Many Dead In Virginia Tech Shooting

nexuspal writes "Over 20 confirmed dead at Virginia Tech. Shooter killed some at residence hall then two hours later killed others in classrooms. Worst school shooting in US history. "

Comments

Engineering building

[eclectro]

He killed nerds. He was shooting at us.

Re:Engineering building

[cayenne8]

Yeah, engineering bldg...apparently he walked in (after shooting someone in a dorm?), he chained the doors of the engineering bldg, so no one could get in/out and started blasting away.

So far, 32 dead they say including him...they said he was an oriental fellow, with a vest on, and lots of ammo strapped to him.

Any word if he was an engineering student that may have snapped or anything?

Sad day...

:-(

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

What? Let's get him by solving math problems.

Re:Engineering building

[flitty]

"Things Fall Apart; The Center Will Not Hold"... Yeates. Everytime i hear about these shootings, the "terrorists" seem a little further away in a less relevant place.

Re:Engineering building

[vought]

Great. Now Jon Katz is going to write something obtuse about this.

Re:Engineering building

[double-oh three]

Well, from the elapsed time and distance from the initial shooting to the secondary, and mass-casualty, one it seems clear that he made a choice to go to Norris hall. I doubt it was an anti-nerd crime, it seems more likely that the initial shooting drove the shooter mad (or wanting suicide by cop), and he went to Norris due to some unknown reason or by familiarity.

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

The term is Asian, not Oriental.

Re:Engineering building

[Prysorra]

Mod this comment up - incredibly important point. You know this image? http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/photoessay_1642_ images/0416071259_M_041607_shooting1.jpg Yeah, that was just a reporter. He was released.

Re:Engineering building

[Prysorra]

How..... Orientalist .

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

Could it be he was influenced by Chuck Norris?

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you still call people Mongoloids too? It's the 21st century gramps, try call an Asian that to his face and don't be surprised if he busts out the chop-suey and puts your old white ass in the hospital.

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

Oriental just means Eastern. It's not offensive. It's a little imprecise, but it isn't really used to mean anything other than East Asia. Asian isn't a good term to use for East Asian because Asia is a big continent, encompassing the Middle East and much of Russia as well as the areas usually referred to by Oriental. People who would use Oriental as some sort of insult are just as capable of using Asian in the same manner.

Re:Engineering building

[daveschroeder]

Do you realize how many entrances and exits this building has? I have a feeling that even if it ends up true that he chained doors (which is still just a rumor, and has not been mentioned at either of the two VT press conferences (second one is in progress)), there would have been numerous, numerous avenues of escape. Yes, it's still sad.

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah like they all know kung foo right?

Re:Engineering building

[BeansBaxter]

I've played Quake 2 & 3 and I must say the rocket launcher was very effective for defending myself.

Re:Engineering building

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Ummm.

Yeah.

He wanted to see if unarmed people really could take out a guy with a gun as easily as they do in the movies.

Guess not, ass.

Re:Engineering building

[thephotoman]

We won't even mention Jack Thompson, because that's too damn easy.

Re:Engineering building

[SatanicPuppy]

It's funny how when I see someone pretentiously quote a poet, while misspelling his name, their views seem a little further away and less relevant.

Re:Engineering building

[Falladir]

When Asians object to "oriental," it's usually on the grounds that "I'm not a rug." This gripe is as obtuse as it is inane. As the literate among you know, the term means nothing but "Eastern." You don't here them objecting to phrases like "Eastern culture" and "Eastern philosophy," so there's nothing objectionable about the direction alone.

Sure, "oriental" collocates strongly with "rug" (this means that the words appear together frequently), but that shouldn't kill the word.

Re:Engineering building

[ksattic]

The term is Asian, not Oriental.

Only in the USA.

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

oh man a comment like that needs a 'tumbleweeds in a ghost town' moderation option. NONE of the moderations options really suited that comment and I was not about to mod it funny in a topic like this.

Re:Engineering building

[MasaMuneCyrus]

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "orient" is defined as, "the countries of the East, especially east Asia."

Therefore, an "oriental" person would be someone of the countries of the East, especially East Asia.

Therefore, the word is correct, so stop your arguing.

Re:Engineering building

[hc5duke]

As the literate among you know, the term means nothing but "Eastern."

and the word "nigger" comes from the Latin word meaning "black", but people don't like to be called by that. What's your point?

Re:Engineering building

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

How...Occidentalist :rollseyes

Re:Engineering building

[MightyMait]

The way this issue was explained to me the first time I made the faux pas in college (freshman year) of using "Oriental" instead of "Asian", it was explained to me that "Oriental" isn't appropriate to use because the corresponding term "Occidental" is not commonly used to refer to Western people. It didn't make that much sense to me at the time, but I decided to play along to avoid any more lectures.

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, it IS the 21st century and new era in which everyone and anyone doesn't actually get offended but goes out of their way to be offended. What makes the word Asian so much better than Oriental anyway? Because it is generic? Well you can go ahead of feel offended about what IS and ISN't 21st century while the only denomination that will continue to matter is the green in the banks of all those who laugh at you for going out of your way to feel offended (or if you're a neo-hippie...being offended on everyone else's behalf).

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing that Americans can buy just about any kind of assault weapon. That's why the students were able to defend themselves. They would have been even more effective in their self defence if Americans were allowed to buy rocket launchers as well.

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

I highly doubt the term oriental was used as an offensive term like nigga.

Its pretty typical for a term used to describe a group of people to become offensive when its original meaning wasn't. For example the word 'paki' paki is just short for Pakistani but it was used in a offensive way(a lot of the time against people who was not from pakistan) so it's meaning has now changed in casual communication and in probably 50 years or so it will become as offensive as the term nigga.

Re:Engineering building

[Falladir]

It would be a hell of a stretch to claim that Chinese, Japanese and Korean Americans need the level of protection that we extend to African Americans. There's a whole lot less racial hatred directed at immigrants from Asia than from Africa or even Mexico.

"Oriental" doesn't remotely compare with "nigger." Try to imagine a government employee being let go for saying "oriental."

I find your comment to be disingenuous grandstanding.

Re:Engineering building

[jedidiah]

You are attempting to confuse "nigger" with "negro".

Re:Engineering building

[PitaBred]

Only until someone got close... splash damage is a bitch... I know! Let's outlaw weapons without splash damage!

Re:Engineering building

[fyngyrz]

How... Occidentalist

Look, whatever. The issue at hand isn't terminology. It's the murders.

If the students were armed, as provided for by the 2nd amendment, someone could have dropped that guy early on and saved 30 or more people. Chalk up another bunch of deaths to the pussification of American citizens by the mommy government. There will be no correction, though; instead of people going "well duh, I should be armed in case some crazy bastard shows up in my face somewhere", they'll just take a bunch more of your civil rights away at the schools - restrict your movements, require papers, stick RFID tags to you earlobes, x-ray your colons... and a year or so from now, some crazy will do the same thing again, perhaps slightly more cleverly.

Ah, it's so frustrating to hear news like this. All those people did not have to die. Learn to defend yourselves, and be willing to. Seriously. The government cannot protect you from crazies; you have to do it yourself. The government always arrives after these events - only you can stop them as they happen. Get licensed. Practice. Carry. Be a protector instead of a victim. When the government says you can't carry here or there, fight like wildcats to reject this weakening of your ability to defend yourself and those you care about. The government is not your friend.

Re:Engineering building

[hc5duke]

Whether one group is being ostracized more has nothing to do with my argument - not to mention the idea that we need to extend some level of protection for black people is ridiculous.

You and I agree that "oriental" is not nearly as offensive (or at all) compared to "nigger", but I never compared the two words in the first place. I pointed out your false logic in that if a word originally meant something non-offensive, claiming this as offensive is "inane". Then I gave you another example following your logic. I don't see how this is "grandstanding", but you can see it however you want.

One last thing, now I'm nit-picking here, but this is what you said:

As the literate among you know, the term means nothing but "Eastern."

This is what Merriam-Webster says for oriental:

2 a : of superior grade, luster, or value b : being corundum or sapphire but simulating another gem in color

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

That line of reasoning is stupid. That'd mean we can call ourselves terran ;)
  Btw, would that mean if we use 'occidental' it'd be ok? Because here we do use that word (alternatively, western).

Re:Engineering building

[LEgregius]

I would mod the parent up if I had points. Note that VA Tech does not allow students or faculty to carry guns on school property, even if they have a concealed weapon permit. One armed student could have ended this right at the beginning.

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "orient" is defined as, "the countries of the East, especially east Asia."

Therefore, an "oriental" person would be someone of the countries of the East, especially East Asia.

Therefore, the word is correct, so stop your arguing. hey guess what, your own source says it is offensive, so shut the fuck up you racist motherfuckers:

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/oriental?view =uk

"The term oriental is now regarded as old-fashioned and potentially offensive as a term denoting people from the Far East. In US English, Asian is the standard accepted term in modern use; in British English, where Asian tends to denote people from the Indian subcontinent, specific terms such as Chinese or Japanese are more likely to be used."

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think if everybody was armed this couldn't have happened? Just think about it for a minute: You are somewhere and you hear shots. You pull out your gun and see 15 other people with guns. Who do you shoot?

I don't know what the solution to mass killings is, but arming everybody is not it.

Re:Engineering building

[feed_me_cereal]

...do people at your school seriously bring guns to class? OSU didn't have a gun policy and was in a state with a conceal/carry law without requiring a permit. Pretty much as lax as possible. Yet, no one I nor any of my friends knew *ever* brought a gun to class, and this is in an urban campus in a relatively shitty part of a relatively big city. So, basically, it doesn't matter what law virginia tech had. Frankly, I'd be frightened of anyone so worried about a random massacre happening to them that they feel they need to carry a gun around in the middle of the morning to every class they go to in a school in some backwoods town that almost never sees a murder and has 1/4 of the countries per-capita level of violent crime.

Re:Engineering building

[Flunitrazepam]

If the USA and England had the same population size, the USA would have 34 times the number of shooting homicides that the UK has.

Gun control is tightly controlled in England. Government security cameras are everywhere. So explain to me again how the bill of rights saves people's lives?

I'm all for personal liberty but your argument is trash.

Re:Engineering building

[Pantero Blanco]

Do you still call people Mongoloids too? It's the 21st century gramps, try call an Asian that to his face and don't be surprised if he busts out the chop-suey and puts your old white ass in the hospital.

I think you care a lot more about it than they do. Most would probably be more disgusted at your last sentence than the term "Oriental".

Re:Engineering building

[stinerman]

If the students were armed, as provided for by the 2nd amendment, someone could have dropped that guy early on and saved 30 or more people.

Bing! Bing! Bing! We have a winner.

Criminals will break the law. Therefore laws against gun ownership make the situation such that law-abiding citizens cannot defend themselves.

When I heard about the shootings, that was the first thing I thought: It's too bad more students weren't armed.

Re:Engineering building

[kklein]

I, too, would mod parent up if I had points. Amen. It is every person's responsibility to defend themselves. If someone with a gun tells you to do something you know to not be in your best interest, kill him.

Re:Engineering building

[ez76]

If the students were armed, as provided for by the 2nd amendment, someone could have dropped that guy early on and saved 30 or more people.

Look, whatever. The issue at hand isn't guns. It's Hypnogenic Ninjitsu.

If the students had been trained as ninjas with the power to hypnotize their attackers, as provided for by Bob's Ninjitsu and Hypnosis College, someone could have done the Stare-of-Freezing to that guy early on and saved 30 or more people. Chalk up another bunch of deaths to the anti-Ninja agenda of American citizens by the mommy government. There will be no correction, though; instead of people going "well duh, I should take Hypnogenic Ninjitsu classes in case some crazy bastard shows up in my face somewhere", they'll just take a bunch more of your martial arts education away at the schools - restrict your hypnosis lessons, require Ninja-study permission slips, make you wear "guns don't kill people, Ninjas do" T-shirts, ... and a year or so from now, some crazy will do the same thing again, perhaps slightly more cleverly and with more throwing stars.

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

This oriental nonsense is completely off the point.

The truth is that the government doesn't even pretend to protect us from the forces of evil any more - whether they are from within, or outside of our land. I would like to hear from anyone who can seriously suggest that this horror would still have happened if each an every student were required by law to carry a Samurai sword or some kind of cudgel.

Re:Engineering building

[MadUndergrad]

No, latin for black is nig(er, ra, rum). You're thinking Spanish.

Re:Engineering building

[z-j-y]

I don't think most Asians care about the word 'Oriental', but of course only the most sensitive are often heard. There was a congressman of Korea descent who made a big fuss about it, I don't remember the details, but the word 'oriental' is formally banned from government documents since.

BTW, the word 'Asia' might also come from the meaning of 'East'. at least wikipedia says so.

Re:Engineering building

[fyngyrz]

You pull out your gun and see 15 other people with guns. Who do you shoot?

I don't shoot anyone for holding a gun. I only shoot if I see someone shooting unarmed students.

If someone runs into your car in a parking lot, who do you blame? Everyone with a car? Of course not. Only the person you know hit your car. Stop trying to caricature armed citizens as twitching bundles of indiscriminate reflexes. We can think as well as you can, and about the same things.

Re:Engineering building

[angrymilkman]

England is not the only country with strict gun laws, but happens to be the exception with more homicides. England used to allow handguns up to 1997 so there are more guns than for example in germany or the netherlands that never allowed guns. The homicide rates (with guns) are an order of magnitude lower than in the US/UK.

Re:Engineering building

[fyngyrz]

England is a different type of society - you can't make that kind of comparison. There are differences that go both ways. Your country experiences a lot more sports related violence; yet your cameras only help place blame, they aren't preventative. I'd also like to remind you that our armed populace kicked your ancestors back across the ocean. Please stay there. We didn't like your system then, and we don't like it any better now. And we're still armed, or at least, enough of us are.

Re:Engineering building

[raehl]

If the students were armed...

But what if the assailant WASN'T armed?

Maybe you shouldn't say anything until you know where he got his gun. If he bought it at K-Mart at 7AM and was shooting people at 7:30 AM, that might be a pretty strong indication that the problem here wasn't the availability of guns to the other students, the problem was the availability of guns to the assailant.

Also, it's premature to blame the law for the lack of guns in the possession of the students. Not only would the law have to be different, we would also need to know if there were any students present who would have been carrying a firearm themselves if it was legal to do so.

But, the reality of the situation is we're screwed either way:

Not all gun crime is the same. Some gun crime is impulsive - people who are impulsively violent are more destructive when they have ready access to a firearm. In these kinds of gun crimes, eliminating ready access to firearms would reduce the effects of gun crime. And some gun crime is premeditated - the criminal is going to get the gun they need to commit the crime. In that kind of crime, reducing ready access to firearms creates an opportunity for the criminal.

So you can't solve the gun problem, you can just favor one kind of gun violence over another.

Re:Engineering building

[angrymilkman]

NO GUNS - NO DEATHS its as simple as that, how many people can you kill with just sticks and stones?, in the same amount of time you can take out 30 people with a semi automatic? US society is based on fear and buying a gun only adds to it, until someone flips and kills 30 innocent.

Re:Engineering building

[Nosferatu Alucard]

As a Virginia Tech student, I'll explain the rule for guns on campus. We are allowed to own a gun, however, it must be turned in to the Virginia Tech Police Department and cannot be concealed in vehicles or kept in dorms. When you have 26000+ students, if anyone is carrying a weapon, and that person gets into a fight, it takes one single moment of bad judgment for him to pull that weapon. Within minutes, he would be gunned down by police (if outside), or in this situation, surrounded.

Re:Engineering building

[nFriedly]

You're pretty much right. that guys an idiot.

Re:Engineering building

[edward2020]

The question, I think, is if you are more frightened of someone that goes through the process to carry a concealed weapon (and infact does so) than you are of some fuckin' nut who goes around shooting people? I for one can gladly say that I'd rather have the former.
Also, to date, no legislation has been very effective at keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals (you might note that historically no prohibition has been effective). Most legislation is more of a burden to an honest person owning a gun than to a criminal (who often will just steal a gun). And at most, such legislation only cuts down on the number of accidents involving firearms. Note, drowning kills more people and no where in the Constitution does it mention a "right to swim."

Re:Engineering building

[siriuskase]

When I was in the middle east, I was told that it referred to all people who write from right to left. Yes, the countries on the western edge of asia are also part of the orient. Ever hear the about the 1001 nights? I just checked wikipedia and they say orient started out meaning the middle east and was extended to mean most of southern and eastern asia.

Re:Engineering building

[fyngyrz]

And there you have it. These rules ensured that there was no one able to take down the assailant in this situation.

Re:Engineering building

[StewedSquirrel]

Hahahahahahaha!!!

You are totally ignorant of history. We ARE from the same ancestors. Very few people were "kicked back across the ocean", only a few officers. Many enlisted redcoats actually stayed and were granted citizenship.

Our legal system is based upon English Common Law, though our constitution and bill of rights was unique at the time.

The simple fact is that our well trained army of about 1 million men could easily and without breaking a sweat, subdue all 299 million of the rest of the United States population, even if each one had a bolt-action rifle, given technology, resources, tactics and general training, if it came to that.

The argument of guns-for-revolution is based on antiquated concepts. As it is now and as it has always been, private organizations, companies, universities, offices, citizens, etc are free, within our law, even as it stood in 1810, to prohibit the posession of firearms on their property.

It was within my right and still is within my right to say "no guns allowed" and require that you leave them at the door. That is protected use of private property and the 2nd amendment does not apply.

Whether or not gun-toting citizens would stop violent crime is hard to say, but I would lean toward "no". that doesn't mean that gun ownership is baseless, or is not deserved... it just means that the argument of "shoot the criminals" is probably bunk. Western countries with strict gun control ALL (every single one) have far lower rates of violent crime than the US. The argument for preventing government corruption is mostly bunk too.

However, I support the 2nd amendment strictly on the grounds that it is a personal liberty. The government CANNOT and SHOULD NOT tell citizens what they can say, how they can dress and what they can carry, provided that it does not cause DIRECT harm to others. And by "direct" I don't mean It may potentially increase the risk that he may or may not be apt to..... because that's BS.

So, what I'm saying is that while I support people's rights to own and carry guns as I believe it is a fundamental freedom, I think your bullshit argument is crap. :-)

Stew

Re:Engineering building

[Viking Coder]

An honest question: should people be able to carry on a plane?

Re:Engineering building

[Flunitrazepam]

I'm from the US, genius.

Yea, correlation doesn't equal causation, but you can't tell me you think 30 times the gun deaths per capita is completely unrelated to having more guns per capita.

I'm very much in favor of the 2nd amendment, but the argument that if everyone were armed to the teeth (presumably with concealed weapons) these things wouldn't happen is just ridiculous.

Re:Engineering building

[fyngyrz]

But what if the assailant WASN'T armed?

Maybe you shouldn't say anything until you know where he got his gun.

No, it doesn't matter in the least where he got his gun. What matters is how he employed it. Guns aren't going to go away. You're completely in fairyland if you think so; there is no reason on earth that could lead you to that conclusion. Even if there were no guns, you can make one with basic machine tools; they were building decent guns a hundred years ago in shops no more sophisticated than one you could set up from any hardware store today. They're simple objects, or at least, they can be. They can also be ridiculously complex, but criminals aren't likely to opt for that over functionality. Tool users tend to like things that always work, regardless of what the tool is.

As for the rest, you're just hand-waving and I decline to participate.

Re:Engineering building

[Millenniumman]

If New York City and Kennesaw, Georgia had the same population, New York would have hundreds of times the number of shooting homicides

Guns are tightly controlled in New York. In Kennesaw, every household is legally obligated to keep a gun. So explain to me again how gun control saves peoples' lives?

Or maybe, just maybe, you can't compare two very different places and assume that gun control is the difference!

I'm not arguing for or against gun control, but as someone once said, "your argument is trash".

Re:Engineering building

[feed_me_cereal]

I never said I'm for banning guns. In fact, I'm in support of conceal/carry laws (though I think a permit should be required). People think *I'm* a nut for thinking that arming yourself around OSU is a good idea. I just find the idea that people would be bringing guns to class at 9am in blacksburg virginia to be strange, regardless of what laws they have, especially considering my experiences at a much much more dangerous college (we'd have a student or two killed almost every year, and countless assaults/rapes).

Re:Engineering building

[NeutronCowboy]

*snicker* Heh, yeah, guns for everyone would have solved *this* particular problem. And yet, it would have created a million other problems. Such as, every minor quarrel could turn into a block wide shoot-out. Look, your approach has been tried. It was tried right here, in this country, and not even that long ago. It was called the Wild West. Where "law and order" was enforced by which group had the biggest/most guns. Where heroes were made out of people for such things as bringing federal order to remote towns.

People like you have no idea what it means to live in a society where everyone has a gun. All you have is your little pornographic power fantasies. Yeah, completely banning guns is no recipe for global peace. But neither is giving everyone a gun.

Re:Engineering building

[Dun Malg]

Maybe you shouldn't say anything until you know where he got his gun. If he bought it at K-Mart at 7AM and was shooting people at 7:30 AM, that might be a pretty strong indication that the problem here wasn't the availability of guns to the other students, the problem was the availability of guns to the assailant.
Doubtful that this guy bought the guns for the massacre. His effectiveness with them indicates he probably had them for quite a while, and practiced shooting fairly frequently.

Seriously though, people bring up this bizarre "man gets angry, buys a gun, shoots people, all in the same day" scenario quite frequently, but I have yet to hear of a single incident where anyone has actually done that. Most shootings are committed by people who already have guns, and have usually had them for quite a while. Face it, the time it takes to go buy a gun is usually long enough to cool off any normal "hothead". If the law considers a couple hours ample time to "cool off" when making the distinction between 1st and 2nd degree murder, then why do some people think it should take 3-14 DAYS (varies from state to state) to "cool off" when trying to buy a firearm? It's absurd.

Re:Engineering building

[edward2020]

Webster also gives three additionaly definitions at that link than you quote in your comment. Two of them concern the term 'Oriental' being used in reference to Asia.

Re:Engineering building

[wellingj]

Not only that but you only draw a weapon in case of imminent danger to *yourself*.
Any other kind of public display of your gun will probably get you a misdemeanor.
Why don't you study up on concealed carry laws before you decry them?

Re:Engineering building

[McFadden]

If the students were armed, as provided for by the 2nd amendment, someone could have dropped that guy early on and saved 30 or more people.

Why is it that as soon as there is an event like this, the NRA-crazies start trotting out the 2nd Amendment argument. The 2nd Amendment was written at a time when there was little in the way of coordinated law-enforcement (particularly at the federal level) and America was much more of an 'every-man-for-himself' environment in which to live. Furthermore, it was perceived that the government should be capable of being overthrown should it ever become too powerful and threaten individual civil liberties; but the fact that it maintained a standing army, meant that armed uprising would be necessary to achieve this.
But please, don't let me stop you pushing your right-wing nonsense before the latest pile of bodies is even cold. That's exactly the kind of democratic debate that your forefathers wanted to protect.

Ah, it's so frustrating to hear news like this. All those people did not have to die.

No, they didn't. Funny that isn't it. If the guy hadn't been a gun-toting nutbar, there would have been considerably fewer casualties. But hey, let's just take your advice and give guns to even more people, because that's gonna be less dangerous isn't it...

It almost beggars belief that you're suggesting students should have been armed, just on the off-chance that some psycho-loon should walk into their class and spray bullets everywhere. I have a great love of America, and American people, but the day your society reaches the point that everyone has to carry a gun, just to go to school will be the last day I ever visit your godforsaken country.

Re:Engineering building

[fyngyrz]

An honest question: should people be able to carry on a plane?

Certainly. Mind you, planes should be designed with this in mind. You'd need to armor the cockpit bulkhead(s) and remove the door in favor of an exterior door for the use of the cockpit crew, and route the flight controls via an armored core. The only communications between the cabin and the cockpit would be a pair of buttons signalling the cockpit of "medical emergency, please land immediately" and "last instruction complied with." The cabin would need over-pressure blow out panels with safety screens.

Of course, this is how they should have been designed in the first place. If they had, the WTC events could never have happened as we were told they happened. And there would be no "no-fly" lists. And there would be no hijackings. And there would be no particular waits getting onto an aircraft. And you wouldn't be stripped before boarding. Oh, and we wouldn't have the USAPATRIOT act and its rights-trampling obscenities. Um, and we wouldn't be torturing people, and holding them without bail, access to a lawyer, etc. And Bush's excuses for tapping your phones wouldn't sound so plausible to the gullible.

Re:Engineering building

[DudeTheMath]

Read. Think. The problem here is careless cops. 7:15am, two students are shot in a dorm. Cops decide it's simply "domestic" and don't issue a campus-wide lockdown. Over two hours later, on the other side of campus (maybe after perp went and got more guns & ammo?), presumably same perp takes out 30 students, faculty, and staff. My wife is a prof. A junior high buddy of mine is a prof at VT. He's an engineer. I have no idea if he's alive, injured, or dead. When students get mad about grades, who are they mad at? Profs! Keep those deadly weapons out of campus buildings, for Pete's sake.

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

"Guns don't kill people, Ninjas do."
OH yea, I'd wear that t-shirt!
http://www.cafepress.com/phoenixor.125215117

btw, security word: reloads

Re:Engineering building

[aslate]

In 1999-2000 the US had 3.97 gun killings per 100,000 population, "England and Wales" (frequently England and Wales are grouped together for stats) had 0.14 per 100,000. In 2001/02 there were no "seriously injured" or killed Police officers by guns (on a scale of slight, serious & fatal), only 10 counted as slight.

Arming people to the hilt isn't always the answer. All stats from BBC Online ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/u k_gun_crime/html/1.stm )

But lets ignore the gun-crime stats for a second. The most serious UK school murder was the Dunblane Massacre (which was handgun based) in 1996. This was the deadliest attack on children in the UK killing 16 kids and 1 adult. This is almost a unique situation in UK history. This did result in even tighter hand-gun regulation (as others will tell you) from 1997.

Gun-crime in the UK is minimal and we don't have anywhere near as many school shootings. Since 2000 wikipedia has well over 20 school shootings listed, there must be some significance in that.

Re:Engineering building

[iminplaya]

Yeah, just like on an airplane. Please try to imagine 50 or 100 people all whipping out their guns and start blasting away. And more coming in as they hear the gunshots. My now redundant question is, Are you familiar with the term "Polish firing squad"? How 'bout a "Mexican stand-off"? Not too many people think very well in a situation like this. It all becomes "Shoot first, ask questions later". I don't believe you understand the kind of conditioning that is necessary to handle something like this properly without making it much worse. I bet you would have a lot of problems with friendly fire.

Re:Engineering building

[feed_me_cereal]

So all armed citizens are perfectly stable then? If I hand a gun to a "twiching bundle of indiscriminate reflexes", will he suddenly cease to be such? It only takes one... Besides, the best description I've heard of the scene at VT is "complete chaos". Please don't tell me that defending yourself or others in this situation is not a trying endeavor.

Re:Engineering building

[fyngyrz]

We'll see how it plays out when the facts are known, instead of presuming anything. In the meantime, the fact is, if those students had been armed, the ability of the assailant to mow them down without resistance would have been removed.

As for your bad grades argument, the current situation [forbidden to carry] still allows for an angry student, willing to break the law, to shoot the prof. So you're really not arguing for anything other than taking guns away from the students who aren't threats. Which will leave them defenseless in the face of something like this. Your lockdown idea is good, as far as it goes, but of course doesn't account for a shooting that isn't split into two diverse locations and times. Nothing can substitute for the ability to defend yourself and those around you. Nothing. Leaving your fate in the hands of people who arrive later - no matter how full of good will they are towards you - is a good formula to steer that fate into the endless dark.

Re:Engineering building

[fyngyrz]

In 2001/02 there were no "seriously injured" or killed Police officers by guns (on a scale of slight, serious & fatal), only 10 counted as slight.

And how about Jean Charles de Menezes, the innocent fellow in the subway your armed plainclothes cops murdered? Too bad he couldn't defend himself, eh? But the only people with weapons are the cops, and so the people are just victims. Good job, great system, yessir. As if injured cops were a metric that mattered.

But lets ignore the gun-crime stats for a second. The most serious UK school murder was the Dunblane Massacre (which was handgun based) in 1996. This was the deadliest attack on children in the UK killing 16 kids and 1 adult.

Yes, there's another case where the adult should have been armed, as being responsible for the lives of 16 children certainly is an adequate reason. But the adult wasn't, they all died without possibility of resistance, and you're happy with the outcome. That, by my lights, makes you bewildered. Or worse.

Re:Engineering building

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Given the extremely rare circumstances when one would be shot at by a random stranger on a college campus?

For someone who was out to shoot people, armed students would've been obvious targets, not a guaranteed end to the situation.

Re:Engineering building

[FuzzyDaddy]

If the students were armed, as provided for by the 2nd amendment, someone could have dropped that guy early on and saved 30 or more people.

Perhaps. But imagine - you see a guy walking down the hall with a bullet proof jacket and a gun. Is it a shooter, or a cop? What if you're wrong?

I've never been in a situation where people were firing weapons, so I don't know. But, as gratifying as it would have been to have this guy blown away sooner rather than later, I don't know how many untrained people could have made the proper judgement - no matter how good a shot they were.

Re:Engineering building

[gregmac]

You pull out your gun and see 15 other people with guns. Who do you shoot? I don't shoot anyone for holding a gun. I only shoot if I see someone shooting unarmed students. Do you trust that everyone else has that same mentality?

What happens if you see someone with a gun shoot someone else with a gun, then turn and point their gun at another guy with a gun? Is that person the original shooter, or did they just kill the original shooter? Should you shoot that person to protect everyone else in case they are the original shooter? What happens if you're the person they point their gun at next, do you shoot them because they just shot someone else and now they're about to shoot you? Or do you lay down your gun because they're just confused because you still have your gun out after they shot the original shooter?

Oh yes, and did I mention, you have approximately 1/2 a second to evaluate and answer the above questions.

Re:Engineering building

[fyngyrz]

So all armed citizens are perfectly stable then?

Of course not. Nor are all armed cops. Nor are all soldiers. Are you arguing that this means no cops and no soldiers should be armed and trained to use them? Doesn't someone have to shoot back when some lunatic begins shooting at people? Wouldn't it be best if the shooting back began as early as possible, instead of after 30+ people have been mowed down at the lunatic's convenience?

Please don't tell me that defending yourself or others in this situation is not a trying endeavor.

I didn't. In return, please don't attempt to put your words in my mouth. I didn't suggest that having your car run into wasn't trying either, did you notice?

What I will tell you is that defending yourself when you have training and armament to fall back on is a good deal more effective than the empty set of options you have to fall back on that leave you to just stand there, doing no more than serving as a demonstration dummy for the effects of bullets on human anatomy. Trying? Certainly. Is that a reason to not defend yourself? Hardly.

Re:Engineering building

[raehl]

Actually, I think the 3-14 days often has more to due with paperwork processing time than cooling-off.

Re:Engineering building

[liliafan]

Okay I had to do this, since I am not anti gun or anything, however, you kind of contradict yourself, the thinking behind the right to bear arms comes from two sources the 2nd Amendment:

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.

Abraham Lincon:

"It is your business to rise up and preserve the Union and liberty, for yourselves, and not for me. I desire they shall be constitutionally preserved."

Benjamin Franklin:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Additionally there is many other quotes by founders of the USA and by ex-presidents basically implying it is the right and the responsibility of a US citizen to protect their liberties against an oppressive government, part of the reason for the 2nd Amendment is to ensure the government never becomes complacent or removes civil liberties from the citizens.

So you can pipe on about how you have the right to bear arms, and how the government is not your friend, however, unless you actually take the responsibility to rise up against the government you forfeit your right to bear arms.

With the right to bear arms comes the responsibility to use them for the purpose that right was first granted under. I am not trying to encourage people to rise against the government but the parent post kinda pisses me off and it has become such a common view of the 2nd amendment, all people see if their right to bear arms they never question the reason behind that right, and those same people that keep saying they have the right to their semi automatics are also usually the same people that bitch about their civil rights being taken away.

Additionally although I am not a die hard anti gun person, statistically the US has more gun related crimes that any other western country, I am sure there is a connection between people having the right to bear arms and the number of gun related crimes that are committed. You can talk about how if these kids had all been armed there wouldn't have been so many dead, however, also take into consideration that if no one had a gun in the first place no one would have been shot.

Okay mod now NRA types feel free to mod me down.

Re:Engineering building

[Flunitrazepam]

Original Argument: "The only way we will be safe from gun homicides is if we are all armed"

My argument: "England has less gun homicides. Being armed there is illegal, therefor that isn't the only way to be safe"

Your argument: "Everyone in Kennesaw has a gun, and it is safe"

For one thing your counter example has nothing to do with my point. For another, Kennesaw has what, 35k people? Too small a sample size to draw any kind of inductive conclusions.

Re:Engineering building

[fyngyrz]

Given the extremely rare circumstances when one would be shot at by a random stranger on a college campus?

Well, I'll tell you what. Why don't you go tell these kid's parents and friends that it was ok, because it was rare. Go ahead. I'll wait here for you. With a first aid kit. Hopefully, that'll be sufficient.

For someone who was out to shoot people, armed students would've been obvious targets, not a guaranteed end to the situation.

Agreed. No guarantees. However, at least they would have had a chance, one that improved in direct proportion to the number of armed and trained people in the group. As it was, however, they had none, because the rules required them to be defenseless. Now they're dead, and we're not talking about "chance", are we? No. because we're certain they're dead, and we're certain they had no way to defend themselves.

