Virginia Tech shooting... at least 31 dead [Archive]

dforbes

2007-04-16, 10:06 PM

monkeyman

2007-04-16, 10:09 PM

Hey guys, let's give this one a day before we turn it into a political debate, k? Like Det-riot said, it's the worst shooting in American history.

Think we can do that?

It's ok guys, I'm sure the friends and family of the deceased are debating the merits of guns now too. So don't feel bad at your insensitivity or anything silly like that.

Show some respect.

MERCYME

2007-04-16, 10:13 PM

This stuff is terrible. Theres too much of this going on.

Living in the city with the highest murder rate in America, I can safely say that people are affected by this type of stuff everyday.
My condolences go out to the family and friends of those who were lost.

musketman

2007-04-16, 10:17 PM

Without guns being so readily available this crazy people who go on shooting rampages would have nothing to use on their shooting rampages.
Correct, guns do not have feet.
But gun's are an easy to get weapon that can easily kill a large amount of people, in a short amount of time.
We do not know what a person is thinking, so therefore this person who decides to go on a shooting rampage cannot be stopped until it is too late.
If gun laws were more strict, less people would be roaming the streets with these deadily weapons.

There is many many other weapons to kill people. It may not kill as many or as fast, but if you wanted to you could kill people with other things than guns.

Dont make me bring up the debate on gun control and the many pages of studies done on guns and crime. Gun control is proven to have more violence than without gun control. Its a fact...its proven.

It doesn't do anything different to criminals if we had gun control laws except make it easier to hurt people because the good citizens are un-armed, and the criminals can always get gun through the black market.

If the kid that shot all those other kids at the school didn't have access to guns(gun control) there probably wouldn't be over 30 dead right now. But it's such a small percent that this happens..its like save one thing(high school shootings)...lose everything else.

Gilby

2007-04-16, 10:23 PM

I'd really like to know how the second amendment right you've been granted (at least the way it's been interpreted by the courts) provides a net benefit to people. What does US society gain by this right, and what would you stand to lose if it were limited in some way? Are the lives lost every year to firearms just the unfortunate "cost of doing business"? How are your lives better now that 31 more people are dead? Is there really no recourse to take against crime other than everyone carrying a sidearm?
The invalid assumptions by those who want very restrictive guns laws are:
that a government, by use of law and force, is capable of keeping all guns out of a society.
that criminals will obey the laws.
that government is capable of self-restraint with its powers, especially with an unarmed population.This incident is a situation that occurred in a location that banned guns. So your assumption is incorrect that unlimited access to guns had anything to do with this. Further, had law abiding citizens been able to carry guns, they may have been able to stop this person before killing more people.

MERCYME

2007-04-16, 10:27 PM

There is many many other weapons to kill people. It may not kill as many or as fast, but if you wanted to you could kill people with other things than guns.

Dont make me bring up the debate on gun control and the many pages of studies done on guns and crime. Gun control is proven to have more violence than without gun control. Its a fact...its proven.

It doesn't do anything different to criminals if we had gun control laws except make it easier to hurt people because the good citizens are un-armed, and the criminals can always get gun through the black market.

If the kid that shot all those other kids at the school didn't have access to guns(gun control) there probably wouldn't be over 30 dead right now. But it's such a small percent that this happens..its like save one thing(high school shootings)...lose everything else.
I do not want to argue with you about this. Monkeyman brought up a good point.
And I also know from experience from argueing with republicans, they do not give in.
Please, PM this proof of this "Gun control is proven to have more violence than without gun control" statement that you made.
If you please we can continue this argument via PM.

Please leave this thread at what it was supposed to be, reflecting upon the shootings that happened this morning.

Goats_On_Unicycles

2007-04-16, 10:37 PM

this is very, very sad. it's sad to think that somebody would want to do such a horrible thing.

wickedbob

2007-04-16, 10:51 PM

That is really terrible and sad... This seems all to common.... Oh like monkeyman said lets wait awhile before sparking up a political debate or just make another thread if you wish to argue that much...

musketman

2007-04-16, 10:51 PM

this is very, very sad. it's sad to think that somebody would want to do such a horrible thing.

yeah, has anyone heard anything on why the kid did it?

MERCYME

2007-04-16, 11:20 PM

yeah, has anyone heard anything on why the kid did it?
Do we even know if its a kid yet?
Don't make assumptions.

johnfoss

2007-04-16, 11:25 PM

Could one of the American contributors to this forum please take the time to explain to the rest of us the rationale for permitting almost unlimited access to firearms in the USA? I mean an explanation in terms of the benefit to US society, versus the cost.I think these are perfectly valid questions, though not any moreso today than any other day (explanation below).

The rationale, as I understand it, was for our founding fathers to preserve the right of citizens to "bear arms," that is, to be able to own their own weapons. The intent, at least at that time, was based on the need for local defense of homes and property, as well as the need to guard against "unauthorized military takeovers." In other words, the greatly simplified meaning, as I understand it, is to allow citizens to be armed so they are not automatically at the mercy of an invading force.

Benefit? That's the hard part. I suppose during the earliest days it helped the country to defend itself against the British attacks of 1812. Probably not as big an impact on the Civil War (1860s), but that was still during a time when guns were most commonly used for hunting and non-war purposes.

Today the benefits are more questionable, but it's kind of beside the point now. Most gun crimes are committed with illegal guns. In other words, they are committed with guns that were not "controlled" anyway. Add more gun control, and you limit even more access to guns by people who want to do it legally.

Usually when people shoot up schools or workplaces like today, it's because the person is having psychological problems that probably would not have been a factor in a past firearms purchase. In other words, today's event is not really a gun control issue, it's more a crazy people control issue. How can you stop a person from having a psychotic break? If they already own, or have access to guns, it doesn't really factor in.

Terrible events today. I listened to it on the radio for a while. Reporters ask the most amazingly stupid questions at press conferences! "How could this have been prevented?" Well, since we don't even know for sure what happened, what kind of answer were you expecting right now? A three-word sound bite for the evening news?

It's hard to guard aganist crazy people without going ultra-paranoid. Even if the campus is a gun-free zone, it's possible to bring one in. I'd still rather have just the one than an open-gun campus though. Call me stupid if you want. Mistakes made by people *without* guns are a lot less permanent than the ones made by people with them.

musketman

2007-04-16, 11:32 PM

Do we even know if its a kid yet?
Don't make assumptions.

Are you serious? really? Just because I said gun control isn't the answer, you snap at me now like a croc!

John is right...this isn't really about gun control, its about crazy people control.And most people get the guns illegaly anyway...so gun control doesn't matter. Im looking at the news right now...and there saying its the common day violence in video games and junk like that is what's making people like this today...but who knows. Not much is released on who shot the people.

hell-on-wheel

2007-04-16, 11:34 PM

It's ok guys, I'm sure the friends and family of the deceased are debating the merits of guns now too. So don't feel bad at your insensitivity or anything silly like that.

Show some respect.

Semi-frequent poster and long distance rider Siafirede (real name James) just graduated from V Tech last December. I haven't been able to get in touch with him cause I don't have his number anymore, but I offer my condolences here. Besides James, I've called all my friends and friends who have friends at V Tech, and everyone is "alright".

James if you want to talk or just go for a long ride, call me 804-651-6844.

john_childs

2007-04-16, 11:39 PM

It looks like he shot and killed two at the dormitory then two hours later killed the rest in and around a German class. Did he specifically target a German class? If it was a stressed out engineering student you'd think he'd go after an engineering or math class.

That's all just speculation though. Don't know the whos or the whys yet. Engineering classes can be stressful, but it's hard to figure taking it out in that way on a German class.

Wonder if we'll ever end up knowing what really was going on and the reasons for doing something like that.

MERCYME

2007-04-16, 11:45 PM

Are you serious? really? Just because I said gun control isn't the answer, you snap at me now like a croc!

John is right...this isn't really about gun control, its about crazy people control.And most people get the guns illegaly anyway...so gun control doesn't matter. Im looking at the news right now...and there saying its the common day violence in video games and junk like that is what's making people like this today...but who knows. Not much is released on who shot the people.
How do you know I'm snapping?
Emotions can't be displayed over the internet.

It looks like he shot and killed two at the dormitory then two hours later killed the rest in and around a German class. Did he specifically target a German class? If it was a stressed out engineering student you'd think he'd go after an engineering or math class.

That's all just speculation though. Don't know the whos or the whys yet. Engineering classes can be stressful, but it's hard to figure taking it out in that way on a German class.

Wonder if we'll ever end up knowing what really was going on and the reasons for doing something like that.

Well you never can know the actuals of what happened, since he offed himself.
But eventually we will learn the specifics in who this person was, and what his emotions were like leading up to the event.
He could have been anti-German since he targeted the German class.
Thats also just a speculation though.

steveyo

2007-04-17, 12:05 AM

So a little more info than I'd know previously is now in a story at this link (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/16/national/main2686709.shtml).

This is nothing but horrible.

BillyTheMountain

2007-04-17, 02:11 AM

Watch out if "crazy people control" becomes an issue, instead of gun control.

......When they came for the unicyclists, there was no one left to speak out.

This is a tragedy, but reaching for solutions prematurely won't do it, either.

Borges

2007-04-17, 06:27 AM

One of the news angles here is: "Why does this happen in the US, and could it happen here?"

The expert(?) oppinion was that it mainly has to do with preassures on young people, lack of options for psychiatric help ("crazy people control"), and an unhealthy focus on violence as a means of solving problems.

The people behind the shootings have reacted to personal failure of some kind. Young people meet their personal failure at school/university and take out their frustrations there. Young people have high hopes and not a great deal of perspective on life. The effect is enhanced because there's a big difference between success and failure in the US.

Not that it's just an American problem. The alleged motives of the killers are much like the kind of people who are recruited for suicide bombers in other countries, often as much personal as political/religious.
The powerlessness and thoughts of suicide comes first, then the desire to act powerfully for once before it's all over.

I'm not so sure about the US specific parts. I'm not convinced he's not just looking for reassuring reasons a shooting won't happen closer to home.

What are your thoughts on this? I'd like to hear from some actual US citizens.

john_childs

2007-04-17, 08:09 AM

Right now the speculation is that the gunman was a Chinese man here on a student visa.

Chicago Sun-Times (http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/343354,vatech041607.article)
Authorities were investigating whether the gunman who killed 32 people on the Virginia Tech campus in the deadliest shooting rampage in U.S. history was a Chinese man who arrived in the United States last year on a student visa.

The 24-year-old man arrived in San Francisco on United Airlines on Aug. 7 on a visa issued in Shanghai, the source said. Investigators have not linked him to any terrorist groups, the source said.

If that is true then it wasn't someone who was raised in the US in a gun culture.

