A DECADE AFTER COLUMBINE HIGH MASSACRE

You either don't live in the United States or you have not bothered to learn the laws here. All the shootings were done in heabily regulated places where guns were not allowed. It did not happen where guns were and are allowed so people can defend themselves. In each case the shooters broke the law just bringing the weapons on campus so the gun bans did nothing to save the people being shot but helped the shooters. You are correct we need more gun control. Gun control is defined as hitting your target. One shot one kill. these idiots used bunches of bullets to kill a few people what a waste of ammo. They used to teach gun safety in school now they don't. we did not have shootings in schools back then now we do.

They killed innocent school children and I am not sure whether the absolute horror of what was done 10 years ago has dawned.

Not going to happen with the current government we have.  I'm keeping my weapons, and getting plenty more.  Don't use this tragedy to advocate your stance, it's pretty pathetic.  

Restrictive gun laws DO NOT PREVENT CRIME, that has been proven over and over.

That's exactly what you are doing. 

The reason this country is great, despite our current "leader", is that we have the right to bear arms.  We are not subjects, we are citizens.

You have a really weird concept about Americans. I think you need to stop trying to assume you understand Americans because you clearly don't. Laws stop law obiding citizens from either getting guns or misusing them. They don't, however, prevent criminals who don't care about these laws from acquiring them and using them.

I agree assult weapons are not something every household should have. I don't see why anyone should have to shoot a gun at all unless necessary, let along 50 or more bullets per second. But to have them as a collector or simply because you enjoy using them at shooting ranges, then sure, I don't mind. In the end keeping law abiding citizens from acquiring any kind of weapon will not keep these weapons out of the hands of criminals.

Unrestricted?  Are background checks unrestricting access to guns?

Didn't envisage? The VAST majority of the people back then had some form of a gun.  Mainly used for hunting or protection. 

No condemnation of the media and it's glorification through massive coverage?

As I said before. Background checks allow for free availability?

Bahu, there was a gentleman (I cannot recall his name at the time) whose child was a victim in the Columbine tragedy.  He was not a member of the NRA and did NOT possess a gun at home.  He spoke before congress stating that he did not feel that it was the guns that murdered his child but rather the PEOPLE behind the guns that did.  He stood there to oppose gun control laws.

Guns don't murder people, people murder people.

Just as it was mentioned on another thread.  Great Britain implemented gun control.  Gun related crimes fell but crimes with other weapons (knives and other items) sky rocketed balancing out the over all crime level. 

The guns used in the Columbine massacre were obtained illegally. It wasn't a lack of laws that allowed it to happen, there were laws already in place. Those laws were broken. More laws would only effect law-abiding citizens.

Funny none of the weapons used at Columbine were "Assault" rifles. Liberals love that word, it's their battle cry in their anti-gun campaign, but it only shows their ignorance. The really problem, as Humordt keyed on, is that there are many gun laws in effect, but are casually, or unevenly enforced. So next time your liberal judges give a light sentence, or liberal activist want to empty prisons, take a hard look there. What about the two idiots at Columbine? It's their parents fault plain and simple. This two probably didn't get a good kick in the @ss when they deserved it (yeah liberals are against that too), or the parents just didn't care and let them do whatever they felt like. Spare the rod spoil the child. a good parent knows when enough is enough.

If according to many liberals that guns kill people, not people kill people, shouldn't NRA conventions and gun shows be frequent massacre site? Why do most shooting seem to occur at liberal institutions, like schools and colleges?

I've always viewed guns as a coward's weapon. Just pressing the button on the boom stick is rather easy and...disconnecting.  If you're going to kill someone the least you can do is get up close and personal.

...perhaps I'm just being overly philosophical about it.

~Zoo

That's funny I've always viewed someone that would take a life without good reason a coward. Amazing how some blame the object and not the mind behind it. Are the recent beheadings "honorable" in your eyes? I imagine it's easy with the victim bound and tied, kneeing before you. The weapon of choice might be an indicator of efficiency, convenience, or symbolism, or just some overly philosophical (LOL). To me, watching a slower method of death is sadistic. Ahhh the "Saw/Hostel" generation.

I'm not worried about you though Zoo, your too bright to have the same world view you might have now when you get older.

Klebold, Harris and their accomplices violated over 20 firearms laws.  Which of them prevented this crime?

The fact is, they didnt set out to shoot a few students, their plan was to level the school and kill everyone.  The reason their plan failed was they did a bad job with the wiring.  Remember all the propane tanks the press talked about?  What they didnt' talk about was all the other explosive devices they had placed throughout the school and parking lot.. including their own cars.