Re:Engineering building

[aslate]

You manage to pick up on the wrong points and ignore the rest of the stats...

If Jean Charles de Menezes was armed and shot the police he'd have been shot for killing a Police officer at worst, and would've managed to kill a few Police and been seriously injured at best? That would happen in the US too surely? How many people get away with shooting the police for any reason? If anything, he'd have managed to kill a few Police and yet still be shot dead (and would be plastered over the news for shooting a Police officer along with the rest of the story). After the 7/7 attacks police were highly on edge on the Underground and there were a second wave of attempts on 21/7. I'd be interested to hear the stats about US shootings of innocent civilians too. I think the Police have killed less than 10 people in the last 10 years in the UK.

Would the armed adult really have been able to stop the guy with a handgun? If i were going to kill people at a school i'd target the one guy that's in charge of a load of kids first, then go on the rampage. Element of surprise would succeed very strongly. Reading the reports about Dunblane you wouldn't have stopped the first attack (walked into the gym and shot a single class and their teacher) and may have managed to have saved the life of one of the pupils in the playground (the only one to have died outside the gym).

But you managed to miss this is the only school shooting i can even think of that's happened in the UK, how many have there been in the US since 2000? I can't even count. I heard the news of this and thought alongside the tragedy "it's happened again".

Re:Engineering building

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

"The simple fact is that our well trained army of about 1 million men could easily and without breaking a sweat, subdue all 299 million of the rest of the United States population, even if each one had a bolt-action rifle, given technology, resources, tactics and general training, if it came to that."

You're a soldier. You're ordered to turn your weapons on your friends, cousins, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, fathers, and mothers. Chances are that a good 90% of the military would refuse those orders, and a good percentage of that 90% would use their training to help the 299.9 million stand up against the 100,000.

Re:Engineering building

[fyngyrz]

Do you trust that everyone else has that same mentality?

I work under the assumption that people who are properly trained, as I advocated, will act correctly due to that training. Generally, that's a good assumption. That's why everyone in the army and the police force doesn't go shooting each other left and right. Just the way my martial arts students don't go firing off kicks and punches at other people in public. So yes, I can extend that level of trust without thinking about it. No problem. Could I be wrong? Yes. But the odds favor my being correct. The existing armed and trained groups make my point very well.

What happens if you see someone with a gun shoot someone else with a gun, then turn and point their gun at another guy with a gun?

As I said, you shoot the fellow you know started the show, or who is shooting at you. If you don't know who that is, you don't shoot. End of evaluation. That's what training is for. I do not advocate arming people without training them. So stop trying to validate situations that involve untrained, armed people. If you can't understand what competent weapons use is, you're not competent to argue weapons use at all.

Re:Engineering building

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

I'm not saying it was OK because it was incredibly goddamn rare. What I'm saying is that to allow students to arm themselves for the 1 in 1 million chance of a school shooting, or attack on campus is insane.

Re:Engineering building

[AncientPC]

Are you grandstanding for the sake of grandstanding? The only people I can think of saying something like "busts out the chop-suey and puts your old white ass in the hospital" are either non-Asian, or AzN gAnGsTA.

Some individuals may find the "oriental" label offensive as a product of colonial European period. As a Chinese American, I can't really say I'm offended by the term but then again I've only heard it usually referred to oriental rugs or from old white guys. There are much more racist terms than "oriental".

Re:Engineering building

[gregleimbeck]

Also, Dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.

Re:Engineering building

[xero314]

In Kennesaw, every household is legally obligated to keep a gun. Rubbish. Kennesaw law states that every head of household must maintain a firearm with ammunition. First of all there is no specifics of how or where that fire arm is maintained. Second there are multiple exceptions including not only those that can not afford a firearm but also those that conscientiously object, which pretty much says if you don't object to maintain a firearm and can afford to then you must. And finally there is no punishment prescribed for violation of the law and no one has ever be prosecuted for such violations so it is basically an empty law on the books just to make a point.

Beyond your blatant attempt to spread false information your comparison between Kennesaw and New York comes no were close to the comparison between the US and England that you are trying to dispute. Kennesaw has a populaiton density of ~ 990 people per square kilometer as compared to New Yorks 10,000 +, nearly 100 times the population density, which means the average New York is in proximity to 100 times as many people as the residents of Kennesaw, and therefor 100 times the chance of criminal activity. So to be compared equally NYC should have 100 times the crime rate per capita. In reality NYC has 1 violent crime for every 136 residents (not to mention the millions of visitors), while Kennesaw's is 1 per 1100. So if you don't take density (among many other things like no resident populace) into account then sure it looks like Kennesaws gun laws are better for reducing violent crime than NYCs, but that would only be half the story. Not to mention that objective studies have actually shown Kennesaw's crime rate to have increased since the law went into effect.

I don't care if you carry a gun or not but either way, but try and make arguments that at least sound reasonable. (I am well aware that these types of statistics can be manipulated to prove any point)

Re:Engineering building

[Dun Malg]

NO GUNS - NO DEATHS its as simple as that True as far as it goes. There are, however, 200 million plus guns out there in private hands in the US. Nothing short of a magic wand will make your "NO GUNS" fantasy a reality.

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

So, rather than taking the guns out of the hands of potential shooters you would increase the potential exponentially by placing a gun in the hand of every student on campus??!

Young persons + Drugs and Alcohol + University/School environment + Firearms for all = Not such a terribly bright idea

Remember, you've got to shoot first if you're to save yourself, this means shooting the moment you suspect that someone might be planning to pull a gun on you, holding them at gunpoint is fairly useless with this class of shooter as they're generally self-destructive as it is, they aren't about to stop.

And of course making guns the norm may well increase the likelihood that groups/gangs may form in order to carry out deranged fantasies.

I've tended to kick myself each time i find myself stereotyping the US as a nation of guncrazed maniacs but with attitudes like yours being modded up so heavily maybe it's true, I always thought it was protection of the right to bear arms, not a requirement to do so...

Re:Engineering building

[Chmcginn]

I was under the impression that the (original) reason for the extreme security on planes was to keep out bombs, not guns. In a confined space several thousand feet above ground, a relatively small bomb can kill 200+ people, easily. Well timed, you can probably get more by bringing it down in the wrong place. Since the type of people who go off & blow up planes are not concerned about their own bodily well-being, deterrents like this are ineffective.

Re:Engineering building

[fyngyrz]

Face it, the time it takes to go buy a gun is usually long enough to cool off any normal "hothead".

However, it only takes 30 seconds to buy a gun off the tailgate of a vehicle carrying contraband, and it always will be about that fast, if not faster. The guy who is willing to kill isn't worried about breaking the "you aren't allowed to own and/or carry a gun" laws. The guy who is an organized and methodical killer, as this one seems to have been, really isn't worried about it. He will, just as you say, probably already have one or more weapons in his possession.

The bottom line is always the same: We know there are killers out there. The argument about whether they got their guns legally or not, or should be able to legally or not, doesn't change the fact that they are killers, nor does it in any way prevent them from obtaining a gun. All these rules do is make the generally compliant population into victims.

Re:Engineering building

[elamdaly]

I live in Michigan which passed a Carry and Conceal Law in 2001. Your line of thinking used to be mine as well. I remember arguing that any two fools involved in a traffic dispute would suddenly start blazing away.

In short, it hasn't happened. People who apply for said permits are adults, not children, prone to violent temper tantrums.

Re:Engineering building

[fyngyrz]

Perhaps. But imagine - you see a guy walking down the hall with a bullet proof jacket and a gun. Is it a shooter, or a cop? What if you're wrong?

Again, training. You don't shoot people for carrying. You don't shoot people for drawing. You shoot people for shooting. You should probably ask some questions. If the response to your questions is a gunshot, now you - or the others near you - have a reason to respond.

I've never been in a situation where people were firing weapons, so I don't know.

I have. I have not been shot by my comrades, nor have I ever shot a comrade. It can happen, but it is very rare. On the other hand, I have shot people who were shooting at my comrades and myself, and I have seen people shot by my comrades who were shooting directly at us, which I consider to be an action that is certainly on my behalf. Training. It's all about training. That's precisely what I've been advocating.

But, as gratifying as it would have been to have this guy blown away sooner rather than later, I don't know how many untrained people could have made the proper judgement - no matter how good a shot they were.

I have not advocated letting untrained people carry weapons. You should not do so either.

Re:Engineering building

[ravenshrike]

How about you shoot the asshole chaining the doors shut?

Re:Engineering building

[ravenshrike]

Hey shit for brains, britains murder rate has always been less than the USs going back to the original founding. Oddly enough, London is more dangerous than NYC. Also interesting is that after the ban, gun violence has gone up while it continues to fall in the US as more and more states liberalize gun laws.

Re:Engineering building

[WhiplashII]

People like you have no idea what it means to live in a society where everyone has a gun.

I beg to differ - I have live in many societies where most (all?) people had guns - and none of them were violent, and they had no fatal shootings I know of. First, rural Virginia (interestingly enough), on farms. Everyone had guns, everyone practiced with them. My family only had to use a gun against a human twice - both times, people from out of town. (My father was the town doctor, presumably these people thought robbing a rural doctor would be a piece of cake).

Second was in the military - you probably don't count that, but they are humans too. Very few of them kill each other. (You don't know humor until you are forced to go through a metal detector to board a plane full of marines, armed and in battle armour - like you would really try something!)

Last was in Utah, and hey, that whole state is rural.

Now I live in the big city, so no guns allowed. Personally, I would still feel better if I had a weapon at home, but cities are different and have different requirements and advantages. Mostly, the police and abulances can at least concievably get here before I die...

Re:Engineering building

[FuzzyDaddy]

How much training do you feel is enough?

Re:Engineering building

[Crunchie Frog]

England is not the only country with strict gun laws, but happens to be the exception with more homicides. England used to allow handguns up to 1997 so there are more guns than for example in germany or the netherlands that never allowed guns. The homicide rates (with guns) are an order of magnitude lower than in the US/UK. I dont know what you on about. Germany has 4 times the firearm related murder of the UK, to take one of your examples. USA is 27 times the rate of the UK. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_ percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

Re:Engineering building

[WhiplashII]

So why can't those of us that are trained carry? That is the question! Why do I have to be a full time cop?

Situations like this would be greatly helped by 1 person in 50 being trained with a weapon. There are far more people willing to be trained than that! As it stands now, a former cop or marine cannot carry a firearm - that's just dumb.

Re:Engineering building

[ravenshrike]

Sooo, people with a spare tire, first aid kit, and jack in their car are all paranoid? Apparently smoke detectors are for pussies. And how about that fire extinguisher.

Re:Engineering building

[myth24601]

"Of course not. Nor are all armed cops. "

Heck, didn't BTK turn out to be someone who had been a cop or was a cop of some sort (Animal Control maybe?)

Re:Engineering building

[Fulcrum of Evil]

That's why everyone in the army and the police force doesn't go shooting each other left and right.

No, they come home from the war and shoot their wife for screwing around.

Re:Engineering building

[Thirdsin]

Three cheers to you my friend. I whole heartedly agree, one armed individual in addition to being a potential savior is also a preventative threat to the perpetrator's senseless action. This entire unfolding story makes me sick to my stomach.
Unfortunately we will likely see attempts to further restrict gun rights as a "remedy". In the end, everyone has lost.

Re:Engineering building

[Millenniumman]

I know no one is really made to have a gun in Kennesaw. I was attempting to emphasize the lack of gun control, and I said nothing factually incorrect.

First of all, I was going by gun homicides, not all violent crimes, and was talking about per capita rates. I probably wasn't extremely accurate, though, as I used quickly grabbed numbers. 1 gun homicide in Kennesaw in the last 20 years, and 40,000 in New York. 30,000 people in Kennesaw, and 8 million in New York.

Second of all, I know the comparison is not reasonable. That was my point.

I never suggested Kennesaw's law lowered crime there. I doubt the law affected Kennesaw's crime rate or gun ownership much.

Re:Engineering building

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Go read a book - the wild west is largely a creation of hollywood.

Re:Engineering building

[tezbobobo]

On a slightly unrelated note to the topic, but related to your sig... The person who decided there should not be a double space after a sentence stop was probably a typesetter at some point. It is standard practice in typesetting to not put a double space after a stop. That should be adjusted by the trapping and/or kerning.

Word processors usually don't have that level of control, or make it more difficult than necessary to access necessitating an easy way to gain the required space - using the space key twice.

There is a dichotomy between tthe way most people produce text and the way most text is produced. As I ypesetter myself, I lament the fact that jounalists find it impossible to submit text in the style which typesetters turn it out. I have made an apple script which eliminates that among other things (such as incorrect date formatting) but there needs to be some level of education.

Pax,

T.

Re:Engineering building

[NeutronCowboy]

I don't think that CCW laws increase murder rates. My argument is that CCW laws won't solve the issue of killing sprees. Here's the thing: reasonable people don't need guns to protect themselves from reasonable people. Guns are required to deal with unreasonable people... the exact sort of people who don't care about CCW laws. The next point is that firefights are generally won by who pulls out the gun first... and that would be the person interested in shooting someone.

CCW laws don't solve the problem of violence. They merely increase the likelyhood that someone else gets shot.

Re:Engineering building

[NeutronCowboy]

I guess I ought to specify then that you're completely unlike the poster to whom I replied. :)

Interesting story about your dad - I'm wondering, were those people armed with guns themselves?

As for the military... funny story indeed. Though I'm basing my dislike of the guns for everyone approach on the fact that even a military as well trained and equipped as the American one can't get around friendly fire incidents. Imagine how small-scale firefights (like how people imagine a lone shooter would be taken down by armed civilians) would turn out when the people involved aren't trained in group tactics and don't know who the target is....

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

how many people can you kill with just sticks and stones?

With sharpened sticks and some axe handles, a few million.

Re:Engineering building

[Lane.exe]

You've never read the Second Amendment, have you, dear child? Oh my. You see, the first clause of that Amendment states that "for the purposes of a well-regulated militia," not "for the purposes of arming every nut, whackjob, and idiot in the United States." Instead of people saying, "well, gee, I should be armed in case the Bad Guys® come!" we should instead be doing things to prevent people from having easy access to guns in the first place. Spare me your, "But then only criminals will have guns!" Horsepoo. Criminals and law enforcement will always have guns, but there needs to be strict regulations in place before private citizens can get their hands on a firearm.

As for self-defense, any competent self-defense instructor will tell you that facing an armed opponent who has the drop on you is foolish. I'm not saying that I wouldn't fight back in a situation where I was trapped in a room with a shooter, but I'm not about to draw a gun and go after the guy Dirty Harry style if he's got his out and trained on me first. Plus, I'm not sure if I could kill a man -- and I challenge you to prove that you are capable of doing the same. None of us will ever know unless we're put in that situation, and Odin willing, none of us ever will be. Stop talking tough about the "pussification" of American and do something proactive instead of beating your chest about how different it'd have been if a Real American Hero had been there.

Re:Engineering building

[timothy]

"[W]hy do some people think it should take 3-14 DAYS (varies from state to state) to "cool off" when trying to buy a firearm? It's absurd."

Agreed about the absurdity, but it's worth noting that not every state has a "cooling off" period -- none of the states in which I've bought guns have a waiting period, for instance, for handguns or longarms. (Some states have a delay only for handguns, some for both, and perhaps some treat shotguns altogether differently. Don't go looking for reason in the law.)

I'm not sure if anyone's ever done a study (not that any substantial group of people would probably agree on its significance or correctness if they had!) about whether those states with such delays save more lives than they cost. The scenario that gun-rights and self-defense supporters point out is often lost in the shuffle is (roughly) like this:

"A woman is threatened by her abusive husband, ex-husband, pimp or boyfriend. He's bigger than her, and rasher, and perhaps he owns a gun, legally or not. Maybe he's hurt people before in bar fights or other confrontations. If that woman, in fear of her life, attempts to purchase hastily a handgun (since the police have no individualized responsibility to protect the safety of particular citizens, and can't be expected to watch everyone at once, except, well, in a police state), should she be hampered by a 3-14 day delay? And will tbe state pay for flowers at her funeral if the threat manifests in the meantime?"

Typical counterargument goes: "If there's a gun in the house intended for self-defense, violence will more likely erupt than if there *wasn't* a gun there, and that gun will be used against its owner."

Counter-counterargument: "The reason people would get a gun in such a case indicates that violence is already likely, and that (woman / elderly man / innocent but targeted householder) deserves a chance at self-defense."

From here on in it's often just bickering, like "For a gun to be effective, the shooter's got to be well-trained and in good practice!" "Nuh-uh!" "uh-huh!" (etc).

I think it's of course preferable that anyone with a gun learn basic safety, and if it's for self-defense, I'd like them to practice regularly and be mentally prepared for that situation, but I don't think a double-action revolver takes much physical training to aim and fire -- if a friend of mine was facing a home invasion with armed or possibly armed burglars, I'd rather she have such a gun than not. I've taken several new shooters to the range; most of them have been very pleasantly surprised.

And there *might* have been some cases where guns were purchased legally, then used by the purchaser in a crime that very same day, but I'm with you on not knowing any examples. And the Terminator doesn't count; he hadn't paid for the guns when he robs the gun store. Besides which, that's just a movie.

timothy

Re:Engineering building

[CodeRx]

This is a good point. But the vast majority of impulsive violence is directed against one or two people - and killing one or two people doesn't require a gun (like OJ). I just don't see much upside to gun control laws.

Re:Engineering building

[kestasjk]

The number of guns going around in countries which don't have so many deluded people like you have gone way down after being banned. When was the last high school shooting in Australia, Sweden, Canada, England, anywhere other than America?

It's more complicated than "easy access to guns means more school shootings", but easy access to guns does kinda help you know?

I know "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", right? But I think the gun helps

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

It almost beggars belief that you're suggesting students should have been armed, just on the off-chance that some psycho-loon should walk into their class and spray bullets everywhere. I have a great love of America, and American people, but the day your society reaches the point that everyone has to carry a gun, just to go to school will be the last day I ever visit your godforsaken country.

As of today, I think it's safe to say that that day has come. Stay home.

Re:Engineering building

[pjpII]

Mod parent up.

As a fairly normal college student, I think that most people in a 9AM lecture aren't wearing proper pants, let alone hauling around a gun.

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed about the cops. I expect there will be a substantial inquiry and likely a lawsuit or two arising from the negligence of the police in failing to shutdown the campus. Saying they had reason to believe the shooter had left the campus is no excuse. When you have a murder on a school campus, or for that matter at an office building or any other type of open-access area, the place needs to be locked down until it can be verified that the shooter is no longer present, and will not return. Even if this nut job had left the campus, how was he to be stopped from returning? That may well be what happened, and a lot of family's are now grieving because of the careless way in which the police handled that situation.

I'm against frivolous lawsuits as a result of this sort of action, but really, what the hell were the cops thinking by not shutting down the campus after a double murder in a dormitory? We lock down high schools when there is a rumor of somebody suspicious showing up on campus, for crying out loud.

Re:Engineering building

[angrymilkman]

I was thinking about that the other day. But a large part of those guns are registered so you can just have those people hand them in.

Re:Engineering building

[HungWeiLo]

That's right, fools. Jesus was Asian! (Israel is technically in the Asian continent). Hehe.

Re:Engineering building

[Brad1138]

If the students were armed, as provided for by the 2nd amendment

And of course part of, "A well regulated militia" I am sure you just forgot that part.

If the students were armed, as provided for by the 2nd amendment, someone could have dropped that guy early on and saved 30 or more people.

Yes, definatly, MORE guns is exactly what's needed. Go to bed Elmer Fudd.

Re:Engineering building

[Spy der Mann]

One armed student could have ended this right at the beginning.

Well, one armed man just killed 20 people. The solution isn't to have MORE guns, but to have LESS. Instead, have MORE SECURITY at these buildings. Weapon detectors, security officers, i.e. people KNOWN to be safe with guns.

Re:Engineering building

[feed_me_cereal]

dude, as far as putting words in your mouth goes, I'd say I was a lot fairer than you were to the grandparent when you claimed he was drawing a caricature of armed citizens as "twitching bundles of indiscriminate reflexes" by asking "You pull out your gun and see 15 other people with guns. Who do you shoot?". Besides, he wasn't even talking about your average "armed citizens", but any citizen in a completely armed society, which would then include all citizens. Anyway, this is all besides the point.

Besides, I didn't put words in your mouth. You made the blanket statement "We can think as well as you can, and about the same things" about "armed citizens", and I was merely pointing out that, should this be interpreted as including all armed citizens (which isn't unreasonable from your phrasing), it would be pretty silly.

The truth is, we'd all have to be pretty highly trained to deal with random situations, such as these, effectively, especially considering that you can never be truly "prepared", unless you're crazy paranoid. When random psycho opens the door to your classroom and starts shooting at you, you don't have a hell of a lot of time to react, and given that this sort of occurrence happens to about 1/1,000,000 people in this country, odds are you're not expecting it.... I'd honestly hope. And what I think both my and the grandparent's point is (though he didn't state it very well), arming everyone is probably more likely to cause more problems with some of those 1,000,000 people than it is going to solve for the one who gets attacked by random psycho and probably isn't able to respond in time to save themselves anyway.

Of course, this isn't to say that I'm for banning guns or anything like that. I think they're handy for people who live in dangerous places. I just think some of the arguments about guns for self defense in a 9am german class in buttfuck virginia are pretty silly.

Re:Engineering building

[McFadden]

Sooo, people with a spare tire, first aid kit, and jack in their car are all paranoid?

Sooo, presumably then, you're suggesting that changing a tire, or putting a band-aid on a cut occurs at roughly the same frequency as defending yourself from a deadly gun attack by a crazed psycho? They're not even in the same ballpark. It's this ridiculous concept that carrying a gun with the possible intent to use it, is the same as putting on your socks in the morning, that is a large part of the issue here. Guns are the problem. They're not the solution.

Re:Engineering building

[jspaz]

The average gun permit holder doesn't want to kill anybody. There would be a lot of yelling but chances are nobody would be killed accidently. Without a weapon or other means to defend yourself you may as well lay down and die, or hope that somebody around you has a weapon to save you. Police officers run into this problem somewhat often and it is rare for them to shoot the wrong person.

You would probably have a little more time than a 1/2 second also.

Re:Engineering building

[brsmith4]

Yes, and you know this because you've faced this situation before, right?

I don't shoot anyone for holding a gun

Yes, because in large-scale acts of random violence, its very easy for an amateur to differentiate between a plain-clothes civilian with a gun and a plain-clothes civilian gone mad with a gun... Especially when everyone is running around hysterically... Give me a break.

We can think as well as you can, and about the same things.

In a situation where bullets are flying, blood is spilling, people are screaming, and all hell is breaking lose? Yeah, I'm sure all gun owners can... Shit, why the hell does Uncle Sam spend millions of dollars training soldiers when he can pick up any gun-toting nut bag off the street?

Your over-simplifications betray your ignorance.

Re:Engineering building

[Dun Malg]

Actually, I think the 3-14 days often has more to due with paperwork processing time than cooling-off. Not anymore. The background check goes through in a matter of hours now. Here in California, I had a background check to work for the local school district that went through in 48 hours--- and that involved submitting fingerprints to absolutely verify identity, which gun "background checks" don't do. No, you can generally call the state DOJ and, while you're still on the phone with them, they can enter your SSN into their computer and read you off your complete state and FBI criminal record. There's no paperwork to process for the yea/nay part. We have computers, but they pretend these things still require a clerk to fumble through file cabinets. In the last 30 years, California has gone from 5 days, to 10 days, to now 15 days, all while the process for actually checking backgrounds has gotten shorter, to the point where it's now essentially instantaneous.

Re:Engineering building

[Scrameustache]

The question, I think, is if you are more frightened of someone that goes through the process to carry a concealed weapon (and infact does so) than you are of some fuckin' nut who goes around shooting people? What makes you think the nut didn't have the proper paperwork on his weapon?
The guy that shot up a college in Montreal last september had all his guns registered.

Re:Engineering building

[Scrameustache]

weapons on your friends, cousins, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, fathers, and mothers. Chances are that a good 90% of the military would refuse those orders Think about that the next time you read about the robot soldiers of the future battlefront.

Re:Engineering building

[yderf]

Am I correct in assuming that you are implying that if everyone should have been armed and this tragedy would not have happened? Further, it seems as if you are implying that we should all be armed and we will suddenly more safe. The problem with the argument (on either side really) is that we really have no way of knowing what would happen if the general populace were completely armed. Would more people that react in anger go grab their guns? Or would more people be able to defend themselves? Would more accidental shootings occur? Personally I would not own a gun. I do not trust myself, even if I were well trained. I truly believe that repealing the second amendment (don't ask me about the logistics of it, it would take a lot of people smarter than I to work out) would be the best thing for the country. However, I am a strong believer of the constitution so as long as the second amendment is in the constitution I would fight to the death to defend it.

Re:Engineering building

[Coryoth]

You're a soldier. You're ordered to turn your weapons on your friends, cousins, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, fathers, and mothers. Chances are that a good 90% of the military would refuse those orders, and a good percentage of that 90% would use their training to help the 299.9 million stand up against the 100,000. Sure, but you don't need guns for that. Soldiers are even less likely to trun their weapons on peaceful unarmed protestors than people pointing guns at them.

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

When was the last high school shooting in Australia, Sweden, Canada, England, anywhere other than America?

I can't be bothered to look for data for other countries, but as a Canuck, I can say that the last high school shooting in Canada was 28 April 1999 in Taber, Alberta. The last school shooting was at Dawson College, Montréal, 13 September 2006.

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe it was "one armed student" that started all this...

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens if you see someone with a gun shoot someone else with a gun, then turn and point their gun at another guy with a gun? Is that person the original shooter, or did they just kill the original shooter?

My god man, do you think people are really that stupid or you have to use a contrived example featuring caricaturized fools with guns? In this case you should obviously shoot the weird asshole in the boyscout uniform that came through the door with the vest that is shooting people. Why is that so difficult to understand without resorting to the "OH MY GOD the confusion is so bad people with guns for protection will shoot everyone!?!!?!!!" bullshit. There is a common sense in people that can evaluate things correctly in even 1/2 a second. Besides, even taking your extremely retarded example, if someone made the mistake of then shooting someone protecting everyone in this case the overall tally could have saved still 29 lives even though there was still a very tragic loss of one life of a protector and the asshole original shooter would still fortunately be as dead as ever. In my book the protector would be a hero and family lavished with millions of dollars and affection and celebrated for years to come by the society they're in.

Re:Engineering building

[Xybot]

As is evidenced by their stunning success in subduing the Iraq insurrgency.

Re:Engineering building

[ldeviator]

I agree 100%... what a retarded example that guy had.. that's "insightful" huh? wow.

Re:Engineering building

[c00rdb]

Dude, Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature....

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

This is ridiculous!
Don't you realise why things like that happen more often in the USA than in Europe?

Re:Engineering building

[iamhassi]

"What happens if you see someone with a gun shoot someone else with a gun, then turn and point their gun at another guy with a gun?"

Well I'd hope I'd first run for cover, even if I did have a gun strapped to my waist, and once i felt less vulnerable I'd probably pull out my gun and shoot anyone pointing at me.

Think that's the issue here. We're not talking about a random hero in a classroom, we're suggesting if someone that was killed happened to have a gun and was targeted, perhaps they could have defended themselves.

Re:Engineering building

[X3J11]

If the students were armed, as provided for by the 2nd amendment, someone could have dropped that guy early on and saved 30 or more people. Chalk up another bunch of deaths to the pussification of American citizens by the mommy government.

Yes, that's a great idea. Your forefathers thought that citizens should be allowed to arm themselves, and carry said arms at any time they like. They also lived in different times, with different (more or less) problems. What was applicable then isn't necessarily applicable now.

Ignoring that, however, do you honestly believe that putting guns (figuratively) in the hands of every student at every school across the United States is a great idea? One crazy guy who kills 30 people on a rampage, or thousands upon thousands all carrying a gun, all the time. Sure sure, no doubt every single one would happily swear to only use their weapon in defense of themself or other people. But how long before someone steals a parking spot, or cuts you off on the highway, or just pisses you off in any of a myriad of ways, and you kill him for whatever idiotic reason?

Sadly, people (in general) are stupid and emotional, and stupid and emotional people shouldn't be given that kind of power, nor the right to that kind of power.

Re:Engineering building

[PB_TPU_40]

Actually most schools actually ban firearms through their administrative code. I don't know about OSU, but here at WSU (Washington) firearms are not allowed on campus even with a permit. However I can tell you a lot of my friends carry anyway, and I know of 5 off hand that want it changed, and there's actually a student group moving for change now. Its not because we don't trust the other students, or we feel unsafe but we prefer to exercise our rights even if they deem it illegal. If you choose not to carry and you end up in a situation like that, you made the choice for yourself. However if someone else tells you, "NO YOU CANT CARRY" and then the shit hits the fan, its the person who banned the carry in the first place, because the outcome could have been different. Just because you're in a small town doesn't mean "It cant happen to you." Case in point recently there were a couple murders here in Pullman and Moscow.

I truthfully don't know how many would actually regularly carry, however most who go through the effort to get their CWP and the rest of it will carry just because.

People often ask me why I have a CWP and why I carry even in the middle of no where. This is my response:

"I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it."

Re:Engineering building

[sheepweevil]

The first shooting was in a dorm hall. If I had a gun here at school, I would either keep it in the dorm room, or in my car (if I had one). One student keeping his gun in his dorm room, with enough courage and luck, could have saved many lives.

Re:Engineering building

[elbobo]

I'm not saying it was OK because it was incredibly goddamn rare. What I'm saying is that to allow students to arm themselves for the 1 in 1 million chance of a school shooting, or attack on campus is insane.

Also, if you go from having one student armed to having all students armed, then the rarity of such events drops as a result.

Here's a better idea: why not go from one student armed to no students armed. It's absurd to solve a gun problem by throwing more guns at it.

Re:Engineering building

[compro01]

The next point is that firefights are generally won by who pulls out the gun first... and that would be the person interested in shooting someone.

which leads to the point that one is never enough. if you've got one guy planning on doing a killing spree, and you've got 2 or more guys carrying concealed weapons, here's a picture.

1. nut walks into a room and draws a gun, possibly getting off a shot before being noticed
2. carriers 1, 2...n notice and start to draw their weapons
3. nut opens fire or continues firing
4. unless nut is using something with fast full-auto capability, heavy stopping power, and a very large magazine, it's pretty unlikely he will be able to take out all of the carriers before one or more of them get shots off, likely ending things. the chances of this happening increase the more carriers there are.

they do increase the likelihood that someone gets shot, typically the nut shooting at people.

granted, with an arbitrary number of guns being fired, there is a chance of someone catching friendly fire (this can be largely mitigated with training, which i believe is already required for a CCW license in most, if not all, states) or getting hit with a ricochet, though I'm pretty sure that the odds of the latter are pretty long.

Re:Engineering building

[MrHyd3]

Awesome comment. Couldn't of said it any better!

Re:Engineering building

[elbobo]

Chances are that a good 90% of the military would refuse those orders, and a good percentage of that 90% would use their training to help the 299.9 million stand up against the 100,000.

If the government do not have the military on their side then there's absolutely no need for a civilian uprising. A military coup will happen instead, achieving the same goal without any need for civilian deaths and without need for arming an unstable populous. If the government do have the military on their side then no amount of armed civilian uprising will succeed. It will simply lead to mass slaughter of civilians.

The idea of arming the civilian populace for the purpose of overthrowing the American government has been an absurd idea for a long time now.

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

why don't you go raise your children in iraq there everyone can carry a gun a bomb whatever you need to be protected please take your children there i would rather not see them studying close to mine.I bet they will have long an fullfilling lives shooting the shooters.
Oh there are no more chools there. yeah the last guy blast it he felt it was a treat to his life.

Re:Engineering building

[Hork_Monkey]

Look up the requirements for a concealed weapons permit. Background check, registered fingerprints, training class, etc.

As a CWP holder, I feel safer knowing that there are quite a few out there who are packing.

I, personally, go to the range 3-4 times a month. And I know for a fact this is more times than the average police officer goes. How does that make you feel?

Re:Engineering building

[iamhassi]

"People like you have no idea what it means to live in a society where everyone has a gun."

How do you know? Maybe he's Swedish, where every male is required by law to join the army as reserves from age 18 until 30 (34 for officers) and keep a weapon at home:
"The gun policy in Switzerland is unique in Europe. The personal weapon of militia personnel is kept at home as part of the military obligations. This, in addition to liberal gun laws and strong shooting traditions, has led to a very high gun count per capita."

and yet they have far less murders than we do. Every 18-30 yr old Swiss male has an assault rifle at home, yet they have one of the lowest murders per capita in the world, #56 out of 62 countries (US is #24).

Norway has a similar policy, yet they complain when "In the past 16 years at least 18 people have been killed following incidents involving the army's AG3 automatic assault rifle." If only the US had only 18 murders in 16 years!

Re:Engineering building

[acramon1]

Agreed. No guarantees. However, at least they would have had a chance, one that improved in direct proportion to the number of armed and trained people in the group. Armed and trained does not equal able to hit a target. Remember Pat Tillman? Friendly fire happens.

