Va Tech Shooting

[NoPoke]

The majority of UK police don't carry guns. Why not? Because the majority of the UK population don't have guns and the police aren't therefore at a disadvantage. Without guns is awfully hard to get shot.

Sadly the situation is changing in the UK.

Guns are a part of the USA's history in much the same way as the longbow was a part of the UK's. The longbow was made obsolete in the UK by agriculture and commerce. The need to use a longbow to survive on a daily basis just went away and wasn't replaced by a similar need for a gun. We were lucky! I understand how the USA's much shorter history built a gun based economy, but that economy was 100 years in the past. Time to let it go and if not eliminate guns at least make their missuse less of a disaster for society.

I have a gun because xxxx has/might have a gun.
I have a semi automatic because I need a bigger stick than yyyyy.
I need an automatic because....

The USA is in an arms race with its own population.

 

[David's Confused Pokedad]

I am for the Second amendment. I just think it needs some control in what it permits. Big money thinks if we start with the little things it will spread to limit the whole thing, But when cops get out gunned by the bad guys and anyone can buy a gun at a pawn shop or gun show with no back ground check then we have problems. And everyone knows we have problems.

 

[Regis_Neo]

And a bunch of civilians hiding behind an outdated constitutional amendment that calls for a "militia" to ensure national security is going to do a better job or something?

Well, I suppose it's how you interpret the amendment, isn't it? And yes, they'd probably due a better job than the way Bush is handling National Security right now.

 

[Rulemaster]

how did this thread turn into a gun-control debate. the guns are a non-issue. he didn't get the 2nd gun from that store...quite possible he bought it on the street.

 

[Cyrus]

No, the Second Amendment is anything but outdated.

Say a criminal breaks into my home, and has either a knife or a gun of his own. If I, as a civilian, have a gun for protection, then I am either at an advantage or at least on an evel level...with a person breaking into my home. You should never be at a disadvantage with anyone in your own home, let alone an intruder. The fact is that even today, guns make a huge difference in personal safety.

However, personal safety isn't the only reason we have the Second Amendment. The #1 reason it exists is because of the everlasting threat of tyranny. Tyranny is not something that becomes "outdated," but something that is everlasting, and will once in a while appear in any government. If a government becomes too corrupt and tyrannical, then people will have means to protect themselves and their families.

While the Second Amendment is an extremely vital thing to have, the V-Tech case is unique. Would it even make enough of a difference to ban assault rifles? Maybe, or maybe not. Like I said in my previous post, if a sociopath really wanted to take out a bunch of people, he or she would use the most destructive means available...if it isn't an assault rifle, it'll be a crap load of hand guns so that the individual could actually go on a "spree."

 

[Martaveli]

I own a firearm, but I have a permit for it. The process of getting a permit is a very long and tedious, so for the most part, if someone needs to get one illegally, it is obtainable faster and more conveniently through illegal means. The issue here isn't if there was a way to prevent this person from becoming armed since logically there was no way to stop it. I send my best to all the victims families.

 

[GinoLombardi21]

All of the victims & families have my prayers. I think VT will be long gone due to a numerous amount of lawsuits which soon should be hitten them after all this blows over.

 

[Chromecatz]

Has anyone else read Cho's screen plays?
They have them up all over teh webz0rz
some FREAKY crap to say the least
same goes for his manifesto ;p

 

[Marril]

Well, I suppose it's how you interpret the amendment, isn't it?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

There's... not much to misinterpret here. It seems to think a bunch of Joe Americans with guns will somehow do a better job of maintaining national security than trained professionals do.

Say a criminal breaks into my home, and has either a knife or a gun of his own.

This kind of thing happens a lot where you live, then? I'd argue for a better judicial system than for anyone who wants a gun to have one. Properly restricted, the criminal himself be far less likely to actually have a gun, either.

Heck, up here most house break-in criminals are unarmed. That should tell you something.

If a government becomes too corrupt and tyrannical, then people will have means to protect themselves and their families.

I'd love to see a bunch of gun-toting citizens outshoot the US Army. If this "tyranny" you speak of ever actually came to pass, e.g. someone tried declaring martial law, "the people" aren't going to be in any position to overthrow their own government.

