Conservapedia:Would the repeal of gun control laws make incidents like the shooting at Virginia Tech less likely to occur?

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
! THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia.
Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.
New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting

I hope it's not too early to say this, but I'm worried that if it happened at my campus, the same thing would happen, and that it might even be worse, because there are signs everywhere saying that you can't have guns. Also, since even the police officers did not catch the shooter until two hours after he started, it's not a good enough argument to say, oh, the police can have them. DanH 15:18, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

This debate will inevitably begin, so let's have it in a way that is respectful of the mourning.
I agree with Dan: the police are not going to stop this soon enough. I'd like to see armed Resident Advisors myself.
Was the gunman on drugs? Into hard-core pornography? Human beings do not ordinarily do these things unless under some evil influence. I hope the media report this honestly. Most people don't realize that high school shooters are usually on drugs, and Scott Peterson was into hard-core pornography.--Aschlafly 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Not all drugs cause problems; the worst crime committed by pot-heads is Twinkie theft. --TrueGrit 12:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

NO I would prefer to just outlaw guns or very strictly control them. Flippin 15:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

That won't automatically make all guns cease to exist. This guy certainly got his hands on one. DanH 15:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, here is some statistics to concider: What do people think, the countryes at top have lots of guns available and not much control over it, or they have strict guncontroll laws and few guns available? Think the answer is obvious, and so is the answer to question which would be the way to go if one wants to limit murders with firearms. There are of course lots of other reasons behind the amount of killings with guns than just the availability, allso guns arent the only way to kill people. Alltho the country i live in is quite low on this chart, its quite high on the murders done. But its only obvious that more controll there is on guns and less there is of them, less there will allso be killings with them. Timppeli 15:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's ban all guns right now and see what happens. DanH 18:39, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually, i would be willing to go that far. There are of course some legimit hobbyes that include firearms and total ban isnt likely, but i really like the current policy on my country. Here one can get firearms for hunting after doing a test for your hunting licence. If you want a gun for target practice, one practically needs to start from small caliber weapons like .22 and join a gun club. And offcourse one cant have any serious crimes on his police record. No licenses are given for weapons meant for selfprotection outside law enforcment and some other security related jobs. Timppeli 19:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
I doubt it. Honestly, it's important for the people to be armed, in the incident that they have to defend themselves, be it from other people or the state.--Elamdri 21:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
If you took a look at the statistics i provided, i think you would have noticed that the amount of guns there was amongst the general population certainly didnt make it less likely to get murdered by gunfire, if anything, it made it more propable. In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life, i even have personal experience on this subject. Allso, do you think it would matter in the least that people own 9mm pistols and stuff like that if everything changed so drasticly that United states would become and dictatorship? We dont live in the 1800:s anymore. You dont build up army out of civilians with civilian weaponry. Who controls the army controls the country. Only ones who use those easy to get weapons to "defend their country" are nutjobs who do it in times like these murdering people in their psychosis. Timppeli 22:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
The notion is more theoretical than practical. Honestly, the principle is that the people should be able to create a militia if the need arises to do so. Removing the ability to own firearms would hamper their ability to do so. And honestly, it's about the fact that the populous of a nation is always stronger than it's government. A government with no people is a government not long for this world.--Elamdri 23:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
"In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life". Where in the world is your evidence for this? This is entirely false and untrue. 95% of the time the mere presence of a firearm that is drawn on an intruder is enough to frighten them away. CPWebmaster 22:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
PS: Timppeli, your statistics here are merely for murders with guns. What about the total crime rate of each of these countries, including non-gun crimes? CPWebmaster 22:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
You can change the crime statistics wanted from the dropbox in the upper right part of the page, for example here are murder statistics in general by countryes: [1] Timppeli 23:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

No - Taking the micro view, I had a glance through the history of US spree killings I could remember, and not a single one of them was stopped by an armed civilian. The outcomes were divided among shooter escaped, shooter arrested by police, shooter shot and killed by police and shooter killed by self inflicted bullet wound, with the latter being by far the most common. While there is perhaps a certain logic in knowing that stores are guarded by armed men helps prevent robbery, but spree killings are a different crime entirely. The shooter generally has little concern for their own safety, and won't hesitate to shoot anyone who even looks like they threaten them.

There is something wrong with a society where children must be searched in the schools to prevent them bringing blades and handguns, and armed security officers patrol the halls. I don't think this problem is likely to be fixed by increasing the availability of lethal weapons. Lets face it, spree killing is only possible where guns are readily accessible. You simply can't can't do this sort of thing with a knife or any other hand weapon. The fact that shootings like this occur on a regular basis perhaps should make you reconsider the policy of universal access to firearms. --Abrown 06:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to say I think that if there were MORE guns, things like this would happen LESS often. Imagine if, whenever somebody tried to pull something like this, he got gunned down after he fired his first shot. --Save Our Values 04:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it's interesting that you see single figure of kids at most a year in British Schools. And coincidentally, Guns are illegal in this country.

