Shootings at Virginia Tech.

[Scorpio24]

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6560685.stm)

Deadly shooting at US university

The campus has now been closed and students evacuated
At least 22 people have been killed and 21 more injured after a gunman went on the rampage at the campus of Virginia Tech university in Virginia, US.
Police say there were two separate shooting incidents - at West Ambler Johnston Hall, a student dormitory, and Norris Hall, an engineering building.

The incidents were about two hours apart. Police say they believe there was one gunman and that he is dead.

It is the deadliest shooting at a US educational facility.

The state university in the town of Blacksburg is home to 26,000 students.

"We have a ballpark figure on fatalities. It's at least 20 fatalities," Virginia Tech police chief Wendell Flinchum said.


Another very very sad day.

RIP to the unlucky ones.:(

[Scorpio24]

Latest numbers are now 32 dead. Hopefully the people in a critical condition in hospital can pull through but there is a real fear the numbers could rise.


Seems a very strange set up that there was shootings early at 7am and then more 2 hours later. How can that happen?

[Brando @$$ Fat]

I'm speechless. All I can say is that I hope the loved ones of the victims can find solace. I just hope we can keep this particular conversation on the topic of the shootings and not gun control or anything like that.

[outsyder]

Always tragic to see, but it's probably more tragic that these things are expected every once in a while.:(

[someguy]

Holy shit, this is pretty horrific.

[ChemicalRomance]

32 dead (including shooter).

...wow.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Scorpio24
Latest numbers are now 32 dead. Hopefully the people in a critical condition in hospital can pull through but there is a real fear the numbers could rise.


Seems a very strange set up that there was shootings early at 7am and then more 2 hours later. How can that happen?


Distance between the two locations:

http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Art/USNEWS/070416/va_tech_campus5.gif

[Vong]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
I just hope we can keep this particular conversation on the topic of the shootings and not gun control or anything like that.

This topic was placed in the Politics thread....there's going to be talk about gun control whether you like it or not.

[Lynn7]

Maybe it would be good if people carried guns undercover if things like this keep happening. Like that Senator Webb confessed to doing.

Or at the least, maybe we should train groups in how to subdue gunmen. If people rushed the gun man then maybe he could kill a few but if everyone runs they will all be dead. Also the use of fire extniguishers etc might help. But of course when something like this happens it is so frightening and fight and flight take over. But maybe if we were trained then the next times someone is shooting in a school or a mall, less can be killed.

Also, I think it is so sad that they are not letting the families know who the deceased are until tomorrow. Tonight will be endless of the family and friends of the victims. May God comfort them tonight.

[therealjohng]

This is really depressing stuff. My prayers go out to the fallen and their families. Any news on who and why?



R.I.P.

[electriclite]

This is the second time crap like this has happened near my birthday. What the hell is it about April that makes people wanna shoot up schools?!!!

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Vong
This topic was placed in the Politics thread....there's going to be talk about gun control whether you like it or not.

It comes up every time there's a shooting, though. I think we've all established our positions on this issue.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Also, I think it is so sad that they are not letting the families know who the deceased are until tomorrow. Tonight will be endless of the family and friends of the victims. May God comfort them tonight.


Agreed, that's total bullshit as well. I know they're suffering, but it seems like there isn't much of an effort being made to find out what happened.

[Beenthere]

Originally posted by electriclite
This is the second time crap like this has happened near my birthday. What the hell is it about April that makes people wanna shoot up schools?!!!

April is Month of Tragedy.

Hitler was born in April. And Lenin. Chernobyl. Assassinations and genocides happened and started this month.

R.I.P. Devastating and horrible.

[gyro_44]

Wow. Just.... wow.

This is simply unbelievable. What a world we live in.

I remember being scared to go to my own high school after Columbine, and this is exponentially worse. This is terrifying.

Thoughts and prayers go out to everyone involved.

[bankholdup]

Originally posted by electriclite
This is the second time crap like this has happened near my birthday. What the hell is it about April that makes people wanna shoot up schools?!!!

It's got to do with the April Showers...but don't worry, electriclite, the May Flowers are a-comin'.

I'm following the story fairly closely, since I know a couple of people that go there, my brother graduated 2 years ago, and his girlfriend attends school there now. She was in the Norris Hall, but was in the opposite end, but still heard the shots.

[Danger^Cart]

I can't believe this guy could do so much damage with only a couple of handguns and some extra magazines. Supposing he was carrying a Beretta 92F, which carries 15 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber (the reason our military changed the official sidearm from the Colt 1911 to the 92F is because, quite simply, our service personnel don't shoot as straight as they used to and need extra shots [random tidbit]), that's still some pretty controlled shooting, considering not only did he fataly wound 32 people on the spot, but severly wounded 20-odd more. Such control makes me wonder not only what kind of individual we're dealing with here, but what exactly led to this rampage. Doesn't exactly seem spur of the moment and, as silly as it sounds, an act of terrorism may not be so far fetched. Perhaps this kid was exposed to the Islamic perversion as of late, and decided to slay some infidels. If so, God help us.

This shit is truly horrific.

[outsyder]

Apparently he was Asian. Not sure this is religious in nature.

[Vong]

The shooting began in the school residency. The gunman killed a man and a woman....this could have been a domestic attack that went overboard.

[dman476]

Well, whatever it was, it sure was awful. :(

I'm really saddened when killings happen at shools, not only because it hits close to home, but because they're students in a protected area.
It shows that even there people are incredibly vulnerable.

Too bad the cops didn't shoot the guy when it first started.

R.I.P. to the victims.

[Jamesadin]

This is absolutely terrible. Very tragic and very sad... it leaves one to wonder what leads people to do such things.

And it doesn't make me feel any better when I get letters like this in my email from my university.

I got this as I was reading this thread:

"To all students
Campus incident alert

Regina Police Service and Campus Security continue to investigate a
serious matter that occurred on campus this weekend.

Early Saturday morning, a man described to be approximately 5 feet 9
inches, 130 to
160 lbs approached a female university employee on the fourth floor of
the Ad Hum building. The man, thought to be between 20 and 30 years of
age, wore a hooded sweatshirt to conceal his appearance and was also
carrying a utility knife. He attempted to persuade a staff member to
walk with him down the hallway. When she refused, he left the area.

Campus Security patrolled the campus but did not locate the individual.
The University and Regina Police Service consider this matter to be
serious and are advising that people should exercise appropriate
caution, particularly if they are working alone in isolated areas at
times when there is low walk-through traffic.

As always, people on campus should report any security risks or
suspicious activity to Campus Security at 585-4999 or by pressing the
Campus Security button on any campus payphone. The Lone Service Worker
program is available to staff and students of the university, details
are available on the Campus Security Web Site. Anyone planning to walk
alone on campus during weeknights can call Campus Walk Along at
585-5600, or Campus Security 24 hours a day."

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Danger^Cart
I can't believe this guy could do so much damage with only a couple of handguns and some extra magazines. Supposing he was carrying a Beretta 92F, which carries 15 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber (the reason our military changed the official sidearm from the Colt 1911 to the 92F is because, quite simply, our service personnel don't shoot as straight as they used to and need extra shots [random tidbit]), that's still some pretty controlled shooting, considering not only did he fataly wound 32 people on the spot, but severly wounded 20-odd more. Such control makes me wonder not only what kind of individual we're dealing with here, but what exactly led to this rampage. Doesn't exactly seem spur of the moment and, as silly as it sounds, an act of terrorism may not be so far fetched. Perhaps this kid was exposed to the Islamic perversion as of late, and decided to slay some infidels. If so, God help us.

This shit is truly horrific.

I heard that he made some people lineup in a row...
He also chained the doors.

[ilovemovies]

How does one man create such devestating death and destruction?

[Kevin Lockard]

I'm watching Glenn Beck right now and some "criminal profiling" bitch is saying we should get rid of violent video games/movies.

[RicochetShaw]

Originally posted by Lynn7


Also, I think it is so sad that they are not letting the families know who the deceased are until tomorrow. Tonight will be endless of the family and friends of the victims. May God comfort them tonight.



Is this true? Could you please show me the link to this, or could some one else show me? I just need to see it... I told my friend this and he didn't believe me. I need proof.

[EVILxxx]

That makes sense. Even though the man is competent enough to attend college he obviously can't tell the difference between video games and reality.

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Or at the least, maybe we should train groups in how to subdue gunmen. If people rushed the gun man then maybe he could kill a few but if everyone runs they will all be dead. Also the use of fire extniguishers etc might help. But of course when something like this happens it is so frightening and fight and flight take over. But maybe if we were trained then the next times someone is shooting in a school or a mall, less can be killed.