As it was, however, they had none, because the rules required them to be defenseless. Now they're dead, and we're not talking about "chance", are we? No. because we're certain they're dead, and we're certain they had no way to defend themselves. You're assuming that the only defense against a shooter is being armed with a gun. But you can still get shot when you have a gun. And you might hit someone else when you have a gun. It seems from what you say that you believe that such shooters need to be stopped using force. I don't disagree. Force should be applied, but arming the people with concealed weapons is unlikely the best solution.

Re:Engineering building

[Tesser]

And what exactly is your point? I don't even have a gun, but if I catch my wife screwing around, she's dead. End of story. She knows it, I know it, and everyone who knows us both knows it. In fact, this was made clear from the first date.

Re:Engineering building

[jchuillier]

An interesting statistic that would help

How many americans are accidently killed by guns owned by "honest people" such as the father shooting the son because he thinks he's a burglar when the son comes back home at 3AM

How many "killers" are killed by "honest people" such as the father shooting the burglar who entered his house at 3AM

This kind of statistic would help decide if the open access to guns is a good policy or not, one could always argue that if all the students were carrying guns they could have shot the maniac, but if the laws were tougher the maniac could not buy all his equipment.

For sure real criminals could get the guns anyway but whene was the last time that a real criminal went to a school and shot people before shooting himslef, real criminals go to BANKS, try NOT to shoot anybody (less jail if you're caught) and then try to RUN AWAY (and not commit suicide)

The bottom line is that real criminal are less dangerous regarding schools that maniacs because they are predictable (criminals) and maniacs are by definition unpredictable...

One interesting thing about american society is that some of your problems (voting system and guns for example) seem to be so easily solvable that it's a wonder for the rest of the world that you don't and still listen to Charlton HESTON and the DIEBOLD guys telling you "it's in the constitution", I'm sure the guys who wrote the constitution didn't have GUNS at SCHOOL in mind, what's the next step, tasers at kindergarten ?

Re:Engineering building

[Who235]

Walter, this isn't a guy who built the fucking railroads, here.

Re:Engineering building

[CptPicard]

Actually, yes they did. Unless you're willing to go for unlimited escalation of force carried by each and every individual person, you have to call it quits at some point and just trust that strength in numbers is going to overcome whatever weapon the assailant is carrying. If you want to be accusing people for "pussification" because they refuse to live in world where they have to carry guns around because others do so too, consider that it might have been courageous of some sufficiently large guys to just rush him. Some might die, but it would do the trick -- I don't think he was carrying an assault rifle. It takes some bravery but the people in a certain airplane did it.

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

oriental means japanese, chinese, or korean
using the word asian as an ethnicity is not very useful IMO

Re:Engineering building

[pinchhazard]

your comment cracked me up dogg +5 funny

Re:Engineering building

[xQx]

Okay, I've resisted the urge to post for a reaction for long enough.

THREE FRAGS LEFT!!!

It seem you yanks had another shot (haha) at trying to beat the record set a few years ago by the infamous Tasmanian named Martin. But yet again you fall short. All you needed was another 3 kills! ... Guess that's just proof that 2 heads are better than one.

That kid obviously needed more practice at Quake before he decided to make it real. .. Well, at least he did a better job than Eric and Dylan those years ago, they only managed a meesly 13 between them.

They haven't released the details of the gunman, but since it's not being called a Terrorist Attack, I'm guessing it's one of your local white christians who went nuts.
Sorry.

Re:Engineering building

[Kawahee]

M-M-M-M-Monster Kill!

Re:Engineering building

[ccmay]

I just think some of the arguments about guns for self defense in a 9am german class in buttfuck virginia are pretty silly.

What's the risk of dying in a fire in a 9am German class in Buttfuck, Virginia?

So why are there fire alarms and sprinklers, then?

-ccm

Re:Engineering building

[Silver Gryphon]

I would feel more comfortable knowing there are 20+ cops with radios, training and coordination.

Say you have 20 students packing within an area where the shooter starts his assault. They might be accurate shots, but can you imagine the crossfire? Cops have incredible restraint and have to rely on years of training and experience to know where the threat is and what will be between his gun and the bullet when he pulls that trigger. Unfortunately, a few training classes and a weekly trip to the range isn't enough to train for real life combat situations. The range has static targets, not teenagers running around screaming.

Plus, if you have 20 students with guns, how does one know the other 19 aren't threats? Crossfire might be the least of the worries if each thinks the other is the original shooter.

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

some backwoods town that almost never sees a murder and has 1/4 of the countries per-capita level of violent crime

Don't you see... if everyone carried a gun in that town, the murder/violent crime rate would be much higher, thus justifying the need to carry a gun. Problem solved.

Chicken? Egg?

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does New York have a higher ammount of gun related crimes than twopeoplesandadogburogh, South Nowhere?
Well, it has a higher ammount of crime over all to begin with?
Why does it have a higher ammount of crime than Bupkiss, West Dustplains?
Well, it's a bigger city.
If New York and Hicksburogh, Outbacks, had the same ammount of inhabitants it would have more or less the same ammount of gunrelated crimes because they would have more or less the same ammount of crime. A small insignifficant town at the far edge of nowhere has a lower ammount of crimes because it has a higher ammount of social controll, everyone knows everyone. It has nothing to do with permission of owning or using guns.

Re:Engineering building

[SuchiRu]

Q: Did it really matter what race he was?
A: No.

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

I, personally, go to the range 3-4 times a month. And I know for a fact this is more times than the average police officer goes. How does that make you feel?

Almost as hard as you right now?

Re:Engineering building

[Carewolf]

No. Why do you think the American military emphasizes discipline and following orders without questions?

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

Generally speaking I'm not afraid of heavy criminals with guns. They tend to mostly shoot other heavy criminals and the police, and occasinally innocent bystanders (but to be honest, that's actually rare as long as people just hand over their money and shut up).
Normal, previously unjailed people with guns though?
Scares me shitless...
This guy, how many times do you think he was arrested for robbing liqour stores? How many times did he rob banks? If he ever did have a police record it was probably posession of marijuana or something else hardly worthy of mention. Same goes for Columbine, same goes for the guy who shot Dimebag Darrel, same goes for just about any of these sensless shootings that we read about.
I'll go out on a limb here and claim that the majority of violent massacres of innocents in the USA is perpetrated by people without a significant history of crime (I'd say police record once more but I'd only invite the "Walking on the Moon"-joke).
Yes, there are a lot of innocent bystanders in the gang-related shooting in places like South Central, but honestly, you can't claim lack of defensive guns to be the reason why those shootings take place anyway. I'd also like to state that gangland shootings are primarily an affair between criminals and the high ammount of civilian casulties is because the gang members are usually to strung out on drugs to do their "job" properly.

Fact remains, real heavy duty criminals are not the people who cause these deaths, thus we could without fear restrict guns on the general populace. Criminals would keep shooting each other and the police (and occasionally innocents) but gunrelated deaths would plummet.

Re:Engineering building

[ccmay]

When was the last high school shooting in Australia, Sweden, Canada, England, anywhere other than America?

Canada has had six school shootings since 1975.

Australia had the Monash massacre in 2002, long after Port Arthur and the new gun laws. The Port Arthur massacre was a real record breaker even if it didn't happen in school. Then there's Queen Street, Hoddle Street, Strathfield, Milperra, Central Coast, etc.

Germany has had a couple, including a real bad one in 2002.

Japan had a gory one in 2001. Eight children killed with a knife.

England had Dunblane, Hungerford and several other massacres.

Switzerland had a massacre in a supposedly secure government building in 2001.

New Zealand had a double-digit massacre in 1990.

Even Sweden had a mass murder some years ago, committed by a soldier with his service rifle.

All of these countries have long had more stringent gun control than the US, except Switzerland. There are more of these in the US, but on a per capita basis, some other countries are not far behind. And I guarantee you it will happen again, even in places like Japan and England where it is practically impossible to get a legal gun.

Not to mention the fact that all the greatest mass murders are done with explosives or firebombs.

-ccm

Re:Engineering building

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Simple. They come home from the war, where things had a very immediate solution and applied those lessons at home. This is a documented side effect of people returning from combat.

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

Right To Swim? The constitution doesnt have the part about bearing arms to prevent ppl from shooting themselves. I am very sure more people die from being shot by others with guns than people dying from other people drowning them when they are in the water already.

I'm not here to critisize other nations, but i simply do not understand Americas obsession with carrying guns. Here in Australia gun laws are very tight. I can only think of one School shooting for example we ever had (2 fatalities). You can say i need a gun for protecteion against the other idiot who has a gun for protection against the other idiot who has a gun for protection, but simply the more guns in circulation the more they will get used. Even in a "gun free" (exageration) pl will bring in a gun to do shoot someone, but it will be a much more rare event.

Re:Engineering building

[Astro Dr Dave]

The great-grandparent post was pretty good and responsible... it recommended training and obtaining a CCW license. I don't see any problem with that.

Your problem is that you assume everyone is irresponsible. But I've noticed that in places where people are likely to be armed, society tends to be somewhat more... polite. I live in a town that probably has more firearms than residents. Is there crime here? Yes... quite a bit of crime, though the murder rate is low (1 murder last year, out of ~ 10k residents... which is above the historical average).

Many states now have "shall-issue" laws for concealed-carry permits (which means that they must issue a permit unless the applicant is disqualified by not meeting the requirements). Yet the crime rate is not higher, and may in fact be lower, in states where concealed carry is legal. I've seen many posts here decrying gun ownership, or claiming (as you did) that we'd have the "Wild West," blood running in the streets, etc... but people can and do legally carry concealed firearms in many states, and it simply hasn't caused any of the problems you anticipate.

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

That is why it is so stupid to have legislation against drugs. The only thing it does is feed a criminal scene around drugs, and nothing to prevent drugs abuse.

Re:Engineering building

[Astro Dr Dave]

You might feel safer in the presence of police instead of CCW permit holders, but you would be wrong to do so. Your feeling of safety is irrational.

Statistics show that the police are significantly less accurate than citizens with CCW permits -- the police miss the target about 75% of the time! Furthermore, the police also shoot the wrong person more often than citizens, probably because they tend to come to the scene later and did not witness the criminal event.

I'd also bet money that, on average, citizens with CCW permits have more and better firearms training than police officers.

Re:Engineering building

[NormalVisual]

Cops have incredible restraint and have to rely on years of training and experience to know where the threat is and what will be between his gun and the bullet when he pulls that trigger. Unfortunately, a few training classes and a weekly trip to the range isn't enough to train for real life combat situations. The range has static targets, not teenagers running around screaming.

A.) Go to a police range sometime and see just how proficient most of the guys in blue are. While you're there, ask the rangemaster how often he has to replace the uprights and other equipment because the shooters there keep tearing them up because they can't hit their targets even at seven yards.

B.) Show me a cop that's not SWAT that goes to the range more often than is strictly required for sidearm qualification (hint - four or fewer times a year), and that actually takes any kind of tactical training outside of what he learns at the police academy.

I think you're seriously misguided about how competent the average cop is with any firearm.

Re:Engineering building

[NormalVisual]

For someone who was out to shoot people, armed students would've been obvious targets, not a guaranteed end to the situation.

That's part of the reason why you carry concealed, and is a reasonably good argument why it's preferable to open carry.

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

Swedish? You mean Swiss. Sweden != Switzerland.

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

"I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it." Very logical statement.

But don't you think it's rather sad that you need to be thinking along those lines???

The majority of Americans like to tell the rest of the world that they (Americans) live in the greatest country in the world, then you have people like yourself who feel insecure in your own country, so much so that you need to carry arms! Great country indeed!

The question you all need to be asking yourself is: Where did it all go wrong?

Eric.

Re:Engineering building

[ghyd]

From a French perspective, you have both a culture of firearms (that we don't really have) and no guns zone. I mean, you seem to have the worst of both worlds: the most probable zones for easy mass killings, like universities, are also those where only dangerous people will have firearms, it's highly illogical and almost criminal. It seem impossible to stop the firearm culture in the whole US, and maybe it is fine this way, but the students should have the right to protect themselves as well, given the rate at which those events occur.

Re:Engineering building

[bobstay]

"Maybe he's Swedish, where every male is required..."

I think you mean Swiss...

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe, just maybe, you can't compare two very different places and assume that gun control is the difference!

I'm not arguing for or against gun control, but as someone once said, "your argument is trash".

Read: You can't draw conclussion about one area from another based on one statistic taking it in isolation from other data about the areas and the cultures of the areas.

So, what do you do? Take another areas statics in isolation of other factors and the culture....

For one thing your counter example has nothing to do with my point. For another, Kennesaw has what, 35k people? Too small a sample size to draw any kind of inductive conclusions.

Which was part of his point. You can't draw conclussion without looking at a lot of other factors.

Re:Engineering building

[ultranova]

You're a soldier. You're ordered to turn your weapons on your friends, cousins, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, fathers, and mothers.

No. You're ordered to turn your weapons on total strangers living in another side of the country, who you're told have decided to kill your friends, cousins etc. Meanwhile the soldiers from the other side of the country are told to turn their weapons to your friends, uncles etc. who they're told have decided to kill their friends, uncles etc. Then you let both troops know of the atrocities the other is committing, and there you have it: a merciless foreign occupation force.

I've missed my true calling as an evil overlord, or a President of the United States :).

Re:Engineering building

[Yvanhoe]

Carrying a gun and having a rationnal debate with someone over conflictuous issues is, unfortunately, not possible in most case.
That and I don't have room for a shotgun in my laptop case.

Re:Engineering building

[MichaelSmith]

One armed student could have ended this right at the beginning.

Yes and one light airplane armed with a sidewinder could have ended 911 right at the beginning.

Re:Engineering building

[strikethree]

I think you are approaching this from the wrong perspective:

When some moron goes apeshit with a gun, I would like the ability to be able to defend myself. I really could give a flying fuck if you are "afraid" that *I* might be the one going apeshit.

I am 39 years old and have never carried a weapon off-duty (I occasionaly work as a security guard), however, I want to retain the ability to do so. I am currently surrounded by people who carry assault rifles openly at all times. As a matter of fact, they are _required_ to carry them everywhere they go, even when they eat or go shopping at the store. While there have been a few accidental discharges, I feel very safe.

Tell me, wouldn't you want the ability to defend yourself. Do you feel so strongly about not being able to defend yourself that you are willing to give up your life to prove it? Would your opinion change if you were one of the students being shot at?

strike

Re:Engineering building

[tomatensaft]

Sorry, couldn't resist, but *YOUR* oversimplification does betray your ignorance, too... ;)

Re:Engineering building

[Petra_von_Kant]

Look, really sorry it has happened, but what else does one expect with >200 million firearms out there.
OK, arm everyone in the US, make it by law. Please, however, withdraw all rights to travel outside the US borders, and stop anyone or goods coming in.

I'm sure the rest of us will survive without them and their ever so slightly bizarre views.

"You've got a chart filling a whole wall with interlocking pathways
and reactions to shock and the researcher says "If I can just control
this one molecule/enzyme/compound I'll stop the whole negative
physiologic cascade of post haemorrhagic shock." Yeah, right."

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

For someone who was out to shoot people, armed students would've been obvious targets, not a guaranteed end to the situation.

True. But maybe, just maybe, some of the 33 he killed might still be alive if his aim was spoiled by having to dodge return fire! As it was, it was just like shooting fish in a barrel.

Re:Engineering building

[tomatensaft]

Let me explain. Uncle Sam spends millions of dollars on army training, because: 1. there are thousands of soldiers to train 2. each soldier gets a lot of equipment to learn to handle, not just light firearms (think Navy, Air Force etc.) 3. good army training is far far more than just teaching you to handle your M16 (or any other light firearm) Question: why do people run around hysterically, when someone is firing?.. Why not lie down and stay quiet? Find cover? God damn, even hiding behind a door can save your ass, because shooter suddenly doesn't see you to shoot effectively at you. You get a better chance to survive, don't you?

Re:Engineering building

[arabagast]

amen

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you realise why things like that happen more often in the USA than in Europe?

Don't be silly... http://www.gunowners.org/sk0703.htm

Which part of Europe?

England? Where guns are banned entirely...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2002/02/24/nguns24.xml

Or Switzerland? Where men are required to own weapons and women are encouraged to...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1566715.st m

These make a pretty good case for arming everyone!

Re:Engineering building

[Krupuk]

If the students were armed... ...this would be happening every week.

Re:Engineering building

[Bush Pig]

So ... when are you Americans going to finally enact the same kind of sensible gun laws we have in Australia? How many dead will it take?

Re:Engineering building

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

>How does that make you feel?

scared. I hope you never need to defend yourself around me. twice as many bullets flying is bad odds for me and I don't think the pointing of the tube where you want it is the hardest part of sending a piece of metal ripping through major organs of another human being.

even if you were an olympic sharpshooter I wouldn't trust your training enough to knowingly put myself in your range of fire.

if you're not a SWAT-type guy spending most of your time training for high-pressure target-identification scenarios then you can shove your good intentions up your ass and pull the trigger till it goes click.

Re:Engineering building

[brsmith4]

I hardly said anything at all, I simply pointed out the GP's implications; ergo, I am not oversimplifying anything. The only claim I made is that the GP should be careful of making statements regarding what he (and other gun owners) may or may not do in such a situation since it is highly unlikely that he or the vast majority of gun owners, for that matter, have ever faced a situation where they might be forced to act in such a manner. It is simply impossible to know how you or a generalized group of people will react in a given situation that you have yet to experience. I fail to see how your statement is relevant though I probably could have gone without that little barb (my apologies to the GP), but I was a bit frustrated with all of the armchair warriors with their claims that they would have been a hero had they been there.

Re:Engineering building

[INT_QRK]

So...I guess the point is that they were racial profiling? Do you know that for a fact; that there wasn't something else going on? The points made so far that the police somehow should have prevented the second set of murders seems a little simplistic to me. The campus is huge. There are 26 thousand students. How exactly are you supposed to "secure" a campus so large with any typical, even larger than average, size police force? Lock down all students and faculty? Detain all stragglers? For how long? Until the suspect is caught? What if he's not caught? How do you ID the suspect given a typically vague description among a 26,000 population? Anyone familiar with memory theory will tell you the likelihood of an eye witness to a stressful event having anything approaching a complete, much lless accurate, description is low. Asian, hispanic, black or white, big (always) -- about all you're likely to get, and that will probably not be accurate. How may hispanics are confused with asian and vice versa? Police work is complex, inexact, and not always efficent enough to prevent crimes. There's never enough, and they can only do so much. However, I'm not sure I want to live somewhere where it is enough and they have broader latitude. That's called a police state. Sometimes bad things just happen, and it's sad -- but it's just reality.

Re:Engineering building

[Jesus_666]

1.) Give every student a gun. In fact, make guns mandatory.
2.) Make it a rule that anyone firing a gun under any circumstances is to be shot immediately.
3.) The problem solves itself. Make sure to be far away when it does.

Re:Engineering building

[pravuil]

Another sad and distressing argument that's been going on for quite some time. There's so much psychology involved with the right to bear arms it's not even funny. Ultimately it's the very few that abuse the privilege. As with this case, his motive was probably out of touch with moral responsibility. It's a shame that it wasn't recognized earlier. It's one of those situations where nobody could have moderated their lives considering they were university students. People have to have more sense to do things like this.

Re:Engineering building

[MauricioAP]

this kind of thing almost only happens in USA, just follow worldwide news?

what USA citizens should do is to think why this happened and actually do something to prevent it, tips: way of life, NRA, fear, etc.

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you mean Ohio State U? I have lived in Ohio most of my life, and it was never really legal to carry a gun until the permit law a few years ago. The original law said that if you were carrying, you would be arrested and could prove in court that you were justified to carry. Not many people actually carried at this time, unless they made huge cash night drops and such. Goin to jail to exercise your right was a pain inm the ass, and the law was struck down. There was a short period after that there was no valid gun law, but the legislature got a new law pretty quick untill the CCP law.

I went to Ball State, and I knew several law abiding students that carried to class.

Re:Engineering building

[The Slashdot Guy]

Here's a better idea: why not go from one student armed to no students armed. It's absurd to solve a gun problem by throwing more guns at it. Congratulations! You posted the stupidest thing I've read this year. How about we try this on a national scale. We can ban guns entirely, then nobody will have guns and everything will be sunshine and rainbows.

Grow up. The world is a shitty place full of shitty people. Having nobody armed isn't going to happen. All it takes is one nutcase to fuck up your whole plan. If this weren't the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Re:Engineering building

[khakipuce]

Not forgetting that one armed student STARTED THIS.

Consider this scenario, you walk into class and a nut with a gun is standing there with bodies around him, you shoot the nut. At that point I walk in, I see you stood there with a gun and bodies around you, I shoot you...

"An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind2 - Ghandi

Re:Engineering building

[TheCoop1984]

May I point out that in the UK we have far less gun crime than in the US? We are the most gun-unfriendly country in the western world, and the majority of people like it. They like not having to worry about carrying a gun for self protection when they go to the shops. There is simply no need for guns here. Why is that not the case in the US?

Re:Engineering building

[tomatensaft]

Well, if you at least read TFA across, you'd noticed, that some of the students did manage to:

• lock the doors
• close the doors and keep them shut, even probably knowing, that if the shooter starts shooting through it, the one holding the door will get hit -- but at least the shooter won't be able to pass it and kill everybody
• act as if they were killed or wounded
• jump out of windows to escape

So, my understanding is that the people inside did have some time to think (rather than just running around in panic) and do something more or less meaningful in such a situation. And if anyone in each class room had a firearm with them, there would be a pretty good chance, that the massacre would end quicker, than it did.

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

"However, at least they would have had a chance, one that improved in direct proportion to the number of armed and trained people in the group"

That's just incredibly sad. Most of these things happen because people have guns, kids have guns. I am 25 and never touched a gun in my life, and I don't feel at risk because of this. My point is that giving people guns is not the answer, taking them away (don't know if it's possible) would actually be.

Tora

Re:Engineering building

[Paulrothrock]

Well if that's the case, why not force all adults to carry weapons at all times? Heck, we could probably save money cause we could totally get rid of the police!

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

"Here's a better idea: why not go from one student armed to no students armed."

And how do you propose we do that? VT was already a (supposedly) no-gun campus. Metal-detectors on every door? Daily room and person searches? They won't work because detection and passive prevention CAN NOT STOP a sufficiently determined and prepared individual.

Re:Engineering building

[elamdaly]

CCW laws don't solve the problem of violence. They merely increase the likelyhood that someone else gets shot.

Odd statement too make, as there is no statistical evidence to back that up. If anything, the someone else getting shot is the perp. Regardless, your whole statement wreaks of an irrational, emotive bias against weapons. That's fine, but as such, your not making a whole lot of sense.

Firefights are not won by who shoots first, but by who gets shot, period. If one person in that classroom had a gun, odds are much greater that the VT shooter would have been dead or driven away from a classroom of defenseless people. This is such an obvious point, it beggars belief that it needs an explanation.

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

It went wrong when they brought the niggers over.
Before that it was paradise on earth.

Re:Engineering building

[(trb001)]

Not practical...do you want to have weapon detectors or police officers at every building, everywhere? I graduated from VT...some of those buildings are old, and there are a LOT of them. They all have multiple entrances. There are windows...do you mandate that all windows are bullet proof and can't be opened? How do you secure a campus like that?

More guns or less guns, people who want to kill are going to get weapons. I don't know how you can question that...before there were guns, people killed with poison or sharp objects. It's going to happen. IMO, the best solution is to protect yourself as best you can, which IMO is through gun ownership.

--trb

Re:Engineering building

[cayenne8]

"The way this issue was explained to me the first time I made the faux pas in college (freshman year) of using "Oriental" instead of "Asian"

Actually I'm really shocked.

I've NEVER heard of anyone getting offended at being called Oriental....

All this discourse is amazing and new to me. Truly.

As far as I know or have known...Asian and Oriental were pretty much synonymous....completely interchangeable.

Re:Engineering building

[cayenne8]

"What makes you think the nut didn't have the proper paperwork on his weapon?"

Err...not all states require you to fill out paperwork or register a gun. I never have.

I bought all mine from private individuals, no record anywhere.

Re:Engineering building

[myth24601]

Also, if you go from having one student armed to having all students armed, then the rarity of such events drops as a result.

Here's a better idea: why not go from one student armed to no students armed. It's absurd to solve a gun problem by throwing more guns at it.

I think that was the plan at VT. In fact the President lobbied the VA legislature into keeping in place a law that effectivly kept anyone from legally carrying a gun on campus.

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

"I would feel more comfortable knowing there are 20+ cops with radios, training and coordination."

Did you SEE any of the news reports? Where the overweight cops are hunkered down behind cards and armored vests while a single man managed to kill 30+ people? Rounds going off while lard-asses trot around in dis-coordination, detaining the wrong people and pointing guns at fleeing students while the real killer continued his spree? You make it sound like cops are superheroes who magically appear and automatically have the Mad Skillz to make amazing, lifesaving shooting tricks; it ain't so.

Re:Engineering building

[jdevivre]

It's absurd to solve a gun problem by throwing more guns at it. Agreed. Look how well that concept serves in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Or Texas. Or Somalia. Or D.C.. Or Virginia. More guns does not equal less violence, no matter how they want to paint it.

Re:Engineering building

[dwpro]

Allowing students to arm themselves is insane? These aren't preschoolers, these aren't even high schoolers. They can choose to arm themselves anyway, just not on campus. Insane is the exact wrong word here, especially considering these are presumably educated, intelligent young adults.

Re:Engineering building

[elbobo]

Metal-detectors on every door? Daily room and person searches?

Yes. Granted, it'd just be patching the wound rather than curing the disease, but the real cure is far more difficult so might as well take same steps in the meantime. The real solution is to fix America's gun violence culture problem. Undo the cultural damage done by the continuous glorification of gun violence.

Re:Engineering building

[dwpro]

I don't know about you, but I guess I would get shot hurling a desk or running away because I don't have a gun nor any significant means of defending myself. And I'm not really happy about that, seeing as I feel like I would be as likely as most to make a reasonable decision about whether or not to shoot someone in such a case.

Re:Engineering building

[martyros]

Whenever something like this comes up, my father-in-law always says, "You know why in the wild west, the barfights are all people swinging punches and bottles and chairs, instead of shooting? Because they know that everyone in the place has a gun, and if one person pulls his gun out, there will be bullets flying everywhere. Your likelihood of not getting shot in that circumstance is just about nil."

Now, I don't like to get my information from movies, so I'm holding judgement on whether that's true or not. But he does have a point.

Re:Engineering building

[JesseBikman]

Actually, Oriental is Spanish for East. By saying Oriental, he is essentially saying "eastern". I fail to see how identifying someone as being of eastern origin is either racist or derogative.

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

"Never go to clubs with metal detectors. Sure it feels safe inside. But what about all those niggas waiting outside with guns? They know you ain't got one." - Chris Rock

Re:Engineering building

[djh101010]

Criminals will break the law. Therefore laws against gun ownership make the situation such that law-abiding citizens cannot defend themselves.

When I heard about the shootings, that was the first thing I thought: It's too bad more students weren't armed.

And to make matters worse, it could have so easily been prevented. As you've probably read by now, the University decided not to let students and staff members who had a legal, valid permit to carry concealed weapons, do so on campus. Even worse perhaps is the decision not to allow their own "security guards" to be armed. This is a tragic example of how gun control causes damage. The population has been disarmed, they have announced same, and a criminal knows he's completely safe to come in and murder them without danger to himself.

Imagine how differently this would have gone had someone been allowed to be carrying. Like in this case, where a school shooter was stopped by a student with a CCW: http://timlambert.org/guns/appalachian/nd/tackle/g un/054.html

Instead, we've got 32 victims whose deaths are at least in part due to the University making them safe to attack. I hope those administrators understand the gravity of their actions. Unfortunately, the anti-gunners will take this utter failure of their approach to say they need to do more of that which just helped cause 32 deaths.

Re:Engineering building

[TempeTerra]

While I agree with you in principle, I'm looking for somewhere to post my opinion ;)

I believe it was Atilla the Hun who first popularised the tactic of drafting troops from a subject city and using them as the garrison a couple of states away where they don't know anyone.

I am of the opinion that the second amendment will have no effect on any future rebellions in the United States. If the South couldn't break away during the American Civil War, I can't see how a disorganised, lightly armed mob could worry the modern US government, or even provide much support to a rebel faction of the army. Either the rebel faction would be ineffectual, or so massive that they could force a regime change by simply and nonviolently refusing to comply with the government. Production and logistics are extremely important to an army, and the civilians already hold them. A lost worker - or worse, a saboteur - would be much more painful to a hostile regime than one dude with a pistol. Discuss :)

Re:Engineering building

[srmalloy]

Given the extremely rare circumstances when one would be shot at by a random stranger on a college campus?

Well, I'll tell you what. Why don't you go tell these kid's parents and friends that it was ok, because it was rare. Go ahead. I'll wait here for you. With a first aid kit. Hopefully, that'll be sufficient.

I remember the news about the shooting in the Lubey's in Texas, and the pain of the woman who had to watch those people being killed because she obeyed the law. City ordinances prohibited bringing weapons into restaurants, so she had locked her gun in the glove compartment of her car. And she was badly broken up by the realization that, if she'd kept her gun with her, she would have been able to shoot the gunman before he had killed so many people.

The ongoing rationalization I hear from the gun-control lobby is "If it saves even one life..." to justify ever more restrictive gun laws. But the same justification can be turned against gun-control laws: "If it costs even one life..." Sometimes, the steady erosion of personal responsibility is depressing, with ever-more-ridiculous 'justification' for claims of diminished capacity used to avoid facing the consequences of people's actions. If you're an adult, you are responsible for the conduct of your life, and have no grounds for disclaiming responsibility for your actions.

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

are you fucking serious serious?! A HELL of a lot higher.

Re:Engineering building

[Hork_Monkey]

It just sounds like you just have some irrational fear of guns. Also it appears that you want the police to protect you. I've witnessed first hand what the police do when the shit hits the fan. They join in the looting.

Well, i'm not the police. I don't care about you. My intentions have nothing to do with you, as long as I don't perceive you as a threat. I carry for one reason- to protect me and my family.

Fortunately I don't need your paranoid and narrow approval to carry. It's a right that I exercise, and train myself within reason. I don't go looking for trouble, and try to avoid places where trouble occurs. But unfortunately, trouble sometimes comes to you.

As for the swat guys, they're a bit to eager to plug someone for my taste. At least I try and get away from a bad situation first- they tend to try and eliminate anything perceived as a threat.

Re:Engineering building

[Laurentiu]

The problem imho is the "concealed" part. Why not make all weapons that can be concealed illegal? Say, anything smaller than 40" would be banned. You would still have the right to bear arms - anything from a 12-gauge up if:
a) you're not inconvenienced or embarrassed lugging it around
b) you can afford it

Additionally, training and gun safety courses should be followed prior to owning any gun. This would at least partially ensure that you not only have the right, but also the responsibility to bear arms.

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no such thing as an "Assault rifle."
There are semi-automatic rifles, some of them happen to be made of black plastic and are scary looking to ignorant folks, so they dream up words like "Assault rifle" to try and scare other ignorant folks into making the bad black plastic go away.

Re:Engineering building

[feed_me_cereal]

that's a good point. Honestly, though... I still can't figure out why they didn't immediately shut down campus after that dorm shooting... It's terrible.

Re:Engineering building

[NeutronCowboy]

Ah yes, the polite society argument. I find it interesting that you took a single example of a small town (rural, am I right?) and extrapolated a general condition from it. Tell you what - I've lived in cities larger than that, villages smaller than that and they were all very friendly places to live. Something they had in common? Lack of guns.

A polite society is polite without guns. It's the nutcases that require guns to be reasoned with. And at that point, you've lost the polite society angle.

Here's the other part people don't understand: there is nothing even close to the gun ownership that used to be common in the colonization times (term used since Wild West seems to trigger all kinds of movie related stereotypes). Everyone had a gun. Pretty much literally. Now? Very, very few people carry guns. Not nearly enough to make a difference statistically. Besides, I find it amusing that one of the worst shooting sprees in the US took place in an area famous for gun ownership.

Lastly, take the best trained people, and put them in the middle of a firefight. Even they shoot their buddies on occasion. How do I know? Friendly fire reports from the US military. That alone tells me that I ought to be worried about everyone packing heat.

Re:Engineering building

[NeutronCowboy]

No, I wouldn't want the ability to defend myself with a gun. And yes, I'm aware of the possible consequences. So much for your rhetorical question.

And lastly.... yes, I do give a fuck that it is you who could be going apeshit. Or maybe you just want to take out the shooter, but missed? And now others are shooting at you, because they think you're the shooter? Fun times all around.

Guns don't solve the fundamental problem of violence. Escalating the weaponry brought to fights might make fights more rare, but it will also guarantee that any actual firefight will be far more brutal than anything seen before. The Columbine shooters were heavily armed. What's to prevent them from getting some vests, another buddy, some grenades and go through the school commando style? The carnage will still be there.

Safety through guns is completely temporary. It completely relies on you having the first shot, or, in case you miss, the ability to shoot again faster. All of which can be circumvented by technology.

Re:Engineering building

[MoronBob]

Thats right they don't happen in Europe. There are also no riots in Paris. If you happen to have film of a non-riot in Paris you will go to jail. There are no "youths" rioting in Paris. Europe is utopia. Europe has no problems. The US is Satan. All problems on the earth are caused by George Bush and the US. Just keep chanting...The US is Satan....The US is Satan.....The US is Satan.....