We'll have to wait and see what develops in the next few days as more is learned about who the gunman actually was. Right not it's just speculation as to who he was and motive.

wobbling bear

2007-04-17, 10:18 AM

... and an unhealthy focus on violence as a means of solving problems.

a very interesting question: on the whole world you will find people running amok.
So now the question is: how do they express their crazy burst? I think culture has a role (and more and more culture is not a stricly "national" thing). amokness follow fads and strange path of expression.
I'll be interested to read how amok people behave in your country....
here it depends much on where you live:
- if it is in the countryside you pick up a hunting gun and menace and sometime fire on the police (they have a special squad for those situations)
perpetrators tend to be ageing people.
- In towns they pick up fights with everybody (and again preferably with the Police) -though we had an example of someone firing at a whole town council-
perpetrators tend to be younger ... I am pretty sure the examples from America will permeate because the culture of violence is becoming a worldwide tendency.

pdc

2007-04-17, 11:42 AM

I'm happy to say my freshman daughter was not one of the victims. She was walking to class and heard shots and quickly returned to her dorm where she anxiously awaited news of what was going on. I was very thankful for internet IM communication during this time as it gave us a feeling of being "together" through this even though we were hours away.

My prayers go out to the family and friends of the lost.

On the gun issue, if even a small percentage of students and or professors had guns, the death toll may have been significantly lower and the shooter would not have gone in with such confidence.

wobbling bear

2007-04-17, 11:59 AM

On the gun issue, ....
strange differences: two of my friends are cops. One is a "cop simplex" ; the other one a high level criminal investigator. Both were happy when they were not obliged to keep their gun with them while on duty.
manliness is in the eye of the beholder.

steveyo

2007-04-17, 12:03 PM

Borges

2007-04-17, 12:12 PM

I'm happy to say my freshman daughter was not one of the victims. She was walking to class and heard shots and quickly returned to her dorm where she anxiously awaited news of what was going on. I was very thankful for internet IM communication during this time as it gave us a feeling of being "together" through this even though we were hours away.

You can be thankful for having a sensible and living daughter too. It must have been a tough couple of hours.

On the gun issue, if even a small percentage of students and or professors had guns, the death toll may have been significantly lower and the shooter would not have gone in with such confidence.
When the confidence comes from not caring whether you live or die, there isn't much you can do about it.

Gilby

2007-04-17, 02:12 PM

In hindsight, too bad the bill talked about here (http://www.roanoke.com/politics/wb/49915) didn't get passed.

pdc

2007-04-17, 03:46 PM

I thought this a very touching picture....

johnfoss

2007-04-17, 06:37 PM

In hindsight, too bad the bill talked about here (http://www.roanoke.com/politics/wb/49915) didn't get passed.In short, it was a bill to allow owners of concealed-weapons permits to carry their weapons on the campus. Currently you have to check them and can't have them on campus.

I don't know the science on this issue, but my gut feeling is that allowing guns on campus would equal more shootings. Plus intimidation and other downsides as a result of the firearms being there.

In the rare instance when someone cracks and wants to go on a shooting spree, having "legal" guns on campus could be a plus. It would make it harder for a shooter to have "free reign" but would probably not stop them from starting a spree, just would likely make it shorter with the possibility of armed persons being nearby and not having to wait for police.

All in all though, I think the average would be more isolated shootings on campuses, and maybe a 10% decrease in mass shootings. The math looks bad to me.

Other problems with concealed weapons is that guns still work in anyone's hands, not just those of the owner. Weapons that are not locked in a police locker somewhere are more likely to be compromised, either in their storage place or by being removed from students' persons for immediate use.

Gilby

2007-04-17, 07:27 PM

I don't know the science on this issue, but my gut feeling is that allowing guns on campus would equal more shootings.

Good thing we don't legislate by gut feeling...

Oh, wait, who am I kidding.

It probably would not take that much effort to find out how many shootings related deaths per capita have occurred on campuses that allowed guns to be carried.

Mikefule

2007-04-17, 07:46 PM

Never mind the stale debate on gun control. The situation won't change there. The battle lines are drawn, and no one is listening to the other side.

Did the fact that there is a published record of the largest number of people killed in a single spree contribute at all to the number killed by this individual? Will the next nutter go for the big 40?

Did the fact that every such incident reaches national and international prominence affect this individual? Have we made it an easy way to achieve fame and immortality?

Did the fact that the more people were murdered in Iraq the other day (50 in one day) not matter as much? It didn't provoke as much comment in this forum.

If America is the wealthiest, most privileged and most advanced society in the world, why does it produce so many people who can only express themselves by shooting large numbers of people?

johnfoss

2007-04-17, 08:12 PM

Good thing we don't legislate by gut feeling...Exactly. All the science in the world doesn't necessarily change a legislator's mind. Hopefully they at least listen to the newer arguments as they come out.

Did the fact that the more people were murdered in Iraq the other day (50 in one day) not matter as much?Wow, who killed the 50 people in Iraq? Or was it more than one person? :p

Point taken though. Having an established precedence for regular, daily killing in Iraq doesn't make it more acceptable, just more predictable.

If America is the wealthiest, most privileged and most advanced society in the world, why does it produce so many people who can only express themselves by shooting large numbers of people?Good question. I'd say it's not because of our mass media (TV, movies, video games). Surely they desensitize us, but that stuff is popular around the world. It doesn't turn people into killers. But then again, Americans aren't the only ones going on shooting sprees either, are they?

thejdw

2007-04-17, 08:27 PM

That sucks :(

50 Percent

2007-04-17, 08:28 PM

exactly...the dems dont get it. This thread is going to turn into a huge gun control debate again now. It's the person to blame ppl! NOt the Gun!

wow, you and i could talk politics for HOURS on end and not come to a disagreement

gun control, gun control yadda ,yada ,yadda
the laws 'bout guns are FINE the ppl are going to break the laws any ways why should would they be stopped by gun control laws?

i know! lets make crime illegal!
"lets go shoot a bunch of ppl"
"yeah sounds great!"
"oh, blank, crimes "illegal" now"

frogger

2007-04-17, 08:45 PM

I do not see how any one can do that.

Mikefule

2007-04-17, 08:48 PM

Wow, who killed the 50 people in Iraq? Or was it more than one person?

On a typical day, it's one person blowing himself up and killing a dozen or so innocent strangers. On a bad day, that happens three or four times across the country.

In a "campus shooting spree" it's usually one person killing a dozen or so innocent people then shooting himself.

The differences are subtle, if you're one of the innocent people.

In the UK, we had Dunblane (a lone gunman killing several children at a school) and Hungerford (a lone gunman shooting several people in the street) and, for the record, we did have some nutter with a knife who killed several people in a day, a year or so ago. It can be done, but I think the consensus among nutters is that modern technology definitely improves productivity.

We have quite strong gun control laws here. The only guns I have ever seen have been in the hands of the police, the army, farmers or genuine sportsmen. We have a small number of shootings a year (Nottingham is particularly bad at about 1 a week) but we don't go in fear of being shot, nor do we feel the need to be armed for our protection.

In those areas where the shootings do happen, the victims are often armed for their own protection.

BluntRM

2007-04-17, 09:08 PM

Wow, who killed the 50 people in Iraq? Or was it more than one person? :p

4/14/2007---Car bomb (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/14/AR2007041400412.html?hpid=moreheadlines) kills 32 in Karbala. A different paper puts the death toll at 47.

ahollow

2007-04-17, 09:23 PM

If explosives were as easy to get as guns, you would have more suicide bombers in the States.

Don't be surprised if that is the method of the next mass killer. Plenty of info on the web on how to do it. I mean, if you plan to kill yourself anyway .......

Mikefule

2007-04-17, 09:30 PM

Don't be surprised if that is the method of the next mass killer. Plenty of info on the web on how to do it. I mean, if you plan to kill yourself anyway .......

I doubt it.

The fundamentalist interpretation of militant Islam holds that martyrdom is a high honour. The individual's life is of little value, but his death is an act of glory for Allah. So he kills himself and takes others with him.

The western way (and particularly the American way) is the way of the cowboy. The gun gives the gunman the power to destroy others, and at the end, he can go down fighting (suicide by cop) or he can shoot himself as a last act of defiance to authority.

Different sorts of nutters, you see, technically speaking. Cathy will explain that it's socially constructed.;)

Chexjc

2007-04-17, 09:57 PM

Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

Guns don't kill people, Jack Bauer kills people.

Seriously though, it worries me. I've found myself looking at all of my classmates differently today. It shouldn't be frightening to live on a college campus.

Luke Collalto

2007-04-17, 10:06 PM

In Australia we have strict gun control. Yes, some criminals do get guns, but most do not.

I can't remember anyone being shot (that wasn't a criminal.) , in Melbourne at least.

I'm not sure, but I think in New Zealand even the cops don't carry guns, and there's even less gun violence there.

BluntRM

2007-04-17, 10:07 PM

VCU held a vigil earlier today to show solidarity with Virginia Tech. Words fell short of any real meaning. That's a vaguely philophical thing, reflecting on violence that hits you without even being there, the perservernce of a tragedy...

headstone

2007-04-17, 10:11 PM

But then again, Americans aren't the only ones going on shooting sprees either, are they?

Yeah, don't worry, Mexico, Estonia and Brazil are right up there with you!

Gun deaths per 100 000 people, 1994, 36 richest nations:

U.S.A. 14.24
Brazil 12.95
Mexico 12.69
Estonia 12.26
Argentina 8.93
Northern Ireland 6.63
Finland 6.46
Switzerland 5.31
France 5.15
Canada 4.31
Norway 3.82
Austria 3.70
Portugal 3.20
Israel 2.91
Belgium 2.90
Australia 2.65
Slovenia 2.60
Italy 2.44
New Zealand 2.38
Denmark 2.09
Sweden 1.92
Kuwait 1.84
Greece 1.29
Germany 1.24
Hungary 1.11
Ireland 0.97
Spain 0.78
Netherlands 0.70
Scotland 0.54
England and Wales 0.41
Taiwan 0.37
Singapore 0.21
Mauritius 0.19
Hong Kong 0.14
South Korea 0.12
Japan 0.05

This rightfully includes accidents and suicides involving firearms.

I realise that most of the these deaths don't come from "sprees," but I thought I'd point out that guns don't prevent deaths...

skianduniaddict

2007-04-17, 10:13 PM

if guns were banned people would be murdered with knifes.
my cousin sustained a broken ankle when she jumped out of a second story window to avoid the gun man

john_childs

2007-04-17, 10:23 PM

Seriously though, it worries me. I've found myself looking at all of my classmates differently today. It shouldn't be frightening to live on a college campus.
The frightening part with violence at schools or the workplace is that you don't have much control over who you are in close proximity to. You're there as one person in a large group and you don't have much control over choosing who those other people are that you end up living amongst. One of them could turn out to be a nutter.

You have a little control over the environment by choosing a school with a certain culture. The students are going to be different sorts of people at say Princeton than at say Texas A&M. The students at an expensive private school are generally going to be different than the students at a large public school. But even there you're only dealing with generalities about the types of people you'll be associating with and living amongst. No guarantee that there isn't going to be a nutter in the group that snaps under the pressure of college life.