Or maybe we should look at ways of stopping the situation rather than reacting to it while in progress.

A scary line keeps getting read out on the news. "This is now America's worst school shooting" Like Outsyder commented....Almost like it's expected.

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by electriclite
Distance between the two locations:

http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Art/USNEWS/070416/va_tech_campus5.gif


It's just such a strange set up isn't it? How can people be killed at 7am and then no action taken to safeguard the other students or to make aressts until after the second masacre 2 hours later? And with the bomb threats you would think there would be extra security there. People lives were lost here because of complete negligence on people in authoruties part.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear there was a 2nd shooter either. As of yet the police still don't seem to be able to piece togeather what they think has happened.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Scorpio24
It's just such a strange set up isn't it? How can people be killed at 7am and then no action taken to safeguard the other students or to make aressts until after the second masacre 2 hours later? And with the bomb threats you would think there would be extra security there. People lives were lost here because of complete negligence on people in authoruties part.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear there was a 2nd shooter either. As of yet the police still don't seem to be able to piece togeather what they think has happened.


The same thing happened on 9/11. When airport towers were no longer able to contact those missing planes they were supposed to contact NORAD and let them know of the situation, and then they were then supposed to contact either the Coast Guard or the Air Force.

A LOT of protocol wasn't followed.

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by God of Cinema
I'm watching Glenn Beck right now and some "criminal profiling" bitch is saying we should get rid of violent video games/movies.

Are they blaming any rap or metal groups yet?

Considering he was Asian, I'm wondering if they have jumped on John Woo movies and the "competitive Asian work ethic" if he was a student.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Scorpio24
It's just such a strange set up isn't it? How can people be killed at 7am and then no action taken to safeguard the other students or to make aressts until after the second masacre 2 hours later? And with the bomb threats you would think there would be extra security there. People lives were lost here because of complete negligence on people in authoruties part.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear there was a 2nd shooter either. As of yet the police still don't seem to be able to piece togeather what they think has happened.

The first shootings were believed to be a domestic dispute, as the witnesses reported it as a boyfriend shooting his girlfriend and another guy. They're not going to call in the national guard and evacuate 15,000 people for that. That's just not how it works. This isn't like a high school where everything is consolidated. This is a place the size and population of a decent-sized city. I also suspect the 2nd group of shootings didn't take very long. A few minutes perhaps.

Are they blaming any rap or metal groups yet?

I did hear Jack Thompson already blamed violent video games. This before they had even IDed the shooter. It defies all logic.

I remember being scared to go to my own high school after Columbine

Really? Why? I mean, I know you're hardly the only one who felt that way. It just never works that way for me, and I don't quite get it. The possibility of something happening and it being likely.. Just too far apart. Maybe I'm just overly rational.

I mean, there were people being killed practically every week in Detroit fairly close to where I grew up. They were killed on the streets. That didn't make me afraid to walk on the street. Right?

Or maybe we should look at ways of stopping the situation rather than reacting to it while in progress.

We can't do both? I'm really not sure these things can be prevented. Well, I'm sure some can. Some HAVE been in the past. But there will always be some. There are always people going beyond the breaking point inside of civilizations.

If people rushed the gun man then maybe he could kill a few but if everyone runs they will all be dead.

It would depend on what the shooter was like and how he was armed. Typical psychotic shooter, that's probably true. You can rarely get people to react that way, especially not in groups, however. When in a group, someone always expects someone else to lead. It's hard to get people to rush in as a mob when you may have only a few seconds to react.

Maybe it would be good if people carried guns undercover if things like this keep happening.

It is worth noting that Texas concealed carry got passed in the aftermath of that cafeteria shooting. It turned out two people there had guns in their cars, both were good shooters, and claimed they would have been carrying if legally able to. Might have saved a number of lives. Civilians carrying guns have helped in one situation with a mass shooter in America I'm aware of, and have also helped a number of times in Israel.

On a final note, this is now the second worst case of school violence in America. Bath was worse (deliberate explosion, not a shooting). Sad that over 30 people dead isn't even the worst, isn't it?

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by Jim H
The first shootings were believed to be a domestic dispute, as the witnesses reported it as a boyfriend shooting his girlfriend and another guy. They're not going to call in the national guard and evacuate 15,000 people for that. That's just not how it works. This isn't like a high school where everything is consolidated. This is a place the size and population of a decent-sized city. I also suspect the 2nd group of shootings didn't take very long. A few minutes perhaps.

No i'm sorry I can't see that logic. You make it sound like "It was just a murder, big deal"

The point is that this guy was alowed to roam freely, just after murdering two people. Not for 5 minutes until the police had got there mind you, 2 frigging hours!!!

I understand your point about the size of the place. But that doesn't take away from the fact directly after a double shooting nobody said or did anything to notify people that a murderer was strolling around the campus.

How many times have you seen an immeadiate reaction to a nasty incident on tv warning the public about a dangerous man, do not approach etc. It just doesn't make sense how it was alowed to happen.


Originally posted by Jim H
We can't do both? I'm really not sure these things can be prevented. Well, I'm sure some can. Some HAVE been in the past. But there will always be some. There are always people going beyond the breaking point inside of civilizations.

Well yeah I suppose we could. We could also train people how to deal with rabbid dogs. Or a man off his head on drugs wielding a knife. Just a hell of alot of trianing lined up for Joe public there. Strange to me that this is an option being looked at here as a possible counteract to high school/university/anywhere shootings.

This is just a wild suggestion but something we could do to start stopping these mass shootings is making guns not so readily available. I mean maybe if we can cut it down to just being alowed to apply for 9 a year in the Virginia area. Would a ban on guns stop the violence? Who knows? But it would be a good fucking start I think. America should decide if using the 2nd ammendmant to defend the ownership of arms is worth the lives of 30,000+ people a year.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Scorpio24
Or maybe we should look at ways of stopping the situation rather than reacting to it while in progress.

A scary line keeps getting read out on the news. "This is now America's worst school shooting" Like Outsyder commented....Almost like it's expected.

That gets on my nerves too. I heard two people arguing today over whether Columbine or this was worse. THEY WERE BOTH REALLY FUCKING BAD, PEOPLE. THIS IS NOT A COMPETITION.

[JCPhoenix]

I can't believe people are actually suggesting that having civilians carry guns on a CAMPUS would actually help...

How could anyone be comfortable in a classroom knowing that any number of their classmates could have a concealed gun on them? I'm sorry but as a university student, ummm NO, I WOULD NOT BE COMFORTABLE. If there's a fight, or things get heated on campus and there's a gun nearby...

There were several sexual assaults and muggings this year on my campus (as well as a domestic stabbing in my old residence) and most of them happened in the dark, at night. I'd say people were pretty jumpy about things...can you imagine though, what would happen if these jumpy students carried concealed weapons with them? There would have been an accidental shooting for sure.

Yes, they could help in a situation like this (which came about, by the way, because the guy was able to walk into a shop very easily and buy a gun LEGALLY in the first place). But I can also see letting people carry concealed weapons making the campus a hell of a lot MORE dangerous.

I think it's absolutely ridiculous to even consider bringing concealed weapons onto school grounds.

Honestly, there were some shootings here in Toronto last summer, one specifically that took place at the entrance of a church. How about we have all the churchgoers bring butcher knives with them to church every week in case there's another shooting, huh? Let's keep a loaded rifle in every daycare across the continent. Maybe they should give out free Berettas in frosh week to every student! Hell, we get free condoms, why not free guns!

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
That gets on my nerves too. I heard two people arguing today over whether Columbine or this was worse. THEY WERE BOTH REALLY FUCKING BAD, PEOPLE. THIS IS NOT A COMPETITION.

Yea, when the story was developing i thought to myself "this is worse than columbine" and it immediatly struck me how senseless the thought was. There's no point to it at all.

[Jim H]

But that doesn't take away from the fact directly after a double shooting nobody said or did anything to notify people that a murderer was strolling around the campus.

I've thought about it some and I've decided you're probably right. They did send out emails (there really isn't any other way to do mass communications in colleges like that expediently), but it does seem like they took longer than they should have. I'm not convinced it would have made a difference, but some kind of emergency response should probably be in place for ANY location with a large population. I'd guess they have one for weather, but it is probably just a siren which would, if anything have made it worse. Some way of immediately informing professors in a mass way, at least, does seem like a good idea - it isn't exactly hard to do with virtually any campus having computers in all classrooms either.