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

"The question, I think, is if you are more frightened of someone that goes through the process to carry a concealed weapon (and infact does so) than you are of some fuckin' nut who goes around shooting people? I for one can gladly say that I'd rather have the former."

Sounds like it could be the same person?

"Most legislation is more of a burden to an honest person owning a gun than to a criminal (who often will just steal a gun)."

From a legitimate gun owner...

Really, if the only reason for owning a gun is to protect yourself from guns, then why don't we just ban them all? In some countries not even the police are allowed to carry them. Sounds good to me!

Re:Engineering building

[RsG]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
No such thing my ass. I'll grant you that it's a misused term (people refer to semi-automatic rifles as assault rifles in ignorance), but in the context of military weaponry it is a valid term with a generally accepted meaning, namely a selective fire automatic rifle with mid sized ammunition. Ask a grunt what category of weapon an M16 is and you'll get "assault rifle" in reply.

Several people could indeed have rushed the perpetrator at VT as the GP claimed if all the killer had was semi-automatic, whereas they could not have rushed him if he had a weapon capable of burst fire.

Since the GP was referring to the shooter not having a weapon capable of killing several targets at once, I assume he knew what he was talking about when he said "assault rifle". By claiming that there is "no such thing as an assault rifle" you have shown that you do not. Kindly take the time to at least Google a word or term first before speaking up.

Re:Engineering building

[brkello]

Not insightful. This is the same knee jerk reaction all the politicians and schools are going to have. But you just can't install weapon detectors and security guards at every building on a college campus. The chances of this happening are so small it really doesn't make sense to do it. And there is always an easy way to get around it. I am not saying we need more guns or people should be allowed to carry on campus, I am just saying your soultion isn't going to work either.

Re:Engineering building

[DiniZuli]

The fire alarms and sprinklers cannot be used to harm/wound/kill you or anyone else around you (maybe Wes Craven could figure out an obscure way ...)
My point is: bad argument.

Re:Engineering building

[Bob Uhl]

Actually, most folks who carry concealed say that after a few times you start to regard it as a duty to be armed, simply in order to stop incidents like this. Yeah, they're few and far between, but they can be stopped.

We have three alternatives: ban weapons (it never stops at guns--eventually it trickles down to knives, swords, bats and so forth) for everyone except the police & military; allow weapons to those who want them; mandate guns for all except those who explicitly don't want them. Britain chose the first option; it doesn't appear to work very well there. We've chosen the second, although we used to follow the third. Switzerland follows the third option, and has an extremely low crime rate (of course, it's also a very small country with a very different social spirit).

If just a few--maybe just one--person had had military training, he might have made a difference. If just one other person had had a weapon, he might have made a difference. I think that we can see that our experiment in limited weapon-carrying has been a failure; we also see from the areas of the United States with the harshest gun laws (guns are banned in many areas) that weapons bans don't work.

Might it be time to revive the Founders' militia ideal? They passed laws requiring every adult male to register in the militia and to outfit himself with a basic infantryman's kit (knapsack, rifle, ammunition, boots, belt and so forth). I'd add an opt-out provision for pacifists, but other than that would it perhaps be a good idea for folks to spend three weeks getting basic military training after high school? We could shrink the size of our Army (making it essentially a cadre of officers, NCOs & specialists to seed an activated militia) while at the same time making foreign adventures far less likely (militiamen, unlike soldiers, have the right not to fight).

And it would help reduce the death toll in incidents like this.

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure quite why you were modded up, you seem to have missed the point.

Re:Engineering building

[Bob Uhl]

Ummm, that's exactly what Virginia Tech tried to do. It forbade all students to carry weapons, and then when one broke the rules, the rest were like sheep led unto the slaughter. Weapons bans are not obeyed by criminals; that's part of what makes them criminals.

Arming private citizens is the only way to effectively limit the damage caused in these situations. We can't keep weapons out of the hands of criminals--our experience in Washington, DC has shown that (so have the British & Australian experiences)--so we must have more weapons in the hands of trained, law-abiding citizens. The police can't protect us; all they can do is mop up the blood and draw chalk outlines afterwards.

Re:Engineering building

[Bob Uhl]

So you want a metal detector and at least one security officer stationed at every entrance of every building in the country? Why not just provide all adult citizens with basic armed and unarmed combat training, and ensure that all have access to a weapon? When Charles Whitman was shooting from the University of Texas belltower, citizens helped the police, deputies and Rangers by bringing their own firearms and trying to pick him off. If just a few--maybe just one--person in the building had had training, he might have been able to stop the shooter. If just one had had a gun, he might have been able to kill the shooter.

Less guns doesn't work--there are still other weapons. Banning all weapons makes us into the UK, where it's illegal to defend yourself with a stick!

Re:Engineering building

[mollymoo]

You're a soldier. You're ordered to turn your weapons on your friends, cousins, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, fathers, and mothers. Chances are that a good 90% of the military would refuse those orders, and a good percentage of that 90% would use their training to help the 299.9 million stand up against the 100,000.

Few people in such a situation buck the status quo. It's kind of nice to imagine that somehow Germans in the 30s and 40s were fundamentally different to us now, but they simply weren't. It's a scary thought but turning your average Joe into, say, a death camp guard who enjoys his work has been done many times in the past with a substantially higher sucess rate than 10%. Just look at virtually any civil war in history for an abundance of evidence. I have no doubt whatsoever that turning the US Army against its own population is perfectly possible. Not tomorrow, but by the time the situation arose where that might be considered there would have been plenty of propaganda to ensure the 'enemy within' had been suitably dehmanised.

Re:Engineering building

[Bob Uhl]

No, actually the Wild West wasn't violent because of the presence of guns, but because of the lack of young women. Young men left to their own devices get a bit shifty.

The same experiment was tried in the early Republic, and it worked excellently. Every single adult male (with the exception of ferrymen, some postal employees and so forth) was required to own a firearm along with the rest of an infantryman's kit (knapsack, boots, cartridges, belt). And yet I find no reference that the early Republic was notably violent--quite the opposite in fact.

The Wild West was mostly an invention of penny dreadful authors and filmmakers.

People like you have no idea what it means to live in a society where everyone has a gun.

Neither, it seems, do you.

Re:Engineering building

[meisenst]

Do you understand the fallacy of this entire line of thinking?

One armed student STARTED this, right at the beginning. Irrespective of whether or not his weapons were legal, whether he had permits or none, whether the weapons were concealed or not, this man committed horrible acts by way of the weapons he carried. If you think that arming everyone is the solution to this problem, I have an idea for you.

Halfway around the world, there is another country that has this kind of problem every single day, yet we seem to turn a blind eye to their plight. I'm talking about Iraq. There are tens, hundreds of people killed in attacks in Iraq almost daily. Average citizens in Iraq are armed, trained, and defend themselves and their families, religions, beliefs and country every day. Consider the impact of this kind of system. You can read about and see the results every day in the news.

I know that I'm speaking to a wall here -- I won't engage further in this debate, but please try to understand the other side of the coin here.

Re:Engineering building

[Weedlekin]

"Which part of Europe?"

Just about all of them.

"England? Where guns are banned entirely..."

You cite a old article in a rag. A much better and more current source is here:

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.as p

There were a total of 765 homicides in England and Wales during the year 2005-2006, which have a combined population of around 54 million. This includes the 52 who were killed in the 7th July bombings. There are several US cities with populations that are a small fraction of this with significantly higher homicide figures for the same period.

"Or Switzerland?"

A country whose entire population is smaller than that of London, and around 15% of the population of England and Wales. But of course, comparing Switzerland with a similar country such as Austria or Sweden (comparable populations, similar individual wealth levels, strict gun laws, and lower homicide rates than Switzerland) doesn't make Switzerland look quite so glowing, just as comparing the UK with similarly populous European countries such as France and Spain reveals that it's actually a much safer country than either. But hey, if you can cherry-pick, then so can I -- my example is Colombia, a country with extremely liberal gun laws, a population that's similar in size to that of England and Wales (40 million or so), and a murder rate of 25,000 people per year compared with the UK's less than 800. If I used your tactics, I would claim that this proves removing the UK's strict gun laws would result in their murder rate leaping to around 35,000 per year almost immediately (it does not of course prove anything of the sort).

"These make a pretty good case for arming everyone!"

They make a pretty good case for living in a country with a small and extremely wealthy, contented populace. Note also that despite everyone having guns, events like this
(http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/27/sw itzerland.shooting/index.html) prove that, as anyone who has actually been to Switzerland knows, Swiss people don't carry them around for the sake of it, so the probability of them being able to deal with a lunatic who starts shooting people in a shopping mall, post office, factory, or school is no greater than that other non-armed Europeans.

Re:Engineering building

[fyngyrz]

For pistol use, 6 weeks to qualify, 5 nights a week, 2 hours per class. Re-qualification once a year; qual and requal to include static and popup courses with appropriate and inappropriate targets and written test. Qual to include training on legal underpinnings of self defense and crowd defense, how to carry (on safe, safety, loaded or not, holstering etc), how to draw, storage, ammunition age and viability, cleaning, what different types of loads do both in terms of stopping power and to various target areas, an entire subcourse on lines of sight, weapons capability (accuracy correlation with barrel length, caliber, capacity and clips, types of mechanisms such as revolver and clipfed semis, identifying the threat, disarming procedure, when to clear the area (retreat), basic first aid for gunshots. This is not an exclusive list.

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

No dude, it went wrong when the pilgrims got there. As somebody once said, "...people so uptight the English kicked them out."

Re:Engineering building

[superpulpsicle]

I know plenty of white people who are offended when they are called "Caucasian" so obviously its personal preference. Anyhow the shooter is not even Chinese, people are profiling the worst way here. It's like grouping Germans and Jews together because they both look white. It doesn't work in actual definition.

Re:Engineering building

[Mursk]

>Any word if he was an engineering student that may have snapped or anything? Actually, they're now saying he was an English major. Not that it really matters, I guess.

Re:Engineering building

[Mursk]

>Any word if he was an engineering student that may have snapped or anything?

Actually, they're now saying he was an English major. Not that it really matters, I guess.

Sorry, should have previewed.

Re:Engineering building

[gg3po]

The solution isn't to have MORE guns, but to have LESS. Instead, have MORE SECURITY at these buildings.

Weapon detectors,

This would have changed nothing. His weapon needed no detection. That he had it out firing already made the fact that he was armed obvious.

security officers,

Agreed. More people present that were trained in security would have made a difference -- something like, say, more trained Concealed Carry Permit holders.

people KNOWN to be safe with guns.

CCP holders have to pass rigorous training very akin to the kind of training undergone by "security officers".

Re:Engineering building

[gg3po]

Don't you realise why things like that happen more often in the USA than in Europe?

Link to relevant data, please? Don't preach to me about availability of weapons, because Switzerland already provides counter-example.

Re:Engineering building

[Astro Dr Dave]

Again, you're demonstrably wrong. I've lived in several large cities in the US. None were particularly civil or nice places. And, correlation does not imply causation. Just because you lived in nice places where most people did not have guns does not mean that they were nice because people didn't have guns. In colonial times, everyone did not have a gun. In fact, most people in the militia did not have personal firearms, especially poor people. There were community stores for militia purposes. This is well documented. You'd be surprised at how many people have concealed carry permits where it's allowed. The truth is, you don't know if a person is carrying a gun, because they are small and easily concealed.

Re:Engineering building

[gg3po]

People like you have no idea what it means to live in a society where everyone has a gun.

You mean places known for extreme violence like Switzerland?

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a whole lot less racial hatred directed at immigrants from Asia than from Africa or even Mexico.

So that means you now own a license to call Asians whatever term you please? We should respect what people wish to be called. If an Asian doesn't want to be called "oriental", then don't call him that. If your college professor doesn't want to be called by his first name, then call him "Dr. Smith". Same goes for labels like "nigger", "handicapped", and "stewardess". These are reasonable requests.

To delve further into the subject of "oriental", it was explained to me that calling a person this devalues them as a person because "oriental" is used as an adjective to describe objects, i.e. food, collectibles, and musical instruments. This might seem silly to the rest of us, but I feel that this just goes back to respecting the wishes of others if the title they wish to be called is reasonable (you're not calling your next door neighbor "Master Imfuckingyourwife").

Re:Engineering building

[NeutronCowboy]

Err.... you might want to check your facts; I mean, your assumptions. Nowhere did I mention US towns. Not only that, but you manage to selectively assume causation when it suits you, and throw it out when it doesn't. Even if the argument used is exactly the same as yours, just with different data.

Wow. I haven't seen any cogent argument so far that supports the theory that more weapons in the population equals more safety. It's either "it's obvious, stupid!", uses anecdotes in place of actual data, or uses assumptions that are as unsupported as anything advanced by the gun-control people.

Re:Engineering building

[Goaway]

Criminals will break the law. Therefore laws against gun ownership make the situation such that law-abiding citizens cannot defend themselves.

That's some serious tunnel vision you've got going on there.

Re:Engineering building

[DavidShor]

The shooter in lubney was shot several times by the police, he didnt stop shooting until he ran out of victims. Gun fights are not like the movies, if she had her gun, she would have shot him, probaly not have killed him, and then promptly been shot.

Re:Engineering building

[DavidShor]

Wow, thanks for pointing that out to me. Why are the standards so low for police?

Re:Engineering building

[Goaway]

Doubtful that this guy bought the guns for the massacre.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/17/america/ NA-GEN-US-University-Shooting-Weapons.php

Re:Engineering building

[NormalVisual]

Beats me, although I think it's quite possible to be a good cop without being able to shoot well. Most cops just aren't that interested in firearms, so I guess they don't feel the need to stay very proficient beyond getting past the (very) minimal quarterly qualifications. My tactical shooting instructor is a state trooper who also does a lot of firearms instruction for his agency and has a list of professional certifications as long as my arm, and he says sometimes it amazes him how poorly his colleagues handle themselves behind the trigger, and that all of us in his class shoot better than the vast majority of his co-workers. For the record, he generally shoots better than any of us in his class. He's certainly better than I am. :-)

I just think it's a mistake to automatically assume that government service = competence when it comes to handling firearms, as Lee Paige of the DEA so ably demonstrated a few years ago.

Re:Engineering building

[Astro Dr Dave]

There were a total of 765 homicides in England and Wales during the year 2005-2006, which have a combined population of around 54 million. This includes the 52 who were killed in the 7th July bombings. There are several US cities with populations that are a small fraction of this with significantly higher homicide figures for the same period. Ok, that's a homicide rate of 1.4 per 100,000. According to the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_02.html the homicide rate in the US for 2005 was 5.6 per 100,000. Yes, there is a difference, but it's not nearly as large as some people here suggest (mostly because they only compare homicides where guns are used).

I imagine part of the difference in the homicide rate is due to other social factors, too. (For example, violence is not as acceptable or common on TV in Europe.)

Re:Engineering building

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

But what if the assailant WASN'T armed?

Great, now tell me how you can pass laws to prevent him from arming himself. Remember, this guy slowly went nuts and had time to plan this out. Also remember he was already banned from having guns, but he ignored that. How do you prevent him from buying an illegal gun? Can you ban guns everywhere in the US, including places you need them to live (rural farms, wilderness areas with lots of bears)? Can you stop them from being smuggled into the country or stolen from police and military? Assuming you can, do you think this guy would not have built a bomb or poisoned a bunch of people by contaminating the water supply?

the problem was the availability of guns to the assailant.

No the problem was that no one provided sufficient treatment for a student that was known to have mental problems and the rules at the school made sure none of the students could defend themselves and the police were insufficient to the task (as they almost always will be given practical constraints).

Also, it's premature to blame the law for the lack of guns in the possession of the students. Not only would the law have to be different, we would also need to know if there were any students present who would have been carrying a firearm themselves if it was legal to do so.

No we don't. Whether or not the students would have been carrying is something we have no way of ever finding out and it is irrelevant to the law. The question of the law is should they have been able to be carrying and take responsibility for their own protection?

Not all gun crime is the same.

Anyone who defines problems in terms of "gun crime" is already a lost cause. You might as well talk about red-headed crime or african american crime. The problem is with violent crime in general. If you could pass a law that would stop absolutely all gun crime, but as a side effect it resulted in a 1000% increase in beatings, stabbings, poisonings, bombings, and immolation, would that benefit society? Obviously not, which is why you have to look at the actual problem and not put on blinders. "Gun crime" is a term used to try to artificially divide the problem up in such a way as to deceive people. Every time I see a study that mentions "gun crime" I look at the violent crime statistics for the same topic and lo and behold they almost always show the opposite of what was being implied by the previous study.

So you can't solve the gun problem, you can just favor one kind of gun violence over another.

The "gun problem" is that people actually think in terms of "gun problems" instead of in terms of violence and murder.

Re:Engineering building

[StewedSquirrel]

It's been said before....

You, as a modern soldier, would be ordered to fire your Tomahawk cruise missile on a nondescript building with instructions that there are "terrorist leaders" housed inside. In reality, inside are 8,000 civilians hosting an anti-government debate and military planning session.

You, as a modern soldier, fly your B2 bomber into one of the few cities that are "controlled" by "terrorist factions" bent on the downfall of the US government. Military commanders have told you that your family, in a "government controlled" city are in danger from these reckless rebels. You are instructed to take out a "terrorist training facility" and kill 20,000 people when your 4 10,000 pound bombs destroys a nearby office building.

There is little need for "turning your guns" on someone in such a personal sense.

Pretty soon, our bomber fleets will be 50% remote controlled. A guy sitting safely in a hole in the ground in Wyoming will fly bombing runs over buildings without even knowing what it is he is bombing, or what city it is in (ala Ender's Game).

But even today, in face-to-face combat... could you tell the gang of hooded rebels WAS your uncle, even if you were 50 feet away, engaged in a raging fire-fight?

Look at Germany, where children turned in their parents to be sent to death and where family men went to work in the morning at a Gas Chamber, or at the SS headquarters and was highly regarded as a patriot.

In hindsight, their actions were monstrous, but they were highly decorated government heroes in public circles. Like someone else said, it is easy to think that Germans in the 1920s were "different types of being" than we are but its simply not true.

Stew

Re:Engineering building

[elbobo]

You've just circled yourself back to trying to solve a gun problem by throwing more guns at it. And a little hint: whenever you come down to "the only way to solve this", you're not thinking everything through.

Re:Engineering building

[Astro Dr Dave]

Err.... you might want to check your facts; I mean, your assumptions. Nowhere did I mention US towns. Nowhere did I say that you mentioned US towns.

Not only that, but you manage to selectively assume causation when it suits you, and throw it out when it doesn't. Even if the argument used is exactly the same as yours, just with different data. I assumed no causation at all in that post. Causation can be observed, however.

At VT, citizens are not permitted to carry weapons for self-defense. So when a madman starts shooting people, the students have to call the police for protection (and the police did not stop the shooter). Look carefully here: the students are disarmed, so for protection the have to call upon other armed people (police). Result: 32 people were killed by a single student with a handgun.

This happened in a place where guns are already illegal, and indeed there is an obvious causal connection between the inability of the students to defend themselves, and the large number of casualties. I don't see how further prohibitions will help. (And when has a prohibition ever actually worked? Alcohol prohibition didn't work. The "war on drugs" hasn't worked.)

Wow. I haven't seen any cogent argument so far that supports the theory that more weapons in the population equals more safety. It's either "it's obvious, stupid!", uses anecdotes in place of actual data, or uses assumptions that are as unsupported as anything advanced by the gun-control people. You're not looking, then: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=231053&cid=187 55651

Check out the FBI crime statistics here: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/standard_li nks/national_estimates.html

You'll see that the crime rate is, in fact, higher in urban areas where fewer people own guns, and the gun laws are more restrictive. Is this a causal connection? Maybe, maybe not... but in the VT case, there is an obvious causal connection. People who cannot defend themselves will be killed by armed violent madmen. And there is no reliable way to disarm such people.

Re:Engineering building

[PhoenixOr]

I suppose it doesn't make much difference to the score if I reply to my post I made anonymously now that I have signed up with an account? Sorry.... I'm a total noob...

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, your crass post actually comforts unlike the asinine insincerity dripping out of polies and talking heads on TVs and radios.

Re:Engineering building

[Slithe]

Armed and trained does not equal able to hit a target. Remember Pat Tillman? Friendly fire happens . . . . But you can still get shot when you have a gun. And you might hit someone else when you have a gun. Real life is not a video game; a bullet wound does not necessarily mean instant death. There is a good chance that shooting someone accidentally will not inflict a fatal injury. If you shoot the gunman, you may not kill him, but you may incapacitate him, and isn't that just as good? Even if you get shot in the ensuing firefight, there is a better chance of surviving than being gunned down without one.

Re:Engineering building

[edward2020]

But the return fire from the lubney shooter would have been just like the movies?

Re:Engineering building

[miskatonic alumnus]

I am so glad that you care so much for human life that you are willing to get rid of your firearms ... and mine as well. In the US, the number of people killed in automobile accidents is about twice the number killed by firearms. Please be vocal and condemn the government for not banning automobiles that not only kill our beloved citizens, but also contribute to demand for oil, wars fought over oil, smog, and other collateral damage to our environment and citizenry.

Or, you could just STFU.

Re:Engineering building

[Weedlekin]

"Ok, that's a homicide rate of 1.4 per 100,000"

Which is 1/3 of Switzerland's homicide rate (4.2 / 1000). When one considers that England and Wales have nearly ten times Switzerland's population, that there's a far bigger disparity between the richest and poorest people, and also much more ethnic and cultural diversity, it's perhaps understandable that the pro gun lobby tend to avoid actual statistical homicide rate comparisons when citing Switzerland as a shining example of an armed society (note that I'm neither anti-gun nor pro-gun. Britain's homicide rate was even lower when the firearms laws were less strict, but this correlation does not, as the UK press sometimes like to pretend, imply a causal relationship because there have been many other significant changes in the nature of British society since then).

"the homicide rate in the US for 2005 was 5.6 per 100,000. Yes, there is a difference, but it's not nearly as large as some people here suggest"

It's quite a bit higher than the UK, but in the same ballpark as Switzerland. Note also that comparing the US as a whole against individual European countries isn't really valid (and I say this as a European) because its population and land area is massively bigger, and there is a huge variation in the figures for each state - it would therefore be fairer to look at things on a state by state basis, as a state is in many ways an independent entity with its own government, laws, police forces, courts, and ethnic / religious population distribution. This table for example (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_05.html) shows that while The District Of Columbia have a massive 35.4 / 1000 murder rate, others states such as Iowa (1.3), and Main and New Hampshire (both 1.4) are comparable to England and Wales, and much better than Switzerland.

"I imagine part of the difference in the homicide rate is due to other social factors, too. (For example, violence is not as acceptable or common on TV in Europe.)

There are indeed many differences in social factors, just as there are differences in social factors between different states in the US, and indeed the cities and rural areas within those states. However, television is not in my experience (I'm fairly well travelled) one of them. The UK for example is very similar to the US in the nature of its television broadcast policies, but most of the rest of Europe is considerably less restrictive, with some countries lacking even "watershed" policies to prevent certain types of content from being broadcast while children are likely to be watching. As with most things that attempt to tie something as complex as human behaviour to a single factor, nobody has been able to successfully show a hard correlation between very liberal broadcast policies and violent crime, so the sometimes rather glaring differences in what each country regards as acceptable are unlikely to change in the near term.

Re:Engineering building

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

I just couldn't imagine any soldier willingly attacking his fellow citizens or any city/town in the USA. And I'm pretty sure news travels too fast for the soldiers to be lied to and told the rebelling citizens are 'evil trrists.'

Re:Engineering building

[Falladir]

That secondary definition is very interesting. I can only imagine using it if I were writing something a Lovecraft story. Disambiguating away the Asia-related meaning would be pretty difficult in any other kind of work.

By the way, we do protect Black people. For policies like Affirmative Action, we specifically legislate that they be treated differently from others. Other forms of protection are race-blind policies like equal-opportunity housing and lending. We protect people of all races from discrimination, but the amount of protection needed varies depending on race.

Re:Engineering building

[dwpro]

NO GUNS - NO DEATHS its as simple as that Yes, we were immortal until the invention of gunpowder, damned technology.

It's funny to me that if I were to say something like "NO BLACKS, NO DEATHS", I would be modded into oblivion, and rightly so, but your mindless comment gets positive moderation.

Re:Engineering building

[Hyperspite]

of course the government would probably charge him with a crime for protecting people from a nut

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's your evidence that Kennesaw, Georgia has more shootings per population than NYC?

Actually, let me ask a better question:
Hypothetically speaking, if you were a criminal, would you try to mug someone who you thought had a gun? Or would you rather mug someone who you KNEW was unarmed because they were a law abiding citizen?

Make owning a gun a crime, and only criminals will have them... you can't stop that with laws.

Re:Engineering building

[fyngyrz]

And of course part of, "A well regulated militia" I am sure you just forgot that part.

No, I didn't forget it, I simply understand it, and you don't. Would you like to understand it? Here, read what the US Court of Appeals has to say. Isn't it fascinating?

Re:Engineering building

[fyngyrz]

Ok, I know this is tough, but go back, actually READ my post. Look for this: "Get licensed. Practice. Carry." I don't advocate carrying unless you train. I've said this over and over again. So grab that strawman, stuff it under your arm, and go home.

I just think some of the arguments about guns for self defense in a 9am german class in buttfuck virginia are pretty silly.

Yes. So did the administration of the school. Now the kids are dead. Consequently, I think your arguments are pretty silly.

Re:Engineering building

[jedidiah]

Hello! McFly!

Who STARTED the slave trade?

Re:Engineering building

[Anonymous Coward]

That was different. "friends, cousins, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, " - it was Jews in those death camps!!

Thoughts go the the families..

[WarwickRyan]

..of those killed/injured :(

Re:Thoughts go the the families..

[TheBracket]

I'd like to second that. The thoughts and prayers of my whole family are with the families of the victims, the wounded, and everyone involved. Truly a tragedy.

Re:Thoughts go the the families..

[Dr. Eggman]

I think that this would certainly be the most appropriate purpose of this: a place to give our condolences to the families and would like to add my own to this thread. God be with them all.

Re:Thoughts go the the families..

[Anonymous Coward]

> Thoughts go the the families.

And to karma-whores, for the sort of pointless statement you get on local TV coverage of this sort of thing.

Re:Thoughts go the the families..

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt though that it will deter them from making yet another public altar demanding that everyone feel for them like they always do for any violent death in this country. I'm quite capable of feeling sorrow for the death of an individual without having it shoved in my face.

Re:Thoughts go the the families..

[BeansBaxter]

I will. Thank you for the support.

Re:Thoughts go the the families..

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably not. But everyone is touched by what a callous asshole you are.

Re:Thoughts go the the families..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, and in gratitude maybe they'll buy some of the books he's advertising at C#ninja. (Frankly, anyone putting a crass advertisement in condolences post is indeed pretty shallow. Sorry you got a -1 troll.)

Re:Thoughts go the the families..

[Elbethil]

Indeed; what a horrible situation to be faced with. :\

Re:Thoughts go the the families..

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed.

Re:Thoughts go the the families..

[TheBracket]

I forgot all about the link in my sig when I posted; that was out of place, and if I could go back and edit the post to remove it I would. I apologize for that mistake. :-( To the grandparent poster, I wasn't karma-whoring; I hit the karma cap years and years ago, and frankly it wouldn't bother me over-much if it went all the way down to zero again. My most was a genuine response to the tragedy, born of an urge to try to offer sympathy for the grieving. My sentiments remain the same. Again, I'm sorry if I offended anyone, and I'm sorry I forgot to remove my sig before posting.

Re:Thoughts go the the families..

[Sj0]

I'd like to send my thoughts to the shooter, as well as the victims.

College is a time of unthinkable often unheard sacrifice for many people. People give up everything to go, working terrible jobs for years to save enough to get started, leave everyone and everything they know to live in an isolated world, and find their isolation enforced by bitter poverty and relentless work. For a lot of people, this is their only chance at a future; If they fail, they'll be trapped with a minimum wage job and tens of thousands of dollars of debt they have no way to pay back and nothing tangible to show for it. For a lot of people, this time is an amplifier, sending all their insecurities, all their fears, all their self-hatreds into overdrive, changing it from something indistinguishable from the background noise of life to a roar, deafening and all-encompassing.

If this is the truth for the shooter, I'm sorry you couldn't be saved. You have ended your future and stolen others. I'll shed a tear fall for you and your fallen life, and your senseless, useless, meaningless death.

For anyone reading this, facing the same path, please know that there is a light at the end of the tunnel, and that there are people who know what you're going through. It's the hardest thing you'll ever have to do, but persevere, and don't become like this wasted life, because those who fight for the future they want are the ones who carry the heaviest burden, and the ones who shine the brightest.

Re:Thoughts go the the families..

[Anonymous Coward]

There are more firearms than cars in the US, yet more people per year die from cars than firearms. You'd save far more lives taking vehicles out of the hands of citizens than you would firearms.

Re:Thoughts go the the families..

[Zeinfeld]

Indeed; what a horrible situation to be faced with. :\

Thanks to Bush and the neo-cons the Iraqis see this level of murder every single day.

Re:Thoughts go the the families..

[BlacKSacrificE]

My god, I went cold when I heard about this today, as it did when Columbine and the Amish school shootings went down. Chains on doors, reports of sole survivors from classes that had to pretend to be dead while the bodies of their friends rained down and onto them, it just makes me cry. I called a guy I went to Uni of Tech in Sydney 20 years ago with this morning just to talk to him, to hear he was having a good day. We speak often enough, but this poor lad, sole survivor left behind in a classroom full of bodies, and dozens.. hundreds of others given the size of the campus, have just lost life long friends worth more than all the gold on the planet.

This kid who opened fire, talk of looking for his girlfriend, whatever reasons he had, he had a lot going on, and I for one will not write him off, as thankfully a lot of you haven't. some of you have expressed a degree of sympathy towards him, as do I. Such destruction must not be tolerated, but at the same time, neither should anyone feeling so messed up that the only solution is hot lead. These are all kids for god sake.

Please oh please, fellow humans creatures, we must do something to stop this. Have your moments of sadness and say your prayers to and ask [insert deity here] to hold and warm the families of both the victims and perpetrator. But for the love of [insert deity here] push your legislators and law makers to tighten gun control. We can't allow this to happen anymore. its just such a [insert deity here] damn waste.

- A very sorrowful Australian

Re:Thoughts go the the families..

[Deekin_Scalesinger]

Well said.

Re:Thoughts go the the families..

[nacturation]

And, when you get sick of the media circus, call up local radio stations and request that they play Don Henley's Dirty Laundry.

Re:Thoughts go the the families..

[ACE209]

Oh sure another car analogy.

But wait cars and firearms have something in common.

cars are for horizontal transportation from here to there.
firearms are for vertical transportation from over the ground to under the ground.

Re:Thoughts go the the families..

[Spankophile]

Or how about Tool: Vicarious

Re:Thoughts go the the families..

[Anonymous Coward]

What!? Are you fucking nuts? This dirt-bag killed a bunch of people and you feel sorry for him and blame the guns he used? What ever happened to personal responsibility? Gun control laws run amok made it impossible for the other students to have any way to protect themselves. All they could do was cower in a corner or under a table waiting for this prick to come and off them too. The true problem we have here in the US is that people have been conditioned to give completely in to an aggressor. A-holes like the shooter know this and take advantage of it. Why do you think he chose the university? Virginia has concealed carry laws that apply everywhere in the state BUT the university. The shooter cold-bloodedly picked a target where resistance would be non-existent and executed a bunch of people who couldn't/wouldn't fight back. Letting him shoot himself was too good an end for him. Once the shooting started, he should have been bum-rushed by a bunch of students unwilling to lay down and become victims and beaten senseless. He had to reload sometime and once the empty magazine dropped he should have become the target. Obviously we in the US are raising a generation of wimps. Your words make me think Australia is doing so as well.

Re:Thoughts go the the families..

[clambar]

suicide shooters are usually not bonded Category: Life Incessant reports of tragic suicide shooters depress, anger, nauseate and disgust everyone who reads about them. Since cell phones track where users go and where they've been, it would be a simple matter to require weapons owners to be bonded and the cost of the bond would be based on where they have gone in the last few years and in what capacity. The bond would be less if the person resided in a private residence instead of a group home or a school dorm and prior weapons training would have to factor in favor of lowering the bond. School dorm bonds for weapons would be impossible for individual's to afford, but they would be required for anyone who has access to these facilities- such as a student who has friends in the dorm, or family members who spend time in populated areas other than homes and want to carry their guns with them. We already require Law Enforcement Officials to be bonded. Because of their special training, the bonds are affordable. Conduct out of character revokes the bond. Additionally, anyone taking anti-depression medication should have their bonds revoked and their weapons confiscated immediately. People who were not born here can get weapons, but to have weapons they must pony up and their bonds will be millions of dollars, and I don't care what they say. I and others like me, including our families who were born here have a right to be compensated when we get shot at or killed by immigrants legally here or not! Guns are going to be bought. Gun toter's living under the uniform commercial code should all be bonded! clambar

Beyond words...

[Colonel Angus]

What fucked up animals we are. I wish well to all affected by this.

Re:Beyond words...

[DoctorVic]

I heard something on the news about this when the details were unfolding this morning. I thought to myslef "Not again.. What the fuck is wrong with people." I mean, really, what the hell would cause someone to do something of this nature? I can understand being mad, even mad enough to kill - but that is rage targeted at an individual for perceived crmes against myself. To do something of this magnitude to what basically amounts to a group of innocents is just mind numbingly awful. Fucktard. Also, my best to those affected by one persons retardation.

