tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25683662.post8604890068150409854..comments2024-03-26T12:05:58.591-04:00Comments on Freemasons For Dummies: Europe Blames Charlton Heston For VT KillingsChristopher Hodapphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04201859873755654395noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25683662.post-7458541589764195002007-06-03T01:18:00.000-04:002007-06-03T01:18:00.000-04:00Uhm, comparing Beslan, Russia to Virginia Tech is ...Uhm, comparing Beslan, Russia to Virginia Tech is intellectual dishonesty.<BR/><BR/>Don't just add sources for the reason of having sources.<BR/><BR/>This should already be clear from High School.-_-https://www.blogger.com/profile/14909915701625296128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25683662.post-47394935250230405952007-04-18T20:48:00.000-04:002007-04-18T20:48:00.000-04:00There is nothing extreme about allowing guns. Vir...There is nothing extreme about allowing guns. Virgina is a shall-issue concealed-carry state. The only reason guns can't be carried on the VT campus is that VT has a rule that says you can be expelled for carrying. The extreme position in Virginia is the VT position.<BR/><BR/>Millions of Americans are perfectly comfortable carrying firearms, and millions of Americans have permits that allow them to do exactly that. University regulations should not be allowed to trump state law. Period.Fuzzy Curmudgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03802539927743643041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25683662.post-72352217613296918542007-04-18T12:08:00.000-04:002007-04-18T12:08:00.000-04:00I agree, in general terms with what Nathan wrote.T...I agree, in general terms with what Nathan wrote.<BR/>The question, althought, in my opinion, is not allow or ban guns.<BR/>Extreme solutions are always bad!<BR/>I am satisfied with the sistem we have in my country (Portugal):<BR/>a) guns 7.65 mm or .45 or more are exclusively autorized to the army and police officers;<BR/>b) Private citizens can possess and carry guns up to 6.35 mm or .38, if registered and having a permit issued by the Chief of Police.<BR/>The permit is issued if the citizen has a clean criminal record and justifies the need to carry a gun.<BR/>c) Private citizens can possess IN THEIR HOMES registered guns up to 6.35 mm or .38. A permit is issued without the need to justify the possesion. in this case, when the citizen moves, a police officer carries the gun from the previous house to the new one.<BR/>So, there is not a irrestrict right to carry a gun. One only can do it if justifiably autorized to.<BR/>This allows the police to easily confiscate the guns ilegally carried. And, most of all, there is not the culture of the right to carry a gun.<BR/>I prefer this culture about guns...<BR/>Unfortunately, there is no sistem to stop 100 % violence and crime. There is no miraculous solution. One can just axpect to have a sistem that helps to control and maintains as low as possible violence and crime. And, once again, I think it is a better idea to develop the culture that guns are only to be carried by those who really need to carry them. <BR/>The bottom line is: it is better if society undertands that a gun is NOT a normal and natural object to carry.<BR/>But that's only my opinion...Rui Bandeirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08822463325489356150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25683662.post-55040961594298218142007-04-18T09:15:00.000-04:002007-04-18T09:15:00.000-04:00Sorry, but anyone who thinks that gun violence can...Sorry, but anyone who thinks that gun violence can be stopped by the simple expedient of banning guns is living in a dream world. There is no truism so true as "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Look at the gun violence statistics in England and Australia, if you want a good idea of what happens when law-abiding citizens are banned from owning guns. Then look at the number of burglaries, robberies, and home invasions in the States that are stopped every year just because the homeowner or business proprieter had a weapon, was trained in its use, and wasn't afraid to use it to defend himself and his property.<BR/><BR/>One student or faculty member with a gun on his hip could have put paid to the VT gunman. Would there still have been deaths? Probably. But I'll bet there wouldn't have been 32 of them in two separate incidents on opposite ends of campus an hour apart. The fact is that we'll never know, because VT in its infinite utopian "can't we all just get along" wisdom had enacted an absolute ban on anyone but law enforcement personnel carrying weapons on its campus. And we saw how well that ban worked with Mr. Cho Seung-Hui, didn't we?<BR/><BR/>The intellectual dishonesty Bro. Hodapp is referring to comes about when people insist that blanket gun bans will stop these one-off incidents from occuring. That's nonsense. Criminals will always be able to get guns, even if guns are banned...that's why they're called criminals.Fuzzy Curmudgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03802539927743643041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25683662.post-486387752514206112007-04-18T05:51:00.000-04:002007-04-18T05:51:00.000-04:00"And anyone who argues otherwise is intellectually..."And anyone who argues otherwise is intellectually dishonest"<BR/><BR/>No! Here i can not agree with you.<BR/>Anyone who argues otherwise simply thinks different from you, and has the right to do so! That's called freedom of thought1 And we. masons, always respect it!<BR/><BR/>As to the post theme, I agree with you that the Der Spiegel article is unfortunate.<BR/><BR/>I also agree with you about the causes of the nowadays stupid violence.<BR/><BR/>But I think that putting an end to the full access to weapons would help to less violence.<BR/><BR/>And that doesn't make me intellectually dishonest...Rui Bandeirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08822463325489356150noreply@blogger.com