It's not about the gun - it's about the gun owner
In yesterday's Pierre Capital Journal, it was reported that Governor Rounds had some comments to a group about how South Dakotans need to retain their pro-gun attitude in the face of a madman shooting up a campus:
Gov. Mike Rounds said that despite tragedies like the recent shooting at Virginia Tech, South Dakotans will continue to recognize the importance of gun rights.Read it all here. It's not on-line yet, but in today's Capital Journal, the associated press is reporting that Governor Rounds has also asked state employees to wear maroon and orange today in honor of the Virginia Tech shooting.
and...
He said his heart goes out to all the victims, but added after the speech that people in this state understand that it was not the gun that was responsible for the incident.
"In this particular case I'm sure that there will be some individuals that will use this and say we should do something about the second amendment," he said. "I think in South Dakota people understand that the gun is not the issue here. In this case, it's the individual that perpetrated the crime."
Comments
Getting all heavy handed about gun laws won't solve anything but keeping them out of the hand of someone mentally unstable would.
I also think someone and a big group needs to let them know they do not speak for the American people!
All the anti-gun people will do is put the guns in the hands of those who anti-social and crimminals.
I DO NOT watch the show "The View" but she has got to go!
This is another example when the wolf has the gun, the sheep will be harmed.
...why don't the pro-life people want to do the same about guns?
This shooter was here legally with a green card, but he was not a US citizen. Why would we want millions of non-citizens having gun rights? Congress should get on this.
By the way, I agree with Rounds on this. It is the shooter, not the gun.
I'm pro-life and I'd love to see gun proliferation scaled back as much as I'd like to see abortion scaled back.
This is typical Rounds - we'll let the problem fester but we'll wear school colors. Rah.
any gun may be used to kill people. i would add, though, that it's also about guns whose utility is to stop others from killing people:
pearl, mississippi high school, 1997. a kid kills 2, injures 7 others before a vice-principal stops him. how did he stop him? with a colt .45, which he unfortunately had to run a 1/4 mile to get — and a 1/4 mile back — from his car that was parked just outside the government-mandated gun-free zone around the school. (the law, in this case, harmed the law-abiding and aided the killer.)
the funny thing is that in about 90% of the news stories on that shooting spree, you will read nothing about what that vice-principal did, even though he was a hero.
But, I think at the end of the day, more killing machines out there means more killing.
Most gun deaths happen too quickly to be stopped by someone else with a gun. Further, about 2 in 3 gun deaths are suicieds. Are there other ways to commit suicide? Yeah. But typically gun suicide attempts end as gun suicides. Not so much with other methods of suicide.
Arm foreigners just in case they need to protect us against Americans?
This idiot exploits it as an opportunity to shill for the NRA. This is totally classless and tasteless, no matter where you stand on gun ownership issues. This is no time to whore for the NRA, Mikey.
and "vpi"? nobody calls it that anymore, do they?
you do if you're from virginia, despite the branding campaign to the contrary. calling mikey names might work if they'd crack through the thick shell of his creepy ego.
good luck with that name-calling campaign. let me know if it works.
http://house.typepad.com/house/2007/04/more_guns_more_.html
Hmm, it appears more guns DO equal more death. Evidently it is about the gun.
http://house.typepad.com/house/2007/04/more_guns_more_.html
CH
Thanks,
CH
Should we ban alcohol because some idiots drink and get behind the wheel and kill innocent people? That was tried once and didn't work, remember? Should we outlaw cigarettes because they cause death, even second hand death? You know that will never fly.
Guns, knives, cars, motorcycles, alcohol, cigarettes are all items that can be used or misused; i.e. it's the person and how he/she uses such items that results in destruction, not the items themselves.
I agree that someone with a mental health history should not be able to simply walk in and buy a gun. But with all the HIPPA laws and right to privacy etc etc, how is that going to be accomplished? If a person's mental illness is able to be accessed via computer, can you imagine the stink that the ACLU would raise about protecting the rights of the mentally ill?
While 8:36's goal appears mean-spirited, his point is well taken: Reasonably, "pro-life" should mean anti-gun, anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-war, etc.
Before you bring it up, let's just cover it now. Death penalty? They chose to do something for which they knew the possible effect would be death. Unlike an innocent child.
In fact, it is true that an anti-gun position is a pro-life position.
Nice try though, with the high school logic lesson. You get an "A" for effort.
Guns were invented to help us kill.
?
I think a lot less people would have died if the VT killer was limited to 5 rounds per clip (or less if people would actually consider it). Why not make a change?
Seriously, Nonnie has made the best point here. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) is most likely what allowed Cho to get the guns he used. Anytime anyone is treated for mental illness, it should be logged as a red flag in a national database to block gun sales to that individual. The reason wouldn't be disclosed to the gun seller, so the would-be mentally ill purchaser's precious privacy would be protected. And if the individual has been cured, there should be no problem getting a doctor's blessing on the gun purchase.
What would Charlton Heston say?
Sorry, but you seem to be off the wall. Guns are not "just" (as you put it) for killing people.
There is hunting for game to feed the family and those who can't feed themselves...people donate game meat from hunts.
There is defending the rights and safety of American Citizens.
Do i need to go on? I don't really think so.
Would you like to try again?
Let's face it, the guy should have been kicked out of school and sent back to his homeland. It seems obvious that he was in need of family support and medical care.