Re:Beyond words...

[RexRhino]

What is wrong is that the guy is insane. You can't understand what he did because (presumably) you are not insane. The brain is a machine, and in some people the machine goes haywire.

Re:Beyond words...

[MeanderingMind]

There are any number of reasons, and they are all very real.

For example, imagine that suddenly your dear and loving parents split apart violently. Your once placid and happy life is sundered apart. Instead of caring, your friends (if you're lucky enough have any) shrug it off. They might have gone through divorce and think it's much ado about nothing or perhaps they simply don't understand.

Meanwhile life only gets worse. It isn't just that no one understands, no one wants to. No one makes the effort to connect and communicate, or not enough people do. You only get to watch as everyone around them appears happy and complacent. They're having fun, playing games, living normal lives and crying about silly things like how their boyfriend dumped them. Boohoo, your soul is only tearing itself apart and no one notices.

The wound festers, and before long you hate everyone and everything. They're is so happy like sheep, ignorant and uncaring about the injustices that go on around them. They don't fucking care, so long as they get to have their stupid, superficial relationships and screw each other while others suffer. They're more than willing to spend $15 a month on some remote child in africa but to actually lift a finger themselves, too hard for the bastards.

Demons all of them. They're talking about you behind your back. They're pointing you out, you're the weirdo. The anti-social ass who chased away all those fuckers who were your "friends". No one wants anything to do with you, or doesn't know you're unclean. You practically don't even exist in the feeble minds of these bitches. Some socially disfigured leper.

Damn those fuckers to hell. You play nice, you're a "primadonna" because you had a nervous breakdown when your parents split. You play rough, and you're a lowlife scumfuck without the sophistication to breed. Fuck'em all and their social games. They'll see. You'll wake them up and they'll see. They'll see themselves for the compassionless, stupid fucks they are. Yeah, it'll be sweet.

Is that how this happened? Probably not. However, it's suprising how quickly good people can go bad when there's no one willing or able to support them.

Re:Beyond words...

[Sancho]

I'm against the war, and I consider shootings like this abhorrent. I cannot, however, figure out how a person could link these situations without referring to either karma (which I don't believe is generally thought to be linked to nations), the deity of your choice (e.g. the people who thought that Katrina was God's judgement over homosexuality), or a direct quote from the killer explaining that his actions are trying to make this point.

Use logic to make your arguments. Don't try to claim that these two awful situations are linked in some way to sway people to your side.

Re:Beyond words...

[thegnu]

What fucked up animals we are.

Chances are, if you put an elephant in an systemically humiliating situation, it'd go crazy and fuck some people up, too.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not saying these people are victims. I'm saying we live in a sick society. And I quote:

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
--Jiddu Krishnamurti

Shooting people is no measure, either, though.

Re:Beyond words...

[thegnu]

...karma...deity...quote...

What about the climate of the world being violent and oppressive? What about how being a young person, you're marginalized and aren't allowed to show any aggression anymore, so you have to internalize everything, all the while funding mass murder?

Mass murder is good, when in the best interest of your "country"
Animal aggression bad when expressed among boys.

See? Makes lots of sense.

Re:Beyond words...

[RexRhino]

Sick society compared to what?

Re:Beyond words...

[networkBoy]

This brain has performed an illegal operation?
hm....

My only concern is how he was able to continue his rampage 2 hours later.
-nB

Re:Beyond words...

[thegnu]

Sick society compared to what?

Those philosophical and spiritual types will say things that may take a minute to figure out, and answering your question would deny you the opportunity to be illuminated by your own process. :-)

Re:Beyond words...

[tomhudson]

p> "Is that how this happened? Probably not. However, it's suprising how quickly good people can go bad when there's no one willing or able to support them."

... and yet, for every one that goes squirrelly, there are hundreds, thousands, who go through worse, and don't go around shooting up the place.

No, its not "their fault" - they're nuts. Still, how do we deal with it? Lock up everyone who might be a threat? That will just alienate the already alienated, or make them hide more diligently until that fatal day when they seek revenge for imagined slights.

One thing they all seem to have in common is and power narcisism - they think they are "more deserving" of attention than what they've gotten to date, and they're "darned well going to get attention, even if it means killing a bunch of people." Unfortunately, we don't have a preventative test to discriminate between someone going through a "stage" and "terminal looser".

Until then, tighter gun control laws, smaller, more dispersed campuses, and a health-care system that would give marginalized people without HMOs access to someone to talk to can't hurt, but they're not a cure. There is no cure for someone who thinks they're better than everyone else, and as a result thinks he has the right to kill others.

Re:Beyond words...

[Harmonious Botch]

What fucked up animals we are. No. What fucked-up animals a teeny minority of us are. Most of us are better than that. You are. I am.
Let's give ourselves credit where it is deserved. There's probably not a person on this list who hasn't wanted to do multiple homicides now and then. But we don't. We learn to control our anger, to seek non-violent solutions.
Let's treat this incident as a baseline, and praise ourselves for having advanced well beyond it. This guy was an exception, not the norm.

Re:Beyond words...

[SatanicPuppy]

That doesn't change their responsibility for their actions...Anyone could snap, but it's amazing how most people, when they do, harm only themselves.

Re:Beyond words...

[Falladir]

Your comment is a burrito, and sometimes a burrito makes you feel all bloated and gassy.

Re:Beyond words...

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> Chances are, if you put an elephant in an systemically humiliating situation
> [wikipedia.org], it'd go crazy and fuck some people up, too.

That link makes no suggestion of the elephant going crazy because it was humiliated.

That's pure speculation on your part. I don't even know if they can experience that emotion (though I think dogs will do that. They will turn their face away as if embarassed if you talk to them in a disappointed tone, e.g. "Why did you do that?")

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention people not just dumber than you, but way, way dumber than you, who would have a tough time living a hunter-gatherer life on their own, nail hot chick after hot chick while you are left going on dates with Rosie.

You can't even get with the smart girls at your college, who march right past your room after you've been "working on them" for six weeks, to go have sex with that other guy they saw at a party last night, and care not to ever see again, or the dumb guys.

If only you had a ring of +5 charisma! Nah, then you'd only have a 9 or 10 charisma. You'd need at least a +10 ring to even get close to getting a sub-400 lb. woman with turberculosis to give it up to you as even a mercy f***.

Re:Beyond words...

[vonhammer]

Consider for a moment that the trend is to put ever more powerful weapons into the hands of a person. This occurs on the battlefield, in terrorist cells, and perhaps ultimately into the hands of a disenfranchised nihilist.

Combine that with another trend, towards more fundamentalism in whatever nationalist, religious, or communal group you find and I think we have dark times ahead.

Now, project 10 or 20 years from now. What will the consequences be for a symbol, a community, or a city. How long will it be before some individual or small group has the ability to destroy thousands of lives or more?

Re:Beyond words...

[RevDobbs]

Tighter gun control?

Virginia is a "Shall Issue" state... meaning that if you ask for a concealed carry permit, and aren't disqualified from owning a gun, you'll get one. Unfortunatly, federal law makes schools -- including colleges -- "gun free zones".

Read: "Unarmed Victim Zones".

Try pulling that psycho bullshit in a Virginia mall, and that shooter's life would have ended a lot quicker, with a whole lot less innocent people injured.

The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.

Colonel Jeff Cooper, United States Marine Corps (deceased)

Re:Beyond words...

[iocat]

They're not always nuts. Sometimes they are just assholes. Like those people who kill their kids to get back at a estranged spouse. Those people aren't crazy by any legal definition: They can tell right from wrong and they know exactly what they're doing; they just happen to be totally evil. (And probably emotionally immature, selfish, asshats.)

Anyway this is a really horrid atrocity, and definitely my thoughts and prayers go out to everyone involved.

Re:Beyond words...

[Lazerf4rt]

In all cases, the root cause is a hallucination where you perceive yourself to be a separate, isolated creature cut off from the rest of the world. You end up feeling like an alien who somehow came into the world, was left fending for its own survival while frustrated by the sense of never belonging anywhere. This is a very common hallucination, in fact, the majority of every person or thing alive has it. But people have it to different degrees. It depends how much they dwell on it.

Funny part is, it's just a hallucination.

Re:Beyond words...

[SquareVoid]

Holy crap dude, where did you get this from? Or how is it you could so eloquently put it like this (Not to get personal here)?

Re:Beyond words...

[grammar fascist]

Those people aren't crazy by any legal definition: They can tell right from wrong and they know exactly what they're doing; they just happen to be totally evil.

The word for it is psychopathy, which unfortunately isn't in the current DSM. But it has a great track record of predicting future criminal behavior in current inmates. It's characterized by a lack of ability to feel empathy. These people's brains are wired differently than most. There are millions of them, but most are small-time crooks and swindlers. Couple psychopathy with something more, and you've got potential for real tragedy.

Turns out Eric Harris was a psychopath.

Re:Beyond words...

[vertinox]

No, its not "their fault" - they're nuts. Still, how do we deal with it? Lock up everyone who might be a threat? That will just alienate the already alienated, or make them hide more diligently until that fatal day when they seek revenge for imagined slights.

No. It means being nicer to people.

To friends, family and complete strangers.

Yes... I said complete strangers. We don't say please and thank you anymore. We don't hold doors for each other. We cut each other off in traffic and give each other the bird. We lie and cheat to get ahead at the work place. We gossip and ruin people's lives. We cut in line in grocery store and we try to rip off our waiter at the restaurant. We focus our lives our possessions and money and we don't give a damn to a man on the street or a kid who has had his world shattered. We say they are "crazy". We say they are "evil" and that it isn't our fault.

But it is our fault. Every single one of us have forgotten about all the other humans out there and we always trump "personal responsibility" on others without even thinking that we haven't even bothered ourselves.

I'm surprised more people don't go crazy in our society on a daily basis with the way we behave.

Everyone is about "ME! ME! ME!" without ever stopping to think about the fact they are hurting everyone else.

And I'm guilty as everyone else... But sometimes I think to myself "Maybe I shouldn't cut off that guy in traffic like that, he might go and snap."

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's an example of one screwed up person who is still responsible for his/her actions. Plenty of people go through the same thing and don't go to that extreme.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

fucking tuff it out you pussy... my brother and sister get emotional once in a while... i tell them i had to do the same shit and to stop there bitching.... people are always going threw worse then you.... so it makes no sense to go crazy over it, just go fucking kill yourself

Re:Beyond words...

[psychotic_venom]

I think the original poster is correct. We all have it in us to do something horrid--believing that you are better than this shooter is a fundamental misunderstanding of the human condition.

How is saying "I'm better than this shooter" different from some fundi saying "I'm better than all you non-believers..." Both have a belief system that says that others who behave or function differently are inherently worse.

We're all humans, and we're all horrid, or at least equally capable of horrid acts... and, to some degree, capable of wonderful acts as well.

Re:Beyond words...

[misleb]

Try pulling that psycho bullshit in a Virginia mall, and that shooter's life would have ended a lot quicker, with a whole lot less innocent people injured.

Are there any cases that have really put this to the test? I mean, it sounds good... the idea that some armed citizen/vigilante would engage in a gunfight with a crazed shooter, but I wonder if it really happens. You'd almost have to be specially trained (military, for example) to engage people like that. Just having some target shooting under your belt just doesn't seem like enough.

I wonder same thing with armed self defense in general. Sure, It is nice to know that you own a gun and you know how to use it if you had to. But do people really get the opportunity? Do personal firearms really get used in self defense? Seems to me that unless you are walk around with your gun in a holster at your side (and under your pillow) 24/7, chances are that your gun just isn't going to be in the right place at the right time. Don't most people keep their guns locked up for safety? What good is it there?

I dunno, it just sounds like a myth to me... that personal firearms make one safer.

Don't get me wrong, I still think that people should be allowed to own personal firearms, but I think perhaps we should be a little more realistic regarding why. It really comes down to one argument: Because it is a free country. Same thing with drugs. I could make up all kinds of arguments about how I use drugs casually, spritually, with moderation, etc. but the real argument for legalization of drugs: The government has no right to tell me what I can an cannot put into my body. Any other argument is moot.

-matthew

Re:Beyond words...

[mandelbr0t]

Funny part is, it's just a hallucination. Spoken like a true asshole. It's easy to discount someone as delusional when they don't fit in. Perhaps it's that tendency in society which causes people to commit violent, forceful acts to convince people that their reality does, in fact, exist. I doubt anybody would try and tell us that this tragedy is still "just a hallucination". The "funny" part is that we never realize how disturbed someone is until they snap. Luckily that usually just leads to a non-problematic suicide. However, there's a lot of press now pushing those that would have settled for suicide to go out with a bang.

Of course, we should never get that far in the first place. The fact that a healthy adult can be made to feel so isolated as to not seek help for their violent delusions until it's too late is the real problem. And it's not like there aren't symptoms for years before such a break. Excessive anti-social behaviour is present, always. That doesn't mean everyone who exhibits such behaviour will snap, but it certainly means something should be done.

I've seen kids who were badly abused by their parents, even to the extent of showing physical scars from their beatings, who never received the help they needed. Every one of those people has since had serious social problems. Promiscuity, drugs, alcohol, gambling. All too common, and all too preventable. But, as usual, it's not my problem. No one ever reached out to any of those kids and got them to a counselor, or in some cases a psychiatrist. If those kids were treated when they were 12, they would have grown up much healthier, realizing that weaknesses in character are natural, and that people generally have enough goodwill to reach out to those in need. But that doesn't happen. Usually, they just sink into whatever hell has been prepared for them and no one talks about their issues until something happens. That's inevitably going to be far too late.

And for those who are younger, or who have parents: for God's sake do something! If someone bullies your child, go to the principal or the bully's parents. If it continues to be a problem, get some family counselling for you and your bullied child. If your child is a bully, then find ways to discourage such behaviour. Our society has lost these social niceities; everything either ends up in a courtroom or it's perfectly acceptable behaviour. If there were some middle ground where people actually treated each other as humans, we'd probably find far fewer anti-social kids in the first place.

Re:Beyond words...

[idonthack]

Is that how this happened?

Almost exactly, I would say. I used to be kind of like that.

Life sucks when every day is a mind-numbingly boring routine at school, and all of your friends live life like a sitcom because that's all they know. I saw cruelty and injustice pretty much everywhere, and it pissed me off, but nobody I knew even cared.

That is exactly how these kinds of things happen. I didn't break, because when it came down to it I had one real friend that stuck with me. But when I see another kid going postal on the evening news, I'm never surprised. It's just another guy who wasn't as lucky as me.

Re:Beyond words...

[Aggrav8d]

If you're willing to say sometimes it's OK to yell at someone then I can probably convince you there's times it's a good idea to hurt someone.

If you're willing to say sometimes it's OK to hurt someone then I can probably convince you there's times it's a good idea to kill someone.

If you're willing to say sometimes it's OK to kill someone then I can probably convince you there's times it's a good idea to kill many someones.

It's just a question of how far you're willing to go and/or have been pushed.

Since the beginning of the species when we've been smashing each other's heads in with rocks we have proven time and again we are a violent, dangerous race. To claim that we've magically grown beyond this is ludicrous.

I'm really only disagreeing with you on one small point: we have not advanced well beyond it and we shouldn't be praising ourselves for it. I believe that, if anything, our willingness to destroy each other (and ourselves) should be one of our primary concerns.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Speak for yourself - we aren't all as buggered as the shooter and you seem to be. You believe in anthropogenic warming don't you? And married homosexuals too no doubt?

Re:Beyond words...

[GeffDE]

If the gunman had pulled his psycho bullshit in a crowded Virginia mall, the shooter's life may have ended a lot quicker, but that does not mean that fewer people would be dead. If someone started shooting back, there would have been more bullets flying around, and with more bullets flying around, there's a lot higher chance that people will get hit, especially if this is taking place in a mall with a lot of people.

The problem with Col. Cooper's statement is that killing people is seen as a bad thing, and is something that should be avoided. That is why soldiers and/or cops have to be authorized to use lethal force. A rifle is a tool, but it's purpose is, basically, to kill. So, while a rifle may have no moral stature, it is a tool whose purpose it is to effect a morally wrong action. Because, even if evil men can be "corrected" by men with rifles, those men with rifles have done something that we as a society frown upon.

As for your assertion that gun-free zones are in effect "unarmed victim zones," think about the fact that in our legal system there is a difference between manslaughter and murder; in order for murder to be committed, malice and forethought must be proved. If you piss someone with a gun off, they could very easily kill you, even if they weren't justified in their action. Without guns, it is a whole lot harder, involved, and personal to kill someone, and that means that fewer people will die. It is very true that people kill people, and as long as that is the case, people will continue to kill people, no matter what weapons we outlaw. However, removing weapons from the market makes it much harder, and that means that fewer people die; hence, why some people place their personal safety in front of their right to bear arms, and call for tighter gun control.

Re:Beyond words...

[RexRhino]

But my comment, like burritos, is something I indulge in without guilt, because it is just too tasty to resist.

Re:Beyond words...

[Grant_Watson]

It happens more often than you may think: Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy killed 30+ people with two small handguns: I think it's very likely that he
will turn out to be an Iraq war veteran or some sort of ex-military.

That might explain the psychological trauma as well...

Re:Beyond words...

[enomar]

What is right and wrong? How does anyone tell right from wrong? Seems pretty subjective to me.

Re:Beyond words...

[RevDobbs]

I mean, it sounds good... the idea that some armed citizen/vigilante would engage in a gunfight with a crazed shooter, but I wonder if it really happens.

Most recently, an off-duty police officer stopped gunman in a Salt Lake City Mall (link).

Mall shootings were a popular terrorist tactict in Israel... until the government required all active military (practicaly all college-aged Israelies) to always be armed (can only find a second hand source, a blog post discussing the SLC shooting in relation to the events in Israel).

Re:Beyond words...

[MightyMait]

FYI: There *is* an established concept of collective karma.

From: http://www.scsashram.org/oregon/pivot/entry.php?id =6

By using the atom bomb America conquered Japan and intimidated the world. Superficially they enjoyed the pleasure of defeating the world, but that is only apparent. Internally the apprehension is there: "Reaction may come." Such a disastrous action is self-condemned; a heinous crime. But it is just the collective result of our karma. None to blame.

Re:Beyond words...

[Listen Up]

Bullshit.

This is a society of victims. EVERYONE is to blame except THEMSELVES.

Grow some balls. Be a man. Don't blame anyone else for your problems.

Re:Beyond words...

[Pantero Blanco]

Are there any cases that have really put this to the test? I mean, it sounds good... the idea that some armed citizen/vigilante would engage in a gunfight with a crazed shooter, but I wonder if it really happens. You'd almost have to be specially trained (military, for example) to engage people like that. Just having some target shooting under your belt just doesn't seem like enough.

I really don't understand why you think this... You don't have to be "specially trained" to pull a pistol and shoot a psycho, unless perhaps the psycho has had special training. Occasional target shooting is enough. Considering that the psycho in these cases doesn't really try to avoid death, you probably wouldn't even need that.

I wonder same thing with armed self defense in general. Sure, It is nice to know that you own a gun and you know how to use it if you had to. But do people really get the opportunity? Do personal firearms really get used in self defense? Seems to me that unless you are walk around with your gun in a holster at your side (and under your pillow) 24/7, chances are that your gun just isn't going to be in the right place at the right time. Don't most people keep their guns locked up for safety? What good is it there?

Firearms are used in personal self-defense all the time. National news doesn't usually report it, though; you're more likely to see stories about it in local papers.

I don't keep my gun locked up all the time with ammunition in a separate place; you're quite right that it wouldn't do me much good in that case. Just keep it, with ammo, in a place that's sensibly secure and allows you to get to it quickly, so you'll have it if you need it.

Re:Beyond words...

[king-manic]

I was reading some info about crime stats and one interestign thing: Victims of crimes who possessed guns/weapons during the incident had a good chance (40%) of having their own weapon used against them.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes... I said complete strangers. We don't say please and thank you anymore. We don't hold doors for each other. We cut each other off in traffic and give each other the bird. We lie and cheat to get ahead at the work place. We gossip and ruin people's lives. We cut in line in grocery store and we try to rip off our waiter at the restaurant. We focus our lives our possessions and money and we don't give a damn to a man on the street or a kid who has had his world shattered. We say they are "crazy". We say they are "evil" and that it isn't our fault.

BS, everywhere that I have lived, I have observed a mostly civil and polite society. It is easy to focus on the negative and think that everyone does it all the time, but just because it is easy to think something doesn't mean that that something is correct.

Re:Beyond words...

[Cili]

off the top of my head comes this:

http://www.snopes.com/crime/dumdum/gunshop.asp

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't describe a circus as being a "systemically humiliating situation". Humiliation is something that requires somebody to feel humiliation. Dressing an elephant up to do tricks isn't humiliation because the elephant isn't going to be embarrassed, it doesn't understand a concept like looking silly, and even if it did, it would only care about looking silly in front of other elephants, not a bunch of humans.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sick society compared to what?

Those philosophical and spiritual types will say things that may take a minute to figure out, and answering your question would deny you the opportunity to be illuminated by your own process. :-)

That is such a sick and twisted method of "illumination"

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

it sounds good... the idea that some armed citizen/vigilante would engage in a gunfight with a crazed shooter, but I wonder if it really happens

Yes, it happens - but when the good guys win it doesn't make the news - the news has an agenda to present horror - not success. Also, there are so many restrictions on weapons carry by law-abiding citizens in the land-of-the-free that it takes significant prior planning to remain legal. Schools (including their parking lots while picking up kids, etc.) are considered places where such law-abiding citizens are unable to carry a weapon for protection - only the bad guys get to. Lately, many banks also prohibit concealed weapons (who'd ever face an armed gunman in a place full of moeny, after all?) I've been assaulted (well, attempted) leaving the dowtown library in the middle of the day for example - but of course the library is off limits to law-abiding citizens having technology to protect themselves. Robert Heinlein truly summed it up well: "An armed society is a polite society."

Re:Beyond words...

[misleb]

ost recently, an off-duty police officer stopped gunman in a Salt Lake City Mall (link [nwsource.com]).

Well, um, that is a police officer. Hardly seems relevent. We're talking about "average" citizens. (if you can call a person who engages in a gunfight with a shooter average).

Mall shootings were a popular terrorist tactict in Israel... until the government required all active military (practicaly all college-aged Israelies) to always be armed (can only find a second hand source, a blog post discussing the SLC shooting in relation to the events in Israel).

Again, it is their JOB to protect against shootings. Not really waht I was asking for.

-matthew

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

But that only happens in U.S. all the time. You are a pretty retarded society, go figure.

Re:Beyond words...

[thrillseeker]

Victims of crimes who possessed guns/weapons during the incident had a good chance (40%) of having their own weapon used against them.

And unarmed vicitms came out ahead how often?

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly is subjective about this Virginia Tech shooting?

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah? Why don't you tell it to the former residents of Nanking?

Oh, right: I forgot... any enemy of the US and/or Western Civilization gets a free pass, no matter how heinous their crimes might be.

See also: Saddam, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mugabe, Arafat, Guevara.....

Re:Beyond words...

[Citizen of Earth]

It's characterized by a lack of ability to feel empathy. These people's brains are wired differently than most. There are millions of them, but most are small-time crooks and swindlers.

There are a few different types of people who don't feel empathy and we shouldn't confuse them. There are sociopathic types who are generally the small-time swindlers you mention. They enjoy manipulating people and probably aren't the mass-murdering type. There are also schizoid (not schizotypal) people who generally don't feel any emotions, but don't care, don't need other people, feel fine alone, and are very unlikely to go on killing sprees. And then there are the Antisocial types who want to and try to fit in but cannot, feel very empty inside, and become very angry about it--angry against the world in general. These are the most likely to go on mass killing sprees.

People experiencing the kind of psychopathy you seem to allude to are more likely to be serial killers who evade detection than mass murders who also commit suicide.

Re:Beyond words...

[Old Wolf]

However, removing weapons from the market makes it much harder, and that means that fewer people die; hence, why some people place their personal safety in front of their right to bear arms,

Agree

and call for tighter gun control.

Unfortunately the first effect of tigher gun control will be that "good" people have fewer guns, while the criminals and psychopaths still have the same number (or more). Trouble is, no matter how tight the control is, if someone really wants to get hold of a gun they will find a way.

Re:Beyond words...

[goldspider]

I'm sorry, but who is "we"?

If you're going to hold society at large responsible for every deplorable act committed by individuals, there's no no point in even having a system of laws.

Do the 99.999% of us here who haven't shot anyone a favor, and stop lumping us in with people who made a conscious choice to do evil.

Re:Beyond words...

[goldspider]

The difference is that the vast majority of us resist those impulses. It's a giant leap to go from thinking of committing violence to actually doing it.

If you want to wallow in self-loathing over the actions of others, be my guest. Don't tell me I should share in your misplaced guilt.

Re:Beyond words...

[grassy_knoll]

However, removing weapons from the market makes it much harder, and that means that fewer people die; hence, why some people place their personal safety in front of their right to bear arms, and call for tighter gun control.

No, not really.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/265687 5.stm

Government assured Britons they needed no weapons, society would protect them. If that were so in 1920 when the first firearms restrictions were passed, or in 1953 when Britons were forbidden to carry any article for their protection, it no longer is.

The failure of this general disarmament to stem, or even slow, armed and violent crime could not be more blatant. According to a recent UN study, England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for "very serious" offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed.

Re:Beyond words...

[misleb]

I really don't understand why you think this... You don't have to be "specially trained" to pull a pistol and shoot a psycho, unless perhaps the psycho has had special training. Occasional target shooting is enough. Considering that the psycho in these cases doesn't really try to avoid death, you probably wouldn't even need that.

It isn't really about the skill gained in training, I'm just talking about being prepared mentally. Shooting someone, even a "psycho", is a big deal for anyone. Things change when the shit hits the fan. People freeze up. Self-preservation takes over, etc, etc.

I don't keep my gun locked up all the time with ammunition in a separate place; you're quite right that it wouldn't do me much good in that case. Just keep it, with ammo, in a place that's sensibly secure and allows you to get to it quickly, so you'll have it if you need it.

So what you are saying is that you wouldn't have a gun with you if you were, say, at the mall and a psycho starts shooting up the place? How about walking down the street and a mugger comes up behind you? How useful is your secured gun then? Even if it is in the glove compartment of your car, its still unlikely to be useful. In the case of a carjacking, you're not going to get the chance to lean over, open your glove compartment, load your gun, and point it at the carjacker. I can't see a gun being useful in any situation except home intrusion. And even then you'd have to be given an opportunity to get your gun and load it before the intruder finds you.

I'd like to emphasize that I'm not arguing against personal firearms. I'm merely questioning the real-world usefulness.

-matthew

Re:Beyond words...

[GeffDE]

Uh, go look at crime statistics (especially violent crimes, and crimes including a gun) for US vs. Canada, Australia, France, Sweden, UK. The US has a much higher rate, while the other countries have gun control laws.

Re:Beyond words...

[Firethorn]

In my case the gun is either on me or in a special safe with an electronic lock that takes about three seconds to open; loaded w/round in chamber. It's against the rules of safety many nanny-types want (locked up with ammunition seperate), but it's secure enough for me. Too many wrong codes and the safe locks up for a half hour, as well as alerting me when I go to open it that bad codes have been entered.

This really has me ticked off. My main thought is 'couldn't somebody have stopped him?

Re:Beyond words...

[MightyMait]

Yeah? Why don't you tell it to the former residents of Nanking? Oh, right: I forgot... any enemy of the US and/or Western Civilization gets a free pass, no matter how heinous their crimes might be. See also: Saddam, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mugabe, Arafat, Guevara..... Ummmm...I was providing an example of the concept of collective Karma, not making a judgement as to the justifications or lack thereof of the US's use of nuclear weapons on civilians. I can't speak for the author of the quote, but I'm pretty sure he'd agree that the subjugation of India to first the Muslim Moghuls and then to the British was part of the Indian collective Karma.

Re:Beyond words...

[tfcking]

Well most of you have guns over there...they only have a limited use of household applications

Re:Beyond words...

[misleb]

I was reading some info about crime stats and one interestign thing: Victims of crimes who possessed guns/weapons during the incident had a good chance (40%) of having their own weapon used against them.

And that is just for the gun owners who happen to have their gun handy at the time. What about all the gun owners who just didn't have their gun handy at the time of the incident. I would bet that this is the most likely scenerio.

-matthew

Re:Beyond words...

[Lemmy Caution]

Who are you going to blame for your irritation at people blaming other people?

Re:Beyond words...

[Harmonious Botch]

I think the original poster is correct. We all have it in us to do something horrid--believing that you are better than this shooter is a fundamental misunderstanding of the human condition. Number of people the Virginia tech guy has killed today: 32+.
Number of people that I have killed today ( despite knowing a deserving few ): 0.
Number of people that you have killed today ( despite your handle ): probably 0.

When I look at the numbers, I believe that I am better. So are you. To believe otherwise implies a fundamental misunderstanding of simple math.

How is saying "I'm better than this shooter" different from some fundi saying "I'm better than all you non-believers..." Both have a belief system that says that others who behave or function differently are inherently worse Uhhh... yes. Isn't that the point of a belief system - that following it makes you a better person? Whether it is 'love thy neighbor' or 'death to non-believers' or 'do not go out and shoot 32 people just because your girlfriend dumped you', the whole point is to be a better person.

We are not all the same. Some of us are better than others. And since our respective body counts are relatively low today, I'll count you and me among them.

Re:Beyond words...

[phyruxus]

MeanderingMind and Vertinox have eloquently made two points that I would like to see brought to focus in the mainstream.

When kids pick on each other, some people seem to think that it's a positive thing - "real world lessons" and such. While children do need to, at some point, come to grips with the sometimes inharmonious nature of the world, *abuse* is neither healthy nor helpful, to anyone.

I take it as a truism that no one is born evil. Some people take a lot of shit, and win through it. Some take shit and end up written off for whatever reason. Some people take a lot of shit, and then decide that the only way they can cope with existence is to unload some shit on someone else.

If you kick a dog enough times, that dog will either crumble, or it will bite back.

We owe it to future generations to make the world a better place, as did each generation before us. Why do people hurt each other? What can we do? It's not easy, but it is worth thinking about.

My good will goes out to all affected by this incident.

Re:Beyond words...

[thrillseeker]

My main thought is 'couldn't somebody have stopped him?

with what?

Re:Beyond words...

[misleb]

In my case the gun is either on me

Seriously? You actually carry it? Like in a holster? Are you a (ex)cop or something? How often and in what situation do you carry? Seems to me that this is rather unusual for gun owners.

-matthew

Re:Beyond words...

[Pantero Blanco]

I'd like to emphasize that I'm not arguing against personal firearms. I'm merely questioning the real-world usefulness.

I understand.

So what you are saying is that you wouldn't have a gun with you if you were, say, at the mall and a psycho starts shooting up the place? How about walking down the street and a mugger comes up behind you? How useful is your secured gun then?

I was referring to where the gun is when I'm at home. Sorry, I should have been more specific. If I'm going to be walking around on the street, it's going to come with me.

In the case of a carjacking, you're not going to get the chance to lean over, open your glove compartment, load your gun, and point it at the carjacker.

I don't understand why someone would keep an unloaded gun in their glove compartment, unless they had just bought it. You're right that I'd probably be screwed if the carjacker got the jump on me, but hey, nothing's 100%.

I can't see a gun being useful in any situation except home intrusion. And even then you'd have to be given an opportunity to get your gun and load it before the intruder finds you.

It would be very unlikely for someone to get into my home without setting off the alarm, or at least breaking a window, which would give me more than enough time.

Re:Beyond words...

[Firethorn]

If the gunman had pulled his psycho bullshit in a crowded Virginia mall, the shooter's life may have ended a lot quicker, but that does not mean that fewer people would be dead. If someone started shooting back, there would have been more bullets flying around, and with more bullets flying around, there's a lot higher chance that people will get hit, especially if this is taking place in a mall with a lot of people.

32 Dead and 15 wounded generally means at least 37 rounds fired, assuming that every round hit. The generaly capacity of a handgun is 6-16 rounds without reloading. The average criminal shooting is 3 rounds, still this isn't average.

In such a gunfight, we'd generally see a maximum of 32 rounds fired. That puts us at the same amount of dead as happened here, if every bullet killed somebody, which the odds are drastically against. Even in a crowded mall, there's generally more than 50% open area vs area with people. If nothing else, accidental hits are generally going to be less lethal than aimed fire at a head or chest. Think of it as the difference between a target gallery and a firefight; In the target gallery you can calmly aim each shot; resulting in a far higher hit ratio. In the other you fire faster hoping for a lucky hit before the other guy can shoot you.

Besides, that's a worst case scenario. Best case? The crooks a bad shot and doesn't manage to get any lethal shots before a CCW holder or police officer kills or disables him with one shot.

Possible scenarios:
Bad guy goes in shooting; no CCW or police present; Result: massive casualties(see today, columbine)
Bad guy goes in shooting; kills CCW holder before he can draw his weapon; Result: Same difference.
Bad guy goes in shooting; neglected CCW holder draws and fires; capping BG from behind; Result: Body count drastically lower
Bad guy goes in shooting; sees CCW holder draw; gunfight ensues; Worst case: Some people hit in crossfire; CCW holder goes down filled with holes. Moderate case: CCW holder delays gunman, forces him to expend entire magazine on him* in rapid fire, allowing more civilians to flee and time for the police to show up. Good Case: CCW holder fills gunman full of holes from his magazine; gunman drops, unable to continue slaughter.