But the college campus environment is also one of the more helpful and supportive environments. There are many school sponsored help and support groups that are there to assist students. Counseling and all sorts of other similar help. There is lots of available support for those who are feeling stressed or bothered or depressed. Now whether you're in the state of mind or awareness to take advantage of that help is a different matter. But the college life has a lot more of that type of support available than the general outside world outside of college.

Gilby

2007-04-17, 10:28 PM

Yeah, don't worry, Mexico, Estonia and Brazil are right up there with you!

Gun deaths per 100 000 people, 1994, 36 richest nations
These are old statistics from a period in which there was a lot of crime in the U.S.A. Economists have linked a significant drop in crime since then to the legalization of abortion.

johnfoss

2007-04-17, 10:30 PM

Gun deaths per 100 000 people, 1994, 36 richest nations:We're number one! We're number one!

Why 1994?

Sure seems like we could learn something from the countries on the bottom half of the list. However, that's just a list of gun deaths, and relatively unrelated to the shooting spree question.

How scary for the people right here on the forums who had friends and family members so close! Glad they are all okay.

john_childs

2007-04-17, 10:33 PM

This rightfully includes accidents and suicides involving firearms.

I realise that most of the these deaths don't come from "sprees," but I thought I'd point out that guns don't prevent deaths...[/size]
Which is why that statistic is messed up and misleading.

Gun Control-International Homicide and Suicide Rates (http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html)
"Gun death" statistics are frequently cited, in the manner above, to strongly suggest that guns are the cause behind the high violent death rate in the U.S. As in the case of the Los Angeles Times article, no mention is made that over half of those violent deaths are suicides. The CNN article mentions gun homicides and gun suicides, but fails to show us the total violent death rate of other countries, not just gun deaths. For example, in Japan, where gun ownership is rare, its total suicide rate is higher than our total suicide rate.

Combining gun suicide and homicide deaths creates a sensational comparison with other countries, but only clouds and distorts the many factors actually behind violent death rates. Looking at only gun deaths, it is easy to get the false impression that, because of guns, the United States is the most violent country on earth.

Rather than being the "league leader" in violent death rates, as the sensational and misleading media reports suggest when focusing exclusively on guns, though the U.S. is still high, its violent death rate is not orders of magnitude higher than other countries.

siafirede

2007-04-17, 11:32 PM

Semi-frequent poster and long distance rider Siafirede (real name James) just graduated from V Tech last December. I haven't been able to get in touch with him cause I don't have his number anymore, but I offer my condolences here. Besides James, I've called all my friends and friends who have friends at V Tech, and everyone is "alright".

James if you want to talk or just go for a long ride, call me 804-651-6844.

Thanks for the post Frank. I am alright, and I spent hours and hours calling people I know in Blacksburg yesterday. This whole story hits so close to home that I am still in shock. I lived in the same dormitory (West aj) on the same floor for two years of my life where the first shooting took place, and I would have never thought someone could be shot there. I have also had classes in Norris before and the thought of something like that happening is just so bizarre. The killer lived 5 minutes away from me in Northern Virginia, and I just cant believe any of this.

On a side note, I haven't even started to think about gun control debates yet...I am still just trying to see if my friends and family are alive.

Blegas78

2007-04-17, 11:39 PM

Well there was a gun threat at my college today. A professor gave back tests and some student demanded that his grade be changed otherwise he'll bring a gun to school. Police arrested him on his way home.

I guess it could have been a very tasteless joke, but I have no idea...

BillyTheMountain

2007-04-18, 01:00 AM

if guns were banned people would be murdered with knifes.
my cousin sustained a broken ankle when she jumped out of a second story window to avoid the gun man

I doubt the guy could have killed 30 students with a knife.

john_childs

2007-04-18, 01:24 AM

I doubt the guy could have killed 30 students with a knife.
You underestimate the creativity and resourcefulness of someone intent on planning and executing such a large scale killing spree. If it wasn't guns it could have been explosives, poisoning food or water, poison gas, chaining the doors of a building and then burning it down, mowing down a crowd of people using a car or truck. The list of possible ways to cause murder on a large scale is long. You don't need guns. He might have even found bludgeoning people to death with Medieval weapons of war somewhat satisfying, moreso than shooting them.

He was an English major. I wonder when his creative writing stories and other writing assignments are going to be up for sale on eBay?

BillyTheMountain

2007-04-18, 02:14 AM

You underestimate the creativity and resourcefulness of someone intent on planning and executing such a large scale killing spree. If it wasn't guns it could have been explosives, poisoning food or water, poison gas, chaining the doors of a building and then burning it down, mowing down a crowd of people using a car or truck. The list of possible ways to cause murder on a large scale is long. You don't need guns. He might have even found bludgeoning people to death with Medieval weapons of war somewhat satisfying, moreso than shooting them.

He was an English major. I wonder when his creative writing stories and other writing assignments are going to be up for sale on eBay?

Which is probably why it's more difficult to get your hands on those other dangerous substances.

Of course, there's more hip-hop songs about the 9 mm than poison gas. SO people don't think, "AH I'm going to throw a bottle of poison gas into the classroom and kill everybody!" Or poison the campus water supply!

bedheadben

2007-04-18, 03:41 AM

corrected, unfortanatly, and the count is 32 dead now. the gun control laws are terrible in this contry, F-ing NRA
33 now... So sad, and a rude reminder of the Columbine shooting.

sugarloafur

2007-04-18, 03:45 AM

33 now... So sad, and a rude reminder of the Columbine shooting.

32 victims, the gunman certainly doesn't count (that is unless I'm not up to date, but according to NBC, it's 32 victims).

bedheadben

2007-04-18, 03:58 AM

32 victims, the gunman certainly doesn't count (that is unless I'm not up to date, but according to NBC, it's 32 victims).
Ya, I'm not sure if the L.A. times is counting him or not, but I read it on the front page of that newspaper. Oh okay, I see, I just went to the L.A. times website, and it said there were 32 victims, and then himself, your right. Here is the article: L.A. Times Article (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-main17apr17,0,5631814.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

GizmoDuck

2007-04-18, 04:03 AM

I find the talk about having more people carry guns lessening the impact of this lone gunman somewhat offensive. Perhaps you'd have less mass shootings but I wonder how many more shootings you'd have. It would make small incidents/fights degenerate into something much more lethal very quickly.

I'm not sure, but I think in New Zealand even the cops don't carry guns, and there's even less gun violence there.

Yep, Police Officers on general duty don't carry guns. Only recently have they been allowed to carry Tazers and even then I think it's still on trial. If there is a gunman on a shooting spree a special "armed offenders squad" Police unit get's called in.

I've worked as a Doctor in various emergency dept's around NZ for the last 4yrs, and I have only ever seen one gunshot wound (a hunter who shot his foot).

Got an email from James (Siaferide) from this forum to say that him and his friends are Ok. He graduated from Virginia Tech last year.

Ken

Gilby

2007-04-18, 08:16 AM

32 victims, the gunman certainly doesn't count (that is unless I'm not up to date, but according to NBC, it's 32 victims).

Why doesn't the gunman count? Certainly he did die. Certainly he had mental problems. Certainly he is a victim of something. Otherwise, how else would you explain these actions by him.

Allowing guns to be in the hands of law abiding citizens is only a last defense for ones personal safety. Whereas, creating an atmosphere where everyone is free to pursue happiness without restrictions from society should be the primary defense.

sugarloafur

2007-04-18, 11:50 AM

Why doesn't the gunman count? Certainly he did die. Certainly he had mental problems. Certainly he is a victim of something. Otherwise, how else would you explain these actions by him.

He doesn't deserve to be counted as one of the victims of this tragedy. It's tragic that he killed a lot of people, and much less tragic that he killed himself. So, Gilby, I guess you're right. 33 total dead, 32 of which were murdered by some mentally unstable killer.

steveyo

2007-04-18, 12:02 PM

Allowing guns to be in the hands of law abiding citizens is only a last defense for ones personal safety. I might point out that this young man was a law-abiding citizen (or green-card holder - not sure which) prior to his killing spree. One article said he purchased at least one of those guns legally in March. Legal guns are easy to get (maybe too easy?), and their prevalence makes getting illegal ones easier, too.

Gilby

2007-04-18, 12:31 PM

I might point out that this young man was a law-abiding citizen (or green-card holder - not sure which) prior to his killing spree. One article said he purchased at least one of those guns legally in March. Legal guns are easy to get (maybe too easy?), and their prevalence makes getting illegal ones easier, too.
So making something legal makes it easier to get illegal guns? That goes against everything else in economics. People are going to get whats cost effective, which means not getting the illegal guns.

He was obviously not a law abiding citizen. He was breaking the law by having guns on campus. Further, by knowing that the law against having guns on campus, it gives a mass shooter confidence that he will succeed with whatever his killing spree goal was.

johnfoss

2007-04-18, 03:39 PM

According to a psychiatric expert I saw on TV last night, after studying his information and reading some of his writings she described the shooter as "blatantly paranoid" and "blatantly psychotic." Bummer. Crazy people shoulnd't have guns. But the one gun that was reported on yesterday was purchased fully legally, with all the proper paperwork and ID verification, etc.

I know a woman who takes heavy doses of anti-psychotics, is usually heavily medicated when I see her (she's not driving), and owns a 44 Magnum. Legally. Not sure if she has a concealed carrying permit though.

The guy was clearly sick, which makes him a victim, in a way, of his mental illness. But in relation to his crimes the other day he disqualifies himself from being a victim by shooting all those other people first.

My wife works with lots of mentally ill people (human services agency). When they commit crimes, such as destruction of property when they have behavioral problems, it is no less a crime because they have some sort of mental illness. If people want to live in society they have to agree to abide by the same laws, which includes being held accountable to those laws if they have problems, temporary or otherwise. I'm not relating that bit of information to the shootings of course. Fortunately there is no need for a trial, and the years of waiting and drawing-out of closure for the victims and their families. Not that closure will be easy.

sugarloafur

2007-04-18, 05:15 PM

The University of Maine at Orono (where I go to school) had a bomb threat today. Apparently we're not the only ones (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041800508.html).

pete66

2007-04-18, 05:33 PM

It's terrible, I think everyone should try to shoulder some responsibility for the types of people that come out of their society and also be sympathetic and helpful to other cultures.

Do you think that if this guy had grown up and lived in South Korea (where he came from), that he would've been a mass murderer? I think probably a bad ass counterstrike player, going on to be an angry man and maybe a gang member but almost definitely not a muderer. Different society, different weirdo.

Americans aren't the only ones going on shooting sprees either, are they?
I'd say American society is in fact the only one in the world that can reguarly produce the breed of sicko who walk around killing as many randoms as they can before topping themselves. NZ prefers to produce the type of sicko who kill their own babies, or more often, their own step-babies... infanticide I think they call it.

The (dumb) news channels are claiming that this Korean was an intelligent person, but I think the guy was a bit stupid, he was at university majoring in English and I've read a couple of scripts for plays he wrote and I personally know 12 year olds who could do better in all aspects of the writing.