This is even assuming that the "tyranny" you speak of will ever actually occur. Not even the worst president I can think of offhand, George Dubya Bush, earned a "militia" of citizens storming Washington to depose him. I wonder why that is, hmm?

While the Second Amendment is an extremely vital thing to have, the V-Tech case is unique.

Just like Columbine was unique. Just like the Santana shooting was unique. Just like the University of Arizona shooting was unique. Just like the Red Lake massacre was unique. You can't simply point at any time some idiot with a gun kills someone and say it's "unique." This is what the second amendment does: it allows people to have guns. The fact that the US has some of the highest gun death rates per year is just an unrelated statistical anomaly, 'mirite?

Has anyone else read Cho's screen plays?
They have them up all over teh webz0rz
some FREAKY crap to say the least
same goes for his manifesto ;p

It's not even "freaky crap." His screenplays simply sucked unbelievably hard. As I said above, if he hadn't gone on a killing rampage, his next performance would've been in "Would You Like Fries With That?" at the Golden Arches Theatre.

I expected a lot more from him, given what I'd heard about it, so I was very much disappointed to see work at a level I'm surprised he graduated high school with. And the guy was an English major!

 

[Dek]

Thompson is now blaming Bill Gates XD

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-ent...-blames-bill-gates-for-vt-shooting-253797.php

 

[Cyrus]

Marill, maybe I wasn't clear with that statement. I said that V-Tech was unique because the killer used an assault rifle that was unbanned not too long ago. Of course it's unique, and that's a big reason why the legal status of guns is being discussed here.

 

[Regis_Neo]

There's... not much to misinterpret here. It seems to think a bunch of Joe Americans with guns will somehow do a better job of maintaining national security than trained professionals do.

Well, given the state of the so-called "trained professionals", I think that your "Joe Amricans" would do a better job. In case you don't read the other sources of American newspapers and such, a lot of the "trained professionals" (ie Policemen, Army grunts, etc) seem as trigger-happy, if not more than your average person with a firearm.

And from my original post, I meant it's how people interpret the words written. To me, the amendment basically says you can have guns. To you, you probably read it word-for-word, and require a militia in order for it to hold true.

Also to me, this shows how funky and misleading the English language actually is, as things can always be interpreted differently by different people.

I'd love to see a bunch of gun-toting citizens outshoot the US Army. If this "tyranny" you speak of ever actually came to pass, e.g. someone tried declaring martial law, "the people" aren't going to be in any position to overthrow their own government.

This is even assuming that the "tyranny" you speak of will ever actually occur. Not even the worst president I can think of offhand, George Dubya Bush, earned a "militia" of citizens storming Washington to depose him. I wonder why that is, hmm?

Hmm...I think you fail to consider 2 things:

1. Amazingly, not everyone hates Bush yet. As to why, I don't know.

2. People are not going to be motivated to do something as radical as storming the White House unless it's the last possible option avaliable. Not only that, but Bush, through his lies and various doings, has installed a very real sense of fear in the people to not do this sort of thing; he's created a "strawman", or false enemy if you please, that ensures people aren't going to go off to the White House with guns in hand.

And yes, I think you'd be surprised at how effective ordinary gun-totting citizens can be if needed. I mean, heck, the British initially being held off by people who could be classified as "gun-totting citizens" during the American Revolution. Who is to say it can't happen, unless you've seen the future or it actually comes to pass.

 

[Marril]

Well, given the state of the so-called "trained professionals", I think that your "Joe Amricans" would do a better job. In case you don't read the other sources of American newspapers and such, a lot of the "trained professionals" (ie Policemen, Army grunts, etc) seem as trigger-happy, if not more than your average person with a firearm.

So you're saying that, if given a gun, you personally could perform more adequately in a given danger scenario than a policeman or soldier?

And from my original post, I meant it's how people interpret the words written. To me, the amendment basically says you can have guns. To you, you probably read it word-for-word, and require a militia in order for it to hold true.

The "militia" is actually defined classically as the adult male American population, which is pretty absurd as such a "militia" would require some kind of leader... a man to preside over them... a "president" if you would, in order to function coherently.

In fact, for a government to be stable and efficient, this "militia" would need the man presiding over them to have some stable bit of leadership, so he wouldn't be challenged constantly... some kind of defense force, if you would.