*happened in texas.

The problem with Col. Cooper's statement is that killing people is seen as a bad thing, and is something that should be avoided. That is why soldiers and/or cops have to be authorized to use lethal force. A rifle is a tool, but it's purpose is, basically, to kill. So, while a rifle may have no moral stature, it is a tool whose purpose it is to effect a morally wrong action. Because, even if evil men can be "corrected" by men with rifles, those men with rifles have done something that we as a society frown upon.

That's were you don't get Cooper's belief system. He was a military man. Killing, as seen by him, is not necessarily an evil thing. There are even circumstances where it is the right thing to do. In the case of men with rifles conducting corrections; it's seen as a good thing, because the evil ones are otherwise uncorrectable.

As for your assertion that gun-free zones are in effect "unarmed victim zones," think about the fact that in our legal system there is a difference between manslaughter and murder; in order for murder to be committed, malice and forethought must be proved. If you piss someone with a gun off, they could very easily kill you, even if they weren't justified in their action. Without guns, it is a whole lot harder, involved, and personal to kill someone, and that means that fewer people will die.

CCW permit holders beat even police officers for violent crime rates. The gun is unique in that it allows an 80 year old grandmother the same chance to beat her attacker as a 300 pound professional linebacker.

Our point is that once somebody passes the line where they're willing to kill; no other laws will stop them. And despite what you say; people with CCW permits don't just generally go off killing people who piss them off. We're well aware of the consequences. To the point that a CCW holder getting into trouble is state/national news.

Re:Beyond words...

[Rtech]

I, actually, make it a general point to say please and thank you to those who serve me in restaurants, cashiers, and what have you. It's not exactly a conscious thing, but I do it often enough that I notice it more when I don't say please and thank you than when I do. Having been raised in the South by older parents, I feel that this is more of their way of life and I try to live by it. // end personal anecdote, because we all know that anecdotes are simply statistical anomalies :)

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

How is saying "I'm better than this shooter" different from some fundi saying "I'm better than all you non-believers..."

Cause I'm not blowing people up, you fucking retard.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer is showing them that you truly are a loser by killing a bunch of people. I have no sympathy for people who do this. They are crap. Nothing he went through is bad enough to be a sufficient preemptive punishment.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your fundimentally wrong.
I am better.
I can hate without the desire to kill.
There's not some hidden evil inside me.

I have morals that extend beyond what some stupid religion, or social acceptance
might try and scare me into.

This is plane wrong and undefenable in anyway. Your not to stupid if you can at
least find the university, and the details are slim but he aparently had a girlfriend?

Re:Beyond words...

[Metathran0]

I think this misses the point entirely. By simply saying "no, they're nuts", we make the mistake of dehumanizing the shooter and by extension, distancing ourselves from them. Despite their horrific actions, the shooter(s) (has any media outlet nailed down the number of shooters yet?) are still people too.

Most people don't realize how capable they are of committing an atrocity, but look at one of the most famous studies in psychology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment. Obviously, the situations are not the same, as there was no element of authority that we know of in this situation, but nonetheless, we can see that even normal, well adjusted people can commit inhuman acts under the right circumstances.

IMO, we should not be so quick to distance ourselves from the blame. While the shooter was the one who pulled the trigger, we also have to consider numerous other factors: how he got the gun, how he got the gun onto campus, etc., and most importantly, how nobody noticed that he was in need of help. Obviously, this was not solely the shooters' fault.

I'm not suggesting there's some perfect solution where everybody can keep an eye out for everybody else, thereby preventing any further instances. I'm simply suggesting that we need to be wary of setting down a solid dividing line between "us" and "them", because if we do, then we make it even more of a taboo for people to receive psychological help.

That said, my heart goes out to all the victims, and to all the others who are going to get thoroughly scapegoated (i.e. the entertainment industry).

Re:Beyond words...

[Xybot]

An immediate scientific investigation should commence to determine why this happens so frequently in the USA, as opposed to other similar countries. the results will of course be vetted by the NRA before release.

Re:Beyond words...

[Firethorn]

If nothing else; a bum rush with six or so students from close range should have resulted in fewer bodies; even if those rushing are statistically liklier to die. For the number of shots fired; the guy had to have reloaded.

It's the sort of thing the military gives medals out for.

Re:Beyond words...

[dpninerSLASH]

Just an opinion here...

For so many years what amounted to emotional abuse was tolerated in the home...and I'm not talking just about that from divorce. And because law enforcement and "child welfare" agencies had their hands full dealing with physical abuse cases, it seems that so much of it was knowingly ignored. The truth of the matter is that these kids were being fed and weren't being beaten (on a regular basis), so they just weren't a high priority.

What you have now is a good number of people walking around trying to live their lives coping with the result of this abuse, often times unaware while the simple things in life are so difficult. And we're not talking about psychotics or schizoids here, we're talking about otherwise normal people who are missing some fundamental part of themselves. Factor in the current state of affairs (at least here in the U.S.) in regards to the economy, job market, the war in Iraq...

Worst of all, many of these people seem to be able to function fine until just the right stimuli (stressors) come around, then all hell breaks lose. Granted very few (relatively speaking) will pick up guns, but some of their effects of their actions can cause just as much damage to those they love and care for.

The old adage that people will try to blame their parents for their troubles might have once rung true. But now psychologists are seeing the results, and are working on ways to try to help people deal with these issues. And I've met some very normal, high functioning, highly motivated individuals who, from the outside you'd never guess have to cope with these issues, but listening to them describe their feelings just makes you shake your head.

On the bright side...there do seem to be some very effective treatments out there that don't involve labotomies or being drugged to a state of near-zombiehood, so I think things are getting better...

Still, as stated before, our thoughts and prayers go out to those effected.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't hold doors for each other.

I'm with you, in general, on the being nice thing.

The holding doors part is tricky though. Personally, it really pisses me off when people hold doors for me. Some people like having doors held for them and some people don't. ordinarily, you could ask but, in this instance, there's often no time.

In general, though, the key to being nice to people is to ask them what they want. Some people feel that they have to guess what other people want and then go ahead and do it without asking and that's usually a huge mistake. With complete strangers, that goes double: the way to be nice to a complete stranger is to stay out of the strangers way unless the stranger either asks for help or it's totally obvious that the stranger needs help.

Here's my algorithm for being nice to strangers:

1. Don't put a complete strangers life, health or property at risk beyond what is absolutely necessary to conduct your own business (e.g. It's OK to drive. It's not OK to drive recklessly.)
2. Stay out of a complete strangers way to the extent that it is safe and to the extent that it is fair to your self (e.g. don't unnecessarily block an aisle at the supermarket with your shopping cart but the check out is first come first served - don't feel obligated to give up your place in line).
3. If a complete stranger asks for help, make an effort to accommodate the stranger but don't give more than you are comfortable giving.

Re:Beyond words...

[tbo]

The US has a much higher rate, while the other countries have gun control laws.

Canada has more guns per capita than the US. Yes, there are probably relatively fewer handguns, but still, things are more complicated than you suggest. Then there's Israel or Switzerland, where tons of people have guns. What's the (non-terrorism) murder rate in those places?

Re:Beyond words...

[Slithe]

Uh, there is more to those statistics than that. The US has gun control laws, and the areas with the strictest gun control laws usually have the most incidents of violent crime. Switzerland has very loose gun control laws but a low crime rate. Even Michael Moore noticed that Canada had a lot of guns but not much crime.

Re:Beyond words...

[mnemotronic]

Of course, we should never get that far in the first place. The fact that a healthy adult can be made to feel so isolated as to not seek help for their violent delusions until it's too late is the real problem.

While I can agree with most of this, I need to take exception to the "made to feel" bit. Noone can make me, or anyone else, "feel" anything. To imply otherwise is to absolve the person doing the "feeling" of his or her personal responsibility, and to infer the role of victim. But I understand the terminology, and how easy it is to slip into that kind of thinking. I also don't mean to discount the abilities of controlling people, as I know some of them (including myself at times) who can be duplicitous, slick, conniving bastards.

No one can make you feel inferior without your consent. Eleanor Roosevelt (1884 - 1962), 'This Is My Story,' 1937

Re:Beyond words...

[grassy_knoll]

Your point that no guns == everyone is safer just isn't born out by statistics, either in this country or in others.

When I lived in Japan, I knew two people who were murdered. Their killers used knives. It's not the tool, it's the criminal.

Put another way, firearms ownership does not lead to more crime. Look at any of the states with shall-issue CCW permits and note their lower crime rates than areas with extensive gun bans.

Re:Beyond words...

[angrymilkman]

yeah and IF the gunman would live in a country without any guns no one would have been killed. We are so much better off without guns and its time people start realizing that. American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control)

Re:Beyond words...

[masterzora]

Given that most of a police officer's gun training is the sort of target shooting an average citizen who actually cared about owning a gun could get, I think it's quite a relevant example.

Re:Beyond words...

[Firethorn]

Depends upon the type of gun owner. There's the hunter type; who only owns shotguns and rifles. Then there's the CCW permit holder, who generally owns several handguns.

Carrying one without a holster is stupid. You're practically asking for it to fall out or get caught and shoot you. I carry pretty much everywhere it's legal for me to do so.

And no, I've never been a cop.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

UK, Australia, and Canada all surpassed the US in violent crime back in 2001 and have been trending even further up. ( http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=21902 , http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/gunlawsandviolent crime.html). Data that supports the US having one of the higher violent crime rates is from 1994, quite outdated.

Re:Beyond words...

[j00r0m4nc3r]

We don't hold doors for each other. We cut each other off in traffic and give each other the bird.

Yeah, that's because for all I know you're on your way to get the last Wii on the shelf too. Fuck you, it's MINE!

Re:Beyond words...

[istewart]

Even if we accept the truth of your assertions, it remains that removing guns from the American market would be far, far more difficult than most of the other countries with gun control laws. It has longer borders with neighboring countries than England or Australia do, which feature established smuggling channels; many fewer internal checkpoints than the European Union; and a large number of firearms already in circulation. The short-term effect of disarming the populus would be opposite to the stated goal, and it is unlikely that gun-crime levels would ever drop to the same level of other countries with gun control laws, especially in combination with things like vice laws that keep criminal syndicates in business.

And beyond that, your argument puts forward an implicit moral statement that is not universal. Is it wrong to kill in self-defense? I doubt the majority of people would agree. Is it wrong to overthrow an oppresive government? America was founded on a resounding, "NO!" Therefore, it is not immediately apparent that what Col. Cooper says is something that "we as a society" frown upon. And the existence of a culture that encourages or glorifies violence is not something that can be attributed solely or even partially to the existence of legal firearms... I believe that was the central point of Michael Moore's documentary about guns. As for your last paragraph, find me statistics about murders and accidental manslaughters committed by people who owned the weapons legally (i.e. were not barred from owning firearms by a prior conviction). I seriously doubt those numbers would offset the number of incidents in which a firearm was legitimately used in self-defense, but I'm willing to be surprised.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, go look at crime statistics (especially violent crimes, and crimes including a gun) for US vs. Canada, Australia, France, Sweden, UK. The US has a much higher rate, while the other countries have gun control laws.

Look again. The USA has gun control laws too, and they provide very interesting information:

- in Washington DC, with very strict guns laws, there is a lot of gun crime
- a few miles away in Virginia, with very loose guns laws, there is much less gun crime than DC
- in Vermont, with very loose gun laws, there is very little gun crime
- in New Hampshire, with very loose gun laws, there is very little gun crime
- in pre-Guiliani New York City, with very strict guns laws, there was a lot of gun crime
- in post-Guiliani New York City, with very strict guns laws, there is much less gun crime

Government policy can have a great affect on gun crime, but strict gun control laws simply do not correlate with less gun crime.

Re:Beyond words...

[binford2k]

And I'm guilty as everyone else... But sometimes I think to myself "Maybe I shouldn't cut off that guy in traffic like that, he might go and snap."

That in itself is part of the problem. You aren't really giving a shit about him, you're showing courtesy for your own benefit. How shallow is that?

How about you start giving a shit about someone else?

Re:Beyond words...

[Caiwyn]

"Both have a belief system that says that others who behave or function differently are inherently worse."

Uh, yes. You're telling me a man should not be judged by his behavior? That's horseshit. The choices we make determine who we are, capability be damned -- I am better than this shooter, because I've never killed 32 people. If you refuse to judge a man by his actions, then you implicitly condone them. I reserve the right to be discerning about a man's behavior. For example:

You are a total asshole for minimizing a horrific act of violence with your relativist fallacies.

Re:Beyond words...

[MeanderingMind]

I'm not attempting to shift the blame. I'm only attempting to show how it's possible for someone else to have come to blame and hate others so strongly as to do something like this.

While succinct and perhaps insightful, your statements are the kind of reactions I mentioned in my post. They don't help people who can't already help themselves.

Re:Beyond words...

[quantaman]

Your post reminds me about a case I saw in the papers a while back.

A man from Newfoundland decided for whatever reason he was going to go out in a shooting rampage. He decided he'd commit the rampage in Toronto because he thought people weren't very nice there. So he was at a park in Toronto, car full of guns and ammo scouting out the scene before starting his rampage. As it happened a woman was walking her dog ended up having a friendly conversation with him. The man then decided that people were too nice to kill in Toronto as well and so he turned himself into police.

Re:Beyond words...

[mrchaotica]

However, removing weapons from the market makes it much harder, and that means that fewer people die; hence, why some people place their personal safety in front of their right to bear arms, and call for tighter gun control.

The trouble with that theory is that "removing weapons from the market" doesn't actually happen. All that happens is that weapons get transferred from the normal market to the black market and the criminals still have them!

Re:Beyond words...

[MeanderingMind]

I personally went through hell in school, and it was only by the grace of a pair of devoted parents and one extremely awesome best friend that I'm not neurotic, emotionally unstable, or bearing any of the typical horrific scars others in my position graduated the public school system with.

At the same time, what I went through was nothing compared to what I saw other people go through.

School is exactly like the world. Everyday there's hell on earth, but most of the people who can do anything about it are either ignorant or simply don't care so long as it doesn't affect them.

I don't endorse blaming others for your own problems, but it can be infuriating when people in a position to do something don't help you. It doesn't make it right to hate or blame them, but it can certainly motivate someone to do so.

Re:Beyond words...

[Pantero Blanco]

If someone started shooting back, there would have been more bullets flying around, and with more bullets flying around, there's a lot higher chance that people will get hit, especially if this is taking place in a mall with a lot of people.

...

If a dozen people opened up on him with submachine guns, maybe. This isn't a video game or an anime. A person firing back with a pistol might hit one or two bystanders, and probably wouldn't kill them. If they managed to take him down at number three, or even number fifteen, instead of number twenty, lives would be saved.

A rifle is a tool, but it's purpose is, basically, to kill. So, while a rifle may have no moral stature, it is a tool whose purpose it is to effect a morally wrong action. Because, even if evil men can be "corrected" by men with rifles, those men with rifles have done something that we as a society frown upon.

I don't mean to sound rude, but you personally don't speak for the whole of society. Many, if not the majority, of us really don't have any compunction against killing someone who's willing to kill us. I'd also be willing to kill someone guilty of rape or unprovoked torture, or someone who's trying to enslave me; that's not an uncommon view either.

However, removing weapons from the market makes it much harder, and that means that fewer people die; hence, why some people place their personal safety in front of their right to bear arms, and call for tighter gun control.

"Removing weapons from the market" means altering the laws of physics. Do you think you can convince every nation's government to stop using firearms?

As for that last bit... If you waive your own right, that's your choice. When you decide to start waiving other people's rights, there's a problem.

Re:Beyond words...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Similar events I've heard of (though unlike Snopes I haven't checked them out):

  - Crook in a Detroit gun show handling one at a vendor's table puts ammo in it and tries to hold up the vendor. Of course a significant fraction of the crowd had CCWs and were packing. He ends up as guest of honor at a "Polish Firing Squad", i.e. in the center of a cricle of armed people with guns pointed inward.

  - Similarly, a crook in Oregon picked the wrong date and hotel to rob the desk clerks. There was an NRA convention in progress, and Oregon is a gun-carry-friendly state so virtually everybody at the convention was packing - if only for the novelty of being able to do so legally. One of the convention-goers noticed the problem on his way to the nearby restaurant, quietly continued into the restaurant and notified all the convention-goers there (along with any packing locals) about what was going on, and when the crook turned around he was facing a semi-circle of armed people. When cops arrived he was on his face on the floor in the center of the circle, begging them to take him away from "these madmen".

Re:Beyond words...

[v616]

The difference is if the gunman carrys a knife, not like he can kill 30+ people. I blame GTA and gun control.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's always another point of view.
Today the prez can probably celebrate that more citizens DID NOT DIE in Iraq than in Virginia.

Re:Beyond words...

[billcopc]

Hey hey! I'm antisocial and generally angry, doesn't mean I'm planning a "mass killing spree", though I must admit if I had a big red button I might be tempted to push it :)

The concept of the killing spree is, at least from my observation, a self-gratifying exercise. When a person reaches such lows that nothing brings them up, they seek refuge in the forbidden pleasures. Some guys hire prostitutes (in an addictive manner), and some other guys seek the thrills of violence. Some pompous old talking heads speak of the reptilian mind. The brain gets hungry for pleasure, satisfaction. When those needs cannot be fulfilled through diplomatic relations (society), human instincts take over and manifest themselves as gluttony, lust and violence, usually in that order as the mind grows more and more desperate for titillation.

Re:Beyond words...

[illuminatedwax]

If it helps any, there are very few of us are not fucked up like this.

Re:Beyond words...

[tomhudson]

Look north of your borders. We have tighter gun control laws - for everyone! And our murder rate is lass than half yours.

We have our share of gun nuts too - and they have easier access to firearms now because of the flood of illegal guns coming into the country from one country ... the US.

We also have more legal firearms per capita than the US, so with a lower murder rate per capita, we must be doing something right.

Gun control for everyone works. But Jack Thompson is going to continue to try to blur the issue by claiming its not guns that kill people, but video games. So, how much do you think Thompson is being encouraged by the gun lobby?

Re:Beyond words...

[thrillseeker]

a bum rush with six or so students from close range

Ah yes - just the sort of thing they teach in Sociology 101 ... no need for all that hu-rah training professionals go through - just grab 5 buds and rush the man firing the automatic weapon.

It's the sort of thing the military gives medals out for.

Maybe because even there it's not an easy thing to do. Ever faced down a man with a loaded weapon who's demonstrated he's quite competent with it and is using it effectively? Think five young people armed with iPods are going to "rush" such a guy?

Re:Beyond words...

[Arcturax]

I'll add to this the fact that this guy didn't need a gun to kill. If no guns were available he most likely would have made a bomb instead.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always wondered if that was REALLY the case. Nobody's perfect. We're just flawed in different ways...

If you exclude the gone-postal killers like him, there's still LOTS and LOTS of disfunctionnal people left:
-serial killers
-alcoholics
-drug addicts (crack, coke, heroin, meth, etc)
-pedos and others with very wrong sexual deviations (not just odd fetishes -- the stuff some people get off of is just plain sick)
-thieves and various criminals (like some biker gangs)
-drug dealers
-rapists
-people with various mental diseases (bipolar disorders, schizophrenia, etc)
-violent folks (beat the wife, road rage, etc)
-sociopaths
-gamblers (and other forms of addictions)
-spammers, scammers, virus writers, etc
-terrorists and some religious extremists ...

It's a pretty long list. I wonder how much people are left once you exclude all these "unadapted" folks. I'm thinking "normal" perfectly-balanced people are actually a very, very small minority.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

"As gun crime leaps by 35% in a year"

From what? If there was one shooting a year for the past ten years, and then this year there were two, no one would be screaming: what a disaster that gun crime his *doubled* this year.

What's the significance of the 35% increase?

Re:Beyond words...

[misleb]

Wow, that just seems so hardcore to me. It would simply never occur to me to carry a gun around. But then, I don't even like to carry a cell phone and don't unless my employer requires it.

-matthew

Re:Beyond words...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Try pulling that psycho bullshit in a Virginia mall, and that shooter's life would have ended a lot quicker, with a whole lot less innocent people injured.

Are there any cases that have really put this to the test? I mean, it sounds good... the idea that some armed citizen/vigilante would engage in a gunfight with a crazed shooter, but I wonder if it really happens.

Yes, it really happens.

Other, similar, things happen, too. For instance: In an Oregon school shooting somewhat after Columbine, one of the students had enough training to recognize when the pistol in the shooter's hand needed reloading, and jumped him at that point, ending the incident. THAT one made the news - but not all that much. The media weren't able to get any soundbites from the locals asking for gun bans. (When they descended on the town on the anniversary of the event to try again they were heckled by citizens as "vultures" and mooned by passing students from the high school in question.)

You'd almost have to be specially trained (military, for example) to engage people like that. Just having some target shooting under your belt just doesn't seem like enough.

Take two short and inexpensive classes from an NRA-certified instructor:
  1) Basic Pistol.
  2) Personal Protection.
They'll teach you all you need to know. (Including when it's legal in your jurisdiction. That part is taught by a cop or judge, not the NRA instructor (unless the instructor is also a cop or judge.)

These are available in most areas on a regular basis. Check with your local gun club or www.nra.com for times and places or contact info for local instructors.

It's really amazing how LITTLE training it takes to get quite good at this. Gun-can-do is MUCH easier to learn than the other martial arts.

Re:Beyond words...

[EvilSS]

An immediate scientific investigation should commence to determine why this happens so frequently in the USA, as opposed to other similar countries. the results will of course be vetted by the Brady Campaign(fill in pro/anti group here) before release.

Yes folks, now anyone can troll a gun violence thread with the new, patented, copyrighted, DRM protected /. Gun-Troll 3000. Just fill in the blank with a group who's view you oppose, and presto! Instant troll!

Order today and we will include the /. OS-Troll 3000 and the brand new EURO/US-Troll super-concentrate ABSOLUTELY FREE!! That's right, not one, but two all purpose troll comments for just four hundred easy payments of just $19.95! Don't delay, order now!

Re:Beyond words...

[misleb]

It isn't about the target practice. It is about the mental preparedness and general life experience dealing with hostile and violent people. I would expect a police officer to be on guard for that sort of thing, but you'd have to be a particularly vigilant citizen to be ready to fend off a psycho with a gun. That's all I'm saying.

Re:Beyond words...

[kgruscho]

You've overlooked the obvious context of today (as best as is know as of 7pm in illinois) and columbine: the people doing the shooting were not career criminals, just people who went "postal", for whatever reason.

getting guns out of the legal market would substantially decrease the access of people who just feel like crap and want to go into a homicidial rage.

no getting guns out of the market is not going to prevent gangs from having guns, but it will reduce the ability of a lot of people to do dumb things in moments of weakness/rage/or extreme illness.

if you look at the case of the pastor's wife who shot him and fled last year, i doubt she would be a murderer if she had not had a legal gun in her house.

people kill people, but guns make it a heck of a lot easier to kill people accidently, impulsively, without much thinking of the consequences, and with them having little or no chance to save themselves.

Re:Beyond words...

[Kelbear]

I would agree that no one is born evil, but I would say they immediately start on their their path towards evil right after birth. It's then through the continual struggle of parenthood that children are steered away from their selfish or worse, malicious tendencies. Then through parentage they learn to accept society and how to redefine their goals behind the individual good and accept some level of value in a common good.

Re:Beyond words...

[jacquesm]

you should weigh that by population for a meaningful comparison to be made.

Re:Beyond words...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Life sucks when every day is a mind-numbingly boring routine at school, and all of your friends live life like a sitcom because that's all they know. I saw cruelty and injustice pretty much everywhere, and it pissed me off, but nobody I knew even cared.

That is exactly how these kinds of things happen. I didn't break, because when it came down to it I had one real friend that stuck with me. But when I see another kid going postal on the evening news, I'm never surprised. It's just another guy who wasn't as lucky as me.

DON'T assume that these things are done by ordinary people who "snapped" under pressure. Virtually ALL people have thoughts about doing such things from time to time - and chose not to do so. A VERY FEW people are DEFECTIVE when it comes to making such choices.

Events like this are very occasional national news - in a country with 125 million people, about half of whom are armed and most of the rest of whom could easily arm themselves (despite over 30,000 laws that try to make it difficult). The fact that it IS very occasional and national news on those occasions should tell you HOW rare such pathology is.

Re:Beyond words...

[Mr. Slippery]

The brain is a machine, and in some people the machine goes haywire.

As the late great Kurt Vonnegut put it, "We are only healthy to the extent that our ideas are humane."

Re:Beyond words...

[Firethorn]

Semi-automatic. And the odds are that some or most of those rushing are going to die. Still, at that point he'd probably have less than 10 rounds per gun, and firing two handed doesn't really work. Figure three-four shots per guy, he's out of ammo at three, allowing the other three to get him. End result; death toll at 10 or so, not 32(and counting?).

Maybe because even there it's not an easy thing to do. Ever faced down a man with a loaded weapon who's demonstrated he's quite competent with it and is using it effectively? Think five young people armed with iPods are going to "rush" such a guy?

Of course it's not an easy thing to do. Fact is, it's pretty much suicidal. But it would have saved more people. That's why the military awards medals for it. Hard to get medals.

And the only reason I suggest it was that they had already been disarmed by society in general and the school specifically. Even then, they'd probably been conditioned by previous training not to resist, in the hopes that it'd improve their chances of survival. In this case it didn't work. In most cases, actually, it doesn't work.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

I say we outlaw cars. 40,000 deaths in 2005, in the U.S. related to motor vehicles.

Plus I hate the smog, and the paving of this beautiful country, and the dependence on fossil fuel.

We should outlaw cars, and people should have a license to ride a bicycle. Several hundred bicycle related deaths last year, could have been prevented.

Makes that 30 deaths look pretty paltry.

Hell, we went ape shit over 3000 deaths when a couple of towers fell.

We should ban cars, and we should use statistics to find out the top 10 leading causes of death in the U.S. and enact strict regulation to ban the causes. Where will lone gunmen lie in those statistics?

Go Hilliary!!!

Re:Beyond words...

[turbidostato]

"Firearms are used in personal self-defense all the time [...] Just keep it [the gun], with ammo, in a place that's sensibly secure"

I don't pose a doubt about your argument about responsible posession of firearms being beneficial but then there's something I can explain to myself.

How is it then in the one civilized country where it's easier to legally own a short gun is the country in the civilized world where it's the easiest to be killed by a firearm and short guns are the worst problem of them all?

Canada, UK, France, Norway, Italy, Holland, Spain, Germany... you name it; noone of them seem to have such a problem with short gun violence even if almost all population (statistically *all* population, since the ones that are allowed to port a short gun are so few as to be not statistically significant) are "unarmed victims".

Re:Beyond words...

[Firethorn]

I also carry around a larger than average first aid kit* in my car, know first aid, including how to use a tournequet and my CPR training is up to date. I know the operation of an AED**. Carry around a cell phone? Occasionally, though I don't give out the number to many people.

*It goes way beyond bandaids
**AED: Automatic External defibrillator

Re:Beyond words...

[Zeinfeld]

OK so two hilarious anecdotes where CCW caused the bad guys to get caught.

Compared to 32 people murdered by a gun nut today alone.

Fifteen years ago I had a similar argument with a gun nut. They executed him a few years ago for the murder of 168 people in the Oaklahoma City Bombing, guy called Timothy McVeigh.

Re:Beyond words...

[The_Wilschon]

You should move to the south, my friend. Maybe the south is on the same train, and in 20 years politeness will be gone here too. But at least we're moving a lot slower in that direction.

I hold doors for my friends, for whoever I happen to be walking with, for people I've never seen before and will most likely never see again, they just happen to have fallen in 3 steps behind me. Most people I know around here do the same pretty much all the time. I know holding doors isn't everything, but it is just a convenient example; there are tons of others I could have used.

I don't mean in the slightest that the south is perfect. Just that, in general, the people are more polite.

Re:Beyond words...

[wellingj]

Because, even if evil men can be "corrected" by men with rifles, those men with rifles have done something that we as a society frown upon.

I don't frown upon it. These men who 'correct' and do something that 'society frowns upon' are to be commended. They see the world and they don't like the way it is.
And they work hard to make our country a better place. If it really is true that 'society frowns upon' what they do to protect us, then really god help us all.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's relevant, because McVeigh had a CCW permit and used a really-big concealed handgun to take down the Murrah building.

Remember: only two tokes, then pass to your left.

Re:Beyond words...

[Just Some Guy]

I saw cruelty and injustice pretty much everywhere, and it pissed me off, but nobody I knew even cared.

I really don't mean to be a jerk about it, because it sounds like you went through some rough times, but have you considered that out of all the witnesses to the events around you, you were the only one who saw cruelty and injustice in them? Perhaps it was your interpretation of events that was flawed, and you weren't really surrounded by all the callous assholes you thought you were. Just something to think about.

Re:Beyond words...

[jocknerd]

Or those who were out of town and had their guns stolen after a break-in.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

But he is better at grammar and spelling.

Re:Beyond words...

[tomhudson]

I agree that humans are the most dangerous animals to ever walk the face of this plant.

Everyone can kill, under the "right" circumstances. Not everyone can murder - which isn't the same thing. There really is something wrong with people who, while capable of distinguishing right from wrong, decide to murder a bunch of strangers because they're not happy. Same with people who kill their spouse, or their kids so their spouse can't have them.

They're definitely "human" ... but they're defective as all hell. They probably tortured cats when they were younger.

Re:Beyond words...

[Mr. Slippery]

Those people aren't crazy by any legal definition: They can tell right from wrong and they know exactly what they're doing

The legal definition of sanity is a load of fetid dingo's kidneys.

Anyone who kills, or attempts to kill, another human being without provokation or need, has shown that they in fact do not know "right" from "wrong" (or at least did not at the moment of the attack).

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

"This really has me ticked off. My main thought is 'couldn't somebody have stopped him?"

Yes: he could be stopped. It happens all the time.

Just look at Europe: they are stopped in so an early stage they don't even think on taking a gun to go killing children. *That* is effectiveness you crazy american society.

Re:Beyond words...

[Maniakes]

It's there, but under a different name. It's in the DSM-IV as Antisocial Personality Disorder

Re:Beyond words...

[masterzora]

Not all cops have the mental preparedness and life experience you speak of. My low-crime hometown seems to be a good example of this, where most of the cops have little if any relevant experience that the average citizen wouldn't have.

Re:Beyond words...

[Firethorn]

Just look at Europe: they are stopped in so an early stage they don't even think on taking a gun to go killing children. *That* is effectiveness you crazy american society.

Umm... I spent two years in Germany. They just so happened to coincide with this incident.

It happens everywhere.

Re:Beyond words...

[Mr. Slippery]

The difference is if the gunman carrys a knife, not like he can kill 30+ people.

Julius Caesar, Ghengis Khan, Alexander of Macedonia, and a whole bunch of pre-firearms warriors would be interested in hearing that.

Oh, it takes a bit of strength and training, and might take a little longer, but in a room of 30+ people where only one has a big-ass knife, and the determination to use it? A knife can indeed be a tool of mass killing.

Re:Beyond words...

[eyegone]

What is right and wrong? How does anyone tell right from wrong? Seems pretty subjective to me.

Killing lots of innocent people is wrong. Sorry if that's too subjective for you.

Re:Beyond words...

[turbidostato]

When I lived in Japan, I knew two people who were murdered. Their killers used knives. It's not the tool, it's the criminal."

You must be kidding.

What are the chances for a criminal armed with a knife to kill 20 people on a single incident, even if they are children?

"Look at any of the states with shall-issue CCW permits and note their lower crime rates than areas with extensive gun bans."

Look at epidemiology and percolation. As it has been stated the "gun free" areas within the States (like schools or malls) are most sensible to massive killings; the same correlation you can find among states in vecinity. Compare this with the violent murdering statistics from, say France. The difference here is that you can't easily find a short gun in France... nor in Spain, Italy, Germany and all the other surrounding countries.

In the States it's very easy to find and own a short gun: that makes it somewhat as a war scenario: of course in a war scenario your bets are higher if you own a firearm (and know how to properly make use of it); still your overall bets are worse than in a peacefull country -even if you don't own a firearm there.

Re:Beyond words...

[grassy_knoll]

Oh, it takes a bit of strength and training, and might take a little longer, but in a room of 30+ people where only one has a big-ass knife, and the determination to use it? A knife can indeed be a tool of mass killing.

True that. Now I'm hearing reports the gunman ordered people to lie down, then shot them execution style. One could do the same thing with a big knife / sword.

Re:Beyond words...

[Mr. Slippery]

go look at crime statistics (especially violent crimes, and crimes including a gun) for US vs. Canada, Australia, France, Sweden, UK. The US has a much higher rate, while the other countries have gun control laws.

Yes, go look at crime stats.

Notice that those states within the U.S. with strong gun control, have the highest violent crime rates.

Notice that Canada, Switzerland, and Israel have comparable levels of gun ownership to the U.S., but much lower crime rates.

Notice that in the U.S., we have more non-gun murders per capita than the U.K. or Japan (IIRC) have total homicides. We beat and stab each other to death at an astounding rate.

The problem lies not in our guns but in our selves.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yes... I said complete strangers. We don't say please and thank you anymore. We don't hold doors for each other. We cut each other off in traffic and give each other the bird. We lie and cheat to get ahead at the work place."