How could anyone be comfortable in a classroom knowing that any number of their classmates could have a concealed gun on them? I'm sorry but as a university student, ummm NO, I WOULD NOT BE COMFORTABLE. If there's a fight, or things get heated on campus and there's a gun nearby...

Ya know, this actually doesn't really happen. Ok, I wouldn't say never, but it's extremely, extremely rare. It probably helps that concealed carry ages are usually somewhat over 21. It's 23 here in Missouri. Concealed carry permit holders actually cause problems amazingly rarely. I'm not quite sure why it is - maybe the types that are willing to go through the class, pay the fees, wait it out, etc, are just more in control.

I'm not aware of any incidents at all, actually, I'm just assuming they've happened before. CCW holders are human, after all.

Regardless, people usually suggest the professors be able to carry, not the students.

Oh, and by the way - how do you know "any number" of your classmates aren't carrying anyway? People take guns with them illegally far more often than you'd think.

But I can also see letting people carry concealed weapons making the campus a hell of a lot MORE dangerous.

It hasn't in the states that have added CCW. What is so different from campuses than the rest of the country that makes them more dangerous places to carry guns? I don't have a problem with guns not being allowed on campus, by the way. I just don't think it would cause major problems.

How about we have all the churchgoers bring butcher knives with them to church every week in case there's another shooting, huh?

Why not, indeed? Properly sheathed, I don't think there'd be any accidental stabbings. Good luck in a knife VS gun battle though.

On a side note, CCWs don't let people carry in church.

[gyro_44]

Originally posted by Jim H
Really? Why? I mean, I know you're hardly the only one who felt that way. It just never works that way for me, and I don't quite get it. The possibility of something happening and it being likely.. Just too far apart. Maybe I'm just overly rational.
True, it was partly due my overactive imagination, but I also didn't attend the best high school in town and I knew of students who would bring knives to school and such things. We always think the odds of something like this happening in our hometowns or schools, but just thinking about how many people were affected by or connected to this tragedy - that's quite a large net.

That gap between possibility and likelihood of happening is a pretty big one, you're right, but something on this scale makes you feel like just about anything is possible.

[Thrizzle]

http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/17/cho-seung-huis-plays/

[Lynn7]

I don't know. I think it is probably unfair to blame the police. There was just no way to predict that this would happen. It might make us feel good to blame others but in the end it was the gunman to blame. And yet, why do I find myself feeling sorry for this man who an old teacher described as the loneliest person she had ever met?

Maybe it is time to reexamine the mental health laws. The way they are now is that you can only be committed if you are homicidal, suicidal or so disoriented that you can walk into traffic and get killed. There are people who are very disturbed- like this guy- and people want them to get help but we can't make them. That is probably the biggest problem with this kind of thing. He is not the first very mentally distrubed person who could not be forced to get help against his will and then acted out against others. His family was probably at a loss too. So sad.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I don't know. I think it is probably unfair to blame the police. There was just no way to predict that this would happen. It might make us feel good to blame others but in the end it was the gunman to blame. And yet, why do I find myself feeling sorry for this man who an old teacher described as the loneliest person she had ever met?

Maybe it is time to reexamine the mental health laws. The way they are now is that you can only be committed if you are homicidal, suicidal or so disoriented that you can walk into traffic and get killed. There are people who are very disturbed- like this guy- and people want them to get help but we can't make them. That is probably the biggest problem with this kind of thing. He is not the first very mentally distrubed person who could not be forced to get help against his will and then acted out against others. His family was probably at a loss too. So sad.

The other problem is that mental health institutions often don't help. At all. Some of them are so terrible they make things worse. And the whole system is critically underfunded.

By the way, specifically you can commit people if they are a danger to themselves or others. I believe that is the wording. It's fairly broad and open to interpretation already. The way it is worded is intended to keep them from commiting people who are just weird and disliked, which used to happen, unfortunately.

And besides, if being an odd loner and writing twisted stuff in school got you commited, there'd be such a massive overload on the system it would collapse.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Maybe it would be good if people carried guns undercover if things like this keep happening.

Arming people as a response to a shooting spree is like treating a hemophiliac with bloodletting.

As a college student who felt threatened not two weeks ago by a madman with a concealed gun (at American University, where one of Karl Rove's secret service agents in plainclothes "infiltrated" a group of students protesting his speech, then pulled a gun on them and screamed "Nobody fucking move. I'll arrest all of you. I'm a fucking cop and none of you better move!") I couldn't help but be especially scared by this incident. I'd like to see firearms banned from college campuses, with only police allowed to carry. It probably wouldn't have prevented a tragedy like the VA Tech shootings, but it limits the possibility for tragedies like it to occur in the future.

[bigred760]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2841205

This is the type of stuff I love; it's about the only good thing that comes out of a horrendous tragedy like this: the respect and togetherness of people, whether it's students, school rivals, or professional athletes.

Hell, I was at the Atlanta Hawks - Indiana Pacers basketball game last night and they held a moment of silence for the VT tragedy. It helps, it really does.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
Arming people as a response to a shooting spree is like treating a hemophiliac with bloodletting.

As a college student who felt threatened not two weeks ago by a madman with a concealed gun (at American University, where one of Karl Rove's secret service agents in plainclothes "infiltrated" a group of students protesting his speech, then pulled a gun on them and screamed "Nobody fucking move. I'll arrest all of you. I'm a fucking cop and none of you better move!") I couldn't help but be especially scared by this incident. I'd like to see firearms banned from college campuses, with only police allowed to carry.

Firearms were already banned from Virginia Tech, and it didn't seem to stop this guy. Point being that lots of people have concealed weapons permits. They go to the supermarket, the park, and the mall armed and you'd never know about it. Does that make you nervous? That any number of people in the store you are in could be packing?
People with concealed weapons permits are not the ones who commit gun crimes. They have to be extremely law a bidding to maintain that license.

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
Point being that lots of people have concealed weapons permits. They go to the supermarket, the park, and the mall armed and you'd never know about it. Does that make you nervous? That any number of people in the store you are in could be packing?


I know this question isn't aimed at me but yeah....very much so.

[The Postmaster General]

If this guy had someone who could have recognized he was a danger to be Baker Acted or whatever it is in your state, he probably wouldn't have been a danger to begin with. I don't see how the mental health industry can be blamed, because it doesn't sound like he was gettin MI services. Of course, I will mention that No Child Left Behind does prevent funding for early-detection programs, and school therapists who can determine a need for psychiatric help. But that's, only if you are content on trying to find what we should blame.

Yeah, school shootings are to politicians what hurricanes are to meteorologists. Nothing like a bunch of death and destruction to show us what ya' got. Well, I'm here to give the movie industry side to it, and if we are going to randomly find reasons why this jackass did what he did, I'm going to blame it on Grindhouse underperforming at the box office.

We have concealed weapons in Minnesota, but there is a sign on most public buildings that you can't carry them inside. That defeats the purposes that are defined here as why concealed weapons are a good idea.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Scorpio24
I know this question isn't aimed at me but yeah....very much so.

Then maybe you need to get over it. Not to sound like a dick but the reality of the situation is that you are far more likely to die in say a car accident. Are you afraid to drive? You would be considered an irrational person if you said no.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
Then maybe you need to get over it. Not to sound like a dick but the reality of the situation is that you are far more likely to die in say a car accident. Are you afraid to drive? You would be considered an irrational person if you said no.


You would be an irrational person if you drove and didn't pay attention to other drivers, or drove drunk. Statistically, shit can happen while driving therefore people do heed caution and drive for their lives. It is the ones we think are irrational who do not drive with concern, so by your own admission, it would in fact be irrational for scorpio to not be concerned with gun safety when guns are present.

[EVILxxx]

Are you equating gunowners with drunk drivers?
By the way having concern is not the same as being afraid. Concern is something you keep in the back of your mind, fear can control your thoughts.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
Are you equating gunowners with drunk drivers?

No, I'm comparing irresponsibility with cars to irresponsibility with guns. Why shouldn't a person be worried about others acting irresponsible?


By the way having concern is not the same as being afraid. Concern is something you keep in the back of your mind, fear can control your thoughts.


Well, buy this way: Scorpio didn't say he was afraid, he said it made him nervous. Whatever - both things start with concern.

[Beenthere]

Guns?

We people have to talk about MENTAL HOSPITALS. Many hospitals.

No more out-patient therapy for lunatics.

We isolate criminals because they're dangerous. If OZ helps them to become better persons it's great.

