ReportFromTheFront's Blog

Your viewpoint is too simplistic: 'If guns were outlawed and available to none....shootings like this would never occur..'. Isn't that like taking the view that if the mint printed and distributed barrels of money to everyone, we would have no poor people? The fact of the matter is, guns are here, you'll never get that genie back in the bottle. Your position is that for the irrational acts of a few, everyone must pay. Then wouldn't you have to extend that logic to, for example, driving? People have done terribly stupid things in cars, killing people, driving drunk, etc. So no one should have a car to avoid problems? Get real, all high and mighty.

Also, this was a university student on a university campus. There was nothing to prevent him from going to the Chemistry lab to mix up bombs. Recall, there were bomb threats last week, though we don't know at this point if they were related to the shootings. Placing bombs around campus, especially at student heavy areas (lecture halls, cafeterias, dorms, etc.) would be equally devastating---if you don't think so, look at the efficiency of the suicide bombers in the Middle East.

Chemistry labs also provide raw materials for poisons. We all know how the Noro virus closed several local hotels and Catholic University this year. Dropping poison in a self-serve food area, like a salad bar or a punch bowl during a party, would be equally effective--like the Jonestown massacre.

So would the lack of guns have prevented a shooting? Yes. But would the lack of guns prevent mass murder? No.

Hi All -
Since it appears that this commentary - like the last one - is surprisingly not drawing a great many comments, I thought I'd throw in my final words on the subject.
Please note that all of the comments posted to both blogs are all emotionally based or too broad. To date, not one respondent has attempted to factually rebut anything I've said. That alone should give the pro-gun side something to think about. Once again, you may want a gun, but in fact, you really don't need one. Relying on the entitlement granted by the 2nd amendment just isn't enough. Sorry.
To Mountaineerfan: If you're still polishing up the first installment of a response, please don't bother. It's been almost a month and you still have nothing more to say other than you'll have something for me soon. By the time you're ready, we will have all moved on to another subject.
To Fishstick and Caffeinated-Cow: Is my position simplistic? Perhaps. I agree that if someone is committed to an act of mass murder, they'll probably eventually find some way to do it depending on the ease of available means. Remember that the undeniable facilitator here was the all too easy accessibility of a firearm with which to carry out this tragic deed. All he had to do was to walk into two Virginia gun shops and present a valid ID. In each case, he was immediately able to walk out with a firearm and tons of ammunition once money changed hands. It was that simple. Had it not been so easy, perhaps Monday's events would not have ocurred and our attention would be focused elsewhere other than Blacksbur

Sorry,Report,but my installments are not soley for you so check your ego at the door.I have tons for you.What you are saying doesn't even make sense.Wouldn't it seem logical that someone who has been working on something the longest might be doing so because they have the most to say?Nice try at deception.
Another reason for stretching out my posts is to keep this subject at the forefront.You Brady Campaigners don't seem to mind trying to keep it at the forefront.After all the last time you left and now you've back much later instead of visiting your post often to discuss.
What you're doing is known as Inflation of Conflict amongst several other fallacious arguements including rhetorical questioning and reductive fallacy.I seriously doubt you are here to learn anything.