At the risk of sounding inflammatory, this is a lame and inappropriate place for a "debate". I thought this was an "encyclopedia" site? rexgoliath.

NO Even if there were fewer gun control laws, I cannot imagine, nor would I want to imagine, a college campus that would allow students to carry guns on campus. I know that my daughter's school does not allow them.

Even if we assume that the campus would allow guns, and a significant number of students were packing, it might reduce the number of dead in a situation like this, but at what cost. College dorms are a melting pot of hormones, alcohol, immaturity and conflicting cultures. How many other deaths would we have to offset the possible lives saved here? Boomcoach 13:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I think the fantasy that someone will come in to kill people in a classroom and another student will kill them first is so far-fetched I really can't explain it. Suffice it to say, with a ton of guns on campus I would surely expect a few innocent bystanders to get killed first. How many of those are acceptable in that prior analogy? Flippin 13:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Pornography's Role!?

This is a true national tragedy. I have to say, though, that I have yet to see porn lead to shooting violence, Andy.-AmesGyo! 21:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

The media rarely mention pornography's role, even when it is there (as it usually is). Don't you think it might have played a role in the sick massacre of the Amish children?--Aschlafly 21:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Alternately, the media could not mention it because there is no connection. Hmmm. Do you have a good citation on how porn leads to violence? Keep in mind the difference between causation and correlation...-AmesGyo! 21:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, I think some people on this site have problems distinguishing between causation and correlation. But honestly, I think it's better just to let people believe whatever makes them happiest. So long as they aren't hurting anyone, I don't really care what they do or think.--Elamdri 21:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Except, quite obviously in light of today, people are being hurt. A civilized society tries to look at the underlying causes and address them. Drugs and pornography are the common denominator to many vicious crimes. You won't read about this, but ask someone knowledgeable in law enforcement.

Um, might the cause of gun violence be...GUNS? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. Czolgolz 23:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

How many people here knew that Scott Peterson was addicted on hardcore pornography? That was under-publicized.--Aschlafly 22:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, drugs are already a controlled substance, I'm not denying that they have an effect on the people. I think what I'm questioning is pornography's effect. I think porn might be a release for a more deep seated psychological issue. Sociopaths don't need a reason to kill. Thats what they do.--Elamdri 23:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
nobody is born a sociopath.Jaques 23:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Sociopathy is a mental disorder. How can you not be born that way? It might be incited, but you're predisposed. I'm sure there's an environmental effect, but I think that your mind plays a part too.--Elamdri 23:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, homespun wisdom - "ask someone knowledgeable..." - is no substitute for actual evidence. Also, again, you offered a correlation, not a causation. -AmesGyo! 23:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Might the cause of gun violence be guns? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. Czolgolz 23:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

What about car violence? Jaques 00:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
when is the last time a gun committed a crime by itself?Bohdan 00:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
When is the last time a nuclear warhead detonated itself? Hey, if you outlaw nukes, only outlaws will have nukes! Tsumetai 08:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
The natural conclusion of the "this may have been caused by porn: argument goes like this:
  1. Many sociopaths like hardcore pornography.
  2. So, many sociopaths also like pizza.
  3. That's ridiculous, lots of people like pizza and they don't commit mass murder.
  4. Well, lots of people like hardcore pornography and they don't commit mass murder either.


Drugs is another story, but the same reasoning applies. Do drugs turn someone into a sociopath? We have no evidence that they do, but they can surely cloud the judgement of someone enough that they might do such a thing. On the face of it, this does not seem like a killing spree set off by a drug addled brain. This took time and preparation. And guns and ammo. Myk 00:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I think US should have stricter laws controlling time and preparation.Bohdan
I'll point out that a lot of those sociopaths probably watched Tom&Jerry cartoons when they were kids. And as is apparent to everyone, Tom&Jerry is excessively violent. I think someone should look into that. AKjeldsen 08:53, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Ted Bundy directly blamed hardcore pornography for his murder spree shortly before his execution. There's a difference between hardcore porn and regular porn. Nobody's arguing that everybody who reads Playboy is at risk of violence. By the way, I wrote a letter to the editor to my school newspaper putting forth my original argument above. If they print it I'll link to it. DanH 03:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Again, Ted Bundy was a sociopath. Sociopaths kill without volition or reason. They cannot feel remorse or guilt for their actions. If you read stuff by Ted Bundy, you understand that the man never felt any remorse for the poor women he killed.--Elamdri 03:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't doubt that he was. I wonder if pornography can, in some cases, bring some of the primal urges out of said sociopaths. I don't honestly know. I'm only speculating. DanH 04:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