Feel sorry for the mental patients but your child or parent shouldn't stop living because they are "around." It's not about the oppression of the ill, it's about normalcy and common sense.

[The Postmaster General]

Yeah, I just found out he'd recently been hospitalized. Where did he get the guns from? We already have laws about unstable people having guns - what happened there?

[Beenthere]

BLACKSBURG, Va. - Midway through his murderous rampage, the Virginia Tech gunman went to the post office and mailed NBC a package containing photos and videos of him brandishing guns and delivering a snarling, profanity-laced tirade about rich "brats" and their "hedonistic needs."


"You had a hundred billion chances and ways to have avoided today," 23-year-old Cho Seung-Hui says in a harsh monotone, in an excerpt shown on "NBC Nightly News." "But you decided to spill my blood. You forced me into a corner and gave me only one option. The decision was yours. Now you have blood on your hands that will never wash off."

NBC said the package contained a rambling and often-incoherent, 1,800-word video manifesto, plus 43 photos, 11 of them showing him aiming handguns at the camera.

He repeatedly suggests he was picked on or otherwise hurt.

"You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience," he says. "You thought it was one pathetic boy's life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people."

The package, which arrived at NBC's headquarters in New York two days after Cho killed 32 people and committed suicide in the deadliest one-man shooting rampage in modern U.S. history, bore a Postal Service stamp showing that it had been mailed at a Virginia post office at 9:01 a.m. Monday, about an hour and 45 minutes after Cho first opened fire.

That would explain one of the biggest mysteries about the massacre: Where the gunman was and what he did during that two-hour window between the first burst of gunfire, at a high-rise dorm, and the second fusillade, at a classroom building.

"Your Mercedes wasn't enough, you brats," he says, apparently reading from a manifesto. "Your golden necklaces weren't enough, you snobs. Your trust funds wasn't enough. Your vodka and cognac wasn't enough. All your debaucheries weren't enough. Those weren't enough to fulfill your hedonistic needs. You had everything."

Some of the pictures show him smiling; others show him frowning and snarling. Some depict him brandishing two weapons at a time, one in each hand. He wears a khaki-colored military-style vest, fingerless gloves, a black T-shirt, a backpack and a backwards, black baseball cap. Another photo shows him swinging a hammer two-fisted. Another shows an angry-looking Cho holding a gun to his temple.

The package was sent by overnight delivery but did not arrive at NBC until Wednesday morning. It had apparently been delayed because it had the wrong ZIP code, NBC said.

An alert postal employee brought the package to NBC's attention after noticing the Blacksburg return address and a name similar to the words reportedly found scrawled in red ink on Cho's arm after the bloodbath, "Ismail Ax," NBC said.

"I didn't have to do it. I could have left. I could have fled," he says. "But now I am no longer running. If not for me, for my children and my brothers and sisters that you (expletive). I did it for them."

He also refers to "martyrs like Eric and Dylan" — a reference to the teenage killers in the Columbine High massacre.

NBC News President Steve Capus said that the network received the package around noon and notified the FBI. He said the FBI asked NBC to hold off reporting on it so that the bureau could look at it first, and NBC complied, finally breaking the story just before a police announcement of the package at 4:30 p.m.

Capus said it was clear Cho videotaped himself, because he could be seen leaning in to shut off the camera.

State Police Spokeswoman Corinne Geller cautioned that, while the package was mailed between the two shootings, police have not inspected the footage and have yet to establish exactly when the tape was made.

[Jon Lyrik]

How depressing that a guy would be that driven by his perhaps not-unfounded anger to reach such a boiling point. Guns may not be the problem here, even asylums. This seems to reach down to the very roots of society, and when one person less equipped to ignore them (change has not really been effectively administered) finally snaps and brings another cycle of hurt, anger and confusion to other people. But all in all, from a purely clinical standpoint, it's just another brick in the enormous wall of human folly turned vicious.

Meanwhile, 180+ Iraqis got killed today in the deadliest day there in months, but hey, who gives a fuck, it doesn't equal ratings, and it's thousands of miles away.

[Cyclonus]

As it turns out, the gunman sent a rather disturbing package to NBC headquarters. This was one sick guy. I honestly can't do this article justice.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070418/ap_on_...a_tech_shooting

Va. Tech gunman sent material to NBC

BLACKSBURG, Va. - Midway through his murderous rampage, the Virginia Tech gunman went to the post office and mailed NBC a package containing photos and videos of him brandishing guns and delivering a snarling, profanity-laced tirade about rich "brats" and their "hedonistic needs."

"You had a hundred billion chances and ways to have avoided today," 23-year-old Cho Seung-Hui says in a harsh monotone. "But you decided to spill my blood. You forced me into a corner and gave me only one option. The decision was yours. Now you have blood on your hands that will never wash off."

NBC said the package contained a rambling and often-incoherent, 1,800-word video manifesto, plus 43 photos, 11 of them showing him aiming handguns at the camera.

He repeatedly suggests he was picked on or otherwise hurt.

"You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience," he says, apparently reading from his manifesto. "You thought it was one pathetic boy's life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people."

The package arrived at NBC's headquarters in New York two days after Cho killed 32 people and committed suicide in the deadliest one-man shooting rampage in modern U.S. history. It bore a Postal Service time stamp showing that it had been mailed at a Virginia post office at 9:01 a.m. Monday, about an hour and 45 minutes after Cho first opened fire.

That would help explain one of the biggest mysteries about the massacre: where the gunman was and what he did during that two-hour window between the first burst of gunfire, at a high-rise dorm, and the second fusillade, at a classroom building.

"Your Mercedes wasn't enough, you brats," says Cho, a South Korean immigrant whose parents work at a dry cleaners in surburban Washington. "Your golden necklaces weren't enough, you snobs. Your trust funds wasn't enough. Your vodka and cognac wasn't enough. All your debaucheries weren't enough. Those weren't enough to fulfill your hedonistic needs. You had everything."

Some of the pictures show him smiling; others show him frowning and snarling. Some depict him brandishing two weapons at a time, one in each hand. He wears a khaki-colored military-style vest, fingerless gloves, a black T-shirt, a backpack and a backwards, black baseball cap. Another photo shows him swinging a hammer two-fisted. Another shows an angry-looking Cho holding a gun to his temple.

He refers to "martyrs like Eric and Dylan" — a reference to the teenage killers in the Columbine High massacre.

The package was sent by overnight delivery but did not arrive at NBC until Wednesday morning. It had apparently been delayed because it had the wrong ZIP code, NBC said.

An alert postal employee brought the package to NBC's attention after noticing the Blacksburg return address and a name similar to the words reportedly found scrawled in red ink on Cho's arm after the bloodbath, "Ismail Ax," NBC said.

NBC News President Steve Capus said that the network received the package around noon and notified the FBI. He said the FBI asked NBC to hold off reporting on it so that the bureau could look at it first, and NBC complied, finally breaking the story just before a police announcement of the package at 4:30 p.m.

Capus said it was clear Cho videotaped himself, because he could be seen leaning in to shut off the camera.

State Police Spokeswoman Corinne Geller cautioned that, while the package was mailed between the two shootings, police have not inspected the footage and have yet to establish exactly when the images were made.

[AceD]

Some idiotic news outlets are already comparing some of the still photos Cho sent to stills from OLD BOY, with the main character holding a hammer and poised to strike with it.

Now I'm not one to see that movies and such have NO influence on people (saying that is equally idiotic) but if Cho were not Asian is there ANY way people would be making this comparasin? I think not. An ugly and stupid thing, really, that I questioned even dignifying with a mention here. Won't be the last dumb and pointless thing to come out of this, though.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by AceD
Some idiotic news outlets are already comparing some of the still photos Cho sent to stills from OLD BOY, with the main character holding a hammer and poised to strike with it.

Now I'm not one to see that movies and such have NO influence on people (saying that is equally idiotic) but if Cho were not Asian is there ANY way people would be making this comparasin? I think not. An ugly and stupid thing, really, that I questioned even dignifying with a mention here. Won't be the last dumb and pointless thing to come out of this, though.

It's also a poor comparison anyway, considering Oldboy's content. The pose is similar in the image though. And it is the most popular Korean movie in the states, so it may have been deliberate on Cho's part.

BTW, the reason his stay in a mental hospital had no relevance to his buying a gun is pretty simple. He wasn't commited, he entered it voluntarily (which anyone can do), and they treated and released him.

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by Cyclonus
As it turns out, the gunman sent a rather disturbing package to NBC headquarters. This was one sick guy. I honestly can't do this article justice.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070418/ap_on_...a_tech_shooting

Ugh, what a fucking piece of shit.