I'm the opposite of this. And I have to say--do not take this advice if you have to *try* to be nice. It doesn't work and will simply piss you off more; you will change. You will be walked over by everyone else that doesn't have the basic courtesy to be nice innately, because their shittiness is, in turn, innate and natural to them.

I'm one of those people who makes an effort to be considerate--it's in my nature for some reason. Always has been. I do all the things you suggest regularly, innately. I don't do it for approval; like I said, I do it because I always have and, at most, because I think it makes the world a more bearable place, believing this is how people should treat each other. To put my mindset in perspective for some people, it's usually when I don't do something courteous that such exceptions come to the forefront of my mind, i.e. "whoops, forgot to hold the door open. Shoot. That wasn't nice."

First, don't be misdirected; meaning, don't expect anything in return, even basic politeness or neutral responses. I don't expect anything, but I'm utterly amazed at the negative responses I often get holding the door open for people. Second, expect to get walked over. Do something nice, you might get dressed down. Third, if you have a nice smile, go ahead and look at people, otherwise, do the action and move on. Fourth, do *not* speak when doing these actions. For some reason, speaking makes your action a more personable interaction, which people these days seem more negative towards.

Many people *do not give a shit.* Often, they will think you a whacko. Once offered to help a woman in crutches who was trying to make photocopies who was having a difficult time keeping her balance with the crutches, an armful of papers, and filling the machine with coins. I might as well had the plague from the horrified look on her face.

Hold open doors for people? If you are male, do not if they have a boyfriend/husband, etc. You will be perceived as a threat. Mother with children? Make sure the children are in front of the mother, otherwise you will be scrutinized on the way out the door. Let someone take their proper turn in line? I once got yelled at for doing this by the person's whose turn it was...why? I have no idea. I didn't say a word the whole encounter. During this, I even got threatened that they were going to call the police. This for standing in combining line for a checkout at an office supply store.

Over time, there comes a point where it's easier just to be, well, self-centered. Keep an even face. Not rude, but don't hold that door open a second extra; people themselves are so cynical that the cynicism turns back on itself--basic acts of politeness are often seen as a lead in to something else, that the person being nice is doing so for some other, selfish reason.

I don't particularly care how people treat me; in fact, this nature of mine being polite has slowly turned into a silent cynicism, a way to measure the other person (which has turned useful in a couple of unexpected cases). iow, if someone treats me badly, it's their issues, not you, but you'll be amazed what happens when you act polite.

The cake? Police. This is more wholly anecdotal than the above since I have very limited interactions with officers, thankfully, but do *not* be nice or polite when they are pulling you over. Just be straightforward, explain your views, certainly stand up for yourself if they are wrong, and move on. Anything deemed courteous will be considered negatively--that you are a pushover, kissing up, trying to weasel out of whatever, wasting their time, complaining, etc.

Maybe it's because I'm a middle aged male individual who looks like a young adult that people stereotype. In any case, I don't really care t

Re:Beyond words...

[Mr. Slippery]

We are so much better off without guns and its time people start realizing that.

Many of those people who died today might have lived if someone else present had had a gun and used it to stop the shooter.

As for international comparions - the U.S. has more non-firearms homicides per capita, more fatal beatings and stabbings, than many nations' total murder rate. The problem is not in our guns; it's social and economic.

Re:Beyond words...

[nanodec]

I completely agree... we need to get back to kindness. its very simple.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

- in Washington DC, with very strict guns laws, there is a lot of gun crime
DC is full of niggers

- a few miles away in Virginia, with very loose guns laws, there is much less gun crime than DC

Welcome to the confederacy - niggers go north

- in Vermont, with very loose gun laws, there is very little gun crime

Do niggers ski?

- in New Hampshire, with very loose gun laws, there is very little gun crime

Niggers in new hampshier, loleerskates

- in pre-Guiliani New York City, with very strict guns laws, there was a lot of gun crime

New York used to have a lot of niggers, but...

- in post-Guiliani New York City, with very strict guns laws, there is much less gun crime ... someone chased them out.

Yeah, racist, but true.

Niggers have to be seen for what they are

Re:Beyond words...

[NotAnotherExit]

The word for it is psychopathy, which unfortunately isn't in the current DSM. Antisocial Personality Disorder is what they call it now. That's the more polite term that they beat into our heads in psychology classes, and it is listed in the DSM. They are characterized by a lack of empathy, and do display peculiar brain scans. They also make up 75% of all inmates, and represent as much as a quarter of the population, depending on who you depend on for your statistics. (Without a Concience is a great book to check out if you want to spew random facts about psycho/sociopaths, though it is a bit outdated.) Still, a complete lack of empathy does not typicaly correlate with the massive violent crimes. They tend to relate more towards schizophrenia, paranoid dillusions, and a variety of other interesting psychosis. I am inclined to believe that there was something more to it than "this AZN N1NJ4 played Video Gamez and was a sociopath." Though, last I read, they were not reporting that they were certain it was just one boy, at that.

Re:Beyond words...

[eugene ts wong]

Don't forget the pressures of the faculty and the admin. The schools are like prisons in many ways. Obviously, there is more freedom, but there are similarities.

Re:Beyond words...

[thrillseeker]

And the only reason I suggest it was that they had already been disarmed by society in general and the school specifically. Even then, they'd probably been conditioned by previous training not to resist

Agreed. An armed society is a polite society.

Re:Beyond words...

[Dun Malg]

I was reading some info about crime stats and one interestign thing: Victims of crimes who possessed guns/weapons during the incident had a good chance (40%) of having their own weapon used against them. That's the first time I've ever heard that stat, and I've seen most of them. It's extremely vague. Was this victims who were carrying firearms and were disarmed? People coming home and surprising burglars who'd found their shotgun under the bed? I'd sure like to see the details. Have any citations or links for it?

Re:Beyond words...

[enomar]

Some would argue that killing anyone is wrong. Others believe that killing "innocent" people is ok as long as they kill "bad guys" in the process. If you don't like the word subjective, how about arbitrary?

Re:Beyond words...

[Dun Malg]

Obviously, it's all of OUR fault, for being so irritating.

Re:Beyond words...

[MrYotsuya]

Agreed. An armed society is a polite society.

I totally agree with you, it's why the Western US in the period between 1865 and about 1890 was called the _Mild_ West.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think, in any human being, they must reach a high degree of hopelessness AND helplessness, to believe that their feelings are best expressed through bullets, in such an indiscriminate manner, and with such disregard for human life. It is both sad and dangerous to write people off as saying 'well *I* wouldn't do something like that.' The fact is, everyone, INCLUDING the shooter is dead, and for what? You can say you wouldn't do anything like that, but you're still part of a species and a society that makes devices like guns to begin with. "The type of person" who would commit such an act as this, probably looked just like everybody else for most of their life. We've all had experiences where we didn't get our way, or someone chose not to hear our opinion, and yes that is a part of life. Now imagine that you wake up one day with no friends, no advocates in your corner, and no one to listen to you and validate your pain and frustrations ever again. A strong-willed person is a dangerous thing, but even more so when they believe themselves truly cornered. How strongly does one have to feel about something, before other people start to see justification in their violence. We live in a world where people turn, more and more, to delivering their message or forcing their beliefs on others through violence instead of words. We fight ideas with weapons, and more and more the world is finding out just how difficult a fight that is going to be. "America is this correct?"

-zz

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

You shouldn't worry about the other guy snapping. You just shouldn't cut off anyone in traffic, because its the right thing to do -- not because you fear others.

Re:Beyond words...

[syousef]

No we're not all equally capable. We may all be capable of the physical act, but some of us are going to be much more prone to snapping. "We're all equal" is a flawed bunch of hippy BS. We all have inherent qualities and we all choose what to do with them but there are people who are fundamentally more prone to becoming psychotic just as there are people who are fundamentally more suited to becoming concert pianists. Same goes for shooting a gun unfortunately...

Re:Beyond words...

[Simon Garlick]

Insanity is suffered by humans worldwide. Depressed gunmen committing mass-murder-suicide at schools seems to be a uniquely American trait.

Re:Beyond words...

[turbidostato]

Yeah, quite interesting readings.

But sorrily they forget about a very "little and simple" fact: chances to be violently killed per million inhabitants. One would think that's an easy and clear number, isn't it? But, hey, they seemed to forget about it in the NRA-supported articles you kindly cite.

Well, here come some numbers http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-c rime-murders-per-capita (to say the truth, this is data from 2000, so quite old):
    United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
    France: 0.0173272 per 1,000 people
    Australia: 0.0150324 per 1,000 people
    Canada: 0.0149063 per 1,000 people
    United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
    Germany: 0.0116461 per 1,000 people
    Japan: 0.00499933 per 1,000 people

So, your chances to be killed in the USA were x3 those from "wild Australia", "violent UK" or "mad Canada", or x10 those from "samuray Japan".

But, hey, this is old data!

Well, here comes the "2005/2006 Home Office Statistical Bulletin for England and Wales" (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207. pdf), quite up to date, uh? Well, let's see 746 murders in that period (including the 57 victims from the 7/7 London bombs), which makes 14.0 per million.

And what about the USA? Well, disastercenter (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm) says there were 16,692 murders in 2005, or 56 murders per million. Hummm... how much it does 56/14? Well, it's even WORSE THAN DATA FROM 2000! Your bets of being murdered in USA are 4x those from the "wild UK". Isn't it soooooooo strange after the "facts" from our friends of the NRA?

Re:Beyond words...

[btooms]

"How is saying "I'm better than this shooter" different from some fundi saying "I'm better than all you non-believers..." Both have a belief system that says that others who behave or function differently are inherently worse."

You are preaching moral relativism which is one of the biggest if not the biggest issue with society today. It is used as a sad excuse to justify any type of behavior or action, no matter how immoral it may be.

Someone who advocates peace IS better than someone who aimlessly kills innocent people.

Statements like that may make you feel uncomfortable because they imply a moral standard and in this current world of me, me, me, the last thing anyone wants is to be uncomfortable, but brushing this event off by saying we are all horrid is ridiculous.

True, we are all capable of "horrid" things, but that does not mean we are all equally horrid, or should accept the horrid behavior of other human beings.

Re:Beyond words...

[karnal]

people will continue to kill people, no matter what weapons we outlaw. However, removing weapons from the market makes it much harder,

Keep in mind that there is a slight yet significant distinction between outlawing something and removing that same something from the marketplace.

Re:Beyond words...

[(negative video)]

How long will it be before some individual or small group has the ability to destroy thousands of lives or more?

In 1861. The war that followed saw the invention of the land mine, machine gun, and armored battleship.

Ironically, if the fundamentalist crusaders had spent one-tenth as much on automating cotton cultivation, their stated goals would have been accomplish better and sooner. Even worse, the crusaders' stated goals were not their real goals, and they had a singular lack of imagination and optimism when it came to accomplishing any goals.

To those who would learn, this gives lessons for modern living.

Re:Beyond words...

[myth24601]

Very recently something like this happened in a Utah? Off duty officer Ken Hammond happend to be there with his gun.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17124042/

Hammond, who fired on Talovic, is being credited with drawing the gunman's attention until other officers could reach the scene. Talovic was killed, although it was unclear which officer fired the fatal shot, police said.

Would have been a big story if not for this off duty cop becuase:

Talovic had a backpack full of ammunition, a shotgun and a .38-caliber pistol, police said.

Three people died but thankfully officer Hammond was there.

Re:Beyond words...

[Ninja Programmer]

No. What fucked-up animals a teeny minority of us are. Most of us are better than that. You are. I am.

These people don't live in isolation. People choose their behaviors as much as society does.

Let's give ourselves credit where it is deserved. There's probably not a person on this list who hasn't wanted to do multiple homicides now and then. But we don't. We learn to control our anger, to seek non-violent solutions.

Yes ok, and how many of us on this list has helped someone else who was having emotional difficulties? You want to pat yourself on the back because life's pressure doesn't exceed most people's ability to cope and most of us are in the majority?

Let's treat this incident as a baseline, and praise ourselves for having advanced well beyond it. This guy was an exception, not the norm.

He is an exception created *BY* the norm.

Re:Beyond words...

[Harmonious Botch]

OK so two hilarious anecdotes where CCW caused the bad guys to get caught. Compared to 32 people murdered by a gun nut today alone. And there is the one stat that nobody collects, and nobody can: the number of people who decided not to commit a crime because they belived that someone else was armed.

Re:Beyond words...

[matchewg]

I say what is even more sick, is that hundreds of Iraqi Civilians and American Soldiers are dying each week. However, they receive around 10 seconds of news coverage. While the victims and families of the victims in this recent incident will receive nearly two months of news coverage. I haven't even mentioned the thousands dying in Darfur..

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are to be congratulated: This is, without a doubt, one of the best, most disingenuous trolls I've seen on Slashdot in a *long* time.

Re:Beyond words...

[drsquare]

No it happens in Russia as well, and no doubt in some parts of Africa.

Re:Beyond words...

[RespekMyAthorati]

It does happen in other places, like my country (Canada), but it is very rare.
The reason we hear so much about it in the US are:

1. it's a big country, so more of everything happens there
2. whatever happens in the US will dominate the news, since American media is so pervasive
3. guns are more easily available there, especially on the black market

They all contribute, and there is probably nothing that can be done about it.
How do you plan for insanity?
Nobody that's planning to kill themselves can be deterred.

As to the fucktard who said "if all the students had guns, this wouldn't have happened", I reply:
No, it would have been much worse, with hundreds of poorly-aimed bullets flying all over the place.
Many innocent bystanders would have been killed in the crossfire.

Trained SWAT officers have a hard time dealing with crazed snipers,
how the hell would a bunch of scared
university students handle it?

Re:Beyond words...

[RexRhino]

What are you talking about? It happens all over the world!

Re:Beyond words...

[qzulla]

I hold doors for my friends, for whoever I happen to be walking with, for people I've never seen before and will most likely never see again, they just happen to have fallen in 3 steps behind me. Most people I know around here do the same pretty much all the time. I know holding doors isn't everything, but it is just a convenient example; there are tons of others I could have used.

I don't mean in the slightest that the south is perfect. Just that, in general, the people are more polite.

I do the same out here in the west. I was raised that way. It is just common courtesy.

The south does not hold a monopoly on politeness. I bet you see plenty of of examples of nonpoliteness too.

qz

Re:Beyond words...

[drsquare]

We have tighter gun control laws
We also have more legal firearms per capita than the US

???????

Re:Beyond words...

[Mr. Flibble]

Agreed. I think the only reason I did not go postal was because of my mother, and her caring attitude.

However, after my dad died, I became very depressed, and suddenly, I was the target of abuse from everyone around me. Because being depressed, I did not fit in. I started getting picked on severely. Then, one teacher (who was later fired after a similar incident!) declared me to be "slow" - as opposed to being very unhappy. So, the next thing I know I am put in the class for "disadvantaged children" aka the special class. They run a bunch of tests on me, and find that at 10 years old, I am reading at a grade 12 level, and that my IQ is above normal, that no, I am not slow, just bored and depressed due to the death of my father.

So what happens? The school does the nice thing and gets me *ADVANCED* material. So, there I am in the "slow" class, being given advanced material. The other kids in this class hated me, and picked on me incessantly. I got beaten up in and after school numerous times - often by multiple kids. It is hard to fight back when 7 people are attacking you. To make matters worse, I had no one to teach me how to fight back. So I kept loosing. And I kept getting attacked. The school would not help, and my mother just thought violence was "bad" and that I should "just not fight". (That was about her only negative influence).

I can tell you, if I had access to a weapon, it is entirely possible - in fact, probably very likely - that I would have gone postal in that situation. As it was, I did not have access to one.

Now that I am older, people wonder why I have studied martial arts for 13 years, and keep myself in very good physical condition. Partly because of vanity and wanting to look good. But mostly because I remember what it was like to be opressed so badly for those years.

Re:Beyond words...

[one_in_a_milli0n]

> No, its not "their fault" - they're nuts. Still, how do we deal with it?

Take away their guns?

I don't get (US) America: Going crazy about people smoking weed or taking hard drugs (just peacefully killing themselves), having an outrage when Janet shows her nipple on TV, but allowing deadly weapons in private, resident homes by the millions. Just to defend your home in case disaster strikes?

Re:Beyond words...

[Sj0]

You live, you win. You die, you lose. Any talk about not letting people with guns take your stuff is ultimately made redundant by the fact that you let people with guns take your stuff all the time. What do you think taxes are?

Re:Beyond words...

[thegnu]

That is such a sick and twisted method of "illumination"

Asking that a person think in a way that looks for resolution of a problem presented to them rather than ask for someone to tell them something so they can argue with it? Or ignoring questions that don't apply?

There was no comparison in the original statement, so gp posted a non-sequitor. I told him that if he thought about it, he might understand the answer to his question. Which part is sick and twisted? Illumination comes from inside, anyway, unless your enlightenment amounts to a colonoscopy.

Re:Beyond words...

[Moflamby-2042]

If the gunman had pulled his psycho bullshit in a crowded Virginia mall, the shooter's life may have ended a lot quicker, but that does not mean that fewer people would be dead.

I evidently don't ascribe such tremendous idiocy to people defending against a gunman as you. Of course there's panic, and chaos but there's also the intent to hit the correct target. It is not that people defending against an attack would just pick someone at random in the group and start firing away, that's just asinine.

Furthermore, if a gunman is shooting people in the mall then I'll go out on a limb saying it is morally correct that the shooter be stopped as soon as possible with whatever means. Deadly force is encouraged and not immoral in the slightest if it can save even one more life (not the gunman's of course). Not every killing is immoral which I think you're using as a base assumption leading to the kind of moral psychosis you describe.

As for the shooting at Virginia Tech, if anyone nearby had been able to toast that bastard doing the shooting then they would get cheers from me. Worse is that I would be happy that he was shot or killed. Dozens of lives could have been saved. If that makes me evil or immoral to celebrate the killing of someone that is otherwise killing students at a college then I'm as unapologetically evil as they come.

Re:Beyond words...

[dryeo]

Sadly a lot of psychopaths become CEOs, various other bosses and politicians.
There are a lot of jobs where having empathy will make you a failure.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tighter gun control has been consistantly shown to do nothing to reduce gun crime in any country but Australia. Almost all gun related fatalities are the result of criminal action; not accidents, not negligence, and not moments of anger by legal gun owners. Until we can find a way to take guns away from the criminals and shut down the black market in firearms that supplies them, all that taking guns away from law abiding citizens does is disempower them. This is, of course, why complete disarmament has worked in Australia. As the only nation with almost complete control of its borders that has enacted a serious ban on private ownership of firearms, it is also the only one that has resulted in a reduction in gun crime. None of this, of course, takes away from the horror that is todays event, but trying to use this incident or others like it to push gun control only dodges doing anything about the real issues.

Re:Beyond words...

[angrymilkman]

that's a wrong comparison. Those 30 people that died today would still be alive if there weren't any guns at all. You can never justify the use of any gun. what's next? give guns to 3-6 year olds in pre school so they can defend themselves? its insane. We can live in a society without guns. We have to get rid of this state of paranoia that we live in first.

Re:Beyond words...

[mgabrys_sf]

Well, perhaps it's time to start looking into the morons breeding these lil' monsters. If you're going to raise a suicide bomber / shooter, perhaps it's time to investigate and help others take responsibility for their lack of parenting abilties or their bent chromosomes. If the Hatfields want to keep shooting up the neighborhood, I think it might be time to look at the whole family. Not just the blown-fuse of the week.

Perhaps some good old fashioned dissapearances and re-eductation centers weren't such a bad idea after all.

Or you could get some perspective on how this stacks up to the world around you, and all the other (far more fun) ways you can be chucked out of it. Like that car you drive for instance. Crashy Crashy!

Re:Beyond words...

[grassy_knoll]

When I lived in Japan, I knew two people who were murdered. Their killers used knives. It's not the tool, it's the criminal."

You must be kidding.

Nope. Wish I was. On base, one service members wife murdered another wife over jewelry. Right as the USS Independence took over from the USS Midway, a sailor killed another sailor. Both murders involved knives.

Banning guns does not ban violence.

Re:Beyond words...

[D'Sphitz]

[i]Many innocent bystanders would have been killed in the crossfire.[/i]

So the 33 people who got capped today were all asking for it?

Re:Beyond words...

[tinkertim]

I thought to myslef "Not again.. What the fuck is wrong with people."

We're a species at the top of the food chain who only has two (real / constant) natural predators : ourselves and viruses. This is an ugly side to nature, but its going to continue.

Problems that have a reasonable chance of soliciting guilt from us when dealing with them are treated very uniquely, we go after the symptoms and stay blissfully ignorant of the problems. They don't get fixed, they fester, amplify and something like this happens all over again.

We ourselves are becoming less compassionate, nature of course is following suit. I have no idea what to do about this, quite frankly I'm just happy I can articulate the problem. This type of thing will continue until an answer to the problem, not subsequent symptoms can also be articulated.

Sad but true, imho anyway.

Re:Beyond words...

[mgabrys_sf]

re:"people are always going threw worse then you"

Like getting exposed to moronic assholes from the likes of Digg.com. That's certainly worse. Oh how I feel your pain!

Re:Beyond words...

[tomhudson]

What's so hard to understand? The two are not mutually exclusive. Tougher gun laws doesn't necessarily translate into fewer firearms - just safer ones. It also means proportionately many fewer handguns and more rifles and shotguns. You can slip a handgun into a pocket - a rifle is a lot harder to conceal, and that means fewer people walking around with concealed weapons.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/as/1995/c39/sec139.html

Also, a mandatory minimum sentence for any crime committed with a firearm, imposed consecutively (not concurrently). Rob a convenience store, and your partner, who is driving the car and never went into the store, has a gun - you BOTH get an additional 3 to 14 years for a crime committed with a firearm - even if its only an imitation gun!

The smarter crooks go out of their way NOT to carry a gun (and keep their partners in crime from doing the same) because the penalties are a lot harsher.

Just pointing a firearm (real or fake) at someone is good for up to 5 years.

Ditto for carrying around ammunition without a license.

Knowingly possessing (not just "on your person" - it may be stashed at home) a prhibited firearm or ammunition without having a license is good for up to 10 years in jail.

Anyone knowingly sitting the the same car as someone with a prohibited firearm or ammunition is liable for up to 10 years in jail ...

Crossbows are also regulated.

Find a firearm and not report it? 5 years. Lose a firearm and not report it? Ditto. No serial number or an altered serial number? Ditto.

Also, commit a crime with a weapon, - you're prohibited from owning a weapon for 10 years. Second offence - you may never own a weapon again.

Re:Beyond words...

[iocat]

I agree that the legal definition is incomplete, but you don't have to be crazy to knowingly do wrong. For instance, this morning I ate a poptart, an action I knew was objectively WRONG, given the poptart's lack of nutrition and empty calories, and the fact that I'm overweight. I know it tends to hurt my family because it lowers my life-span. But I assure you, I'm not crazy; I made a bad decision because I cared more about myself (and my desire for a sugar rush) than I did for my family and personal health in that moment. Lots of people who kill people know exactly what they're doing and just how bad it is, they just don't care. Hence, in my book, they're evil, or at the very least, their actions are evil.

Re:Beyond words...

[tomhudson]

Don't get me wrong - I agree. People have misinterpreted the constitution to imply that everyone has a right to own guns, whereas the second amendment is clear that it is referring to an armed militia (which under US law has specific age and gender limits), and "the right of the people", not "the right of individuals".

There's a reason they're called "gun nuts."

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

The word for it is psychopathy, which unfortunately isn't in the current DSM.

"No, no, you've got it all wrong. A psychopath is someone who doesn't understand the difference between right and wrong. I'm a sociopath. I understand it perfectly; I just don't give a damn."

From an episode of the Pretender series IIR. I quoted it once to a friend who was working on her Psych PhD. She said her AbPsych prof had mentioned such individuals, noted the official DSM categories and nominal distinctions between them, and then remarked "However, I privately lump them in a group I think of as needs killin'."

Re:Beyond words...

[Firethorn]

Crazy fact about the actual wild, wild west: It had a lower murder and violent crime rate than the cities back east.

It was considered wild in the true sense of the world: Untamed by (European) humans.

Please remember that the polite part comes with time and respect for life. Unfortuantly Gang-banger society hasn't developed the polite part yet; many of them have no respect for their own lives, that or they attack during what their perceive as moments of weakness in their enemies.

Societies where the bearing of arms was so routine as to be expected were generally quite polite.

Re:Beyond words...

[SonicSpike]

I would like to point out a distinction though. I think we can all agree that murder is amoral. However killing is not always amoral. There are several instances I can think of when killing is acceptable - such as in defense, hunting for food, and sometimes war. There are probably other times when killing is acceptable morally...

Re:Beyond words...

[Quiet_Desperation]

No. What fucked-up animals a teeny minority of us are. Most of us are better than that. You are. I am.

I'm not. :(

Re:Beyond words...

[chill]

Actually, I do believe that is one of the reasons the Japanese are so polite. The society is so population dense, they have to be overly polite because lots of people used to carry very sharp knives and would use them at the drop of a hat. Granted, that was a long time ago, but it has served them well.

Be polite, regardless, because someone -- you or the other guy -- just might snap.

Re:Beyond words...

[John Hurliman]

If I see you driving around Pullman I'm totally going to cut you off.

Re:Beyond words...

[jadavis]

We all have it in us to do something horrid

I think you're the one with a fundamental misunderstanding. There are many people put in far worse situations than he, yet he is the one who committed the atrocities. No doubt that environmental factors play a role. However, environmental factors are a test of one's morality, not the definition of one's morality.

This gunman was evil, and the "human condition" revealed that he was evil.

Re:Beyond words...

[TheoMurpse]

Until then, tighter gun control laws

You know what would have worked even better than tighter gun control laws? Looser gun laws: one of the victims possessing a gun on campus yesterday. The person would have shot the mass murderer, and only one person would have had to die.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you act this way. I don't. I grew up differently than this. I am proud to say I grew up in a little Indiana town where everyone greeted everyone else, whether you knew them or not. I now live a little more than 50 miles away in another little Indiana town where I have been for over 11 years and still only know the name of 2 of my neighbors. One old guy on our street I have waved at almost every day for the last 11 years when I come home from work, and he has yet to acknowledge the greeting. Still, I persist. It was only last year that I got to know neighbor number 2, after all, and now they bring peaches and fresh vegetables to us from their garden, and, being old musicians, enjoy having my daughter over to play violin.

All I can say is, make the effort, even if you are the only one to do so.

Recently, I had occassion to visit a fairly decent sized city in Germany. A friend and I wandered about one evening, just to see the town. It was more "alive" than anything I've seen here -- no shopping mall or WalMart had killed off the downtown, people were out and about, even at 2 in the morning. When we were headed back to the hotel, 3 or 4 young guys drinking beer in an alleyway overheard us talking, and ran at us in a clump -- the one in the lead shouting "American? American?" I answered in the affirmitave. He asked where I was from, what I was doing, etc. I answered; we had a really good chat. He had been an undergrad student at a university in Texas. He and his friends offered to show us around, show us the best bars, he seemed genuinely happy to meet us. Sadly, I had to decline since we had to be up early (company seminar). My companion barely spoke a word, looking alarmed as he could be most of the time, having grown up just outside Chicago. To me, it almost felt like home.

--Robert

Re:Beyond words...

[Sippan]

As much as I am against the right to bear arms in principle, and I thank God we have gun control laws in this country (Sweden) it's hard not to realize that in the US, the situation is completely different. The reason there are fewer gunshot deaths here is not only that we have gun control, it's that we've had gun control since forever. The US, on the other hand, has been a nation of guns for so long that there's no way you could possibly do anything about it now. You simply could not impose gun control on America now, because there are so very many people and so very many guns, outlawing them now would have no effect.

I think the problem can't be fixed by laws, it has to come from the people. Every person who simply doesn't get a gun, is a person who is less likely to accidentally shoot himself, or snap one day and take it to his school to kill everyone, or have his kids find it and hurt themselves. If everyone would just realize that and stop being so obsessed with guns, maybe one day the problem would have reduced to a level where it could be tackled.

But it'll never happen because they are so obsessed with guns. It seems people don't even realize that it is a problem. Instead of blaming the guns, they blame poor security or the nutjob who did it. Guess what, we have extremely poor security here in Sweden. We don't have metal detectors at my university, or even some sort of card required to enter the buildings, any madman with five rifles under his overcoat could walk right into the school at any time and shoot everyone!! But that's never happened. And we have nutjobs here, too! One of the most widely reported Swedish nutjobs recently was a guy who snapped and drove a car at 60 miles per hour through a pedestrian precinct full of people. How many people died again? Oh, 2. If he'd had a gun instead of a car? Not 2.

Re:Beyond words...

[fferreres]

The point is that the vast majority of you should NOT have those impulses in the first place, and you are insane for not think about that for just a millisecond. But you could.

Re:Beyond words...

[fferreres]

His point was that this guy was just as you until he killed 31. So you can't be sure you are not like him. You simply can't, unless you are so happy, and appreciate your and other people life a lot. And that includes people from Irak, from Africa and the other regions as well. It also means your neighbors, your enemies (in the sense that they are people just like you), and just life in general.

Re:Beyond words...

[happyemoticon]

Agreed. God, I do hate how people carry on about how horrible America is, and how we live in a repressive consumerist culture that devalues love and community; how we, in effect, create mass murderers by ingendering in people a desire for Tickle-Me-Elmos, Starbucks coffee and IKEA furniture that just can't be satisfied.

Firstly, if you don't want to live in a repressive consumerist culture, I guarantee you there are thousands upon thousands who feel exactly the same way right here in America who would love to have one more hippie or punk friend. Go be a mountain man. You can even grow some bud and sell it for what little goods you need. Or, just live a simple lifestyle right here in the mainstream. All it takes is saying, "Huh, maybe I should get a library card instead of buying books, not watch so much television, get my furniture at garage sales, and not try to keep up with the fashion rat race." Join the Quakers, who are not only dedicated to simple living, but get conscientious objector status.

Furthermore, I don't think any of them have even the vaguest idea of the rampant, sudden, and often totally inexplicable violence which occurs in places that aren't America. Sure, we're a far cry from Japan, but anyone who thinks there is something about the nation which is fundamentally alienating and necessarily produces killers needs to read up on African history.

Finally, do NOT sympathize with the killers. None of this, "Well, I used to be like that, but then the nurturing community of /. saved me." No. You're not like them because they decided to go on a killing spree and you didn't. They could've decided to NOT go out and end a bunch of human lives, but instead, they decided that a mass murder/suicide was a good choice. We are affected by our environment, but we are not automatons. You always have a choice, whether you know it or not.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

The word for it is psychopathy, which unfortunately isn't in the current DSM.

Only because it is now called sociopathy, which is in the current DSM.

Re:Beyond words...

[asninn]

That's just not true.

A doctor can study your broken leg and understand how/why it broke or what needs to be done to fix it even when his own legs are in order. A lawyer can attack the RIAA's litigation tactics even when he doesn't employ similar tactics himself in other cases. Historians can study what happened in, say, Cambodia without being like the Khmer Rouge.

Saying that you can't understand it is the easy way out - it's just codespeak for "I don't want to understand it; I don't even want to look, because I fear what I might find". Now, *you* don't have to look, of course, but when can't or don't want to, at least acknowledge that and let others do their work and be happy that they're doing the things you can't.

Re:Beyond words...

[asninn]

Um, you know, in order for "only one person" to die, the killer would've had to be shot before he actually did anything himself. Do you honestly want to live in a society where people randomly shoot you and try to kill you because "OMGhesgotagun!!!1"?

Re:Beyond words...

[asninn]

I'm not saying these people are victims. I'm saying we live in a sick society.

Let me do that for you, then: these people are - well, were - victims. Oh, sure, they're also perpetrators, mass killers, and most likely batshit insane, but it's not like you can't be a perpetrator and a victim at the same time: that's a false dichotomy.

Similarly, I'd also like to remark that there is a difference between "excuse" and "explain". What killers like these do is unexcusable, but that doesn't mean it's unexplainable or impossible to understand on a rational level. I think people are making a mistake when they just condemn everyone who commits a crime - no matter how heinous - as simply being evil; there's almost always a reason why it happened, and if we want to avoid things like this from now on and keep them from happening again, we'd better make sure we understand those reasons so we can do something about them.

Re:Beyond words...

[asninn]

I think the GP's premise differs from yours insofar as that you see evil as a purely utilitarian concept: for you, whether someone is evil or not only depends on their actions, rather than being an intrinsic quality.

I'm not sure I agree with that, though. When someone plans a shooting spree like this, isn't he "evil" (and I'm putting that word in quotes simply because I think that "deranged and in desparate need of treatment" is most likely a better description) when he walks into the school with his gun drawn, ready to shoot everyone he sees, even before he actually *does* shoot anyone?

If the answer to that is yes, then "evil" does not just depend on things like your bodycount, and you cannot deduce from the fact that someone didn't shoot anyone today (what about other days, anyway?) that they're less evil than someone else who did. I'm not saying that there is no difference between someone who goes on shooting sprees and someone who doesn't (not at all!), but I think that "I'm better because I didn't shoot anyone today" is a non sequitur.

Not to mention that if the only reason why you feel that you're a better person than a mass murderer is that you, unlike him, did not commit mass murder, then I'm not sure I'd see that as something to be proud of, anyway. But again, that's probably my non-utilitarian view of concepts like "evil".

Re:Beyond words...

[Cederic]

Not to mention Person A shooting at Person B (the killer) and hitting Person C by accident, causing Person's D and E to open fire at Person A, hitting Persons F, G and H.