My opinion is that he was probably sexually abused, this could've been the reason his family moved to America (when he was 8), he must've been around violence in his teens too though so either that was from a family member in America or it was his self perpetuating narcissm. I think his ethnicity contributed to his anger too because there are very few dumb asians at universities and they usually slightly segregate themselves so that would have isolated him.

He was a known stalker around the campus so he obviously never got laid.

Apparently he refers to his university peers as "rich kids" so I guess he didn't have a computer but I'd bet money that if he did, he played violent games.

I'd recommend not to give University workers guns, it would only help perpetuate the American gun obsession and desensitization. There should be a law made where people under 25 aren't allowed to buy guns.

In New Zealand if you want a gun you have to pass a test to get your gun license. I haven't done it (only hunters/famers do), it's also illegal to own a handgun or an automatic weapon. This really does help keep the society's thinking of guns as being tools for killing animals, not humans.

I heard a statistic that in some areas of London, the people under a certain wage bracket (which I can't remember), 1/3 of them have guns. :eek:

steveyo

2007-04-18, 06:51 PM

So making something legal makes it easier to get illegal guns? That goes against everything else in economics. People are going to get whats cost effective, which means not getting the illegal guns.Are you purposely miscontruing what I said? Guns are legal in this country, and there are a LOT, therefore making them easy to obtain legally, and easier to obtain illegally. If one CANNOT legally obtain guns, then they're easier to obtain illegally BECAUSE there are so many guns, legal or otherwise, in existance here.

As an analogy, just because one may be too young to obtain alchohol, obtaining it illegally is easier because others can obtain it legally.

He was obviously not a law abiding citizen.He was law-abiding enough to buy a gun legally.

johnfoss

2007-04-18, 07:16 PM

Do you think that if this guy had grown up and lived in South Korea (where he came from), that he would've been a mass murderer?I don't know enough about Korean culture to form an opinion. But being paranoid and psychotic is a medical condition. His surroundings, though they may have contributed to his problems, are not the major cause. Mental illness of a chemical nature has nothing to do with what happened to you when you were a kid. It would be interesting to hear from his parents though.

I'd say American society is in fact the only one in the world that can reguarly produce the breed of sicko who walk around killing as many randoms as they can before topping themselves. NZ prefers to produce the type of sicko who kill their own babies, or more often, their own step-babies... Unfortunately we have those too. I do not think we are the only country that produces random killers though, but our random killers have much easier access to guns, so that's definitely a factor.

The (dumb) news channels are claiming that this Korean was an intelligent person...I heard it from one of his English professors. She sounded like a very cool, and caring person. He was probably not a great student though, for various reasons. You can be highly intelligent and mentally ill though.

My opinion is that he was probably sexually abused...Well Dr. Pete, I think I'll wait until some actual investigation is concluded on that one. From what I heard of his psychological makeup, he didn't require any childhood abuse to snap, though any kinds of problems like that could have been contributing factors.

I'd recommend not to give University workers guns, it would only help perpetuate the American gun obsession and desensitization.I agree with you there. Or, in our terms, allowing university workers to carry guns on campus. I do not think that would be a solution, as I mentioned in an earlier post.

cathwood

2007-04-18, 07:43 PM

Mental illness of a chemical nature has nothing to do with what happened to you when you were a kid.

This is just one opinion.

Another popular opinion in the uk is that the development of psychosis is a combination of individual vulnerability to stress and life events (including what happened when you were a kid).

Jethro

2007-04-18, 07:52 PM

Economists have linked a significant drop in crime since then to the legalization of abortion.

Is your source Freakonomics or something else? That example that Levitt used was, but his own admission, one explanation among many for the drop in crime.

Borgschulze

2007-04-18, 09:01 PM

Try killing 30 people with a knife...

This is an unbelievable tragedy. It makes me sick to think about it. I can't understand how this stuff keeps happening in our country. Something has got to change.
Oh man, don't make me go play Counter-Strike.

Gilby

2007-04-18, 09:21 PM

I'd recommend not to give University workers guns, it would only help perpetuate the American gun obsession and desensitization. There should be a law made where people under 25 aren't allowed to buy guns.

Where is this obsession you talk about? Most people do not carry guns in America.

Gilby

2007-04-18, 10:05 PM

Is your source Freakonomics or something else? That example that Levitt used was, but his own admission, one explanation among many for the drop in crime.
Enlighten me. Got a link or citation?

Jethro

2007-04-19, 01:40 AM

Enlighten me. Got a link or citation?

In the book, Freakonomics, (http://www.freakonomics.com/thebook.php) Steven Levitt does some goofy stuff with statistics to show their power and additionally show how they can be abused. One the cases he uses is the legalization of abortion's effect on crime. It has been a while since I read it (great read, btw), so I am going from (poor) memory. But if I remember correctly, he made an argument for abortion decreasing crime, then broke his own argument apart with other data.

BillyTheMountain

2007-04-19, 01:53 AM

In the book, Freakonomics, (http://www.freakonomics.com/thebook.php) Steven Levitt does some goofy stuff with statistics to show their power and additionally show how they can be abused. One the cases he uses is the legalization of abortion's effect on crime. It has been a while since I read it (great read, btw), so I am going from (poor) memory. But if I remember correctly, he made an argument for abortion decreasing crime, then broke his own argument apart with other data.

It's more likely unwanted children develop into criminals than wanted children? Do you think it's so far out?

A year 2000 analysis by the NYTimes of 102 rampage killings found that most were perpetrated during the day, by educated white men, seven of the 102 were Asian. About a third took their own lives.

pete66

2007-04-19, 02:04 AM

Where is this obsession you talk about? Most people do not carry guns in America.

The obsession lies in the statistics and laws about guns, other countries don't play with or want to play with guns the same way.

In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States.

Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America.

Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence.

Well Dr. Pete...
You go read his plays and tell me he wasn't sexually abused. It's filled with crap like "so Dave's stepdad started touching his leg." Dave wanted to kill him. etc. Simple minded, uncreative, petulant twistedness if you ask me.

john_childs

2007-04-19, 02:17 AM

Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America.

Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence.
Most of the gun violence is suicide. There is a difference between suicide and homicide. Suicides will still happen whether or not the person has access to a gun. Japan is proof of that.

And be careful of gun violence statistics lumping in children and teens. To inflate the numbers they will often lump in 20 and 21 year olds or even other 20 somethings. Gun violence numbers are so full of BS and different definitions that you can't believe any of them at face value.

john_childs

2007-04-19, 02:19 AM

A Wall Street Journal editorial

Cho's Madness
The Virginia Tech massacre, guns and pop sociology (http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009956).

pete66

2007-04-19, 02:49 AM

Most of the gun violence is suicide
Nope, most of it's homicide.

In 1995, 3.280 children and teenagers were murdred with guns, 1,450 commited suicide with guns, and 440 died in unintentional shootings. Firearms killed a total of 5,285 of our young people. National Center for Health Statistics. 1997

To inflate the numbers they will often lump in 20 and 21 year olds or even other 20 somethings.
Even if these gun statistics are exaggerated for USA 1000% (which they're not), USA would STILL be about 5 times worse than the next most gun obsessed country.

benjaug

2007-04-19, 02:54 AM

That was a great editorial. I like the last section about ideas for the gun control issue. I find the very last point the author made especially truthful yet frightening. No matter how much we dissect this disaster, give psychiatric cases extra care, and improve school campus security, nothing will ever change the inevitable fact that there will still be people who can go beyond our rational explanations and are able to kill upwards of 30 people in cold blood. This is possibly because of the fact that we only look at these tragedies rationally. Our scientists look at facts and find a rational reason for these incidents, but what truth can come of this when the killers are the polar opposites of what these investigators look for. Our reasoning must match much of the killers thoughts and feelings if we wish to find truth in these crimes, but right now we are not at this point.

john_childs

2007-04-19, 03:46 AM

Nope, most of it's homicide.

In 1995, 3.280 children and teenagers were murdred with guns, 1,450 commited suicide with guns, and 440 died in unintentional shootings. Firearms killed a total of 5,285 of our young people. National Center for Health Statistics. 1997
The statistics for "children" lump in 20 year old gang bangers who are killing other 20 year old gang bangers. The numbers do not mean what you think they mean at first blush. Don't be mislead by the word "children".

wobbling bear

2007-04-19, 08:16 AM

That was a great editorial.
don't fully agree ...
for instance: "Two generations ago, colleges felt an obligation to act in loco parentis." ... Well in my wife's opinion (she is a college teacher in a "difficult" zone) the reverse is true : too many parents gave up education and want the college as a substitute. But I do not think that may be of any influence on extreme erratic behaviour.
this said amok behaviour has always existed ... just the weapons (and their culture) have evolved. But the basic reasons (or un-reasons) will always been there....

The.Mars.Volta

2007-04-19, 10:43 AM

you know there's already a joke about the shooting, who wants to hear it?

habbywall

2007-04-19, 11:35 AM

The guy sent in a package to NBC, it had some videos of him talking about it. It was pretty eery.

cathwood

2007-04-19, 12:30 PM

the point about having so many guns is that often these things are impulsive rather than planned in advance. If guns are freely available then they will be more readily at hand if someone has the urge to shoot everyone. If they have to go off and buy a gun from somewhere then the urge may have dissipated by the time they get one.

Borges

2007-04-19, 03:51 PM

If it is not the access to guns, what is the problem?
The schools shootings happen much more often in the US than any other country.
Cho's Madness
The Virginia Tech massacre, guns and pop sociology. (http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009956)
The "restraints and values instilled by families, teachers, coaches and pastors" where weakened all over the western world.

Hopefully it isn't just that the trend among suicidal young men hasn't fully spread to the rest of the world yet.

Gilby

2007-04-19, 04:17 PM

If it is not the access to guns, what is the problem?
The schools shootings happen much more often in the US than any other country.
The United States government is set up mostly to the benefit of the large corporations who line up to get government contracts. The US government has made a system that deprives the people of being able to take care of them self. They have done this by manipulating the money supply (issue heavily inflated bills of credit as money), heavily taxing the people (the collective taxation rate is almost half), limiting education (they make a lot of restrictions and requirements), limiting healthcare (controls and suppression have increased costs and availability), and terrorizing the people (we are in a constant state of fear due to the wars they've created). All of that has created an atmosphere where people are not getting what they need to be happy. This creates mental problems which have lead to suicides and murders. The choice of using guns just happens to be one of many possibilities.