[ElderPredator]

This is a goddamn tragedy! :(

It's impossible to tell what's wrong with a person until it's too late.

[Vong]

http://ca.geocities.com/jgilston@rogers.com/214762_4.jpg

When will politicians realize that securing out school yards from guns and protecting our students and teachers is a "homeland security" issue. Violent act after violent act Americans continue to react to them by saying "Why would someone do such a thing?", and hardly ever consider what the cause is. Sure, after Columbine and the attack on the Amish school there were anti-gun protests and lobbys, but they faded away under more "important" non-domestic issues, like Iraq. Are people unwilling or unable to recognize that the country's lack of adequate gun control policies have reached truly epidemic proportions? How many more Columbines and Virginia Tech's will it take for American's to realize that there is something wrong with their laws on firearms?

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Jim H
BTW, the reason his stay in a mental hospital had no relevance to his buying a gun is pretty simple. He wasn't commited, he entered it voluntarily (which anyone can do), and they treated and released him.


The reason I'm asking is because when determining risk, there is a formula of sorts that they use to determine if they are a threat to themselves. For instance, a guy who says he wants to kill himself, that's one mark, so you ask him how he would do it - if the guy hesitates, that's good, he's less of a risk than someone who is like, "Use a gun snd shoot myself." But if someone says that it's obviously another mark, but then you dig further and ask where they'd get a gun. A lot of this is all trusting how the person reads and all, but if they are like "I don't know." its a smaller risk than someone saying, "I have 3 under my couch."

I'm just wondering, because it doesn't matter if you've signed on voluntarily or not. You can be held for any reason that poses a risk. I would think that maybe it would be of some benefit to allow mental health professionals access to gun and weapons records. At least i don't see what it could hurt. If anything, it would be good to at least utilize outreach programs or community-based follow-ups. It seems like one of those things were everything was in black and white, but no one did anything with what was available.

[Jim H]

Sure, after Columbine and the attack on the Amish school there were anti-gun protests and lobbys, but they faded away under more "important" non-domestic issues, like Iraq. Are people unwilling or unable to recognize that the country's lack of adequate gun control policies have reached truly epidemic proportions? How many more Columbines and Virginia Tech's will it take for American's to realize that there is something wrong with their laws on firearms?

Why are they epidemic now, but not 20 years ago, when gun murder rates were far, far higher?

[EVILxxx]

The Westboro Baptist Church is going to Protest the funerals.

[Criminal Rock]

Huh? the funerals of the victims or the shooter?

[Criminal Rock]

well, i guess either way its still fucked up...

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
Then maybe you need to get over it. Not to sound like a dick but the reality of the situation is that you are far more likely to die in say a car accident. Are you afraid to drive? You would be considered an irrational person if you said no.

Yeah Bubba pretty much covered it.

To add though: If i'm walking into a grocery store and there are people walking around with guns it would make me nervous. Maybe it's because of where i'm from and it's just a complete mind fuck to me to think of people walking around armed up like that. Why the fuck would you need to be walking around 24/7 with a weapon used to maim/kill people ya know? It makes no sense to me.

It's just me but out of the these two scenes:

a)Walk into a grocery store. 15 people in there with guns.

b)Walk into a grocery store. 15 people in there with celery.

I'm picking b as the safest.

Of course there are alot of things that could kill us. Driving, Walking the dog on a runway, Marriage, but why increase the chance of death by carrying lethal weapons around with you?

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by Jim H
Why are they epidemic now, but not 20 years ago, when gun murder rates were far, far higher?

I would say it's been out of controll for quite some time now.

I've heard this argument in an old thread from a few years back too. I've been looking for it but I can't find it at the moment. I'll keep looking.

Somebody was defending gun laws and gun ownership by basicly saying "What's the problem gun deaths are lower now"

Like it's only 40,00 now realax man. I know you wasn't doing that but it just popped back into my mind.

If somebody could give me an honest opinion on this question i'd be happy. America, safer with gun ownership or safer if nobody owned a gun? Lets open our minds and realy give this one some thought.:)

[Jim H]

Of course there are alot of things that could kill us. Driving, Walking the dog on a runway, Marriage, but why increase the chance of death by carrying lethal weapons around with you?

There isn't any real evidence that concealed carry holders increase the chance of death in any area. There's marginal evidence they reduce it (though the effect was quite pronounced when Florida did it, kicking off the modern trend, it seems like it is the exception). That's about the state of things right now in America, where only two states DON'T have concealed carry in some form. Last time I checked, there are 38 states that have "shall issue" permits, which means the local police MUST give them out to those who've taken the required classes and done all the neccassary paperwork, fees, fingerprinting, etc.

Above, you are making a common sense assumption about the way something like that works, but "common sense" isn't always correct. Like, for example, how a group of people are less likely to help someone in dire need than a single individual walking by.


Like it's only 40,00 now realax man. I know you wasn't doing that but it just popped back into my mind.

Where did 40,000 come from? Statistics I've seen put gun murders at about 8,000 a year.

If somebody could give me an honest opinion on this question i'd be happy. America, safer with gun ownership or safer if nobody owned a gun? Lets open our minds and realy give this one some thought

It's an irrelevant question as guns can't be eliminated from the USA, but if absolutely no one had guns in the country and somehow more could never get in, I'm honestly not sure. It would be such an incredibly radical change it would be a disruption of the entire existing social fabric. The changes that would happen are next to impossible to predict.

If, somehow, things were otherwise the same, but guns simply didn't exist, for anybody? There'd certainly be fewer crime-related deaths, that much I'd say. Overall safer in terms of rates of crime victimization? I'm not so sure, either way, actually.

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by Jim H
Above, you are making a common sense assumption about the way something like that works, but "common sense" isn't always correct. Like, for example, how a group of people are less likely to help someone in dire need than a single individual walking by.

Well yeah you say that but common sense or not i'm willing to wager that if there wasn't any guns in the hand of the public, gun deaths would fall to almost nothing. It's common sense to think that and i'd have to question anybodies sanity that dissagreed. So if we can agree that to be the case then obviously we know what's needed to be tackled in order to sort this problem out. How would you go about solving this massive problem now? Off the top of my head I don't know. A country wide ban followed by a gun amnesty could be a start. Wouldn't cure it of course but then it's only a start.

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by Jim H
Where did 40,000 come from? Statistics I've seen put gun murders at about 8,000 a year.

This thread was few years ago and that was the number aprox. being banded around. Although wasn't it like 30,000 gun related deaths in the Us just like a year ago or something? I might be wrong i'll see if I can find a link but I thought I remeber reading that.



Originally posted by Jim H
It's an irrelevant question as guns can't be eliminated from the USA, but if absolutely no one had guns in the country and somehow more could never get in, I'm honestly not sure. It would be such an incredibly radical change it would be a disruption of the entire existing social fabric. The changes that would happen are next to impossible to predict.

If, somehow, things were otherwise the same, but guns simply didn't exist, for anybody? There'd certainly be fewer crime-related deaths, that much I'd say. Overall safer in terms of rates of crime victimization? I'm not so sure, either way, actually.


It's not irrelevant because people are talking as if owning a gun and walking around with one is no problem. No safety problems there. When clearly if we are talking safety it would be safer not to have them available in the first place.

I agree the changes would be impossible to predict. But seriously to you envision it getting worse than it is now? With a country wide ban on guns being owned by the public do you honestly think there wouldn't be an improvement?

The US has more gun deaths than Canada. It also as more crime. I think it would make a big difference in terms of safety and crime.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Scorpio24
Well yeah you say that but common sense or not i'm willing to wager that if there wasn't any guns in the hand of the public, gun deaths would fall to almost nothing. It's common sense to think that and i'd have to question anybodies sanity that dissagreed. So if we can agree that to be the case then obviously we know what's needed to be tackled in order to sort this problem out. How would you go about solving this massive problem now? Off the top of my head I don't know. A country wide ban followed by a gun amnesty could be a start. Wouldn't cure it of course but then it's only a start.

You can't get all the guns out of the hands of the public (and by "public" I mean all civilians). So it's a completely moot point. There are just too many guns. It would take numerous decades of constant enforcement and probably billions upon billions of dollars.

Further, legislative bans ALWAYS grandfather what is banned in the USA anyways (drugs being the exception). That's why you can still legally have fully automatic guns (huge pain, but possible) - there's a ton of them that have been grandfathered and maintained since the mid-80s, when they stopped entering the civilian market in any way.