People are always looking for excuses for a murderer's actions, blaming movies, video games, and now porn (laughable on it's own). It's ridiculous, people are responsible for their own actions. If they're disturbed then sure they can't tell fake from reality, but come on, you can't blame any of the above items. You can't make something a scapegoat when 99.9% of the population is viewing this stuff and not going out on a killing spree.
And, on the gun control topic, taking away the right to bear arms will only stop those who are law abiding citizens from having guns. Criminals will still manage to get them and use them. All taking them away would do is make it easier for the bad guys. Jrssr5 08:45, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to get in further trouble because I am in violation of the 90/10 rule, but please, can we give people time to grieve before this is discussed. Please. Sterile 09:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I know every time I watch some hardcore porn, I get this intense urging to go commit violent acts, don't y'all? :-p ColinRtalk 16:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps you don't think Scott Peterson's murders were violent acts??? Law enforcements officers will tell you, if you care to ask, that pornography is what they find when they search criminals' homes.--Aschlafly 17:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I do not think Scott Peterson was given a fair trial and was wrongfully incarcerated, given no proof of his guilt and only circumstantial evidence at best. I don't know whether he he's guilty or not; if he did commit murder, then yes, his acts were violent (as are most, if not all, murders). Regardless, I'm sure that searching many people's homes would result in finding pornography. It's hard to think that such a huge industry would only be supported by criminals. ColinRtalk 17:12, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
That seems like an ad hoc ergo propter hoc argument. Do most people who look at porn perform criminal acts, or are most criminal acts comitted by people who also look at porn? Interesting. Flippin 17:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Most people period look at porn. If I were to give you 100 random american males of ages 18-40, I believe you'd struggle to select five of them that had never ever seen hardcore porn. --Abrown 17:26, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

There's a difference between having seen it before and making a pattern of seeking out more and more extreme pornography. And even most people who do that aren't going to be violent. I'm not arguing that, either. DanH 17:28, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Intresting, after reading some of the comments, i would like to make the claim that watching hardcore porn actually makes one more liable to become contributor in Conservapedia. Ill back my claim by stating that if we would search the hard drives of the contributors here, i bet we would find some porn in most cases. Timppeli 17:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Do you think a search of the Virginia Tech killer's computer will likely turn up hardcore pornography? Do you think the college or police will tell the public if it does? My answers: yes to the first and probably no to the second. The mainstream media downplays or censors the connection of pornography with criminals, as it did in Scott Peterson's case. Less than 1% of the stories about Scott Peterson revealed that he was a porn addict.--Aschlafly 18:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
You people are foul for turning this tragedy into a political football. What in the hell is the matter with you? Seriously, you should be on meds. Godman 18:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Im quite sure that he had some hardcore porn on his posession, im allso quite sure it was because he was a young male without a girlfriend, and had nothing to do with him being psycopath killer. The claim i made before is just as valid as the connection between pornography and violent mass murders. Timppeli 18:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Seriously, there's a difference between criminals being in possession of porn, and it causing their crime. Seriously, I would bet that most people who possess porn are not criminals. --Hacker(Write some code) 19:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Folks, this killer was a "loner" who likely spent his time on the computer, and on pornography sites. Day in and day out. Look at his hard drive, we can find out in an hour what this guy's daily pattern of information and recreation was. And I'll tell you the answer now: pornography day in and day out. Does that have an effect? You bet it does. It desensitized him, made him more withdrawn, and made him view others like objects rather than the people they are (were).
From our front page: "The killer "was a loner, and we're having difficulty finding information about him," school spokesman Larry Hincker said." What a joke that statement by the school is. Within 60 minutes they can find out everything they need to know from his hard drive. They should tell the world so we can learn from this tragedy and not just wait until it happens again.--Aschlafly 20:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Well said! --Save Our Values 04:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
His former roommates are conducting interviews. They say he was a loner who stalked women, and had an imaginary girlfriend. Weird.... And it's just a wee bit hypocritical to say that porn is bad and guns are good. Honestly, what purpose does an AK in civilian ownership serve? --Hojimachongtalk 20:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Hoji said, "They say he was a loner who stalked women, and had an imaginary girlfriend." That's behavior of a porno addict, just as drunk driving is behavior of an alcoholic. Sure, it's the driving that causes the harm, but so does the alcohol. Let's not deny the effect of spending day and night on computer pornography. It's not good for him, and not good for his victims either.
The analogy to guns does not hold, because guns help save more lives than are lost. It would have been helpful to have some armed teachers or faculty around to stop this killer.--Aschlafly 20:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, would you say that Harry Potter caused the VT massacre too? For the love of... you're a lawyer. Go back to Torts. Andy, look at issues of attenuated causation, causation-in-fact, et al. I'll make articles for you to reference if you need them. But porn does not cause murder. What would (then-) Judge Cardozo say to Ms. Palsgraf?-AmesGyo! 20:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I guess Ames doesn't think alcohol causes any deaths either. Or drugs.--Aschlafly 20:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