MuniAddict

2007-04-19, 04:40 PM

The United States government is set up mostly to the benefit of the large corporations who line up to get government contracts. The US government has made a system that deprives the people of being able to take care of them self. They have done this by manipulating the money supply (issue heavily inflated bills of credit as money), heavily taxing the people (the collective taxation rate is almost half), limiting education (they make a lot of restrictions and requirements), limiting healthcare (controls and suppression have increased costs and availability), and terrorizing the people (we are in a constant state of fear due to the wars they've created). All of that has created an atmosphere where people are not getting what they need to be happy. This creates mental problems which have lead to suicides and murders. The choice of using guns just happens to be one of many possibilities.I was wondering how long it would take for someone to blame our government for the 32 murders, instead of mass murderer CHO.

johnfoss

2007-04-19, 05:16 PM

You go read his plays and tell me he wasn't sexually abused. It's filled with crap like "so Dave's stepdad started touching his leg." Dave wanted to kill him. etc. Simple minded, uncreative, petulant twistedness if you ask me.Having seen some of the video clips on TV last night, I can see the writing of those (scripted) speeches was not very eloquent. I would definitely expect more from an English major who had prepared it in advance. But then again, he was somewhere over the psychological edge.

I just would have said it *looks like* he was sexually abused as a kid, or similar, rather than assuming it. I imagine when we finally hear from the parents, there will be more disturbing news, or more indicators of future problems.

I will point out that this man is currently the most popular man in America, at least based on media coverage. His photos and videos were shown constantly for most of the evening. He definitely got press. More fuel for copycats...

cathwood

2007-04-19, 07:40 PM

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to blame our government for the 32 murders, instead of mass murderer CHO.

That's right, we have a highly individualistic society we mustn't blame anything except the individual, it's not the done thing.

Gilby

2007-04-19, 08:55 PM

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to blame our government for the 32 murders, instead of mass murderer CHO.

Oh, is that what I said? I was being general and obviously there are going to be other factors and maybe entirely different reasons in this case.

Regardless, what would cause someone to be like this? Most mental problems are triggered through the person's environment, so in order to prevent events like this in the future, we have to look at what this guy was a victim of instead of just dismissing him as clearly just a psycho with no other explanation.

Now, when you solve a social issue, usually you will find that the root of all evil is the government.

MuniAddict

2007-04-19, 09:05 PM

Oh, is that what I said? I was being general and obviously there are going to be other factors and maybe entirely different reasons in this case.

Regardless, what would cause someone to be like this? Most mental problems are triggered through the person's environment, so in order to prevent events like this in the future, we have to look at what this guy was a victim of instead of just dismissing him as clearly just a psycho with no other explanation.

Now, when you solve a social issue, usually you will find that the root of all evil is the government.Yes, you clearly inferred that when you wrote: "The US government has made a system that deprives the people of being able to take care of them self", and: "This creates mental problems which have lead to suicides and murders."

The bottom line is, this guy Cho is *SOLEY RESPONSIBLE* for his murderous actions against innocent human beings who sadly happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. My heart goes out to the VICTIMS and their families, not the murderer, who deserves NO sympathy. HE, and HE alone is resposible for his actions.

thejdw

2007-04-19, 09:08 PM

you know there's already a joke about the shooting, who wants to hear it?
type it

Gilby

2007-04-19, 09:23 PM

Soley responsible? Then... There is no gun issue. There is no social issue.

MuniAddict

2007-04-19, 11:22 PM

Soley responsible? Then... There is no gun issue. There is no social issue.Yeah, that's right; SOLELY Responsible. Just as if someone murders by purposely plowing his/her car into a crowd of innocent people, or someone (OJ) brutally murders 2 innocent people with a knife, or all those serial killers, like Dahmer, who murdered, dismembered, and canninbilized his victims...YES, THEY ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE! You didn't do it; I didn't do it, society didn't do it. THEY DID IT! There are also many, many people in the US and the world who deal with depression, had terrible upbringings, whatever, and don't go out and slaughter innocent human beings.

surfer1024

2007-04-19, 11:27 PM

johnfoss

2007-04-20, 05:33 AM

I agree with Terry. Most of this discussion about social issues is more about how to guard against such things happening in the future more than they are about what's already happened. Learning from "our" mistakes and all.

Problem is, you can't lock up everyone who's depressed or occasionally has suicidal feelings. You can't make 2,000,000 guns disappear. But maybe we can put more energy toward being nicer people; nicer parents, nicer friends, nicer to those around us. And maybe less energy into legislating everything to death. I think many of our problems are social. A lot of it starts with the home and childhood. I think a lot of today's adults had big gaps in their parenting maybe.

Borges

2007-04-20, 05:36 AM

Yeah, that's right; SOLELY Responsible. Just as if someone murders by purposely plowing his/her car into a crowd of innocent people, or someone (OJ) brutally murders 2 innocent people with a knife, or all those serial killers, like Dahmer, who murdered, dismembered, and canninbilized his victims...YES, THEY ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE! You didn't do it; I didn't do it, society didn't do it. THEY DID IT! There are also many, many people in the US and the world who deal with depression, had terrible upbringings, whatever, and don't go out and slaughter innocent human beings.
The question Gilby was answering was about why there are people who want to do what Cho did. There's no doubt he's personally responsible, because whatever he might have been exposed to while he grew up, there's no excuse for taking it out on innocent people the way he did.

cathwood

2007-04-20, 06:44 AM

The question Gilby was answering was about why there are people who want to do what Cho did. There's no doubt he's personally responsible, because whatever he might have been exposed to while he grew up, there's no excuse for taking it out on innocent people the way he did.

It's not an excuse, it's an awareness of social influences. None of us grow up in a vacuum. There is somethings about the USA (Gilby's mention of your citizens growing up in a country that is always at war and a government that seems to foster paranoia and hysteria (looking from the outside) makes a lot of sense in this respect) that provoke violent mass murders more so than in other countries represented on this forum. The response to misery is socially constructed in your country by the construction of what is acceptable, what is seen to be unacceptable violence and so on.

His grandad is quoted on the front of my husband's newspaper as saying he is "glad the son of a bitch is dead". Sounds like a happy family background.

The.Mars.Volta

2007-04-20, 08:59 AM

type it
nah i've decided not yet. i'll tell you when this issue has died down a bit.
it's a bit racist and mean cause its a joke about a mass killing

i didnt make this joke up.

Gilby

2007-04-20, 01:19 PM

Yeah, that's right; SOLELY Responsible. Just as if someone murders by purposely plowing his/her car into a crowd of innocent people, or someone (OJ) brutally murders 2 innocent people with a knife, or all those serial killers, like Dahmer, who murdered, dismembered, and canninbilized his victims...YES, THEY ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE! You didn't do it; I didn't do it, society didn't do it. THEY DID IT!

So is each troop in Iraq that has killed innocent Iraqis solely responsible for their own actions?

There are also many, many people in the US and the world who deal with depression, had terrible upbringings, whatever, and don't go out and slaughter innocent human beings.

There are many different kinds of depression, and other mental disorders, so just because others have handled their mental disorders in a peaceful way, does not mean that everyone can. For every person with a netal disorder, the history of the problem is different, so everyone is going to deal with it in a different way.

MuniAddict

2007-04-20, 04:43 PM

So is each troop in Iraq that has killed innocent Iraqis solely responsible for their own actions?

There are many different kinds of depression, and other mental disorders, so just because others have handled their mental disorders in a peaceful way, does not mean that everyone can. For every person with a netal disorder, the history of the problem is different, so everyone is going to deal with it in a different way.Gilby what's your point here? It sounds like you are making excuses for this madman. I hope your not but it sure seems like it.

And to compare his vicious act of cold-blooded, premeditated murder with our brave men & women who are fighting (Iran-sactioned) terrorism in Iraq-and who are putting their lives on the line 24 hours a day-is outragious! I'm done here.

Gilby

2007-04-20, 04:55 PM

My point is, they are both killing. One just happens to be accepted by much of society and the other does not.

I'm not making excuses, but instead I am not dismissing the reality that people kill others thinking they are justified in doing so, whether it's a socially acceptable thing to do or not. Why or what causes them to think they are justified? Is there really a justified excuse for killing others?

FYI, Iraq has nothing to do with us fighting terrorism. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq posed no clear and present danger to Americans.

BluntRM

2007-04-20, 05:22 PM

My point is, they are both killing. One just happens to be accepted by much of society and the other does not.

I'm not making excuses, but instead I am not dismissing the reality that people kill others thinking they are justified in doing so, whether it's a socially acceptable thing to do or not. Why or what causes them to think they are justified? Is there really a justified excuse for killing others?

Sounds like the transmutation of morals- careful that you don't become a nihilist through all of that reasoning.

Gilby

2007-04-20, 05:41 PM

What's wrong with being a nihilist? And which definition are you refering to... existence is senseless, or existing economic and social institutions needs a revolution?

I think it's clear that I would like a restoration of our constitutional republic, which does mean the destruction of many of our economic and social institutions. So, what's wrong with being a nihilist like that of the revolutionaries in 1776?

BluntRM

2007-04-20, 06:23 PM

Clarity, being a free thinker is a dangerous thing-- even Nieztsche, the great hyperborean, cracked eventually. When you erase the cultural context to compare an action with like action, the burden of re-definition is again yours, and when it becomes obvious that for all human intention the world is random, you become a nihilist.

We're on a threadjack, but I can see where you're trying to build a bridge between one act of violence to another to remove the illusion of authority by comparison.

Oh yeah, fixed :D
I think it's clear that I would like a restoration of our constitutional rhetoric
...Libertarians... :D

BillyTheMountain

2007-04-20, 06:52 PM

The bottom line is, this guy Cho is *SOLEY RESPONSIBLE* for his murderous actions against innocent human beings who sadly happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. ... HE, and HE alone is resposible for his actions.

And are you SOLELY RESPONSIBLE for all your actions? Your excellent school achievement? Your incredible unicycling skills? You social soave faire? Your honesty, integrity, and moral courage?

You can't thank anyone for how you turned out?

You can't thank anyone for your achievements?

Wow!

You really are SOLELY RESPONSIBLE!!!

BTM

Blegas78

2007-04-20, 07:05 PM

And are you SOLELY RESPONSIBLE for all your actions? Your excellent school achievement? Your incredible unicycling skills? You social soave faire? Your honesty, integrity, and moral courage?

You can't thank anyone for how you turned out?

You can't thank anyone for your achievements?

Wow!

You really are SOLELY RESPONSIBLE!!!

BTM

So do you blame everyone for everything that's wrong with you?

Does everybody else tell you what to do?

I know that I'm independent, I guess you're not?

Of course the people who I hang around with do affect what defines me as a person, but it is clearly not solely what defines me. There are many people who might live an awful life like possibly what Cho did, but I know people who turned out with a great heart as a result of it. There are also people who probably live a great life but are mentally disturbed.

BillyTheMountain

2007-04-20, 07:19 PM

So do you blame everyone for everything that's wrong with you?

What's wrong with me?

Blegas78

2007-04-20, 07:33 PM

What's wrong with me?

So are you 100% perfect then? I certainly don't know anything specific, I don't need to know, and I don't care to know. I do know that nobody is 100% perfect. We are not robots, we're human.

So with that small percentage that makes every human imperfect, is that something that we should impose on someone else as their fault?

I took a physics test today. I missed a problem because I forgot to study the complete material. This is obviously my teacher's fault because they don't teach very well.

Clearly that doesn't make any sense.