Also, there is no real evidence to suggest bannings of guns reduces crime. At least, none I've seen that was over an acceptably long time frame and wasn't extremely ambiguous.

Additionally, there is an enormous market and influx of illegal guns in the USA. That's not going away anytime soon. You'd also be removing a massive deterrent (the number of crimes stopped or reduced by armed civilians is enormous - generally measured in millions per year) to crime if somehow guns were not grandfathered.

And finally, I personally wouldn't ever support a nation wide gun ban under almost any circumstances, and neither would most other Americans. On general principle, I find it unacceptable to be legally disarmed in this way. And I don't even own any guns.

I'd violate the principle if somehow there was a magic button that could uninvent modern weapons, but that isn't how things work.

I might be wrong i'll see if I can find a link but I thought I remeber reading that.

CIA World Factbook says like 8,250ish. That was gun MURDERS, not just gun-related deaths - which includes things like suicide and self-defense shootings.


It's not irrelevant because people are talking as if owning a gun and walking around with one is no problem. No safety problems there. When clearly if we are talking safety it would be safer not to have them available in the first place.

They talk about it as if it weren't a problem because it isn't. I don't know the exact numbers of concealed carry holders in America, but based on numbers I've been reading, it's several million. And there really aren't many problems. I've had difficulty finding ANY (I would assume problems have occured with that many CCW holders, it is just extremely rare), though I've found several references to people using them to defend themselves.

But seriously to you envision it getting worse than it is now? With a country wide ban on guns being owned by the public do you honestly think there wouldn't be an improvement?

I could see it getting worse, yes. I have no reason to believe it would actually get better. A legal ban and a removal of guns from criminals AND law abiding citizens just aren't the same thing. Ideally, we'd prevent criminals from having guns and only allow law abiders to get them, but that's quite difficult.


The US has more gun deaths than Canada. It also as more crime. I think it would make a big difference in terms of safety and crime.

The USA also has way more people. I assume you mean per capita. As far as safer, I hear different things. There's this odd statistic which keeps popping up that puts Canada's violent crime rate at double the US's (though they still peg them as having a lower murder rate).

They also have guns, lots of guns actually. Not as many as America, true, but apparently almost 1 in 4 households have a gun (a study cited on wikipedia says so).

And on one last note, I'd like to mention you're more likely to be a victim of violent crime in the UK than in the USA. But you're more likely to be murdered over here.

Interesting, isn't it?

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
Huh? the funerals of the victims or the shooter?

It's Fred Phelps so obviously America is being punished by God again.

No, I'm comparing irresponsibility with cars to irresponsibility with guns. Why shouldn't a person be worried about others acting irresponsible?

He's not just worried about people who act irresponsibly he's worried about gun ownership period. Behold: A country wide ban followed by a gun amnesty could be a start.


To add though: If i'm walking into a grocery store and there are people walking around with guns it would make me nervous. Maybe it's because of where i'm from and it's just a complete mind fuck to me to think of people walking around armed up like that. Why the fuck would you need to be walking around 24/7 with a weapon used to maim/kill people ya know? It makes no sense to me.

What I'm saying is that you would never know anyway. Most people don't carry and the few who are licensed generally aren't stupid enough to risk losing that license unless they're put in the most dire of situations. Personally, I wouldn't carry a gun on me walking around even if i had the class A (ALP) license, (I'm allowed to buy any legal firearm but I'm not allowed to walk around with it concealed, and my background is impeccable) but some people prefer to have one. Maybe they're a female who wouldn't stand a chance against a stronger male opponent. Maybe they've been mugged and beaten near death before and would rather carry a gun and not need it as opposed to needing a gun and not have one.

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by Jim H
You can't get all the guns out of the hands of the public (and by "public" I mean all civilians). So it's a completely moot point. There are just too many guns. It would take numerous decades of constant enforcement and probably billions upon billions of dollars.

Further, legislative bans ALWAYS grandfather what is banned in the USA anyways (drugs being the exception). That's why you can still legally have fully automatic guns (huge pain, but possible) - there's a ton of them that have been grandfathered and maintained since the mid-80s, when they stopped entering the civilian market in any way.

Also, there is no real evidence to suggest bannings of guns reduces crime. At least, none I've seen that was over an acceptably long time frame and wasn't extremely ambiguous.

Additionally, there is an enormous market and influx of illegal guns in the USA. That's not going away anytime soon. You'd also be removing a massive deterrent (the number of crimes stopped or reduced by armed civilians is enormous - generally measured in millions per year) to crime if somehow guns were not grandfathered.



I wasn't aware of the legal side of the issue so thanks for the clear up.

I'm not saying it is possible to ban guns. In fact with the heavy feeling on both sides and rediculous legistation it's more or less impossible. Illegal guns have nothing to do with the point though. Illegal drugs pour into the country as well but I assume you're not prepared to legalise all drugs because they come in anyway.

I really don't know where to go with your point about no real evidence about banning guns making a difference. I just find the whole "I don't think it would make things better" argument astonishing to honest. Tighter gun controlls in Canada - Less gun related crime. Extremely tight gun controlls in UK - Less gun related crime. Per capita. Without getting sidertracked here I will make a another point to do with this at the bottom.


CIA World Factbook says like 8,250ish. That was gun MURDERS, not just gun-related deaths - which includes things like suicide and self-defense shootings.


Yeah my estimate included gun related deaths.

But as we are on the subject of gun controll and related safety lets look at some numbers.

This was an article by the Times just recently (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/bronwen_maddox/article1668794.ece)

But it will be hard to postpone a new round of the debate, even if it is inconclusive. In 2004, the gun-related homicide rate was nearly 11,000, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the total number of victims from firearm incidents was 477,000 in 2005, the Department of Justice said.

The total number of deaths in the US from guns (including accidents and suicides) has been running at more than 25,000 a year, according to lobby groups, nearly 40 times the rate in England and Wales.



These below are some figures from The Burea of Justice website (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm)

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2005, 477,040 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.


Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005.

The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.
(Couldn't find 2005)




They talk about it as if it weren't a problem because it isn't. I don't know the exact numbers of concealed carry holders in America, but based on numbers I've been reading, it's several million. And there really aren't many problems. I've had difficulty finding ANY (I would assume problems have occured with that many CCW holders, it is just extremely rare), though I've found several references to people using them to defend themselves.

The problem with so many people casualy carrying so many guns around is that there's SO MANY AROUND. If some nutcase decides he wants to rob a bank all he has to do is beat the shit out of somebody and steal their gun. But then if it goes wrong the guy can quickly grab is gun and shoot him. Cool.



I could see it getting worse, yes. I have no reason to believe it would actually get better. A legal ban and a removal of guns from criminals AND law abiding citizens just aren't the same thing. Ideally, we'd prevent criminals from having guns and only allow law abiders to get them, but that's quite difficult.

No ideally no-one would have guns.



The USA also has way more people. I assume you mean per capita. As far as safer, I hear different things. There's this odd statistic which keeps popping up that puts Canada's violent crime rate at double the US's (though they still peg them as having a lower murder rate).

And on one last note, I'd like to mention you're more likely to be a victim of violent crime in the UK than in the USA. But you're more likely to be murdered over here.

Interesting, isn't it?

Yes it's very interesting. In two seperate countries where violent crime is higher per capita. In two countries that have much tighter(in UK's case extremley tight rules laws against firearms) there is a far lower murder rate.

UK-Canada: Higher Violent Crime rate - Lower death rate.
US: Lower Violent Crime rate - Higher murder rate.

What's the common denominator?

I know a banning isn't going to happen. Another peice of that article touches on it:

Congress has not found it easy. In the past two decades, particularly after unusually shocking attacks, there have been efforts to tighten some aspect of gun control, from the power of the weapons to the criminal and mental checks that may be performed on those buying them.

But the power of the lobbies has largely prevented systematic examination of the rules. The NRA, the largest of about a dozen lobby groups, has more than 3 million members who contribute an estimated $100 million a year and targets legislation on Capitol Hill that might curtail gun rights. It won a notable victory in 2005 when the Republican-controlled Congress passed a Bill shielding gun manufacturers from lawsuits

But banning them is common sense. It's common sense to at the very least do mental checks on people wanting to buy a gun. If people want to accuse me of living with the fairies or for believing in a common sense solution/ending I can live with that.

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
He's not just worried about people who act irresponsibly he's worried about gun ownership period. Behold: A country wide ban followed by a gun amnesty could be a start.