You and I both know the difference, and it's sad to even have to suggest it. Alcohol & drugs cause loss of control. Pornography... does not.-AmesGyo! 20:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

May I add, Andy, that if you ever have a lawsuit like that, make sure to tell me when. If you file in New York, I'll definitely come watch. It's also worth the NJ Transit ride if you file it in Jersey. I want to see this.-AmesGyo! 21:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not saying that litigation is the answer. At this point, I'm only asking for honest reporting of the news. Why won't the police tell us what was on the killer's hard drive????--Aschlafly 21:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not asking for litigation either. I'm just saying, no-one would believe a causal link except push-button activists looking for a new "issue." Specifically, a judge wouldn't believe a link, nor would a jury. They don't report it because it's irrelevant! Do they report, "suspect had eaten an enchilada two days before - repeat, eaten an enchilada"? No, because it doesn't matter!-AmesGyo! 21:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Is this a Joke?

Are you really asking did porn have something to do with this? If someone--anyone--can give a good reason for owning a handgun, I'd love to hear it. You can't hunt with them, there's no target you need to shoot that you can't with a rifle, and basically you've provided a great means for a family member to kill themselves, or you. So why? Why not get rid of them? And yes, if we ban them tomorrow there will still be guns, but that is a "throw up the hands" answer to a problem. So many reactions to this question are speculative. "But what if...? But then...?" It's garbage. We know what happens by making guns more easy to obtain than a driver's license, now let's do something about it. Flippin 11:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
National Rifle Association logo.png This user wishes guns would be illegal.
Flippin 11:08, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll give you a good reason, it's called the second amendment, in case you havent herd of it. I'm 15 and I've herd of it. It says: "An organised malitia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed".

That means were allowed to have handguns you idiot!


To thebigjimmer: Please refrain from calling people idiots because they don't share your opinnion. If you look at the discussion going on, its not about what the current law says on carrying guns, its about how should it be changed or should it stay as it is. Timppeli 16:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I've 'herd' of it. But being allowed to do something is not the same thing as needing to do something and private ownership is not the same thing as a 'malitia'. Czolgolz 16:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Please don't call me an "idiot" while barraging me with language like "organised" instead of organized, "maltita" instead of militia, "havent" instead of haven't, "were" instead of we're and "herd" instead of heard. Now, as for the second amendment, I might also point out that this is an addendum to the constitution and thus can be changed. See the 18th amendment if you don't believe me. Further, my point is that if we can keep guns out of the hands of people who can't--say--use the language precisely, then we might all be a little safer. Flippin 16:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I dont think it is wise to debate changes to the Bill of Rights. Where would the changes end? Bohdan
I can appreciate that, but we live in a very different world than we did back then. The world of the pioneers was one in which people may only meet a few hundred folks in their lifetime. Today, we can easily meet thousands. Add to that the undeniably closer proximity to one another and you can start to see why having a lethal weapon in just anybody's hands is a bad idea. At least, it is to me. I think we shouldn't just ban them (although I'm fine with that) but if we were to be more responsible and take ownership of this problem we could do some real good. Flippin 16:18, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I understand what you are saying, but i have to say i disagree. also, what do you mean when you say "be more responsible and take ownership of this problem" how is this to be done?Bohdan
I think we like to think more guns are the answer to increasing gun violence. By "taking ownership" (a poor phrase, I admit) I meant that we should first admit that unrestrained sales of handguns and weaponry is ill-advised at best and unconscionably reckless at worst. How many people have to die before we say as a people, I don't want to watch more people die? I mean, is there really a good reason to have handguns? I point this out because it seems the only thing they are created for is anti-personnel use. Is there one good thing you can do with a handgun you can't do with a rifle--except hide it? Flippin 16:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Obviously no one wants handguns in the hands of people who will abuse them, but also i think obviously they are guarenteed under the Bill of Rights. Further restraints on sales will most likely not do any good, seeing that most ill-used handguns are either stolen of bought illegaly. And handguns are a great way to relieve stress.Bohdan