Use this tragedy for whatever political gain you choose, but if you're going to do that, at least use the facts instead of long disproven myths.

http://us.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/20/columbine.myths/index.html

In light of the recent 9th Circuit ruling, it appears that not only did the founding fathers invision such a society, they encouraged it.  Not for "self-defense" but for the defense of the people from oppressive government, local and federal.  As was pointed out in the article about this ruling posted on JU, the court never once mentioned hunting or target practice.  The focus of the 2nd amendment is to insure the citizens have the means to keep government in line.  That being the case, "assault" weapons are definately the weapon of choice.  Some genious said that "An armed society is a polite society".  George Washington encouraged citizens to become proficient with handguns for the purpose of defending home and property.  The rest of the world points at our shooters and tsks at us.  But they still build boats, swim rivers and walk across deserts to get here...must not be TOOO bad.

I never stated otherwise, did I?  An object can't kill you by itself, unless it falls on you. I don't blame any object for anything except my fucking weedeater when the son of a bitch doesn't want to start or the stupid wall for hitting my damn toe...but that's another matter. 

I don't believe in hurting innocent people for any reason.  In fact, I'm not very supportive of violence but I acknowledge it as a necessity.  Sometimes people don't listen, so you have to kick their ass.  Not a pretty way to solve a problem, but effective nonetheless.

Not at all.  The only honor in fighting comes from a fair match.  Either you both have the same weapons (be it guns, knives, or fists) or it's just a cowardly stunt by whoever holds the most power to get off on it.  i.e. school shooting, beheading, what have you. 

I reckon if you're going to fight, at least keep it on the same level.  Bringing a gun to a fist fight is a cowardly thing to do.

Executions are another thing entirely and should be carried out as quickly as possible.  I'm not one for grotesque displays of agony.  I can stomach it, but I don't necessarily want to see it...nor would I encourage it.

I think my world view is fine as it is...which is to say it works for me.  It's based around reasoning and common sense with a heaping helping of realism and openmindedness and just a pinch of idealism(mostly to make sure I don't lose too much hope in humanity).  Vague, sure...but it's a good system. 

Oh, and just to be clear I don't care if people own guns...honestly couldn't care one way or the other.  The only time I care is if you point one at me.

~Zoo

There are twi issues here: Availability of guns and crime. I think American social scientists have empirically demostrated that there is a positive correlation between crime i. e. violent armed crime and guns. I am not saying that by banning assault weapons crime will disappear. I am only saying it is worth a shot (irony intended).

I find it strange that in this day and age of gobalisation we should we talking the language of subect and citizen. Almost all countries of the so-called civilised world prohibit the carriage and storage of guns even in private residences. France, England and even Germany have strictt laws concering guns. So it is not the right of citizens to bear arms.

Background checks are not all that cvareful. If youi do not have a "criminal record" thjat shows up on the computer screen you are through with the background check.

This argument that guns dont kill only people do inverts the instrument and the subject with agwency. Guns kill only because they are in the hands of people with such intentions and guns do not have any choice in the matter:only ciivil society dioes.

I think the two students who carried out the Columbine Massacre got the weapons from their homes: their parents were involved in getting and storing weapons.

Bahu, for you to be consistent you would have to call for bans on propane tanks also, since that was to be the main weapon of the rampage.  So when will you start being consistent?

Um, the NRA is NEVER going to stop opposing the ban on guns and firearms.  That's kind of what they are all about. 

Like others said, 1) It is already difficult to LEGALLY obtain weapons  2) Laws would have changed NOTHING when it came to Columbine so don't try to use it for your anti-gun agenda and 3) It seems like using Columbine as a call to ban guns would be like using 9/11 as a call to stop flying commercial airplanes.  If someone wants to do something evil, they'll find a way.  The people are the issue.  Instead of blaming guns for Columbine, why not be outraged about bullies.  Being bullied is what set those kids on that path.  I know plenty of kids who can relate.  What should we do about that?

Bahu, I can show you empiracle evidence that if I remove all guns in a crime that I can 100% reduce the instance that a gun will be used in the crime. The problem with the conclusion that I am hearing is that you have reduced crime in overall.  As I stated before England did this with a gun ban.  The problem is that crime is STILL at the same rate it was BEFORE the gun ban. So if you include this into your logic you can conclude that the gun was not the instigator of the crime.  The common denominator my friend are people.

Please then tell me how a gun is different than a knife, bat, pipe bomb, fork, axe, chain saw, scissors, etc?  When the assailant is use a gun how is that different then using a pipe bomb?  How is that different than using a wood chipper? 

I'd rather get shot than those other methods

So how come the UK (no guns allowed) for example doesn't have so many issues of gun crime proportionately to the US?

Regardless I'd have thought most people could agree that you don't need to be able to purchase assault weapons to bear arms/protect yourself (compared to say a basic pistol), and hence I don't see much of an argument in favour of allowing people to own such weapons.

