handguns in America NOW

"Bushzilla" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 26, 10:25 am, "RM v2.0" wrote:
control in America is why Cho was able to easily buy guns in the first
place, because though he was deemed psychologically unstable, he was
not considered unstable -enough- by weak gun laws that did nothing to
protect his classmates from him obtaining the guns and a large number
of bullets and extra clips.

= Magazines, not clips.

I know the difference, the stories I have read had him buying empty -
clips- on ebay which of course load quickly into a magazine on many
firearms, let's not get too anal here and lose the point, the point is
what is important, he bought what he needed all too easily.

And all the laws and bans in the world wont stop that. Guns can be made at
home, crudely of course but it isnt that difficult. We are way way past the
point of getting guns out of society and really should concentrate on
educating the public and getting tougher on enforcing existing laws.

Is it tasteless? unless you talking about Tahllium or maybe Warfarin
which both were once used in rat poison and are no longer readily
available or legal, there is maybe tetramethylenedisulfotetramine
which is tasteless and still legal in China? I don't know, but these
are not everyday substances that can be bought over a counter at your
local 'Rat Poison Store' but you can easly walk into a Gun Store on
the other hand and buy somthing that can instantly kill some just by
aiming it and pulling a little lever with your finger.

You mean like a nail gun? they hold lots of big nails and are portable. A
little practice to get good with head shots and ......

"Jer" wrote in message
...
Notan wrote:
G.I. Cho wrote:
How many more tragedies is it going to take before we wake up? We have
a serious gun problem in this country and it's time to take a stand.
Let the farmers and hunters keep the rifles and shotguns. Get rid of
the pistols and the assault rifles unless you want to go over and
fight in Iraq.

Please explain exactly how one bans unregistered handguns.



This is how...

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618

--
Unless I missed the point, this article reinforces everything we have said
against banning guns. And from ABC news no less.

On 26 Apr 2007 21:11:55 -0700, Bushzilla
wrote:

(snips)

I do, take this serious problem more seriously so that gun owners who
are good about being responsible with their guns get to keep them, and
assholes like Cho don't even ever get to buy them let alone use them
on someone.

Your basic problem is that you, for some weird reason,
believe that the only way to acquire guns is to buy them
from a regulated gun dealer. You believe that if only we
can prevent the next Cho from buying his guns with the
government's permission, from a regulated gun dealer, then
he won't get his guns at all. This is childishly naive.
You can take $500 into some corner bars and have an
excellent chance of ending up with a functional handgun --
no background check required. Oddly enough, the very same
commercial dynamic applies to illegal drug sales (or so I
have heard, anyway) and alcoholic beverage sales during
Prohibition.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

RM v2.0 wrote:
"Jer" wrote in message
...
Notan wrote:
G.I. Cho wrote:
How many more tragedies is it going to take before we wake up? We have
a serious gun problem in this country and it's time to take a stand.
Let the farmers and hunters keep the rifles and shotguns. Get rid of
the pistols and the assault rifles unless you want to go over and
fight in Iraq.
Please explain exactly how one bans unregistered handguns.


This is how...

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618

--
Unless I missed the point, this article reinforces everything we have said
against banning guns. And from ABC news no less.

Looks like Jer screwed up, doesn't it! g

--
Notan

On Apr 18, 11:17 pm, "G.I. Cho" wrote:
How many more tragedies is it going to take before we wake up? We have
a serious gun problem in this country and it's time to take a stand.
Let the farmers and hunters keep the rifles and shotguns. Get rid of
the pistols and the assault rifles unless you want to go over and
fight in Iraq.

While I would not go that far, I do believe that requiring psych
testing as a requirement for gun ownership and purchase would serve to
solve the problem we now have.

It certainly would have prevented the VT shootings.

Any gun owner who would hesitate to undergo testing has to ask
why....and what are you hiding?

TMT

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Apr 18, 11:17 pm, "G.I. Cho" wrote:
How many more tragedies is it going to take before we wake up? We have
a serious gun problem in this country and it's time to take a stand.
Let the farmers and hunters keep the rifles and shotguns. Get rid of
the pistols and the assault rifles unless you want to go over and
fight in Iraq.

While I would not go that far, I do believe that requiring psych
testing as a requirement for gun ownership and purchase would serve to
solve the problem we now have.

It certainly would have prevented the VT shootings.

Any gun owner who would hesitate to undergo testing has to ask
why....and what are you hiding?

Again, who's going to write the test?

Who's going to do the testing?

Etc., etc.

("Kid, we only got one question: Have you ever been arrested?"
And I proceeded to tell him the story of Alice's Restaurant Massacree
with full orchestration...)

--
Notan

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:33:30 -0600, Notan
notan@ddressthatcanbespammed wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Apr 18, 11:17 pm, "G.I. Cho" wrote:
How many more tragedies is it going to take before we wake up? We have
a serious gun problem in this country and it's time to take a stand.
Let the farmers and hunters keep the rifles and shotguns. Get rid of
the pistols and the assault rifles unless you want to go over and
fight in Iraq.