It's a worthy subject for debate, but I don't think it's as obvious as you think. I understand the opposing viewpoint, but there's a reasonable case to be made that the words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, " are not ambiguous. At the time of writing the Bill of Rights, citizen-organized militias were a necessary part of a functioning national army. Even through the Civil War, whole companies would be comprised of the men of a town or neighborhood.
We don't run our military that way anymore. There's no expectation that the men of, say, Valdosta, Georgia should contribute a company of men to the war in Iraq, and in fact they'd be prevented from trying to join the operations there if they did. A well-regulated militia" is no longer "necessary to the security of a free state."
Fun question that doesn't directly relate: look at the war in Iraq. Which side is fielding a bunch of loosely-organized militias who have to secure their arms on the down-low, and do you believe that they are "secur[ing] a free state?"Aziraphale 17:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
true, but I and others[2] still think that the ammendment was indeed created for the purpose of securing individual rights. Bohdan
I appreciate that as well, but saying "a ban tomorrow does nothing today" does not solve the problem so much as foment it. IMO Flippin 17:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I dont understand. could you rephrase? English is my second language!!Bohdan
Okay mister, you don't need to insult my little brother's intelligence just because of a few typing errors. I can guarantee, that he is more intelligent than you. Most my family of 16 recieved 4.0', and scored in the thirties on thier ACT, and are currently getting their doctorate in one field or another. And asking him not to call you an idiot, and then insulting his intelligence is a little hypocritical. Now on the issue on hand guns, you can hunt with them (deer). Your problem is that you look at a gun as a weapon, when it really is a tool. There are more useful things that can be done with guns than harmful. A hammer is a tool, and people can kill each other with those. So why not ban them as well. You think that eliminating guns will stop killing. Well no matter what you do people are going to kill each other. They did before there were guns, and they still will once guns have disappeared. Its a fact of life. All in all you should get your facts straight before you go flaunting your opinions. Buying a gun is much harder than getting your drivers license, I Know. And in conclusion, loud mouthed hippy liberals (like you), who think that they have the answeres to all of lifes questions are really just a drag on the character of the country and the whole human race for that matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by thebigjimmer (talk)
We loud mouthed hippy liberals (like me), would like to point out, that while nerve gas might be nice tool to get rid of the bugs in ones house, it dosen't mean it should be available to all. How many people you think this mass murderer would have killed if he could have gotten nerve gass? how many did he now kill with his guns, and how many would he have killed with an hammer? Making guns harder to get dosen't mean one couldn't practice hunting or shooting, most of those who are in favour of stricter gun control laws don't want to ban guns all together. Quite many are even willing to let people have some guns for self-defence. But for example i do think that current large number of guns around and the easy availability are an risk for the safety of most. Timppeli 19:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Amen, Jimmer.

What's wrong with four loud mouthed hippies in a buick going off a cliff?

A buick usually seats five.

About the VT incident... one professor who was killed mercilessly at the hands of the gunman stood in the doorway of his classroom to protect his students from him. If that professor had a gun the outcome of this whole incident would have been a lot different. The professor would be a hero. Can't you guys see that this is the case? Arm the good-guys and disarm the bad-guys. The bad-guys will ALWAYS have guns. What can outlawing guns possibly do? Nothing. CPWebmaster 19:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
And that professor was an Israeli.Jaques 19:35, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
And if people would carry guns around in schools, how many you think would die every year in gun accidents, gang fights or by angry students? Besides, as horrible as these sensles massacres in schools are, they are still very small part of the whole picture. What could have saved the situation, would have been an armed guard at the campus. But that costs money, not sure how many shcool would be willing to pay for one. Timppeli 20:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I do not think much of any people would die from gun accidents in schools. Gang fights? Gangs already have guns. Gangs would actually probably have a hard time surviving. Angry students? The angry students are the people who are doing these massacres. The guy who did this one was very angry about a lot of things. Also, about the armed guard thing... VT has an entire armed police department. Was that able to solve the problem? NO. Saying that law enforcement is the answer to these things is a complete joke. If you where cornered in a room by a guy in a black ski-mask pointing a gun at your head what would you do? Ask him to hold on while you call the cops? If this is what you're planning to do I would advise you not to, it's not going to work. The cost of arming faculty would be much less than paying for a police department. CPWebmaster 20:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Then what do you do with disgruntled faculty, CPWebmaster, who already have a gun then? Arm the students to check the faculty? Arm the janitors to keep them all in line?-AmesGyo! 20:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Take a state that has very loose gun-control, like Arizona. Is it becoming a problem keeping everyone in check? No. CPWebmaster 21:13, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Cite? Or alternately, take a country with very tight gun control laws. How's their per capita gun crime rate? Hint - it's wayyyy down.-AmesGyo! 21:14, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

We could always give everyone their own nuclear weapon. That would lower the crime-rate for sure! ...aside from the occasional city wiped off the face of the Earth. --VVV 02:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is this conversation about Porn? Is someone here on an agenda to make political capital out of this? There has been no report the guy was into porn and even if he was it would have been better if he'd stayed at home with his porn than picked up his guns and gone on a rampage. The only new thing we've learned about him is this cryptic message of 'Ismail Ax' on his arm . That strikes me as some kind of religious statement but I'm not qualified to say whether it's Christian, Muslim, something else or one of the weird cults that pervert mainstream religion. Is anyone here saying religion is to blame. I hope not but it's more in the frame than porn. --Commandment9 16:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

In the video he compares himself to Jesus and news reports said his parents were deeply religious and his mother in particular had urged him to be more involved in the church. Nothing so far about pornography. Must be left wing bias. 21:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)