Aeortar, reread the statement you quoted.  Restrictive gun laws do not prevent crime.  It isn't an arguement that if you have restrictive gun laws that there isn't a reduction in gun crimes.  It is the general use of the word crime.

You ask this question because you did not read what I wrote, or you ignored it. Death by firearms is down in the UK, the murder rate stayed the same, people just used cricket bats, knives, and hammers to kill instead of a pistol or rifle. So the next logical setp is to outlaw knives, bats, pipes, and hammers because they were used to replace guns. Continuing this flawed logic we need to then outlaw rocks because if you outlaw everything that can be used to kill someone that is man made the next thing will be rocks and sticks. Will it make murder go away? No, because if someone wants to kill you they are going to try what weapon they use does not matter. With a knowledge of medicine one can kill with a bic pen or a paper clip. When murder is on someone's mind bare hands will do. Do we then out law hands?

Paladin: apparently he's ignoring anything and everything written that doesn't back his point.

He does that with all his posts, I write not to him but the people that read his foolishness so they can get some balance.

Let me add this to those following this thread.

Just last month a long time friend of mine was shot by her husband.  Let me give you the connection of her and her family to mine.  Her name is Pam and I have known here since at least kindergarten.  Her parents and my parents went to school together as well.  In fact Pam was so close to my family it wasn't until around high school that I found out we weren't related.  She was very good friends with my 2nd and 3rd cousins and was often found at our family reunions.  She always seemed to have an optimistic approach on life and was one of the least judgmental person I've known. 

She married a black guy (eventhough she was white) despite the resistance from the traditional minded family.  It is also believed that this man she married was also muslim although I have no way to confirm.  There was evidence that the man she married had issues of violence that I warned her about but respected her decision to proceed in marrying him. 

Together they have two beautiful girls. 

In January, Pam decided to file for divorce from her husband whose abusive and violent nature continued to manifest. It had become so bad that she had to have the Sheriff with her to collect her things in order to move out. 

In March, Her husband found her and shot her multiple times...ending her life.  The very next day as police were out to find him in order for questioning (he wasn't a suspect but rather a person of interest by the FBI) using the low-jack device in the vehicle he was driving.  They later found him that afternoon and proceeded to pull him over for questioning.  Before the officers were able to talk to him he had pulled out his gun and shot himself in the head.  The more tragic side of this is the two girls (5 and 6?) were in the car at the same time.

I merely state this tragic story to let you see how close I have had gun related violence/crime to me.  It took the life of a long time friend. 

Bahu (and any others supporting gun bans), to say that if Pam's husband didn't have a gun would have prevented this crime is completely naive.  The man was clearly mentally unstable.  If the man had enough hatred to shoot her with a gun what makes you think that if he didn't have a gun that this crime would have been prevented?  Sure if he used another implement (ie knife, chainsaw, woodchipper, baseball bat, hands etc) this would yield in ONLY a decrease in gun related crime but a net in the same number of crimes commited (in this case murder). 

In this scenario, one has to consider that there is only one person with a gun.  Let's consider another option.  Let's say that my friend Pam had a gun at the same time to defend herself.  She may have been able to protect herself (with every right to do so, here in colorado). 

By banning guns you are merely taking guns out of the honest citizen and putting them in a similar position my friend was.  She was easily over powered by her husband's possession of a gun because she did not. 

Name me one criminal that doesn't find the sound (*chi-chunk*) from a shot gun a deterent?  The criminals by the very name they have (criminals) have no respect for the law, WHY oh WHY, then do you want to keep guns out of the responsible law abiding citizens giving them a handicap in defending themselves? A gun ban merely supports the criminals and punishes the law abiders. 

*sigh* why do I continue to see this trend from liberals?

AdventureDude:  So sorry for your loss, and thank you for your level-headed evaluation of the role of the gun in this story.  And what part of Colorado?  The case-maker in this story is the fact that it is played out all over the world everyday.  But in many parts of the world the weapon of choice is a machete or a club or a rock.  And in too many cases, there is no "crime" committed because women are chattel, not people.  But violence happens.  And in Asia, Africa, and other backward places, the violence is tenfold what we face here. 

I have mentioned this before:  about twelve years ago or more, John Anderson was elected to be the Sheriff of El Paso County.  One of his first actions was to reduce the restrictions on concealed weapons permit procedures.  Before Sheriff Anderson, we were plagued with drive-by shootings, car-jackings, and house raids.  One month after the new carry permit policy went into effect, there was a huge drop in the number of violent crimes in the county.  It continued to drop after a few incidents of citizens shooting criminals under the state's "Make my Day" law.  Just recently there have been a slight resurgance of some of these crimes, but I guarantee you that all it takes is one armed citizen stopping one of these thugs and the stats will take a fast drop again.  Why is it so hard for liberals to see the facts before them and so easy to assume America is bad?