Right, we all need to understand that the massacre in Virginia would have taken place even if the assailant had had to rely on knives, ropes, and hands. 

Further thoughts:

Just as you, Johnny, argue that the Geneva Convention is of dubious relevance now, since it was written in a different time with a very different set of circumstances, the same could overwhelmingly be said of the 'right to bear arms' in the US constitution.  'Arms' have certainly changed a good deal, and many of the wide range of weapons which could be said to fall under that heading are restricted (and rightly so) from private ownership.  i have the right to own a kitchen knife, but not an Uzi.  You have the right to an Uzi, but not a nuclear bomb.

As for the idea of the necessity for defence against an oppressive government, is it conceivable that this would ever occur?  Civil liberties are near to an all-time low under the Bush administration, and the NRA are in loyal collusion with that so long as their particular special interest is not threatened.

The sensible course of action seems to me to be to treat guns as we treat cars - potentially deadly objects also.  A stringent test (both of competence and suitability) before being allowed to own or use one, and restriction of those types (let's imagine Mad Max style cars with bladed wheels and deadly Bond-esque special features) whose utility is more suited to death and destruction than to sport and leisure.

i guess this doesn't matter, because the likelihood of Americans ever giving up their deadly weapons is slim.  However, whenever something like this happens a media circus is guaranteed, fuelling the desire of other sad lonely celebrity-killer wannabees to do the same thing (and heaven knows, if they've got the motive, then they certainly have the means and the opportunity).  Maybe the useful thing would be to devote no attention to it at all.  Follow the example of Donald Rumsfeld in responding to the post-invasion chaos in Iraq with an indifferent "Stuff happens".

Hi Righteous,

<HAND WAVING IN THE AIR>

Sit down - you're holding the whole class back.  

A 110 lb. woman with a .357 Magnum can stop a 253 lb. rapist dead in his tracks.

That's a lot of numbers.  i bet if all women were rigged up with deadly explosive chastity belts that it'd drop the rape-rate pretty considerably as well.

Your statement is of course similar to me saying "A child living in a home with a gun is much more likely to be accidentally shot".  True, but not actually an argument per se.

Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict
<snip elderly and unreferenced statistics>

Ergo, more guns mean LESS crime.

Well, first let me say that i don't propose to respond to your statistics, partly because i have no way of checking them without references, but mostly because i know for a fact that both sides of this highly polarised debate have some very convincing statistics on their side.  This isn't any of my business really.  i am fortunate to live in a mostly unarmed society, so the odds of a someone with a gun breaking into my home or challenging me in the street are remote.  Maybe if i lived in that kind of culture then i'd feel that carrying a gun was a necessity as well, however, there is an analogy i can make here:

i work in an innercity ER department.  The chances of me being assaulted at work are significantly greater than while walking down even the most forbidding of my local streets.  Should i then be carrying a weapon of some sort at work?  Do my American colleagues (of whom the same is true) pack a .357 magnum in the back of their scrubs?  i doubt it, i expect they do what i do - deal with any potentially violent situation as best i can and if i can't de-escalate it then rely on the security guards.  You may feel that this analogy doesn't apply to your society, but it's pretty much the model for mine.

Another point to make, and this is entirely anecdotal, is that the person who generally wins a fight is not necessarily the bigger, stronger or best trained, but often the one who cares least about hurting their opponent.  i'm fairly big, reasonably fit and have some martial arts training, but i certainly wouldn't put money on myself against a coked-up psych case who really did not care whether i lived or died.  Because i do care (perhaps against my better judgement) whether he lives or dies, particularly by my hand, which makes it likely that i'll lose out in that encounter.  Likewise, if i pull a gun in self-defence, the threat is going to be pretty hollow if i am not actually prepared to use it and possibly kill someone.  i don't know about you, but i have some fairly hefty mental barriers against killing people, and if i am up against the same guy it is overwhelmingly likely that he will shoot first.  That situation then ends with me possibly dead, something i'd also like to avoid.

*shrug*  This is all academic, because i (thankfully) don't live in a gun-carrying culture.  However, i note that none of your vintage statistics addressed the issue of automatic weapons, which is what i was mainly talking about.  What's your stance on those?  Do they have a role in self-defence?

Dannyboy wrote:

i bet if all women were rigged up with deadly explosive chastity belts that it'd drop the rape-rate pretty considerably as well.

Why should the intended victim of a rape have to die? Is that "justice" to you, or was that some kind of sick, masogynistic joke?

A child living in a home with a gun is much more likely to be accidentally shot.

Fact: Accidental gun deaths among children have declined by over 50 % in 25 years, even though the population (and the gun stock) has continued to increase.  From 1970 to 1991, the number of fatal gun accidents for children aged 0-14 declined from 530 to 227. Kopel, Guns: Who Should Have Them?, at 311. And according to the National Safety Council, the decline has continued as there were only 181 fatal gun accidents for children in that age group in 1995. National Safety Council, Accident Facts: 1998 Edition, at 18.
 