It's not like everybody in university is packing heat. If you outlaw guns, somebody will still find a way. We had a big shooting here in Canada at École Polytechnique in Montreal back in the 80s that resulted in the death of a number of women. The gunman had a problem with feminists, and he decided to walk in and shoot a bunch of them. Despite our gun control laws, people still died from gun violence. It is however, not so widespread. --TrueGrit 12:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Montreal has had 3 school massacres, the École Polytechnique massacre in 1989, the Concordia University massacre in 1992, and the Dawson College shooting in 2006. Jaques 12:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
This is exactly what I'm talking about. What if the faculty, or even the students, of each of these schools carried guns around? The answer, no massacre. CPWebmaster 19:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I think you're countering one extreme (no guns) with another (guns for all). And neither one is desirable on a campus. I think the truth is this - two of these deaths were unavoidable; the two in the dorm. Had the university acted properly, the buildings would have been locked down. And we wouldn't be having this conversation.--Dave3172 20:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not debating "guns for all." I'm merely stating a fact. If the students were armed there would have been no massacre. CPWebmaster 21:03, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe not today. But tomorrow, or the next day.-AmesGyo! 21:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I worry though, about temptations and human error. If people have guns, I think they become more inclined to use them. Now, that might apply to a small percent of people, but if you arm everyone, you're still dealing with a large group of people. As for prevention, what happens if in the fear of the shooting, the person trying to defend everyone accidentally misses with a shot and kills a fellow classmate or student. Now that person is a murderer.--Elamdri 21:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)


The flag at my town hall was at half mast today (and it's not because most of our bridges washed out yesterday). 33 innocent people are dead. Talk radio is aflame with irrelevancies. And this page, linked from the front of conservapedia, is full of foolish and sometimes ignorant political diatribe. How about a week of silence and respect before the hacking of issues starts? Those poor people... Human 21:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh, and Mr. Schlafly Esq., I am disappointed in your choice of topics to "Participate in our discussion of this shooting". What happened to "help us mourn the unfortunate", not a political debate topic? I would expect, following that link, to leave feeling humbled at our vulnerability, generous of spirit, and full of remembrance for the victims. Not finding that here. Human 21:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Questions on Front Page

"Why wasn't he disciplined before this could happen? And why was he still in college at age 23?"

I dunno about the appropriateness of these questions. Of course hindsight is 20/20, but it makes us sound foolish to suggest discipline for writing violent plays. In retrospect, yeah, probably more look into those would have been better, but it just takes us back to the 20/20 hindsight argument. Also, you can't discipline someone for making dark creative writing. You can perhaps suggest counseling, but not discipline. Also, what does his being 23 have to do with anything? I have many good friends on my campus that are in their mid-late 20's. Heck, a good friend of mine just graduated last 27.--Elamdri 00:27, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe he skipped a year or two? Got in late? Not everyone goes straight to college from highschool. --VVV 02:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

According to NPR, his advisor contacted the local police, the school counciling service, and others regaurding his disturbing work, but was told they couldn't do anything unless he made an oblique threat. And it's very common to graduate at 23 or later (the shooter was scheduled to graduate in a matter of weeks). Czolgolz 09:31, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Porn, Guns and Instant Politicization: Pure America

A stat I've heard mentioned a million times today in support of gun ownership is "crime has fallen steadily in the past 15 years as gun ownership has increased." Ok, but porn availability and consumption has increased at a far greater rate than gun ownership over this same period. Mr. Schlafly, your argument is easily disproven. You shouldn't try to heap all of the sins of the world at the step of such violence. Wish well to those who have suffered and keep your politics in your pants for a few weeks. --BillyC 02:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

When tragedy strikes, you don't just sit and think "How sad. Hope it doesn't happen again". No. You look at what went wrong, and directly try to prevent it from ever happening again. Your comment about keeping one's politics in pants is disingenuous. DanH 02:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, DanH. What I said is political I suppose, but I felt compelled to speak against ridiculous politicization. To speculate that porn drives people to kill is ridiculous. I had to reply by disproving what ASchlafly typed earlier.--BillyC 02:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

In my limited experience, the main bad side effects of pornography are a distorted view of the opposite sex and spending too much time on the Internet, not murderous rampages. But, maybe Aschlafly knows something I don't, and ISN'T just using a terrible tragedy as an excuse to try to drive one of his pet scapegoats out of the village again. --VVV 02:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

This is quite insane. I guess ASchlafly has some arrestive power if he can turn the focus of this discussion to pornography. I've said all that I can. If what I have said makes no more sense than ASchlafly's connection between porn and murderous rampages, then I have failed (or maybe you didn't want to listen to begin with).--BillyC 02:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Shooter's Computer