1. Amazingly, not everyone hates Bush yet. As to why, I don't know.

He's got the redneck vote. All he needs to do to keep their vote, though, is announce that he's against *** marriage and abortion.

People are not going to be motivated to do something as radical as storming the White House unless it's the last possible option avaliable.

I haven't seen any large-scale defense against "tyrrany" fuelled by the second amendment, period. I'd say this is because it's a lot easier to talk about than actually do.

I mean, heck, the British initially being held off by people who could be classified as "gun-totting citizens" during the American Revolution.

It doesn't hurt that the British had to fight off not only the Americans, but the French and the Spanish as well, which ultimately was the reason they lost.

 

[Rulemaster]

oh my god, another thread ruined

 

[LionheartEX]

really, guys, lets not go off the handle with another debate here

my condolences to everyone involved in this tragedy- watching it on the news here was a huge shock.

 

[evil psyduck]

Marill, maybe I wasn't clear with that statement. I said that V-Tech was unique because the killer used an assault rifle that was unbanned not too long ago. Of course it's unique, and that's a big reason why the legal status of guns is being discussed here.

He did not use any assault rifle. He used two hand guns.

 

[Vegeta ss4]

tons of people knew this kid was a problem, tons of people knew what COULD happen, but so FEW did anything. so much discussion about such a simple reason of "why"

In all honesty what could you do?

You can get him help but in all seriousness nothing can be done. You may presume that he would do something bad or villianous but you can just point at the guy and say...."killer" before he has done it. Although I myslef at my school get weird vibes from 3 people in my school. They just seem like they would bring a gun to school.

Also....has anyone noticed the downfall of schools in this past week?

In my school alone we have had 2 bomb threats....and in Missouri we have had over 15 bomb threats in which 4 schools were closed down for the day. This is madening!!!!!!!

What makes a kid do this IMO is the bullies and the overall stress at school cause this stuff. Perhaps we should lower the stress at schools...don't give so much homework.....don't give us reports once a week that is worth 1/8 of your grade. I am sad to say that there will be another shooting bigger than this....I think we can all agree on that.

Also....11:00 AM is a moment of silence for the victims....so please do that.

Also Again......To news crews..... Stop making the guy seem like a martar. this guy is getting too much coverage and I am sure that is what he wanted even though he is dead.

Man I can't imagine how the parents of the killer must feel....that would make me want to commit suicide myself if I was a parent of the killer.

 

[moza]

The reason why a bunch of rag-tag American Joes would fight of the US army is because

1) There are a lot more civilians then army personnal
2) You know your hometown better then anyone, homefield advantage
3) Gorrila tactics
4) You could probably buy the same equipment they use of the internet :-D(dunno if it is true, but it might be)


IF everyone carried a gun, I don't see there being any crime at all.

Guy walks into a bank, fires an SMG at the roof, says get down, gets shot several times by different people.

Guy brakes into your house with a gun, he get's shot several times.

Granted, there will still be crime, there always is. There will always be the falling of the edge people, but I know a lot of people would feel a lot more security with a gun at their side. Heck, I bet more then a few would use it against someone who did pull a gun out to harm someone.

back on topic

=*(

 

[SD PokeMom]

It sounds like Cho slipped through the cracks of the 'system'. Hindsight is 20/20 after all...

Yes, he stalked two female students...who reported it and then declined to press charges. What might have happened had they done so? And NO I'm not blaming them...and certainly would not want to be them today, assuming they were not among his victims.

Yes, he was in a mental facility for a short time...but released after checking out as not a danger to himself or others. Again, within the law: you can't lock people up for being "strange", for being loners...that's a slippery slope that would NOT 'solve' anything. Just as he was kicked out of Nikki Giovanni's creative writing class: again, the university did what they could in _recommending_ that he get 'help'...but they had no legal way to FORCE him to do so. Had they made it a demand...as in, get help or leave the university...I'd guess he'd have just left rather than be treated...


Did his parents know? Could they have 'done anything'? Likely, no: he was legally an adult, so his parents would NOT have been notified about anything that was happening on campus due to privacy regulations. Even if they did: did their medical insurance cover psychiatric care? Did they HAVE insurance? Was he covered under theirs? And I'm not even getting into the stigma of needing to be treated for mental issues, both here in this country and within an Asian immigrant community. I truly would not be surprised if we were to hear that his parents attemped or committed suicide due to the shame and 'loss of face' this has caused them...