Did I speak wrong, someone correct me if I am wrong but he was not an American citizens right? But his family does live in America right?
"Should we ban alcohol because some idiots drink and get behind the wheel and kill innocent people? That was tried once and didn't work, remember?"
We're doing the same thing with a substantially less harmful substance, marijuana. And the results are about the same: it's not working.
So should we legalize marijuana too, nonnie? And if not, why?
And I see no one here can explain away the fact that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership have significantly higher rates of suicide by children, women and men.
More guns = more death. It's a fact.
You find a way to guarantee that marijuana would only be able to be used as a medicine with a proper presription and would not be available to any pot smoker who wanted to get high. If you can do that, it just might get legalized as a medicine.
Either way, even if your numbers are accurate, it doesn't change the argument. Obviously it is easier to kill people with guns. I accept that. It's also easier to kill people with medical science. Should we ban that too? Oh, medical science helps people you say?
Well, so do guns. If you want to look at a case example, look at DC. They banned handguns in 1973. Since then, the murder rate in DC has climbed at double the pace of the rest of the country. That's not the NRA's numbers. That's from the FBI's crime statistics. See, it's not that hard to cite a reference.
Again, it's all about choice. Someone committing suicide chooses to kill themself. It's sad every time, and I lost friends to that growing up, one to a shotgun and one to pills. Someone being shot to death by a criminal breaking into their home is not their choice. Had that person had the means to defend him/herself, maybe he/she could have chosen whether to take the life of a murderous criminal rather than dying.
Tsunamis don't kill people, God kills people.
Ok, maybe not.
A new idea? Well, "conservative" means there is no need for any new idea. Let's all good conservatives stay within the wagon ruts in our brains.
The main comparison used was between drugs and guns.
The other methods of suicide that have high death results were conveniently omitted.
I've seen it happen more than a few times.
I tend to feel non-citizens should NOT have as many rights as citizens.
Sick, sick, sick! Not a dignified bone in their bodies ... and then there's the governor of South Dakota. Disgusting.
You know the ones who do the deeds of ANTI-social behaviors.
We do not live in a country or world that is peaches and cream.
People can be ugly and cruel and they don't care who they hurt in the process.
Then, let's make sure all those who are not yet so diagnosed have guns so they can shoot those who are when they act up.
It's enough to make someone go nuts just trying to follow your reasoning, 2:29.
If someone wants a gun they will get it "criminals and those who want to do harm".
No, someone with psych problems should not have guns. Though this can pop up at different times in people lives. The list can be longer for those who should not have guns.
What I was trying to point out is people should be allowed to have guns with exceptions those with documented histories, which can be a problem within itself legally.
This kid should have never been able to have or get a gun with his history and other factors (that I have read in the media).
When I was making the statement to those who are Anti-gun, it delt with the fact that criminals will always get the guns.
I believe in the right to carry and own firearms!
I hope this makes more sense. Wish i had the time to go into it deeper.
post4:08 is in response to poster 3:34 on post 2:29.
sorry had my times mixed up.
I am a conservative and I think the waiting period is needed.
It is a shame but it is a fact of life. So do NOT lump sum people together, please.
The laws should be different because the environments are different. We don’t have the population to really understand the danger to innocent bystanders, the increased likelihood of people going on shooting sprees, or the increased dangers of having a million untrained vigilantes walking around packing heat. On the flipside, they don’t understand the basics of living in a rural area. I live on four acres outside of town. If I see a skunk poking around, I can’t just call animal control to have them deal with it. I also can’t let my kids play outside until I deal with it in case it’s rabid. So like a responsible parent, I have at least one gun and ammunition to deal with these problems.
We have seen groups like the NRA on one side and a variety of anti-gun groups on the other take extreme positions without a willingness to compromise at all. Both sides are full of it. We need to have sensible gun legislation, not the all or nothing that seems to be preached by both sides.
9:04 makes good points.
I will confess that I live in SD now, but I was born in Illinois and moved here in my twenties.
I have visited and stayed in very large cities in America and I lived in a Texas big city for a few years. Please rest assured that SD has not been like most states and i believe that it is on its way. Have to speak the truth. Though I do feel SD has had its share of gun problems we have not had the same amount as other states for various reasons... population, control, etc. and the fact that SD is known as rural and a hunting state.
With many other factors it seems to me over that last few years that people do not care for others and/or property as they have in the past. I am not talking about the 50's, and 60's here. Remember when there was the "me generation" as it was called? I think many social problems still are emerging due to this factor. Maybe I am wrong, but i do believe that it plays a roll in some of the behaviors and thinking patterns of some of todays people. Plus we do have some of the 60's people to contend with...was the saying "free love" and the other "make love not war" i don't remember. And, NO, I am not lumping people of the generations (eg: time frame) into one group.
I have held conversations with people in their early 20's and some of them felt that people can and should be able to do as they want no matter what if they are willing to pay the price if they get caught. Now please read that again and i hope that you are sitting down! I just about fell over and yes the conversation included some very interesting topics. I stated that i really had a hard time with what they thought was okay. Some of it was very anti-social behavior that I would think most of us would have gotten a good kick in the back-side for besides being grounded for a long time or being kicked out of the family! By the way these young adults were from everyday families, working class people, middle town...corn belt, public educated, America.
Sorry if this is a little off topic of gun rights were included in the conversation. Some were very good and some i think my mouth fell open and my jaw hit the ground! NO KIDDING!