If you quoted the whole paragraph instead of taking a line out of context you would have seen this:

Well yeah you say that but common sense or not i'm willing to wager that if there wasn't any guns in the hand of the public, gun deaths would fall to almost nothing. It's common sense to think that and i'd have to question anybodies sanity that dissagreed. So if we can agree that to be the case then obviously we know what's needed to be tackled in order to sort this problem out. How would you go about solving this massive problem now? Off the top of my head I don't know. A country wide ban followed by a gun amnesty could be a start. Wouldn't cure it of course but then it's only a start.

I was questioning how you would go about getting rid of the weapons if it was agreed that there would be alot less gun crime if the public did not own these guns. It was a hypothetical paragraph.

People carrying guns around makes me nervous. Idiots knowing people carry guns around makes me nervous. People with potential pshycological problems carrying guns around MAKES ME NERVOUS.

Again I see your point about a woman being worried about being attacked and wanting to carry a gun around with her. I just dissagree with the stance strongly. And I think it's fair to say the statistics back me up when it come to a scociety being permitted to carry guns and a society not permitted or with strict rules being a safer place.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by RicochetShaw
Is this true? Could you please show me the link to this, or could some one else show me? I just need to see it... I told my friend this and he didn't believe me. I need proof.

Sorry- I saw one of the officials say it on tv that they wouldn't make any identifications until the next day cause they didn't want to make any mistakes. I saw a girl on tv today say they checked all the hospitals and then went to the police station to see if he could be in custody and it was there they were told he was on the list. That was the next day I think. She found out before his family I think. They went to his dorm and decorated his door so when the parents went to retrieve his stuff it would be comforting to them to see he was loved. They also wrote all around the sidewalk where his car was parked in chalk about how loved he was etc. Nice.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Jim H
The other problem is that mental health institutions often don't help. At all. Some of them are so terrible they make things worse. And the whole system is critically underfunded.

By the way, specifically you can commit people if they are a danger to themselves or others. I believe that is the wording. It's fairly broad and open to interpretation already. The way it is worded is intended to keep them from commiting people who are just weird and disliked, which used to happen, unfortunately.

And besides, if being an odd loner and writing twisted stuff in school got you commited, there'd be such a massive overload on the system it would collapse.

Yeah but the committemnt is only for like 24- 36 hours or something like that. It has to continually get renewed and it is easy for someone to act sane to get out. I know the law is protective but it has gone too far in the other direction. People who are ill don't want treatment but they have the right to refuse even if it causes great problems for the families. A friend of mine has a shizophrenic brother who can be very problematic at times. Her father takes care of him but what will happen when he dies? Who will care for the guy? Many of the homeless are really people with severe psych problems who cannot be committed. I guess it is better for them to be out on the street starving or freezing.

This guy is emerging as a Schizophrenic I am thinking. He never talked to anyone. People tried to be friendly but he did not speak to them. And yet he spoke in his tape as if he had extensive experience with people- he did but it was all in his thought life. The people who existed in his mind.

[Lynn7]

I am not for banning guns. I think that if people are afraid of a person there should be a machanism in place that allows for anonymous reporting of scary individuals who might have volatile tempers or have a history of mentally inappropriate behavior- I know this could be misused but then the person could go to court and clear his name in front of a judge to buy guns. But there should be a flagging system in place that can slow down the gun buying process for certain people.

People had been concerned for him, they could've reported him to the gun clearing house or whatever and then he would not have been able to buy the guns so fast. But, I have a feeling someone like this could've killed the gun shop owner with a knife or blown up the studnets with a bomb. He was intent on murder so really the issue is the mentally ill need to be committed. He had no quality of life anyway.

[Jim H]

A friend of mine has a shizophrenic brother who can be very problematic at times.

Well, about 1/3 of schizophrenics get better without any treatment at all, and another 1/3 eventually can become completely self-sufficient without treatment (even though they'll have problems), so the odds are with him. Most drug treatments actually don't help. "How to Become Schizophrenic" might be of interest.

I do personally think it is morally wrong to commit people against their will unless they really are a danger to themselves or others. Being occasionally "problematic" is too vague for me to know what to say. And as I said earlier, the institutions sometimes make things worse. And they're badly underfunded. There's a couple of fairly recent presidents you can partly thank for that. I'll give a hint and say they're both republicans.

anonymous reporting of scary individuals who might have volatile tempers or have a history of mentally inappropriate behavior- I know this could be misused but then the person could go to court and clear his name in front of a judge to buy guns.

An interesting idea, but the logistics would be a nightmare, so I don't think it can happen.

blown up the studnets with a bomb.

Like in Bath, Michigan, which is still the most lethal case of school violence in US history?

Many of the homeless are really people with severe psych problems who cannot be committed.

Many of the homeless once upon a time let themselves be committed. A great many were booted out in the 80s and 90s when funding dried up and all but the most dire of cases had to be moved out. I recall the case of the homeless man who wanted to stay committed, but was refused, who ended up murderering someone. I think it was in New York. They based an episode of Law and Order on it.

Something like half the homeless are considered severely mentally ill. Many of them, in fact, if brought up and considered equally as, say, a middle class man in the suburbs behaving and thinking as they do, they WOULD get committed. But there just isn't enough room and money in the system to support them all. It's sad.

And I think it's fair to say the statistics back me up when it come to a scociety being permitted to carry guns and a society not permitted or with strict rules being a safer place.

I suggest looking up the statistics on Israel and Switzerland's crime levels. They have amongst the most lax gun control (almost all Swiss households have boxes of ammunition and fully automatic rifles in them, and Israeli's can get uzis from the police to carry free of charge) in the developed world, and very low violent crime rates.

How would you reconcile this information with your above statement?

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by Jim H
I suggest looking up the statistics on Israel and Switzerland's crime levels. They have amongst the most lax gun control (almost all Swiss households have boxes of ammunition and fully automatic rifles in them, and Israeli's can get uzis from the police to carry free of charge) in the developed world, and very low violent crime rates.

How would you reconcile this information with your above statement?

I would say using Israel as a back up to an argument for keeping weapons is one of the most rediculous things i've ever heard. Last I heard US citizens wern't in danger of being blown up when they went to a market or got on a bus EVERY DAY. Israely people have basicly been at war for the past 30 years in everyway but name.

Switzerland? If thats true it's surprising. I imagine they have little crime also? I will look into it myself or stats.

You can reconcile Switzerland as proof guns are fine if you want. I'll go back on down to common sense and say Gun culture = highest gun related deaths. Maybe I should use Palestine as my example? See no guns no gun related death ya'll. A few thosuand blown to death but absolutley no gun deaths.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Jim H
Well, about 1/3 of schizophrenics get better without any treatment at all, and another 1/3 eventually can become completely self-sufficient without treatment (even though they'll have problems), so the odds are with him. Most drug treatments actually don't help. "How to Become Schizophrenic" might be of interest.

I do personally think it is morally wrong to commit people against their will unless they really are a danger to themselves or others. Being occasionally "problematic" is too vague for me to know what to say. And as I said earlier, the institutions sometimes make things worse. And they're badly underfunded. There's a couple of fairly recent presidents you can partly thank for that. I'll give a hint and say they're both republicans.



An interesting idea, but the logistics would be a nightmare, so I don't think it can happen.



Like in Bath, Michigan, which is still the most lethal case of school violence in US history?



Many of the homeless once upon a time let themselves be committed. A great many were booted out in the 80s and 90s when funding dried up and all but the most dire of cases had to be moved out. I recall the case of the homeless man who wanted to stay committed, but was refused, who ended up murderering someone. I think it was in New York. They based an episode of Law and Order on it.

Something like half the homeless are considered severely mentally ill. Many of them, in fact, if brought up and considered equally as, say, a middle class man in the suburbs behaving and thinking as they do, they WOULD get committed. But there just isn't enough room and money in the system to support them all. It's sad.



I suggest looking up the statistics on Israel and Switzerland's crime levels. They have amongst the most lax gun control (almost all Swiss households have boxes of ammunition and fully automatic rifles in them, and Israeli's can get uzis from the police to carry free of charge) in the developed world, and very low violent crime rates.

How would you reconcile this information with your above statement?

It probably depends on how severe the schizophrenia is- but they are pretty sure the disease is due to structural defects in the brain counstruction that affects the way info is processed. Most schizophrenics are harmless but the problem is when they become paranoid and start to act out on delusions.

But can't we simply say that when a person is not able to function in society, AND they are mentally ill, they can be considered for a committment with good reviews in place by different groups of people to ensure objectivity. I doubt this man would have made it in society after graduation. He was not able to communicate with anyone so how could he have gotten or kept a job? His family would've had to take him it but what if they were afraid of him and didn't know how to deal with him? I'll bet you that was the case.