Fact: Despite the low number of gun accidents among children (see above), most of these fatalities are not truly "accidents." According to Dr. Gary Kleck, many such accidents are misnamed -- those "accidents" actually resulting from either suicides or extreme cases of child abuse. Kleck, Point Blank, at 271, 276.

Well, first let me say that i don't propose to respond to your statistics, partly because i have no way of checking them without references,

Reference are available at http://www.gunowners.org
Mar 1999 FIREARMS FACT-SHEET (1999)

However, i note that none of your vintage statistics addressed the issue of automatic weapons, which is what i was mainly talking about.  What's your stance on those?  Do they have a role in self-defence?

I have a revolver because they are simpler, meaning they don't jam or malfunction as easily. But automatics can fire more bullets faster, and carry more actually lined up and ready to fire (in a magazine) than a revolver does in the cylinder. I support ownership of all kinds of firearms by law-abiding citizens, for self-defense, hunting, and sport, or for whatever peaceful reason the citizen may have. 

Here is an interesting editorial from the Washington Post called Some People Love Guns.  Why Should the Rest of Us Be Targets?

By Jonathan Safran Foer
Sunday, April 22, 2007; Page B05

Knives also cut bread and carve wood and aid surgery, but guns only shoot bullets. That's what they are designed to do, and that's what they do. When we talk about protecting our right to have guns, we are talking about protecting our right to shoot bullets. So what is it that's so important to shoot at?

The principal defense of guns is constitutional. The Second Amendment ensures that "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's used as the final authority, to be deferred to even if not agreed with or understood. But the Constitution isn't the Bible. (The Second Amendment, being an amendment, is a testament to the Constitution's ability to correct itself.) The Founding Fathers were neither infallible nor divine. And times change.

Does anyone any longer believe that a well-regulated militia is necessary for a free state? Why do those who fall back on the constitutional defense so often avoid the terms "militia" and "state"? And why, after the massacre at Virginia Tech -- hours after -- did Sen. John McCain proclaim, "I do believe in the constitutional right that everyone has, in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, to carry a weapon"? Just what is it, precisely, that he believes in? Is it the Constitution itself? (But surely he thinks it was wise to change the Constitution to abolish slavery, give women the vote, end Prohibition and so on?) Or is it the guns themselves that he believes in? It would be refreshing to have a politician try to defend guns without any reference to the Second Amendment, but on the merits of guns. What if, hours after the killings, McCain had stood at the podium and said instead, "Guns are good because . . . " But what would have followed?

Guns are good because they provide the ultimate self-defense? While I'm sure some people believe that having a gun at their bedside will make them safer, they are wrong. This is not my opinion, and it's not a political or controversial statement. It is a fact. Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend or acquaintance than to kill an intruder, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Guns on the street make us less safe. For every justifiable handgun homicide, there are more than 50 handgun murders, according to the FBI. The expanding right to carry concealed guns make us even less safe. So what right is being protected if it is not the right to be safe? The right to feel safe, at the expense of actual safety?

Or perhaps guns are good because they facilitate hunting? It's a constitutional red herring, but no coincidence or surprise, that the National Rifle Association is so closely aligned with hunters -- they are the group's most powerful contingent. Let's just assume, for a moment, that hunting is good. Really, really good. (It must be, if militias and self-defense don't explain guns.) How many of the nearly 3,000 children who are killed by firearms in the United States each year does the good of hunting justify? All of them? A handful? How many of the students and faculty at Virginia Tech? And what's so good about hunting, anyway?

It's rarely talked about, but hunting for sport is just about as vile as we humans get. In the words of former Bush speechwriter Matthew Scully, "Most wicked deeds are done because the doer proposes some good to himself . . . [but] the killer for sport has no such comprehensible motive. He prefers death to life, darkness to light. He gets nothing except the satisfaction of saying, 'Something that wanted to live is dead.' " If the thrill of hunting were in the hunt, or even in the marksmanship, a camera would do just as well. (Imagine hunting cameras that looked and felt like guns.) But something else is going on. Something that sounds as bad as it is. Hunters love death. Can someone explain to me why that's acceptable, or why that love of death should be more important than the safety of the 94 percent of us who don't have hunting licenses and don't hunt?

In 2004, more preschoolers than law enforcement officers were killed by firearms, according to the Children's Defense Fund. The number of children killed by guns in the United States each year is about three times greater than the number of servicemen and women killed annually in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, more children -- children-- have been killed by guns in the past 25 years than the total number of American fatalities in all wars of the past five decades. It's possible that the upcoming election will be decided by the war in Iraq. But what about the far deadlier war at home?

Jonathan Safran Foer, a Washington native, is the author of two novels, "Everything Is Illuminated" and "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close."

Some very good food for thought.

Some of my reactions to the article Cop posted:

The principal defense of guns is constitutional. The Second Amendment ensures that "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's used as the final authority, to be deferred to even if not agreed with or understood. But the Constitution isn't the Bible. (The Second Amendment, being an amendment, is a testament to the Constitution's ability to correct itself.) The Founding Fathers were neither infallible nor divine. And times change.

Does anyone any longer believe that a well-regulated militia is necessary for a free state?