BillyTheMountain

2007-04-20, 07:42 PM

I took a physics test today. I missed a problem because I forgot to study the complete material. This is obviously my teacher's fault because they don't teach very well.

You have just entered into the realm of attributional style. Not truth:

The variety of attributional models that have attempted to describe how we explain our own outcomes, and those of others, continue to find meaningful real-world applications. One such model, based on research from experimental social and clinical psychology, depressive attributional style, has fostered a large number of research studies. By definition, depressive attribution style is related to prolonged exposure to uncontrollable aversive events, which result in motivational, cognitive, and behavioral deficits (Schill and Marcus, 1998). In lay terms, it is “learned helplessness.” This form of ‘helplessness’ occurs when individuals believe positive outcomes or the avoidance of aversive consequences, is unobtainable (Seligman, 1990). Research has shown that depressive attribution style is strongly related to depression (Seligman, Abramson, Semmel, & von Baeyer, 1979; Metalsky & Joiner, 1992).

Blegas78

2007-04-20, 08:08 PM

MuniAddict

2007-04-20, 08:20 PM

My point is, they are both killing. WRONG! Or brave men and women in uniform are carrying out orders to *kill* the enemy. That's the nature of warfare, and it's not pretty. Are the cases of innocent people being accendentally killed? Unfortunately, yes. Happens in *every* war, even the one's you probably support/supported.

This Cho lunatic MURDERED 32 innocent human beings in cold blood, after having planned it out in detail, hoping he would become famous for his evil deads, which, thanks to the media, he has!:mad:

Please stop trying to equate this tragedy with the war in Iraq to fit some political agenda, and see it for what it is; a heneous brutal act, carried out by a sick, twisted mass murderer. Again, if he had slaughtered 32 people by plowing his car into them, would you be blaming it on the car manufacturers?

Gilby

2007-04-20, 08:51 PM

WRONG! Or brave men and women in uniform are carrying out orders to *kill* the enemy. This Cho lunatic MURDERED 32 innocent human beings in cold blood, after having planned it out in detail, hoping he would become famous for his evil deads, which, thanks to the media, he has!:mad:
So in one case, the soldiers are being ordered, based on premeditated plans, to kill. In the other case, the individual had premeditated plans to kill.

In the soldier case, are they at all responsible for their own actions? By being ordered, are they forced in to such a situation, with no control? Is it a social and psychological thing that forced them into such a state of having to kill?

If they are not responsible, then they must have no free will and no control over their own actions. But then you claim sole responsibility lays on Cho, as if he is fully to blame for his psychological condition.

In my opinion, the human mind is very vulnerable to social influence (and to psychotropic medications). The soldiers are in Iraq on the belief that they are helping their country, whether a fact or not. Cho, in his video mentioned that he did it for others.

Please stop trying to equate this tragedy with the war in Iraq to fit some political agenda, and see it for what it is; a heneous brutal act, carried out by a sick, twisted mass murderer. Again, if he had slaughtered 32 people by plowing his car into them, would you be blaming it on the car manufacturers?
Yes, the car manufacturers should be looked at to see if there was a manufacturing defect.

Blegas78

2007-04-20, 08:56 PM

In my opinion, the human mind is very vulnerable to social influence. The soldiers are in Iraq on the belief that they are helping their country, whether a fact or not. Cho, in his video mentioned that he did it to save others.

So you believe what Cho believed was a fact? You think he was a completely sane person then?

Gilby

2007-04-20, 09:05 PM

So you believe what Cho believed was a fact? You think he was a completely sane person then? He was recently in psych treatment and he was on psychotropic medications. Psychotropic medications can be helpful, and in other cases it can be deadly. So whether sane or not, at the moment, he probably believed his thoughts.

Blegas78

2007-04-20, 09:09 PM

He was recently in psych treatment and he was on psychotropic medications. Psychotropic medications can be helpful, and in other cases it can be deadly.

Now you blame medication? (I actually hate all forms of drugs, illegal, OTC or prescription)

You didn't answer my question. Do you believe that Cho's actions were justified? Do you believe that if he was completely sane then he would have done the same thing?

Edit: Wow, you can edit posts without the "last edited:" thing!

BillyTheMountain

2007-04-20, 09:17 PM

A person with a depressive attributional style typically blames one's self for the outcome of their situations. A person with an optimistic attributional style tends to blame outside sources for their own failures and mishaps.

Do you know what style Cho was? Did he blame himself (depressive) for everything or did he blame others (optimistic)?

Also, could you put people's work into your own words, or at least cite whoever actually wrote what you copied? :o

A person with a depressive attributional style typically blames one's self for the outcome of their BAD situations, not good outcomes.

There is no REALITY here. Maybe sometimes a teacher gives an unfair test. Htere is no OBJECTIVE judgement on that. maybe you didn't study ENOUGH. How much is ENOUGH?

But you don't give anyone credit for your excellent outcome????

That stuff is all over Seligmans' work, and they entered cites. You could google it to find it too.

Blegas78

2007-04-20, 09:32 PM

A person with a depressive attributional style typically blames one's self for the outcome of their BAD situations, not good outcomes.

There is no REALITY here. Maybe sometimes a teacher gives an unfair test. Htere is no OBJECTIVE judgement on that. maybe you didn't study ENOUGH. How much is ENOUGH?

But you don't give anyone credit for your excellent outcome????

That stuff is all over Seligmans' work, and they entered cites. You could google it to find it too.

Thank you for using the word "sometimes." Now you clearly understand that things are sometimes accredited to others, but other times to one's self. In the case of the test, a teacher might give an unfair test, but more often than not a person blames the teacher for being a bad teacher rather than having a teacher give an unfair test.

Surely I give credit where credit is due. I hope that you don't blame everyone for the faults that you encounter.

Those words didn't come from you or Seligman, they came from Mindy Newquist. Next time simply say, "As stated from Mindy Newquist:" otherwise I'm led to believe that you took the initiative to do the research, now the person that deserves credit. Like I said, I like to give credit where credit is due.

Gilby

2007-04-20, 09:33 PM

Now you blame medication? (I actually hate all forms of drugs, illegal, OTC or prescription)
No, but someone who is mentally ill and is then put on psychotropic meds may have an undesired effect.
You didn't answer my question. Do you believe that Cho's actions were justified? Do you believe that if he was completely sane then he would have done the same thing?

That was your question? Wow. OK, then. I don't know what really happened to say if any act such as that was justified. But I would highly doubt that there were any circumstances here that could ever make this to be considered justified. IMO, killing is only justified if there was a clear and present danger to one's life.

Gilby

2007-04-21, 12:27 PM

Conspiracy theorists are having a field day with this one.

Blacksburg, Virginia is home of the MK-ULTRA program
Cho was on SSRIs.
Local police were ordered to stand down and wait for backup from the fed. The fed took control after last falls gun shooting there.
The success level was too high, for someone untrained and just using those kinds of handguns.
"Ismail Ax" which is supected to be an Islam thing... may be to encourage more islam hatred.Oh, and check out this photo...

dan de man

2007-04-21, 01:22 PM

Oh great, there goes the second amendment fading away.

When guns are prohibited, law abiding citizens will obey the law, criminals will not.

In today's society of limitations on gun ownership and carrying laws, those law abiding citizens who would have taken it upon them self to get trained and protect the lives and liberties of them self and those around them, were not present at this shooting and were not able to stop this person before killing many victims.
let have a look here in aus
guns are pretty much phrohibited(sp) and our murder rate per capita is as low as hell

explain

Gilby

2007-04-21, 01:34 PM

let have a look here in aus
guns are pretty much phrohibited(sp) and our murder rate per capita is as low as hell

explain

Are you implying that guns in people's hands drive them to murder?

I think you are forgetting what causes people to murder. Guns are just the method of choice in many cases.

dan de man

2007-04-21, 01:39 PM

touch'e

I have no counter

BillyTheMountain

2007-04-21, 01:54 PM

He was recently in psych treatment and he was on psychotropic medications. Psychotropic medications can be helpful, and in other cases it can be deadly. So whether sane or not, at the moment, he probably believed his thoughts.

Cho bought the gun from a gun shop ILLEGALLY.

When discovered, he would have faced federal prison time for lying on his application--he must have denied having been in a psychiatric institution.--front page, today's NYTimes.

john_childs

2007-04-22, 01:47 AM

There is another NY Times story about Cho.

Before Deadly Rage, a Life Consumed by a Troubling Silence (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/us/22vatech.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&ref=us&oref=slogin)
In death, Seung-Hui Cho finally spoke, but it was through the QuickTime videos received by NBC and broadcast on Wednesday. A pastor at a Korean church in Centreville watched the tapes on television with his family. He told the Seoul newspaper JoongAng Ilbo, “All my family said that was not the Seung-Hui we knew. It was the first time we saw him speaking in full sentences.”
What a strange world he lived in inside his head.

I wonder if his parents being immigrants from S. Korea made them less likely to recognize the mental illness and seek the kind of treatment he needed. Culture difference and all in how people react to mental illness. It is possible that a family raised in S. Korea would respond differently to a family member with a mental illness than a typical US family. Not that the US has a good record in dealing with mental illness as it is.

GizmoDuck

2007-04-22, 03:15 AM

Are you implying that guns in people's hands drive them to murder?

I think you are forgetting what causes people to murder. Guns are just the method of choice in many cases.

By that logic, perhaps all passengers should be allowed to carry guns on planes. It's just a method of choice, if they are going to do it anyway.

Gilby

2007-04-22, 11:11 AM

By that logic, perhaps all passengers should be allowed to carry guns on planes. It's just a method of choice, if they are going to do it anyway.
That's a stretch of logic. You're taking a heavily controlled environment and comparing it to ones that are not.

iridemymuni

2007-04-22, 01:52 PM

dont forget the port arthur massacre i think it was, many years ago.

Hazmat

2007-04-22, 01:54 PM

dont forget the port arthur massacre i think it was, many years ago.
That is very true. I think that's when the gun laws here became really strict.

iridemymuni

2007-04-22, 01:56 PM

That is very true. I think that's when the gun laws here became really strict.

yeah it was, and i think more people died than in america's worst. but then again thats ilke the only one we've ever really had.

i think what gilby is saying is right about their method of choice, but there is a bit of mentality abotu having a gun and them wanting to use it that may drive them to do it aswell.

pete66

2007-04-22, 03:53 PM

The solution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juLQBeZXmPU

BillyTheMountain

2007-04-23, 02:03 AM

On an average day in the USA, about 80 people die from gunshot wounds, and another 150 or so are injured by gunshot wounds.

Gilby

2007-04-23, 02:47 AM

On an average day in the USA, about 80 people die from gunshot wounds, and another 150 or so are injured by gunshot wounds. On an average day in the USA, guns are used in about 6,000 incidences for self-defense. About ten percent of that is by women to defend against rape.

siafirede

2007-04-23, 06:42 AM

I dont know exactly where this thread has gone... but I have finally been able to get an internet connection and call all my friends and everyone I know is alright.

Cho was in some of my friends english classes, and they just described him as being quiet and a loner.

