Thanks Coyoteman.

That is a very good question. The reason I don't believe stricter laws are necessarily the best answer is because laws are only preventative with people who keep them. The rest of the people who don't, only a very small percentage of them are caught because most illegal activities don't draw enough attention to be noticed and as we all know, consequences only happen after some measure of damage is done.

How do we stop a resourceful person from re-inventing their identity? Once they do that successfully, whatever their past holds is irrelevant. The strict laws would mean less good people would have the ability or would go through the hassle to carry protection but the worst of the bad people would still have unfettered access to protection that they would use as a dangerous weapon.

But here I am delving into the workings of policy again........

I have to get some work done today but I will think about this more.

Ron

 

The reports I've seen say he obtained at least the Glock legally at a gun store in Blacksburg. The dude was carrying the reciept around in his back pack, even. Why he would then grind the serial numbers off is beyond me.

 

I agree. I've seen no reports as to what type of store gave him this receipt. Sombody didnt want the guns traced, I doubt it was the shooter since it wouldnt have made any difference to him. Its possible the store didnt want them traced, or perhaps the serial numbers were already removed before the store got them. If it was a pawn shop, and the pawn shop didnt scratch off the numbers, then perhaps there are no laws in place that prevents guns being resold if the serial numbers are scratched off.

The other senario is that I buy a gun legitimatly, and then sell it. Since I dont know who is going to eventually own it, perhaps I scratch off the serial number so it doesnt get traced back to me which could falsely implicate me as a shooter in some future crime.

 

You think he'd have done something like that if he thought he could get away. Which he did from the first shooting. Kinda leads me to believe the second shooting wasn't (as) planned out, but he realized he had reached a point of no return. Of course, we never will really know.

I thought that they had shown he had seaked psychiatric help earlier. And that would have raised a flag on obtaining the pistol. But, I don't know if whoever he saw actually reported it in the proper manor for it to work. Obviously not.

 

It was reported that he had purchased the guns separately two weeks apart, both from the same dealer. Current law states only one gun per week in Virginia. I'm not sure why a green card holding mental case was able to pass the electronic background check. I'm not sure I agree with that, but then again someone that determined would have found guns somewhere else illegally if necessary. My 2 cents

 

It does all lead back to him being a loony bin doesnt it? How do you prevent someone, who has done nothing wrong, from killing if they have no regard for themselves? There's your political connection right there. This is not my area. I've always been a student of human behavior rather than a specialist in politics.

 

GOD BLESS US ALL.

 

There need to be stricter laws on guns I agree because anyone can obtain them, but the problem comes in because you can get them anywhere or anyhow you wanted them if you really felt the need...It puzzles me how someone would come to this...Now all of these copycats are trying to do stuff...I believe the war is within our own country and not the one with Iraq.

 

Originally posted by bombrider04: There need to be stricter laws on guns I agree because anyone can obtain them, but the problem comes in because you can get them anywhere or anyhow you wanted them if you really felt the need...It puzzles me how someone would come to this...Now all of these copycats are trying to do stuff...I believe the war is within our own country and not the one with Iraq.


I could not possible disagree more. There are already too many gun laws on the books. Look at what has happened to England and Australia. Huge violent crime increases after they outlawed guns. You have a far greater chance of getting mugged in London than you do in New York. All of these big incidents happen in so called "Gun Free Zones".
January 2007, 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."
Virginia Tech 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.


QUOTE FOR TODAY:

"If liberals interpreted the Second Amendment the way they interpret the rest of the Bill of Rights, there would be law professors arguing that gun ownership is mandatory." Liberal journalist Michael Kinsley

 

Good point...It is like if the age limit on drinking or if you tell someone they can't do something they are going to want to do it and if you tell someone they can't have a gun they are going to get it...I see your point...What I meant from that statement is the gun laws should be more strict on who is buying and obtaining them.