The main page of Conservapedia mentioned that police 'still' have not released what was on the shooter's computer. It's been two days! They have to read everything, restore deleted files, read his e-mails...have some investigations like this, we might not hear anything for months. Czolgolz 08:52, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with this. This is a police investigation, it make take some time for details to come out. Furthermore, if there's nothing there, why would it matter? Is it the media's responsibility to disseminate every bit of info? That's a tough question, which I don't know the correct answer to (or if there is a correct answer). Sterile 11:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

(Deleted my comment here; please ignore)

Just a thought. --Jeremiah4-22 08:55, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I pray to God that you're trying to be funny. I think Chairman Mao had a similiar plan. Czolgolz 09:01, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, yes. That obviously didn't come across quite how I meant it to. --Jeremiah4-22 09:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Thank you, J that was truly abhorrent without actually being useful. I will point out that liberals have not said things this devisive in kind. Flippin 09:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
  • User has been warned on their talk page. --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Thank you, TK Flippin 09:21, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is this about pornography again?

I realize that for people who are afraid pornography is a corrupting influence on society, seeing it as the root cause of this young man's violence is easy. However, for Andy to claim, as he does above, that this guy watched porn "all day long" or whatever is ridiculous speculation before we know anything. In fairness to his POV, he has a 50/50 chance of being right so why not make the claim. No one remembers when we're wrong, but if we're right.... And to "thebigjimmer" it might also be worth mentioning that the supreme court has never decided that individuals have a right to bear arms outside of service in a militia. I don't care for this histrionic "my family has Pee-aych-dees" either. You can still be wrong and have an advanced degree. Look at some of the admins on this site. :) Flippin 09:00, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Social scientists have found a link between hard-core pornography and anti-social acts. Correlation is not causation, but it shows you where to start looking. --Ed Poor 09:16, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Let's Make America a 'Sad-Free Zone'! ...

From the attacks of 9/11 to Monday's school shooting, after every mass murder there is an overwhelming urge to "do something" to prevent a similar attack.

But since Adam ate the apple and let evil into the world, deranged individuals have existed.

Most of the time they can't be locked up until it's too late. It's not against the law to be crazy -- in some jurisdictions it actually makes you more viable as a candidate for public office.

It's certainly not against the law to be an unsociable loner. If it were, Ralph Nader would be behind bars right now, where he belongs. Mass murder is often the first serious crime unbalanced individuals are caught committing -- as appears to be in the case of the Virginia Tech shooter.

The best we can do is enact policies that will reduce the death toll when these acts of carnage occur, as they will in a free and open society of 300 million people, most of whom have cable TV.

Only one policy has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the inestimable economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.

And the effect was not insignificant. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.

Apparently, even crazy people prefer targets that can't shoot back. The reason schools are consistently popular targets for mass murderers is precisely because of all the idiotic "Gun-Free School Zone" laws.

From the people who brought you "zero tolerance," I present the Gun-Free Zone! Yippee! Problem solved! Bam! Bam! Everybody down! Hey, how did that deranged loner get a gun into this Gun-Free Zone?

It isn't the angst of adolescence. Plenty of school shootings have been committed by adults with absolutely no reason to be at the school, such as Laurie Dann, who shot up the Hubbard Woods Elementary School in Winnetka, Ill., in 1988; Patrick Purdy, who opened fire on children at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, Calif., in 1989; and Charles Carl Roberts, who murdered five schoolgirls at an Amish school in Lancaster County, Pa., last year.

Oh by the way, the other major "Gun-Free Zone" in America is the post office.

But instantly, on the day of the shooting at Virginia Tech, the media were already promoting gun control and pre-emptively denouncing right-wingers who point out that gun control enables murderers rather than stopping them. Liberals get to lobby for gun control, but we're disallowed from arguing back. That's how good their arguments are. They're that good.

Needless to say, Virginia Tech is a Gun-Free School Zone -- at least until last Monday. The gunman must not have known. Imagine his embarrassment! Perhaps there should be signs.

Virginia Tech even prohibits students with concealed-carry permits from carrying their guns on campus. Last year, the school disciplined a student for carrying a gun on campus, despite his lawful concealed-carry permit. If only someone like that had been in Norris Hall on Monday, this massacre could have been ended a lot sooner.

But last January, the Virginia General Assembly shot down a bill that would have prevented universities like Virginia Tech from giving sanctuary to mass murderers on college campuses in Virginia by disarming students with concealed-carry permits valid in the rest of the state.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the legislature for allowing the school to disarm lawful gun owners on the faculty and student body, thereby surrendering every college campus in the state to deranged mass murderers, saying: "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."

Others disagreed. Writing last year about another dangerous killer who had been loose on the Virginia Tech campus, graduate student Jonathan McGlumphy wrote: "Is it not obvious that all students, faculty and staff would have been safer if (concealed handgun permit) holders were not banned from carrying their weapons on campus?"

If it wasn't obvious then, it is now.