While I would not go that far, I do believe that requiring psych
testing as a requirement for gun ownership and purchase would serve to
solve the problem we now have.

It certainly would have prevented the VT shootings.

Any gun owner who would hesitate to undergo testing has to ask
why....and what are you hiding?

Again, who's going to write the test?

Who's going to do the testing?

Etc., etc.

("Kid, we only got one question: Have you ever been arrested?"
And I proceeded to tell him the story of Alice's Restaurant Massacree
with full orchestration...)

Not only that - BUT - Cho Sueng-Hui WAS administered a whole battery
of PSYCH TESTS - and it positively PROVED he was an Imminent Danger to
HIMSELF and to OTHERS!

The difference was that the Virginia Judge and the Virginia
Court/Judicial system FAILED!! Because CHO had "requested and was
granted Voluntary "self-committal" for psychiatric testing and
counseling - NOTHING was indicated on HIS record to raise any "red
flags" for the Licensed FFL Dealership [who was selling the weapons to
him] when the necessary and required checks were run.

But, even that probably wouldn't have stopped the death and
destruction which was inflicted on VT's Campus. It may have delayed
the situation for awhile, but wouldn't have prevented it. Because, if
a person wants something badly enough, that person WILL find some way
to obtain the tools/equipment necessary to accomplish those ends. Fact
of life! If someone wants to take someone out - regardless of who
that someone may be - given enough time, money, effort, and lack of
caring what happens - anyone can be gotten to - regardless of who it
may be.

A ban on weapons isn't the way to go - because there is NO WAY to
enforce such a ban. Increasing the number of LAWS won't really work
either - because the one's we've already got aren't being enforced
either. Basically, we're looking at a Catch-22 = can't win for losing
and can't lose for winning!

On Apr 27, 12:24 pm, Education_Is_Important
wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:33:30 -0600, Notan





notan@ddressthatcanbespammed wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Apr 18, 11:17 pm, "G.I. Cho" wrote:
How many more tragedies is it going to take before we wake up? We have
a serious gun problem in this country and it's time to take a stand.
Let the farmers and hunters keep the rifles and shotguns. Get rid of
the pistols and the assault rifles unless you want to go over and
fight in Iraq.

While I would not go that far, I do believe that requiring psych
testing as a requirement for gun ownership and purchase would serve to
solve the problem we now have.

It certainly would have prevented the VT shootings.

Any gun owner who would hesitate to undergo testing has to ask
why....and what are you hiding?

Again, who's going to write the test?

Who's going to do the testing?

Etc., etc.

("Kid, we only got one question: Have you ever been arrested?"
And I proceeded to tell him the story of Alice's Restaurant Massacree
with full orchestration...)

Not only that - BUT - Cho Sueng-Hui WAS administered a whole battery
of PSYCH TESTS - and it positively PROVED he was an Imminent Danger to
HIMSELF and to OTHERS!

The difference was that the Virginia Judge and the Virginia
Court/Judicial system FAILED!! Because CHO had "requested and was
granted Voluntary "self-committal" for psychiatric testing and
counseling - NOTHING was indicated on HIS record to raise any "red
flags" for the Licensed FFL Dealership [who was selling the weapons to
him] when the necessary and required checks were run.

But, even that probably wouldn't have stopped the death and
destruction which was inflicted on VT's Campus. It may have delayed
the situation for awhile, but wouldn't have prevented it. Because, if
a person wants something badly enough, that person WILL find some way
to obtain the tools/equipment necessary to accomplish those ends. Fact
of life! If someone wants to take someone out - regardless of who
that someone may be - given enough time, money, effort, and lack of
caring what happens - anyone can be gotten to - regardless of who it
may be.

A ban on weapons isn't the way to go - because there is NO WAY to
enforce such a ban. Increasing the number of LAWS won't really work
either - because the one's we've already got aren't being enforced
either. Basically, we're looking at a Catch-22 = can't win for losing
and can't lose for winning!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Correct.....psych testing of gun owners and want to be owners would
weed out those who should not have gunes....as the case of Cho
definitely shows.

And creating new laws that take mental health in consideration before
any sale is allowed to occur are required.

To say no new laws are needed is foolish...we have 32 more reasons why
they are required.

TMT

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

snip

Correct.....psych testing of gun owners and want to be owners would
weed out those who should not have gunes....as the case of Cho
definitely shows.

And creating new laws that take mental health in consideration before
any sale is allowed to occur are required.

To say no new laws are needed is foolish...we have 32 more reasons why
they are required.

News laws? Maybe not.

How 'bout getting institutions, like the American Psychiatric Association,
to better document their findings?

Or getting rid of institutions, like the ACLU, that fight for the privacy
of citizens whose private lives shouldn't be private!

--
Notan