I think the problem in our country has to do with its not being homogenous. We are the only country that is made up of people who originate from all other countries in the world. Richard Gere had a problem when visiting India but any day on our streets we have millions of people from hundreds of cultures interacting with each other. People who can be easily offended by percieved insult. So I think that is why Switzerland or Israel can function without incident. I do wish more responsible people would carry weapons though so we would not always be such sitting ducks.

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
The Westboro Baptist Church is going to Protest the funerals.

Called it last night...

Anyone have a direct link to the videos? Can't seem to find them, and they are apparently widespread.

[Tuukka]

Things like these have always happened, always will.

There is no solution to it, because some people will always be mentally unstable. If they want to kill others, they will find the means regardless of whether they have easy access to guns or not. We can't possibly find them all and lock them up before they do something bad, because we don't notice what they are about to do until they do it. The great majority of people who write hateful fiction and are socially incapable would never kill anyone.

Media likes to blame movies and videogames, but in all honestly the media is a much bigger reason for things like these happening. Right now the worldwide media is doing exactly what this killer wanted them to do: They have made him famous, now he is a legend when before he was just a nobody loser. Killers like this dream of grandeur, and the media gives them that.

Right now other mentally disturbed people are following the events and getting that one final push to do the same thing themselves.

And it's not really the media we should blame, it's all the people who follow the news and soak all the information. We, the audience, boost the ratings and make these madmen famous. The media just gives us what we want: Shocking news, great tragic entertainment. That's what sells, that's what the audience wants.

So it's really us who are the ones to blame: You and me.

And this will happen again and again. No doubt about it. And while this event is a great tragedy, much more tragic things have happened all around the world over the last few days. But they weren't reported in such a big way, because they weren't quite as sexy as news items.

And the chances are when you go out today: You will get hit by a car and die, instead of getting shot.

The point?

The point is that there is nothing to do about it. There is no solution. World is like this, and we just have to live with it. There is nobody to point fingers at, there was just one guy who fell through the cracks. And it will happen again, but the changes of it happening to any of us are non-existant. So don't worry about it.

[therealjohng]

The are now saying that the movie Oldboy was an influence on this guy doing this.

[The Postmaster General]

Jesus. I don't blame movies and I don't blame video games. Obviously the real concern is movies based on video games.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Jesus. I don't blame movies and I don't blame video games. Obviously the real concern is movies based on video games.

Maybe he watched House Of The Dead, Alone In The Dark and Bloodrayne all in a row. After that, he just couldn't handle it anymore.

[Vong]

Originally posted by Jim H
The USA also has way more people. I assume you mean per capita. As far as safer, I hear different things. There's this odd statistic which keeps popping up that puts Canada's violent crime rate at double the US's (though they still peg them as having a lower murder rate).

They also have guns, lots of guns actually. Not as many as America, true, but apparently almost 1 in 4 households have a gun (a study cited on wikipedia says so).

Canada has stricter gun laws than the US. Cho Seung-Hui was classified as mentally ill by a Virgina court and he still was able to buy his guns...

I read in the Star that 90 out of 100 people in America have guns. This is far more than 1 in 4, and greater than the 31 out of 100 people in Canada who have guns.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Vong
Canada has stricter gun laws than the US. Cho Seung-Hui was classified as mentally ill by a Virgina court and he still was able to buy his guns...

I read in the Star that 90 out of 100 people in America have guns. This is far more than 1 in 4, and greater than the 31 out of 100 people in Canada who have guns.

90 out of 100 is wrong. That sounds like they based it on the total number of guns in civilian hands and divided it by population. Many people have multiple guns (my uncle, for example, has 3), so this is very misleading. The usual statistic that gets tossed around is that somewhat less than half of US households have a gun in them (I'm not sure what the average number of people per household is though). They don't try to break it down more strictly than that, as a rule. That makes guns around twice as common in households in America VS Canada.

I was referring to Canada as the country with 1 in 4 households possessing a gun. I realize now that was unclear, sorry.

Here's one link on it, which suggests 39% of US households have guns in them.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28021.html

Wikipedia suggests over 50%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#Statistics

Cho Seung-Hui was classified as mentally ill by a Virgina court and he still was able to buy his guns...

Yeah, the flag system is too weak. He was considered dangerous to himself, but the system considered him "treated" after they released him. At the very least, it does seem like they should flag him in an attempt to reduce the likelihood of suicide until the outpatient treatment program is reevaluated at a later date.

[Lynn7]

I thought this article was interesting- it says the killer was troubled from the beginning and the parents thought he had autism:

Article (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/tm_headline=we-are-glad-he-is-dead-by-cho-s-family--&method=full&objectid=18931479&siteid=89520-name_page.html)

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Jim H

Yeah, the flag system is too weak. He was considered dangerous to himself, but the system considered him "treated" after they released him. At the very least, it does seem like they should flag him in an attempt to reduce the likelihood of suicide until the outpatient treatment program is reevaluated at a later date.

I just read that a judge considered the kid an imminent threat back in 2005.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I thought this article was interesting- it says the killer was troubled from the beginning and the parents thought he had autism:



Looks like they left no child behind.

The real important question on everyone's mind right now: How were his standardized testing scores?

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Scorpio24
If you quoted the whole paragraph instead of taking a line out of context you would have seen this:



I was questioning how you would go about getting rid of the weapons if it was agreed that there would be alot less gun crime if the public did not own these guns. It was a hypothetical paragraph.

People carrying guns around makes me nervous. Idiots knowing people carry guns around makes me nervous. People with potential pshycological problems carrying guns around MAKES ME NERVOUS.



When you imply that a country would be better off without guns, other people are going to imply that you mean guns should be banned. Not to mention other discussions I've had with you in other threads.

I read in the Star that 90 out of 100 people in America have guns.

90 out of 100? In other words 9 out of 10 or 90% of America has guns? Does that sound remotely reasonable to you? That only way they could possible stretch that number and keep a straight face is to say that since a father owns a gun, his infant son owns it as well by proxy.

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
When you imply that a country would be better off without guns, other people are going to imply that you mean guns should be banned. Not to mention other discussions I've had with you in other threads.


Funny I don't believe i've ever taken a position on the issue before. Apart from playing devils advocate once and asking a question, I don't recall talking about this before. What threads were these? Maybe my memory is slipping.

Again though the whole paragraph was hypothetical. As in IF we agreed guns were the problem how would you go about banning it. IF.

[EVILxxx]

The thread you started involving the Amish school shootings. I believe your ultimate stance was that you supported harsher gun laws, but in the beginning (again if I'm remembering correctly) you entertained the idea of outlawing all hand guns completely.

[Scorpio24]

You may be right I honestly don't remember. I did have a look for thread but the search isn't great.

[Badbird]

Now the owner of the store where he bought the guns is getting death threats.

I don't know what they teach up there at Virginia Tech, but apparently it's not irony.

[EVILxxx]

Not to mention he followed the law. They should be sending death threats to the state legislature.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by Badbird
Now the owner of the store where he bought the guns is getting death threats.

I don't know what they teach up there at Virginia Tech, but apparently it's not irony.

So now it's Virginia Tech people sending the threats? Where the hell did you get that bit of info? In case you missed it, the store where the gun was bought is at least a 40 minute drive from the Virginia Tech campus, in Roanoke, Va.

Whereever you went to school apparently didn't teach anything about assumptions.

[Badbird]

Originally posted by bigred760
So now it's Virginia Tech people sending the threats? Where the hell did you get that bit of info? In case you missed it, the store where the gun was bought is at least a 40 minute drive from the Virginia Tech campus, in Roanoke, Va.

Whereever you went to school apparently didn't teach anything about assumptions.

They did a whole piece on tha guy on Headline News the other day. Chill out. I was making a comment on how as a society, we often have the completely wrong reaction to tragic situations like this.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by Badbird
They did a whole piece on tha guy on Headline News the other day. Chill out. I was making a comment on how as a society, we often have the completely wrong reaction to tragic situations like this.

Sorry. I'm a VT grad and have been a little on edge the entire week.

You are right; people sending death threats to anyone surrounding this event is beyond stupid and outrageous.

[bigred760]

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0407/416648.html

Bravo students.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by bigred760
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0407/416648.html

Bravo students.

I couldn't possibly agree more. Excellent decision.

[The Postmaster General]

Cool, but sucks that they actually had to ask.