A lot of my friends had the engineering professor as their professor and they are still taking everything pretty hard.

I still can't believe all this happened.

I don't know where this is going to take the U.S. with policy changes or anything, but all I do know is that I am glad that my friends are alright.

-James

pete66

2007-04-23, 09:48 AM

On an average day in the USA, guns are used in about 6,000 incidences for self-defense. About ten percent of that is by women to defend against rape.
Well maybe most of those rapists wouldn't be rapists if they'd grown up in a country without guns. Human civilization should be past needing guns by now, it honestly seems ape like to me to have people walking around carrying guns incase they need to kill anyone that day.

Sure let women protect themselves but use pepperspray, it's just as effective.

cathwood

2007-04-23, 10:21 AM

The bottom line is, this guy Cho is *SOLEY RESPONSIBLE* for his murderous actions against innocent human beings who sadly happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. My heart goes out to the VICTIMS and their families, not the murderer, who deserves NO sympathy. HE, and HE alone is resposible for his actions.

Research on trauma has shown that if you are subjected to traumatic experiences (such as child neglect or abuse, war, etc) when you are a child this will alter your developing brain structure (if you want any more details than this I will be happy to supply them). Children in this type of environment live in a constant state of fear, only changing when it becomes terror. The brain chemicals involved in constant stress cause changes in the brain. Also the brain does not develop such processes as empathy (basically caring about how other people are feeling), humour and the ability to regulate their emotions because it is constantly involved in trying to keep safe. This damage to the growing brain is often irrepairable if the child remains in that environment throughout childhood. (see Perry et al, 1995 for a good explanation).

So, if you cannot control your emotions or care about other people because your brain has been damaged when you are growing up, how can your behaviour be completely your fault?

Any more than someone with ADHD being able to control how active they are or shy people being able to control how shy they are.

(PS, although this may be a gross generalisation and may offend some people (I don't mean to) but it seems to me like the USA is a place where, what with terrorist attacks and the response of a very paranoid media and maybe government, also with the constantly being at war thing, not to mention the aweful childhood abuse stuff that goes on everywhere, and the gangs things, etc, that there may be a great deal of traumatised children around. Perhaps this accounts for the stuff like all the shootings and the rapings etc that are going on, more than the availability of guns)

Gilby

2007-04-23, 11:47 AM

Well maybe most of those rapists wouldn't be rapists if they'd grown up in a country without guns. Human civilization should be past needing guns by now, it honestly seems ape like to me to have people walking around carrying guns incase they need to kill anyone that day.
Handguns aren't that common, except in drug zones.

Oh, and some rape statistics from the UN:
United States: 0.30 per 1000
New Zealand: 0.21 per 1000
Canada: 0.73 per 1000
Australia: 0.78 per 1000

Canada has very strict gun laws. Australia was mentioned in this thread to have strict guns laws. And I assume NZ does as well. I see no correlation between this.

The biggest problem with gun free zones, is that you are disarming people and essentially saying to criminals that you can come attack us because we are unarmed. Then you have the police force at Virginia Tech that were cowards and didn't attempt to go in to deal with the shooter. If you are going to disarm everyone, at least put the nessessary police force in place to protect the people. But, then, you run in to the problem of it becoming a police state, which is a huge risk to freedom. Instead, why not allow well trained civilians to carry a gun, if they deem it to be appropriate for the circumstance? Wouldn't you much rather have someone on the inside ready to disarm a criminal, instead of police cowardly waiting outside?

cathwood

2007-04-23, 12:15 PM

pete66

2007-04-23, 02:11 PM

Handguns aren't that common, except in drug zones.

Oh, and some rape statistics from the UN:
United States: 0.30 per 1000
New Zealand: 0.21 per 1000
Canada: 0.73 per 1000
Australia: 0.78 per 1000

Canada has very strict gun laws. Australia was mentioned in this thread to have strict guns laws. And I assume NZ does as well. I see no correlation between this.

The biggest problem with gun free zones, is that you are disarming people and essentially saying to criminals that you can come attack us because we are unarmed. Then you have the police force at Virginia Tech that were cowards and didn't attempt to go in to deal with the shooter. If you are going to disarm everyone, at least put the nessessary police force in place to protect the people. But, then, you run in to the problem of it becoming a police state, which is a huge risk to freedom. Instead, why not allow well trained civilians to carry a gun, if they deem it to be appropriate for the circumstance? Wouldn't you much rather have someone on the inside ready to disarm a criminal, instead of police cowardly waiting outside?
Ok, you bring up some good points and yeah, it seems guns and rape statistics aren't directly linked.

I still don't see why you're all for random people owning guns, it only leads to more bad people becoming killers. Look at the big picture and ask yourself, will it become legal for kiwis to buy handguns, because they have a drivers license? No, absolutely not, never. Will it become illegal for the average American to own a gun? yeah, eventually (imo).

Gilby

2007-04-23, 02:40 PM

I still don't see why you're all for random people owning guns, it only leads to more bad people becoming killers.

Random people? There are two types of people that will get guns. Criminals, who will get them regardless of any laws making it illegal. Law abiding citizens who are confident and trained to safely carry and use a gun.

Will it become illegal for the average American to own a gun? yeah, eventually (imo).

That'll only happen under martial law, which unfourtunately is drawing nearer and nearer. Laws were passed last year to make it easier. And officials have said that the next big terror attack will result in the invocation of it. :( That means the constitution is dead, at least what was left of it.

I don't think the USA will give up their guns, without a fight. The country was founded on declaring independence from tyrannical rule, so we have a strong resistance to letting them take away the means to defend ourself from tyranny Freedom isn't free, and it can't be had unless you are willing to fight to keep it.

Borges

2007-04-23, 05:44 PM

Random people? There are two types of people that will get guns. Criminals, who will get them regardless of any laws making it illegal. Law abiding citizens who are confident and trained to safely carry and use a gun.
Isn't it a bit simplistic to divide people into those two groups? It almost sounds like criminals are a whole different species.

tobbogonist

2007-04-23, 09:42 PM

Freedom isn't free.
It costs a buck-oh-five.

is there a meaning in that buck-oh-five? or is it purely there for amusment value?

where trey and matt being witty or not?

dan de man

2007-04-23, 09:45 PM

and if you dont throw in your buck or five

random people not getting guns
*cough* virgina tech shooterist*cough*

pete66

2007-04-23, 11:15 PM

and if you dont throw in your buck or five

random people not getting guns
*cough* virgina tech shooterist*cough*
Keep giving guns to random people and you'll soon find that some random people are insane psycho killers...

musketman

2007-04-23, 11:31 PM

I don't think the USA will give up their guns, without a fight. .

I wouldn't give up my guns. I dont think alot of ppl will either. So good luck with it when it happens...lol

GizmoDuck

2007-04-23, 11:50 PM

Random people? There are two types of people that will get guns. Criminals, who will get them regardless of any laws making it illegal. Law abiding citizens who are confident and trained to safely carry and use a gun.

I don't think you can draw such a line in society. Many people break minor laws, and many hardened criminals follow the law on most occasions. There are so many situations where having a gun freely available in the pocket of your average "law abiding citizen" could degenerate into something pretty lethal.

Going back to my airplane example- so why don't you think people should be allowed to carry guns? Surely if they were all law abiding citizens it wouldn't be an issue. And if there was a "criminal" terrorist, they would more easily be stopped if other passengers had guns.

Oh yeah, maybe they might miss and put a hole in the fuselage or something...but then, the terrorist with the illegally acquired gun could do the same too.

forrestunifreak

2007-04-24, 12:34 AM

The biggest problem with gun free zones, is that you are disarming people and essentially saying to criminals that you can come attack us because we are unarmed. Then you have the police force at Virginia Tech that were cowards and didn't attempt to go in to deal with the shooter. If you are going to disarm everyone, at least put the nessessary police force in place to protect the people. But, then, you run in to the problem of it becoming a police state, which is a huge risk to freedom. Instead, why not allow well trained civilians to carry a gun, if they deem it to be appropriate for the circumstance? Wouldn't you much rather have someone on the inside ready to disarm a criminal, instead of police cowardly waiting outside?

Spot on! VT is a gun free zone. If I heard correctly VT is the only university in Virginia were students were not allowed to carry guns. That doesn't mean that bad guys (Cho) who aren't afraid of breaking the law can't smuggle one in. Because he did. Outlawing guns only takes guns away from law abiding citizens.

Imagine if all the students were allowed to carry guns all over campus. This Cho guy would have shot maybe 1-2 people before one of the other students took him down. Which would have resulted in 3 people dying instead of 32.

forrestunifreak

2007-04-24, 12:40 AM

Human civilization should be past needing guns by now, it honestly seems ape like to me to have people walking around carrying guns incase they need to kill anyone that day.

In my household there are 7-8 rifles, one of which is mine. I don't expect to ever have to kill anyone, although if I'm ever in a him-or-me situation, I'll do my best. But are you forgetting hunting, taget shooting, etc.?

forrestunifreak

2007-04-24, 12:58 AM

I don't think the USA will give up their guns, without a fight.

Not sure on these statistics... But I think there's 250+ million guns in the US, compared to what, population of 300 million? Is that right?

BillyTheMountain

2007-04-24, 02:02 AM

I say we develop strategies to identify the truly dangerous individuals, so we can deny them of their civil rights under the guise of protecting society.

Here's 3 different white men (add more). See if you know who was dangerous because he
1. read Catcher in the Ryen
2. was obsessed with The Beatles
3. liked Jodi Foster, and maybe watched her play a prostitute in Taxi Driver
4. add your own here.

Gilby

2007-04-24, 02:32 AM

I don't think you can draw such a line in society. Many people break minor laws, and many hardened criminals follow the law on most occasions. There are so many situations where having a gun freely available in the pocket of your average "law abiding citizen" could degenerate into something pretty lethal.

Yeah, that didn't quite come out right. Most people that carry guns that are not criminals are going to be trained to handle a gun correctly, otherwise they will not feel comfortable carrying one and being ready to use it if ever needed.

Going back to my airplane example- so why don't you think people should be allowed to carry guns? Surely if they were all law abiding citizens it wouldn't be an issue. And if there was a "criminal" terrorist, they would more easily be stopped if other passengers had guns.

Like I said, airplanes are a highly controlled environment, and it can be controlled with minimal burden on the passengers. Airlines should be able to allow pilots to carry guns.

You can't create a controlled environment everywhere.

dan de man

2007-04-24, 10:21 AM

Yeah, that didn't quite come out right. Most people that carry guns that are not criminals are going to be trained to handle a gun correctly, otherwise they will not feel comfortable carrying one and being ready to use it if ever needed.

Like I said, airplanes are a highly controlled environment, and it can be controlled with minimal burden on the passengers. Airlines should be able to allow pilots to carry guns.