By Ann Coulter [3] --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:09, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Sweet! Anne Coulter found a way to capitalize on this tragedy in record time! good on her! Aren't we all proud! Godman 21:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Naw, actually Rosy beat her by a full 24 hours with a psycho rant. Coulter addressed a real issue, but I guess in your zeal for a quick post, you missed the topic of this discussion: "Would the repeal of gun control laws make incidents like the shooting at Virginia Tech less likely to occur?" --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:06, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

VT killer was an anti-Christian zealot

Read what has leaked to the press about his 8-page final note to authorities, which has not been released to the public and may never be. I put the link on the front page. This was an anti-Christian zealot, and the authorities are hiding this.--Aschlafly 21:20, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually in the bit of video released he presents himself as a pro Christian and compares himself to Jesus. Why would you make obviously untrue statements? He was delusional and clearly not a Christian in any meaningful sense but your statement is a lie and seemingly one made agenda. Please don't continue to attempt to capitalize on this Mr. Barnum or are you Mr. Bailey today? Instead try to be honest. That will make this site more trsutworthy. Not your continual radical screeds. Thank you for your consideration in this matter Godman 21:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Godman, did you actually read the link Andy put up to the leaked material? --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Yup and I've seen the video that has been released so far and read what there is of the transecripts. How about you? Godman 21:36, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Another who cannot be engaged in civil talk? *sigh* --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:41, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
"Godman", I provided support for my statement. Where's yours?
As always, the real target of evil is Jesus Christ.--Aschlafly 21:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, actually the real target of evil was the 30 some college students and faculty . . . Godman 22:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Godman. Aschlafly's statement that the killer was an anti-Christian zealot is not substantiated by the video released on NBC. The exact quote from the video is "You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience. You thought it was one pathetic boy’s life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people." It's not an anti-Christian message when he says that his death will inspire the weak and suffering just as Christ's death. Aschlafly conclusion is obviously wrong based on text in the video. --Macronking 21:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

  • God is love, Macronking. Nothing he did is like the Son. Jesus Christ died so that even that poor devil's soul could be saved. Things done like that are not "love" therefore cannot even be attributed or likened to Him. To do so is the work of evil, like Andy said. --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:53, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to agree with Godman and Macronking, Those meantioned videos can be found from here -- Timppeli 21:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Don't change the topic TK. The issue was if the released video supports an anti-Christian message. That assertion is not supported by the video. I agree that his actions are in no way in-line with Christianity, but the issue was if his video constituted an anti-Christian rant. The video doesn't support that claim, so the statement that it does on the Main Page should be removed. --Macronking 22:01, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

No one, ESPECIALLY NOT ME, is saying that the killer can be/should be "be attributed or likened to Him" but the killer does compare himself to Jesus on the video quoted above and veiwable on Godman 22:03, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

So how does a guy who's been DECLARED MENTALLY ILL get to buy handguns? Nice system. Good to know the second amendment is looking out for me. Jacobin 22:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

why do you advocate gun ban like Hitler did?Jaques 22:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Compare me to Hitler again and I'll complain to a sysop and ask for you to be banned. Play nice. Jacobin 23:07, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

It boggles the mind how gun toting radicals see this tragedy as an argument for less gun control. Let's think about conserving life shall we?
what about neo-luddite radicals using this tragedy as an argument for more gun control?Jaques 22:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
he lied about his being committed on the form used to do a background check. Godman 22:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Ah. 'Cuz we should take the word of the CRIMINALLY INSANE when they buy lethal weapons. Great system. Much better than, I don't know, NOT LETTING PEOPLE HAVE CONCEALBLE WEAPONS. Jacobin 23:07, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

for every weapon, you can find a big enough bag to conceal it.Jaques 23:08, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
True enough, but a bag to conceal a rifle would be a lot more noticable . .. Godman 23:13, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
pfff, you can easily fit a rifle in a suitcase. Jaques 23:19, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
a criminally insane person could have strangled someone with a peice of twine. I think we should have tighter restrictions on the sale of twine. Perhaps a total banBohdan
Here is the reference that this site's owner says makes the killer an "Anti-Christian Zealot" Emphasis mine . . . "He also expressed disappointment in his own religion, and made several references to Christianity, the official said." Godman 23:12, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
REPLY TO ALL I reviewed the video transcripts. The reference to Jesus Christ is in competition with Him, not in respect of Him. This is what one would expect by anti-Christian zealot.--Aschlafly 00:46, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
anti-Christian zealot or deranged mind?. I'd go for the deranged mind interpretation. Though there do seem to be a lot of deranged minds out and about these days, nearer than one thinks, so keeping an eye over the shoulder is perhaps a good idea. Don't get paranoid though - I have heard rumours that it can lead to a deranged mind.
WhatIsG0ing0n 06:12, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

If everyone, including children old enough to pull a trigger, owned a gun, would there be more or fewer shootings of human beings, accidental or intentional? I'm including felons, mentally ill, illegal aliens, legal aliens, and aliens from outer space.