Don't get me wrong: I have compassion for all the victims and their families, and the ultimate responsibility for his actions rests solely on Cho; this is just unspeakable. But I'm also not sure what have could been done to prevent this, given the regulations and laws as they are. Starting down the slippery slope of locking up hundreds or thousands of people considered 'strange' in order to 'prevent the next VA Tech' is NOT the answer, no more than 'homeland security' has been anything other than a reduction of our own rights in the name of 'protection from terrorism'...

*sigh*

namuamidabutsu...

JMHO,
'mom

 

[ninetales1234]

I can't stand it. I watch news on TV often, and now it seems that the media are covering this one issue and ignoring a lot of other things that are going on right now. What a waste.

Next time someone proudly says your school is a gun-free zone, keep this event in mind.

I am for the Second amendment. I just think it needs some control in what it permits.

Really? It doesn't say anything about exceptions. It does not say the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed... except when the Democrats and Republicans think it is good for us." It says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" and then there's a period at the end.

What law would you have written to stop the VA Tech killer?(really, I want to know- In everything, I act under the assumption that I could be wrong, so...) The law didn't stop him from killing people and I don't think law would discourage him from getting a gun.

What if he had been ordered to stay of the school grounds? Would the law stop him from tresspassing, if he was willing to kill 30+ people? Same as with the gun issue, if you want you kill a bunch of people (then yourself) you won't care what the law is.

Big money thinks if we start with the little things it will spread to limit the whole thing, But when cops get out gunned by the bad guys... we have problems.

But what about when the cops are the bad guys...?
You don't want to live in a place where the people are subject to whatever the state throws at them, and there is nothing that can be done about it?
If you want the state to protect you from guns, at least keep in mind that the state is not morally perfect, and is just as capable of being the "bad guy" as Cho Seung-Hui was.

No, the Second Amendment is anything but outdated.

Yeah, and if people don't like it, please, remember: it is the Supreme Law of the Land. If you don't like the law, if you don't like the way the government is supposed to function, either work to change the law, or "boycott" the government.

Don't get me wrong: I have compassion for all the victims and their families, and the ultimate responsibility for his actions rests solely on Cho; this is just unspeakable. But I'm also not sure what have could been done to prevent this, given the regulations and laws as they are. Starting down the slippery slope of locking up hundreds or thousands of people considered 'strange' in order to 'prevent the next VA Tech' is NOT the answer, no more than 'homeland security' has been anything other than a reduction of our own rights in the name of 'protection from terrorism'...

Yep

I have a gun because xxxx has/might have a gun.
I have a semi automatic because I need a bigger stick than yyyyy.
I need an automatic because....

I'm a computer artist with Photoshop version CS2 and I want Photoshop version CS3, because my competitors have Photoshop CS3. Weapons are no different from any other technology. Things get updated and changed. Competition leads to change.

I understand the cultural things you bring up about guns in the UK, but, darn, whoever does have a gun there will sure be powerful- hope it's not someone evil. Your government is getting bigger everyday, with its ban on knives and its recent establishment of a National ID card. I hope you guys aren't too pacified and stupified (not to mention unarmed) to fight back when the time is right.

Well, given the state of the so-called "trained professionals", I think that your "Joe Amricans" would do a better job. In case you don't read the other sources of American newspapers and such, a lot of the "trained professionals" (ie Policemen, Army grunts, etc) seem as trigger-happy, if not more than your average person with a firearm.

And they have sovereign immunity. When they screw up, they don't have to answer to anyone.

Also to me, this shows how funky and misleading the English language actually is, as things can always be interpreted differently by different people.

Well that's just silly. The Constitution says what it says. It's not written in Java, Klingon, or something like that. It's written in English. The mainstream media and the Republicrats make people believe that there are tons and tons of confusing things about the document, and that you have to study for 10 years at Princeton to understand it, to even come close to the "great" insight that our Supreme Court judges have. The govnerment officials use this misperception to their advantage. But, in truth, it is written in English and, for example, when you see the words "Congress shall make no law" it means "Congress shall make no law".
It really is simple. But the msm wouldn't want you to know that.