You can't create a controlled environment everywhere.
I dont think guns , but tasers would be a better idea

johnfoss

2007-04-24, 04:52 PM

The biggest problem with gun free zones, is that you are disarming people and essentially saying to criminals that you can come attack us because we are unarmed.This is true. But you are ignoring the biggest *un-problem* of gun-free zones. Less people with guns means less incidents of shootings. Less opportunities for people who get into sudden rages and want to get violent. They can still get violent, but nobody gets shot. Psychotic-break mass-murders are very rare, and the outcome would not necessarily have been any different had the campus been a gun-allowed zone.

There are two types of people that will get guns. Criminals, who will get them regardless of any laws making it illegal. Law abiding citizens who are confident and trained to safely carry and use a gun.Your point? Cho was not a criminal when he legally purchased his guns (at least the one I heard about). So which category does he go in? He starts being in the criminal category when he brings his guns on campus (or fails to check them), but he wasn't one before that, so why not let him buy them? (Yes, about 800 reasons why not I guess; I didn't mean to ask that question seriously, but his guns were purchased legally)

Imagine if all the students were allowed to carry guns all over campus. This Cho guy would have shot maybe 1-2 people before one of the other students took him down.We imagined this earlier in this thread. Your scenario makes many assumptions. Apparently you assume there will be enough guns around for one to be in the same room as Cho when he starts locking doors and shooting. You assume that these people are equal or better marksmen than he is. You assume a law-abiding gun owner will be ready to start taking lethal (or at least immobilizing) shots after what may have only been a few seconds of shooting by Cho. Was Cho wearing a bullet-proof vest? This would have made him much harder to stop. Last but not least, the assumption is that all other gun owners in the room/area would be able to take him down before he took them down.

These are all random factors. So yes, another person with a gun may have been able to stop him after his first shot, but on the other hand, someone shooting back at him may have enraged him even more, causing him to speed up his killing spree and go for more victims. And lastly, as mentioned earlier in this thread, having more guns on campus would probably lead to *more* instances of unrelated shootings, with a body count that would probably average out higher than otherwise, give or take a world-record killing spree or two.

On # of guns in this country though, I think you may be underestimating. I think there are more guns here than people.

Gilby

2007-04-24, 06:51 PM

This is true. But you are ignoring the biggest *un-problem* of gun-free zones. Less people with guns means less incidents of shootings.
Oh really? Prove it.

The number of guns in a place where guns are allowed to be carried, are going to be proportional to the assessed risk in that area.

The studies I have seen where they compare states with major gun restrictions, and those without, have shown that violent crimes are lower in the unrestricted states.

Psychotic-break mass-murders are very rare, and the outcome would not necessarily have been any different had the campus been a gun-allowed zone.
Yeah, there is a possibility that it might not have been different, but statistically, the likelyhood of someone having a gun and being able to disarm this person would have been greater.

pdc

2007-04-24, 07:27 PM

Cho was not a criminal when he legally purchased his guns (at least the one I heard about).

Cho did NOT purchase his guns legally. He lied on the the application about his mental health. The guns were illegally purchased. (Department of redundancy department)

johnfoss

2007-04-24, 08:25 PM

Oh really? Prove it. Zero guns in a given area = zero shootings. Beyond that, predictability gets a little more fuzzy. :)

The number of guns in a place where guns are allowed to be carried, are going to be proportional to the assessed risk in that area.This I do not dispute. Do you think VT would be assesed as risky, before all of this happened?

The studies I have seen where they compare states with major gun restrictions, and those without, have shown that violent crimes are lower in the unrestricted states.I believe the info. Now we just need two states that are similar enough for those results to be meaningful. If we're comparing Montana and California I'm not convinced.

Cho did NOT purchase his guns legally. He lied on the the application about his mental health.Sounds pretty obvious, but I hadn't heard about how that plays into the laws in Virginia. This serves as a reminder that "legally" purchased weapons may only be as legal as the truthfulness of the information on the paperwork. I wonder if VA (and/or any state) is looking into some way of verifying such information first, rather than simply trusting the applicant?

Gilby

2007-04-24, 08:37 PM

Zero guns in a given area = zero shootings. Beyond that, predictability gets a little more fuzzy. :)

Are zero guns possible? VT was a gun-free zone, but guns were there. To get a gun free zone, you'd have to have a closed system with rigorous inspection points to get in and heavy surveillance. Welcome to prison everyone...

Even then, there are no certainties of zero guns.

This I do not dispute. Do you think VT would be assesed as risky, before all of this happened?

Yes, risky enough that some would choose to carry a gun. There was a recent shooting there last year.

I believe the info. Now we just need two states that are similar enough for those results to be meaningful. If we're comparing Montana and California I'm not convinced.

It's on a national whole. All those states with and those without. You can take different locations and statistically find out if there is a correlation between the gun laws and crime rates. You can take the areas before and after laws to factor in to the analysis. That's what economists do.

BillyTheMountain

2007-04-26, 02:50 AM

BillyTheMountain

2007-04-28, 03:50 AM

RFKs speech following Martin Luther Kings assasination
On the Mindless Menace of Violence
City Club of Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio
April 5, 1968
This is a time of shame and sorrow. It is not a day for politics. I have saved this one opportunity, my only event of today, to speak briefly to you about the mindless menace of violence in America which again stains our land and every one of our lives.
It is not the concern of any one race. The victims of the violence are black and white, rich and poor, young and old, famous and unknown.
They are, most important of all, human beings whom other human beings loved and needed. No one - no matter where he lives or what he does - can be certain who will suffer from some senseless act of bloodshed. And yet it goes on and on and on in this country of ours.
Why? What has violence ever accomplished? What has it ever created? No martyr's cause has ever been stilled by an assassin's bullet.
No wrongs have ever been righted by riots and civil disorders. A sniper is only a coward, not a hero; and an uncontrolled, uncontrollable mob is only the voice of madness, not the voice of reason.
Whenever any American's life is taken by another American unnecessarily - whether it is done in the name of the law or in the defiance of the law, by one man or a gang, in cold blood or in passion, in an attack of violence or in response to violence - whenever we tear at the fabric of the life which another man has painfully and clumsily woven for himself and his children, the whole nation is degraded.
"Among free men," said Abraham Lincoln, "there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and those who take such appeal are sure to lose their cause and pay the costs."
Yet we seemingly tolerate a rising level of violence that ignores our common humanity and our claims to civilization alike. We calmly accept newspaper reports of civilian slaughter in far-off lands. We glorify killing on movie and television screens and call it entertainment. We make it easy for men of all shades of sanity to acquire whatever weapons and ammunition they desire.
Too often we honor swagger and bluster and wielders of force; too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of others. Some Americans who preach non-violence abroad fail to practice it here at home. Some who accuse others of inciting riots have by their own conduct invited them.
Some look for scapegoats, others look for conspiracies, but this much is clear: violence breeds violence, repression brings retaliation, and only a cleansing of our whole society can remove this sickness from our soul.
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. This is the slow destruction of a child by hunger, and schools without books and homes without heat in the winter.
This is the breaking of a man's spirit by denying him the chance to stand as a father and as a man among other men. And this too afflicts us all.
I have not come here to propose a set of specific remedies nor is there a single set. For a broad and adequate outline we know what must be done. When you teach a man to hate and fear his brother, when you teach that he is a lesser man because of his color or his beliefs or the policies he pursues, when you teach that those who differ from you threaten your freedom or your job or your family, then you also learn to confront others not as fellow citizens but as enemies, to be met not with cooperation but with conquest; to be subjugated and mastered.
We learn, at the last, to look at our brothers as aliens, men with whom we share a city, but not a community; men bound to us in common dwelling, but not in common effort. We learn to share only a common fear, only a common desire to retreat from... continued

lostconch

2007-04-28, 07:31 PM

I understand the gun issue from the constitution is set for one main purpose,, and that is to be able to bare arms against the government itself,, by the people and for the people,, the fear was gov could get out of hand and the masses had to have some strength,, Obviously gov is out of hand and the people have no real strength anymore,,

You are looking for reasons for the shootings and similar things,, try the answer that staring you in the face,, Whoever does this kind of stuff puts himself, and his own importance, and his own wishes, and his own desires, and his own esteem above all else, to the highest extreme,, Our society encourages and nurtures that kinda thinking and we're shocked when someone carries it out to it's obvious conclusion

JJtheunicycle

2007-04-28, 08:25 PM

I got 3 weeks of detention every other day after school...I made a joke. It was too soon I suppose...

MuniAddict

2007-04-28, 09:40 PM

I got 3 weeks of detention every other day after school...I made a joke. It was too soon I suppose...What did you say?:confused:

thejdw

2007-04-28, 09:46 PM

here would be a problem if all the students had guns:

Who is the mass killer and who is shooting in defence? People knew him as a student so they could easly hit another student thinking they were the mass killer.
Also alot of people in my school are such idiots that they would shoot you if you stoll there drink.

pete66

2007-04-30, 01:19 AM

Blah blah blah, some unoriginal religious propoganda as usual, blah blah blah, please I just want some attention, blah blah blah blah blah.
Learn to use paragraphs. Actually, don't bother typing anything, you're obviously some sort of village idiot who somehow made it all the way onto the world wide web.

Most likely person on RSU to perpetrate a mass killing? My vote goes to you Billy, congratulations.

JJtheunicycle

2007-04-30, 01:41 AM

What did you say?:confused:
Umm...well we were having a lock down drill and I said "luckily we dont have any asian kids at this school" It was pretty bad after I thought about it..

BillyTheMountain

2007-04-30, 02:37 AM

Learn to use paragraphs. Actually, don't bother typing anything, you're obviously some sort of village idiot who somehow made it all the way onto the world wide web.

Most likely person on RSU to perpetrate a mass killing? My vote goes to you Billy, congratulations.

Unicyclists, forgive him, for he knows not what he speaks.

He prolly doesn't know RFK either, because no one would say RFK's speech was blahblahblah. (maybe cuz he ain't from around here....). The recent movie Bobby is about him. I highly recommend it.

Billy

wobbling bear

2007-04-30, 09:02 AM

Billy
thank you for this RFK quote!!!!
it should be engraved on specials spots: at the door of movie/TV studios, at the door of military academies (note that I am not against army), at the door of tribunal, churches, school , universities, at the door of corporations (wether big or small) .... and at the door of the N.R.A!!!

madmattunipro

2007-05-04, 10:05 PM

Guns can be obtained illegally no matter how much control is put on the market. Just like drugs.

Therefore, if you make guns illegal, like they have up here in Canada, only criminals have guns. This makes armed robbery and such much easier.

Second thing: The biggest problems with guns and any other types of weapons is education, not availibility. For example, I live in a rural community, and I carry a knife every where I go. I was raised with the idea that a knife, as well as a gun, is NOT to be used as a weapon, but rather as a tool. I have had people comment on me going around carrying a "weapon." These are people from the cities who are raised to think of a knife as a weapon, you'd only need one if you were in a gang or planned to hurt someone. Same goes for guns. Now obviously this isn't the only factor, but the way we are raised to look at potentially dangerous objects makes a huge difference as to how we will use them.

The shooter at the school also had some very serious prolems.