Very good question.  And there is also the lurking federalism issue that I haven't been able to goad a certain forum owner into answering. 

Why do those who fall back on the constitutional defense so often avoid the terms "militia" and "state"? And why, after the massacre at Virginia Tech -- hours after -- did Sen. John McCain proclaim, "I do believe in the constitutional right that everyone has, in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, to carry a weapon"? Just what is it, precisely, that he believes in? Is it the Constitution itself? (But surely he thinks it was wise to change the Constitution to abolish slavery, give women the vote, end Prohibition and so on?)

Not a really good bunch of examples.  The constitution did not enshrine slavery or the disenfranchisement of women as a protected right.  Prohibition was a constitutional amendment, but it was not one of the original 10 in the Bill of Rights.  Those first 10 were considered important to the very ratification of the Constitution itself, so they have more heft then what came later.  Still, his main point is a very good question.

Or perhaps guns are good because they facilitate hunting? It's a constitutional red herring, but no coincidence or surprise, that the National Rifle Association is so closely aligned with hunters -- they are the group's most powerful contingent. Let's just assume, for a moment, that hunting is good. Really, really good. (It must be, if militias and self-defense don't explain guns.) How many of the nearly 3,000 children who are killed by firearms in the United States each year does the good of hunting justify? All of them? A handful? How many of the students and faculty at Virginia Tech? And what's so good about hunting, anyway?

We could make similar statements about cars.  We have regulations in place to help keep cars from hurting people.  Driver's license, traffic regulations, DWI laws, etc.  I would expect protective regulations with respect to guns, and for those regulations to be enforced.  We already had the laws to prohibit the VT killer from getting his gun. 

It's rarely talked about, but hunting for sport is just about as vile as we humans get. In the words of former Bush speechwriter Matthew Scully, "Most wicked deeds are done because the doer proposes some good to himself . . . [but] the killer for sport has no such comprehensible motive. He prefers death to life, darkness to light. He gets nothing except the satisfaction of saying, 'Something that wanted to live is dead.' " If the thrill of hunting were in the hunt, or even in the marksmanship, a camera would do just as well. (Imagine hunting cameras that looked and felt like guns.) But something else is going on. Something that sounds as bad as it is. Hunters love death. Can someone explain to me why that's acceptable, or why that love of death should be more important than the safety of the 94 percent of us who don't have hunting licenses and don't hunt?

This strikes me as an ignorant rant by someone who knows nothing of hunting.  I am not a hunter, but I've known people who are.  Several things to consider:

1. Due to the fact that we have greatly reduced or eliminated the deer's natural predators, some areas would actually face overpopulation of these animals if it weren't for hunting.  Is it better to spend the time and expense  of having some park rangers go out and cull the herds than to allow people who enjoy doing it?

2.  At least some hunters eat what they kill.  Unless this guy is a vegetarian, he should do some soul searching about all the animals he eats, likely many of them killed under worse conditions than hunting.  Even if he is a vegetarian, I am not, nor are most people.

3. Humans are at the top of the food chain and killing the lower animals for a variety of reasons is part of the natural order.  We do it for medical experiments, for food, or even just because the animals in question are pests.  Next time he uses a flyswatter, maybe he should think about how he revels in death.

4. Then there are video games.... 

I happen to agree with the author of the article about hunting--that it is cruel and irrational.  The old excuse about culling deer populations is lame.  Hunting is considered "recreational" for the reasons stated by the author--a feeling of pleasure at ending the life of beings that want to live.  Nevertheless, hunting weapons tend not to be as dangerous as assault weapons and handguns to the general public.   Handguns and assault weapons were not designed to hunt animals, but to shoot at humans.  That is why gun regulations in Canada, for example, make a distinction between long guns and handguns.  Until Bush got into office, there was a ban on certain types of assault weapons in the US.  For no good reason other than to appease his NRA backers, Bush refused to renew that ban.  Now the deranged shooters get their weapon of choice when setting out to murder and terrorize innocent civilians. 

Uh, a .30-06 scoped deer rifle is a very dangerous weapon when compared with something like the .22LR handgun that Cho used.

It's a question of how you define "dangerous".  The reason that sawed-off shotguns are outlawed is not because they are more accurate or powerful than the full-barreled versions.  It is because they are easier to conceal and commit crimes with.  Weapons that carry more rounds may be more dangerous to the public simply because they can be fired at more people before they need to be reloaded.  You've been reading NRA propaganda too uncritically.
   

What are you talking about?  Bush said he would sign the ban into law, but Congress couldn't pass it.  It expired just like it was intended to.  Link

Technically true, but nobody on the right was really fooled by the wink-wink way in which Bush finessed that one.  The gun lobby backed him with both barrels, because they knew they could count on him not to push for a renewal by Congress.  Not a peep out of the man as the deadline approached.  The Republican Congress obliged him and their gun lobby backers by letting the bill die, thus providing covering fire for their Dear Leader's disingenuousness.  Kerry called it a lack of leadership at the time.  Bush's silence on the question was a clear enough message to his followers.