Now it's a mass shootout, and Person B is chuckling as he chains the doors shut and carries on with his original mission.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

The word for it is psychopathy, which unfortunately isn't in the current DSM.

So that's not the word for it.

Turns out Eric Harris was a psychopath.

No he wasn't. See above.

Re:Beyond words...

[strikethree]

Yes... I said complete strangers. We don't say please and thank you anymore. We don't hold doors for each other. We cut each other off in traffic and give each other the bird. We lie and cheat to get ahead at the work place. We gossip and ruin people's lives. We cut in line in grocery store and we try to rip off our waiter at the restaurant. We focus our lives our possessions and money and we don't give a damn to a man on the street or a kid who has had his world shattered. We say they are "crazy". We say they are "evil" and that it isn't our fault.

But it is our fault. Every single one of us have forgotten about all the other humans out there and we always trump "personal responsibility" on others without even thinking that we haven't even bothered ourselves.

I think you are getting a bit carried away there buddy. Not every single one of us has lost our manners or compassion/caring for others (even strangers). I have been to the Philippines and Kuwait recently and both places were full of people who were polite, kind, and friendly. While there does seem to be some sort of epidemic in America about lack of general kindness, there are still a very large number of Americans who are very friendly, generous, and kind. I would even go so far as to say that the kindest and most generous people I have met throughout the world have been my fellow Americans, even if the average is somewhat lower than everywhere else in the world (South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, UAE, Bahrain, Mexico, Canada, Ireland, England, Germany, Philippines, Kuwait, Qatar).

Be kind to someone today and enhance everyone's view of the average person.

Re:Beyond words...

[ojQj]

I've seen this comment here a couple of times, and I find it unreasonable. I don't see how university students, most of whom are presumably under the age of 22, can be expected in their short lives to have had the time to train themselves in the use of a handgun, on the side to their normal studies. It also requires a certain mindset to remain calm enough in a situation like that to be able to aim at another human being (even a very dangerous one) and then pull the trigger.

I'm guessing anybody who speaks about this so lightly has never actually been confronted with a threatening person while they had a gun within reach. I'm certain it's different in reality than it is in theory.

Re:Beyond words...

[cbacba]

This was clearly a case of murder times 30+. The perp had multiple weapons (unnecessary to kill 1 person for revenge). He chained doors shut and was wearing a bulletproof vest - something not available to the general public at all. It was planned and it took time to make the plan. The perp may or may not have been a muslim extremist but he was a terrorist or at least out to break the recording on how many he could kill. Note in the news it stated it's the largest mass murder with a firearm - because it's nowhere close to the record for mass murder by other means. I believe that distinction belongs to some sleazoid in NY City who got ticked off in a barroom disturbance and was able to find a gasoline can and a match rather than a gun. Death toll there was something over 50, with probably 45-49 being collateral damage. That though was evidently more of a short term 'crime of passion' type of thing which didn't require days or even months of preparation. It was very similar in some ways to the Temple TX Luby's cafeteria massacre perpetrated by some pothead satan worshipper who wasn't stopped dead midway through his attack because one young lady left her weapon in her car since it was not legal to have concealed carry weapons in TX at that time. She lost both her parents and was almost killed too by that thug.

Just remember, machetes don't need to be reloaded to continue killing but they're far more suitable a weapon for a large strong male than for most others. It's also much cheaper to use in genocide if you've got the manpower.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you rather lose your wallet or your arm/leg/life? Carrying a gun is a great way to turn a small crime into a murderous shootout.

Re:Beyond words...

[Cro Magnon]

I live in the midwest, and I normally try to be polite, but it often seems like I'm in the minority. I think it's more related to age than location. The younger people seem to have forgotten common courtesy.

Re:Beyond words...

[Chr0n0]

This quote comes to mind

"A madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason." -- G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy

Re:Beyond words...

[tomhudson]

the 17 to 25 year old group is the age group the most likely to commit murders - and you want to arm more of them?

Right ... immaturity, hormones and guns - a really good mix at the next campus kegger ...

Re:Beyond words...

[Shakrai]

The man then decided that people were too nice to kill in Toronto as well and so he turned himself into police.

Personally, I would have just left Toronto and continued on to Quebec ;)

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that we don't need gun control....
We need bullet control. If a bullet cost $5,000 there wouldn't be anymore innocent bystanders.
And instead of killing everyone he could find, this guy (if determined enough) would have only killed the person he was looking for.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Sorry for the flame, but your post pissed me off.

For example, imagine that suddenly your dear and loving parents split apart violently.

Look up the "Paxil Diaries" on K5. My divorce was about as messy as you can get without physical violence, and Evil-X was incredibly cruel to our daughters. One night my youngest, then only 15 years old, came in and caught me crying. "What's the matter, dad?" she asked. "My wife left me for another man!" I replied. "So what," she said, "My MOM left me for a man!!" It really put me in my place, and gave me a sense of perspective.

Yes, I tried to help them and did what I could, but I was in my own private hell and I know I was pretty damned innefectual. Neither of them had many friends, and the oldest had no friends at all. The youngest complained of, like you said, and I quote your post: "It isn't just that no one understands, no one wants to. No one makes the effort to connect and communicate, or not enough people do. You only get to watch as everyone around them appears happy and complacent. They're having fun, playing games, living normal lives and crying about silly things like how their boyfriend dumped them. Boohoo, your soul is only tearing itself apart and no one notices."

Yet neither of them has committed murder, let alone mass murder. We're all reasonably happy and well adjusted now, five years later.

I know a woman who was forced into prostitution as a teenager. I know rape victims. I know war veterans suffering from PTSS. I've known people who have recounted horrors to me that your young mind could never imagine and I can barely comprehend if at all, and none of them have murdered anyone, let alone committed mass murder.

There are no valid reasons to commit murder, and no valid excuse for it. You may forgive the murderer (and please do) but for God's sake don't try to excuse it or explain it away.

-mcgrew

Re:Beyond words...

[TheoMurpse]

OK, fine. I was thinking of, "Hey he's pointing a gun at me, time to defend myself," but whatever. I'll change the wording: Only two or three people would have had to die. Argument still stands.

Re:Beyond words...

[CTachyon]

You aren't really giving a shit about him, you're showing courtesy for your own benefit.

What else is there? No, really. What else is there?

ALL kindness is ultimately self-centered. At its best, kindness is the application of the Golden Rule (or equivalent): be kind to other people, because you yourself would like kindness in return. At its worst, kindness is a way of manipulating people into giving you what you want.

Humanism — kindness based on reason — is the realization that people working together are, on average, better off than people working separately. That is, being kind to other people benefits you personally, especially if you earn a reputation for being kind.

Being kind because it gives you a warm feeling — kindness based on instinct — is just the crystallization of Humanism's lessons into genetic form.

Even religious motivations for kindness are self-centered. Religions teach that you personally will benefit if you are kind, or that you personally will suffer if you are not, or some combination of the two. After all, no religion would tell you, "God would prefer you to be nice to everybody, but you'll go to Heaven and be eternally blissful no matter what you do. Even if you eat babies and kick puppies, you don't even need to feel remorse or ask forgiveness or anything."

Actually, now that I think about it, that sounds about like what Fred Phelps believes about himself and his church/family...

Re:Beyond words...

[TheoMurpse]

But you're suggesting in the alternative that we disarm those who are trained properly. This argument is at least as unreasonable as the one I put forth. I know how to defend myself, and I don't like the government telling me, "Oh, no you don't. We're going to let people shoot you while you're unarmed, instead." I thought geeks were supposed to be mad about being held back in school because other people are not as smart. How is the logic you're using any different?

Re:Beyond words...

[krycheq]

This is hardly a time for this kind of discussion... but this kind of loss is so hard to explain and we often turn to these kinds of discussions to rationalize the irrational. They help us come to grip with the magnitude of the event. Something I heard yesterday about the guns possibly being stolen (the serial numbers were filed off) made me wonder if the problem here isn't the fact that one can get guns to begin with but rather how we glorify violence as a solution to problems in our society in general.

On the topic of gun control: So let's take all the guns away from law-abiding citizens so that only the criminals have guns... or so only the government has guns. Not sure what the difference is there but that's better, isn't it... not! Sorry, I'd rather take my chances with a gun in my hand than with a corrupt regime in power in the US any day. Europeans have rolled over and allowed their governments to own them... but they're much safer, aren't they? And that's all that matters... safety first after all!

I hope we never trade our freedom for safety. Someday, if we get a government in power that is for the people, by the people, and of the people again, we could look at not having to worry about owning guns, but since the government is controlled by corporations bent on profit at any cost, then we need to be able to defend ourselves from criminals who don't have our best interests in mind.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Robert Heinlein truly summed it up well: "An armed society is a polite society."

Yeah, because as we all know nothing is better than forced politeness, especially politeness forced at gunpoint... now wait... didn't we try that in europe back in the thirties? As I recall everyone was very polite about the requests for the Rheinland, Sudetendeutchland and the anschluss of Austria.
Robert Heinlein, a great writer but not much of a great thinker (unless you admire facism).

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

We do it to preserve our way of life and for revenge. He did it for revenge.

Re:Beyond words...

[Ambitwistor]

Damn those fuckers to hell. You play nice, you're a "primadonna" because you had a nervous breakdown when your parents split. You play rough, and you're a lowlife scumfuck without the sophistication to breed. Fuck'em all and their social games. They'll see. You'll wake them up and they'll see. They'll see themselves for the compassionless, stupid fucks they are. Yeah, it'll be sweet. Somebody better call the cops on this "MeanderingMind" guy. He sounds unbalanced.

Re:Beyond words...

[The_Wilschon]

Fair enough. I also didn't mean to imply that the south had a monopoly on politeness. The OP complained that people around him are so very impolite, and I know that people here are more polite than he describes. So, I suggested he move here. According to your experience, he could move to where you live for the same effect. And yes, there certainly are plenty of examples of impoliteness, but it is the exception rather than the rule, which seems to be opposite to where the OP lives.

Re:Beyond words...

[SquareVoid]

Well I am glad you are through this. Right now there is someone I know that could very well be going through similar things. I am gonna have to forgive his jack-assedness for now in hopes that he gets better.

Re:Beyond words...

[djasbestos]

A well placed shot to the head or torso. If someone recognized the sounds as gunshots and happened to be violating university policy in their better interest. For example watch Penn & Teller: Bullshit episode "Gun Control" (it was on YouTube last time I checked), and see what Rep. Suzanna Hupp says...her parents were murdered at Luby's Massacre, which was previously the most deadly shooting spree in the US. She left her gun in the car because it was illegal to carry it concealed at the time. She said it was "an incredibly stupid decision" to obey the law, because "it was a bad law."

Having a gun doesn't guarantee your safety, but it's a pretty damn good chance at defending your life, and a whole lot better than being at the whim of a murderous sociopath.

Re:Beyond words...

[coolGuyZak]

Uhhh... yes. Isn't that the point of a belief system - that following it makes you a better person? Whether it is 'love thy neighbor' or 'death to non-believers' or 'do not go out and shoot 32 people just because your girlfriend dumped you', the whole point is to be a better person.

In a forum such as Slashdot, logical fallacies are generally frowned upon. As a wee bit of nit-picking, your response begs the question. Does the fact that I identified this flaw in your reasoning make me better than you? Note: I am not begging a question, merely asking one.

I disagree that the purpose of a belief system is "to be a better person". IMO, the purpose of ethical beliefs is to set a standard upon which to judge, particularly to judge others. Ethics at large seeks to construct a set of objective and normative rules that can be used to categorize various elements of society. Measuring various elements and activities against this generalized rule then generates societal stratification, indirectly allowing the formation of various power relationships.

For instance, take Christ: a great guy who had some revolutionary ideas in his time. Society took several of those ideas, used them for the foundation of a religion, and over the course of ~300 years developed Christianity. Presently, Christians of all types look to priests, ministers, etc. to serve as paragons of the faith. They hold themselves up against this rule, as a means to communicate with Christ. This allows power relationships to form between the clergy and the parishioner. In Catholicism, this extends itself into an even more formal structure within the Vatican.

As another example, consider the AMA, ADA, ACM, the State Bar, etc.: Each of these organizations consists of a group of Professionals that swear to uphold a particular ethical code. They conduct themselves in a manner similar (not identical) to the Church. Their code of ethics, distilled over thousands of years of philosophical debate, serves a similar purpose to the scripture: they hold each other against the code, and provide benefits to those who support their ideals (knowledge, accreditation, etc). Involvement with a professional organization creates a power relationship between the professional and their customers. In some cases, this extends itself into an even more formal structure... within the Government.

The power relationships that coalesce around ethics are not an end in and of themselves. They are merely the systemic consequence of judgement in general, the consequence of creating such an ethical pedestal. In addition, this power may be used for creative ends. For instance, the ACM creates special interest groups and publishes a great number of papers regularly.

However, when one uses an ethical code explicitly to assert its power, problems begin to crop up. For instance, take Jack Thompson: he uses the stature granted by the Bar Association of Florida to constantly hound Take Two Interactive. To do this, he uses his ethical stature as a lawyer to call Take Two's ethics as a publisher into question. Instead of using his ethics to create something (e.g. use his power to encourage better games), he uses it far more explicitly (e.g. as a means of disrupting business). The confrontation damages credibility (on both fronts, albeit to different audiences), and causes unnecessary strife.

The RIAA participates in a similar practice. Their ethics, as that of most companies, centers around profitability. However, as 'paragons' of profitable ethics (e.g. they make a lot of money), they choose to use their power to destroy new business methods. They judge fledgeling methods against others on the "metric of profitability", and believe that those methods don't generate enough money. After that, they use their money (their power) to kill ideas rather than support them.

Now, in that ideal, theoretical world that occupies our imaginations, each person holds themselves to their own ethical code, and "the point of a belief syst

Re:Beyond words...

[AndersOSU]

Just curious, what do you do when you go to a mall, bar, or store with a no weapons sign posted? Leave the gun in your car?

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Firstly - my thoughts are with the victims (living and dead) and their families and the first responders (it will be disturbing for them to). It's a horrendous thing that happened.

Secondly the UK is starting a ground breaking attempt to treat psychopaths with a form of 24-7 cognitive behavioural therapy to determine if their behaviour can be improved. It might well take a decade before there are any meaningful results, but it might at that point give some preliminary indications on whether they can be reformed in any way.

Re:Beyond words...

[woztheproblem]

"ALL kindness is ultimately self-centered."

I HATE when people spout this crap. It's possible to be nice to people because you recognize that they are human beings with feelings, and that they ought to be treated with respect. Not because you want respect in return, but because you recognize that they are like you, and you like respect, so they probably value it as well. It *is* possible to be kind without expecting ANYTHING in return, not even the warm fuzzy feeling. You may get a warm fuzzy feeling as a result, but that doesn't mean that that was the reason for your action.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

By grade 12, people usually know the difference between "loose" and "lose". Seeing that you don't makes me lugubrious :-(

Re:Beyond words...

[demontechie]

was wearing a bulletproof vest - something not available to the general public at all.

Bulletproof vests are in fact (as they should be) readily available to the general public.

One very reliable source.

Re:Beyond words...

[Lazerf4rt]

It's easy to discount someone as delusional when they don't fit in.

I didn't discount anybody. Maybe you missed where I wrote, "the majority of every person or thing alive has" the hallucination I wrote about. Do you think I'm just going to sit here and discount the entire world?

I was talking about the way people experience life, having a feeling that there is a "self", and there is "everything else", and therefore never quite feeling like you have a place, because you see yourself as something which, by definition, is separate. Pretty much everybody has this feeling. It leads to all sorts of consequences, like anxiety, or depression, or the desire for power/money/fame, or social posturing, or the decision to bomb other countries. We all have something in common with the guy who went nuts yesterday.

Maybe by recognizing that we have something in common with everybody else, we can actually empathize with them, rather than write them off.

And I'm calling this sense of self/other a "hallucination", because there is no real division in the world like that. Where does the self end and the outside world begin? At your skin? When does the self begin and end? In the womb, at conception, at birth, when your heart stops, after you've decomposed? No one can say, because there are no real division lines. All is one. So if you feel that there is a division, you're fooled. Maybe "hallucination" isn't the best word; delusion might be better. But I'm not discounting anybody, because I feel the same thing. That's the way it feels to be alive.

So when you called me an asshole, I think you misinterpreted my point, which is fine. I know what I wrote was pretty short, and I'm bringing up some ideas which are pretty far out there.

Re:Beyond words...

[Mr. Flibble]

By grade 12, people usually know the difference between "loose" and "lose". Seeing that you don't makes me lugubrious :-(

Great, so you move onto virtual bullying because I made a typo? Well done A.C.

Re:Beyond words...

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

Wow.. Sorry for your rough life!

I can identify, though not "know" how you felt.

I moved around a bit when I was young. Once was attacked as a child by a mob of 1st and second graders because in their language (it wasn't english!) it was portrayed to them that it was O.K. to kick and hit me. This was done by a small group of kids my age. They were even told that I would not fight back.

Imagine a ton of little kids swarming you. You can't hurt a child (even if you are one, you know that hitting a little kid is NOT O.K.) I was pinned on a fence and punched, and kicked repeatedly, and laughed at while getting a few jabs from the older kids, it was really quite scary.

Suddenly when I moved on to 7th grade, I had a HUGE growth spurt. One of the kids who used to pick on me all the time punched me in the face on the first day of school. I laughed at him, and said I wouldn't do that again if I were you. He didn't bother me from then on, but incited his friends to. I felt bad about it, but I beat the crap out of anyone who challenged me, soon, everyone left me alone. Then I moved to WA and the whole thing started over. Kids are just mean to kids they don't know.

I was horribly anti-social. I didn't want anything to do with people who were so cruel, and just assumed that everyone was like that. I didn't get over my anti-social behaviors until I started drinking/ smoking pot ~'95. I was 17 or so. I graduated Highschool because of a few good teachers who encouraged me when they saw I was failing. (luckily I didn't have them against me). By some stroke of luck I managed to get out of that circle where EVERY one of my friends ended up braindead, stupid, poor, or some combination of the above.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a very informative site.

What you did not list was Norway, a country with very little gun control (FAR less than the US), the Swiss Confederation (a machine gun in every home), and Sweden (high gun ownership), or that most of the nations at the top of the list have a high degree of gun control.
Murders per 1,000 from nationmaster.com :
Norway 0.0106684
Sweden (unlisted)
Switzerland 0.00921351 (69 murders, 40 with firearms)

However, there are so many differences between nations that I consider comparisons like this useless. It's unfair to say that "gun control is bad" by comparing Norway to the US, for example. There are so many other variables, such as the large social programs in Europe which (arguably) give the poor more options and better lives than in many other countries.

So the next step in this line of thinking is to compare regions within the same country.
For example, Vermont has nearly no gun restrictions at all (why, yes, you can carry a machine gun concealed pretty much anywhere, without a license, even if not a resident), Texas is notorious for it's loose gun laws and high ownership, Alaska is nearly as liberal as Vermont. On the other side, D.C. has the most restrictive in the country, with New Jersey, New York, and California following. D.C. is perhaps an unfair comparison, since it is actually a city, and is surrounded by states with wildly differing laws, so I'll leave it out of the below comparison.

Here you are, murder per 100,000 people in 2005, per disastercenter.com:
US Average 5.6
New York 4.5 New Jersey 4.8 California 6.9
Vermont 1.3 Alaska 4.8 Texas 6.2

So, we get an inconclusive result. Go figure. Maybe compare more states? Go ahead. It's fun.

Comparing statistical data in this way, and as the parent post did, and as grandparent post did, is neither statistically clean nor scientific. It is searching for justification for a position, be that position left or right. There are so many variables in society that pulling one correlation and ignoring the other factors is either ignorant or deceptive or both. And yes, the NRA and Brady both do it quite a bit.

There's plenty more fun to have with deceptive facts.
Remember, 99% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
The other 1% are used out of context.

Other social factors to consider:
Weather (cold areas consistently have lower crime)
Poverty level (not as strong correlation as many people think, but it's there)
Healthcare availability (higher correlation than most people guess)
Religious beliefs
Ethnic disparity (that is, a prevalent caste-like situation)

I find gun control in the US particularly interesting, not in the gun topic itself, but in that I consider it a wonderful example of how Americans enshrine a freedom, then carefully eliminate it, all the while claiming they still have it or that it never really existed. I also find it amusing that the political left, which usually broadly interprets rights, has taken such a restrictive position on this topic.
People are such fascinating creatures.

Re:Beyond words...

[binford2k]

and then I'm going SNAP, motherfucker! lol

Re:Beyond words...

[RespekMyAthorati]

So the 33 people who got capped today were all asking for it?

They weren't caught in the crossfire: they were murdered by Cho Seung-Hui.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

hey dickhead, print these out and put them on your doors and windows or STFU and STFD.

http://www.blueflamepolitix.org/media/images/GunFr eeZone.jpg

Re:Beyond words...

[turbidostato]

"But it'll never happen because they are so obsessed with guns."

Well, not exactly. Yes, it might be the "macho feeling" in part, but I'd say it's more about prissioner's dilemma: general access to short guns it's overall bad to society, but in a society where access to short guns is so easy you can see an advantage owning one too: as I already said in other post, in a war area you want to have a weapon, don't you?

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechni que_massacre

What a punchline.

Re:Beyond words...

[turbidostato]

"On the topic of gun control: So let's take all the guns away from law-abiding citizens"

That's the mistake in your rationale. Is not "take them all from law-abiding citizens" but "take them all. Full stop". Just as an example (and it's not going to be car-based for once) during past decades it was very easy to find fraud on USA meat due to anabolizants -because there were so many legal uses for them it was easy to "distract" part of the lot towards illegal activities. Meanwhile Europe was much more restritive: since it was very hard to find anabolizants *at all* it was hard to find them for illegal uses too.

On this very case you said the weapons were probably stolen. But stolen to whom? To Al Qeda? To SPECTRE? Or, more probably, to a very law-abiding citizen? No short guns, no people killed by short guns; quite an easy equation. The only problem? short gun makers, of course. The real "pusher" in the USA are the producers via NRA just the same as entertaiment companies push their way through RIAA.

"or so only the government has guns. Not sure what the difference is there but that's better"

I'd say the times of the "popular militia against government" ended up few many years ago. While it's quite a romantic idea, short guns and semi-automatics against M-16? Against F-18?

"I hope we never trade our freedom for safety"

It'd be fun if it weren't so serious that is *precisely* from USA that the "Terror Era", the DMCA, the Patriot Act... kind of policies are coming from. It is the USA more than any other civilized country the one that is trading freedom for safety and it's USA government the one most eroding civil rights in all the civilized world. Maybe you should reread your own words.

"since the government is controlled by corporations bent on profit at any cost, then we need to be able to defend ourselves from criminals who don't have our best interests in mind."

That's a very serious idea. The problem is that against those that can harm your society the most and that surely don't have your best interest in mind, the very corporations you named, a short weapon is no defense means at all.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

> However, removing weapons from the market makes it much harder, and that means that fewer people die; hence, why
> some people place their personal safety in front of their right to bear arms, and call for tighter gun control.
>
And the drug mafias would be easier to deal with... south of the border the police is having a really hard time, because the mafia has much better guns than the goverment, thanks to the gun traffic from the nort (down there regular people its not allowed to have big guns)

Not to mention we never hear about our national cartels or their money laundry

Re:Beyond words...

[Mr. Slippery]

Those 30 people that died today would still be alive if there weren't any guns at all.

They'd also be alive if there weren't any violent psychopaths at all, or if tears cured bullet wounds.

However, let's confine ourselves to reality, in which psychopaths are things that we are stuck with, guns (for good and bad uses) are here to stay, and miracle cures are things that we do not have.

You can never justify the use of any gun.

You grandmother (or if you hate your grandma, some little old lady you like) is home alone. Some big strong guy with a head full of bad chemicals breaks into her house, with a big knife and desire for rape, torture, and mayhem.

He rips the phone out of the wall. The cops are 20 minutes away anyway, even if she could call. With her bad hip, she can't run. While she's pretty spry for her age, even went to a class on self-defense for seniors last fall, she's 85 and not real big.

Do you wish that Granny had a gun? Would she be justified in using it?

Yes, it's a lousy scenario. But it's one that happens.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

hello

Re:Beyond words...

[gbarta]

The linked article includes this statement:

"Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized."

I cannot speak for the UK, but I live in Australia and I can tell you that the 30% figure is utter crap - unless it includes getting wedgies in the school yard.

As for the gun lobby myth that violent crime exploded in Australia after gun controls were introduced, check out this bar chart of homicide rates for the period 1989 - 2000. The homicide rate is pretty much constant before and after gun control laws were introduced in 1996 (you can see when the laws were introduced because of the large spike in the homicide rate in Tasmania in 1996, due to the Port Arthur massacre. The gun control laws were introduced immediately after the massacre).

Maybe you will try to claim that the rates went up after 2000, however these figures show that it remained constant until 2004, the latest normalised figures I could find.

You should try getting your information from somewhere that doesn't have ads for books about the duty of self armament on its front page. Gun control laws may not have done much to reduce crime in Australia, but they certainly haven't done anything to increase it, despite a great deal of misinformation from the US gun lobby to the contrary.

Re:Beyond words...

[RyoShin]

I can tell you, if I had access to a weapon, it is entirely possible - in fact, probably very likely - that I would have gone postal in that situation.

Sadly, I saw myself in a similar state during middle school.

I was "lucky" in that I never actually got beaten up, but as the saying goes, "At least cuts can heal". I had recently moved and was a complete outcast within my own school. I had a few quirks that made me stick out more, but not to the point (as if there is one) to deserve the mental torture I received. I told my parents that I was being bullied, once or twice talked to my principle or "guidance counselor" (feh!), but nothing changed. I had no true friends- I hung out with a group of people because we were all outcasts, and created our own little unspoken support group (which, of course, just made a nice larger target for the bullies).

After about a year or so of this, Columbine happened. I recall having some tiny portable TV and watching the news about it in my room. The next day, as I was waiting in my first period class for the bell to ring, one of the "preppy" girls who often picked on me actually came to my desk, knelt down in front of me, and asked me not to come to school and shoot her. Completely sincere, as far as I could tell, she put herself below me. I don't know if she consciously made the decision to kneel down (so I was looking down at her) or not, but the act coupled with the request gave me a sudden surge of superiority, of ruthless power.

I'm sorry to say that, at that point, I kind of went crazy. I'm sure there's some psychiatric term for it, but it's not a mental break down. The realization that I had such numbing power over her and many of the other students (I heard whispers throughout the day) who had picked on me in the past went straight to my head. With a smile that would make Hannibal proud, I promised her I wouldn't. I won't go into details on what happened after that, but what I did do almost got me expelled and put complete fear in most of the students (though no one was hurt).

Furthermore, tt made me feel great.

This happened on a Friday, and after being called to the principal's office and sent home a bit early, I cooled down over the weekend and dropped my actions. Of course, by the end of that next week everything was back to normal. But after years of torment (my previous school wasn't much better), the feeling of being in control and being the one who has the power and can instill the fear was overwhelming intoxicating. It was really stupid, and I regret it now, but I know I enjoyed it then.

Unfortunately, my situation there never got much better. Into high school I often toyed with the idea of just bringing one of my father's hunting rifles in and blowing off some choice heads, but I thankfully never acted on the impulse. (In what might be a surprise to /., the main reason I didn't do it then was religion and the fear of hell.)

I haven't read the profile for the guy who did the shootings, but if he was in a similar situation then I can completely understand how he was feeling. Not that I condone it, mind you, but I can see the process. It was probably harder for him, being Korean in a foreign land (even if for a while).

Re:Beyond words...

[ojQj]

You must be confusing me with someone else. I did not argue that we disarm anybody. I'm only suggesting that allowing people to arm themselves is unlikely to have prevented any deaths in this situation, for two reasons:

1.) The right to arm yourself does not mean you are armed. In the case of university students it is unlikely they will be armed.
2.) Being armed does not mean you can defend yourself. Especially if the other person has the element of surprise.

I do have views on gun control. They aren't what you are assuming they are. I don't believe arguments against government gun control are even applicable here since the decision to make that campus gun-free was a university decision and not a government decision.

Re:Beyond words...

[cbacba]

Granted it's been over 15 yrs since I last looked, but at that time they would only sell them to or through the law enforcement community. And, they should offer them to 'at risk' individuals for sure.

However, that still doesn't change the fact that this kook in VA was planning and preparing this event for weeks.

It's interesting just how much of a mental case this guy was is now becoming known. It now appears that some around him were worried he might have been a real psycho and reported it some time before this event. I've not yet heard if he was on ritalin but I think it's been mentioned he was on some sort of antidepressant - the sort of stuff most of these modern day killer kids were on.

Whatever the case, it's sounding like it's going to be a bad day for that university in civil court sometime in the not too distance future.

Re:Beyond words...

[bensch128]

What's wrong is that this guy had easy access to handguns when he was going through a very difficult+emotional time in his life.

Gun control laws should be tighten up. It's not really suprising that this happens in States with ZERO gun control. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_Unite d_States_(by_state)#Virginia and http://www.vpc.org/press/9904col.htm It'll keep on happening every couple of years until people wise up and realize that YES, guns do kill people. There's an interesting webapp that gives a state-by-state break down of gun-related fatalities http://www.campaignadvantage.com/services/websites /archive/agsfoundation/asp/gundeaths.asp It's good to note that the states with tighter gun laws have lower gun-related deaths/10000 people.

If the kid who did this is insane but without access to two handguns, maybe he could try to stab 30 people to death or done some crazy martial arts on them. He won't have succeed.

Ben

Re:Beyond words...

[mgiuca]

Unfortunatly, federal law makes schools -- including colleges -- "gun free zones".

Read: "Unarmed Victim Zones".

Try pulling that psycho bullshit in a Virginia mall, and that shooter's life would have ended a lot quicker, with a whole lot less innocent people injured.

That's probably true, but how's this for a suggestion: just don't sell god damned murder weapons to anyone.

ie. What's better than having a crazy person shoot other people and then get gunned down by someone with a firearm, is that nobody be allowed to own or purchase firearms at all.

The rest of the world doesn't need to wonder why the US has so many freaking massacres.

Re:Beyond words...

[dbrush83]

I do not agree with your viewpoint at all. Essentially, you are blaming the victims for this shooting. This is no one's fault except for the man who pulled the trigger. This is not an extreme viewpoint, this is not a narrow-minded "ignoring the root of the problem" view point as you argue that it is. This man was mentally ill, and has a history of disturbing behaviour. He was accused of stalking a few women back in 2005 - is that the women's fault because he found them to be good-looking? According to your mentality, the answer is yes. It is not the victims' fault that he was the way he was. It is not their fault that he felt compelled to kill people. Whether he could control his own actions or not, it most certainly was NOT the fault of the victims so don't you dare try and blame us. And we are all victims. The deceased, their families, the students & staff at Virginia Tech, Virginia residents, American residents, North American residents. This is our society, and we all have an expectation to take part in it without having to worry about a random psycho killing people. And when this does happen, that behaviour must be condemned. On a separate issue that involves the same mentality, Norway in the recent past experienced massive increases in rape on Norwegian women by new immigrants. It makes no difference whether these statistics are correct - for the sake of the argument I'm happy to assume that they are not correct just to avoid any sidetracking (and there always are serious questions with the validity of statistics of such complicated issues anyway). But a certain member of the Norwegian government believed them to be true, and his response was that it was the fault of the Norwegian women themselves for dressing in provocative clothing (normal clothing for Western women) that immigrant men were not used to. The women were asked by this member of government to dress more conservatively to reflect this. Yes, different issue altogether, but the EXACT same mentality and I hope this example of a different scenario was successful in illustrating the problem with this issue. The victims are being blamed, and the offender's behaviour is sympathized with. This is a common trend in Western extreme leftist camps today. I applaud your intentions for trying to get to the "root" of the problem and attempting to look beyond the mere surface. But I believe that you have erred in your endeavor. We have all been victimized by this tragedy, and you are victimizing us a second time by blaming us for being victims. How dare you do this to promote your personal ideology?

Re:Beyond words...

[mink]

According to the epople in the emergency rooms where victims were brought, no one had less then 3 bullet wounds. It would appear that once he had people down/wounded he was firing into them again. The survivor who was pinned under classmates bodies said that was what he was doing.

Re:Beyond words...

[PancakeMan]

See also this insightful blog.

Re:Beyond words...

[Firethorn]

Please note that I said 'minimum'.

A single gunshot wound, even to the chest, is fatal less than half the time given prompt medical treatment. Given the preliminary descriptions, I figured he fired far more often than that.

I figure that it'll be at least a month before there'll be a report out on what happened. For example, I've heard 'two 9mm pistols', that later turn out to be a 9mm and a .22. I've learned to expect these mistakes. Rather than worry about the blow by blow, I'll wait until the dust settles a bit.

After all, my dad expected the East coast snipers to be using a varmit type bolt action .223 rather than an AR. The officials were looking for a white van/panel truck, and it turned out to be a car with a trunk turned into a sniper post.

The extra shots would explain the large number of dead vs wounded. But it just reinforces my point - a defensive shooter would of had a very good chance of getting this guy before he managed over thirty murders.

Re:Beyond words...

[Firethorn]

One of the most widely reported Swedish nutjobs recently was a guy who snapped and drove a car at 60 miles per hour through a pedestrian precinct full of people. How many people died again? Oh, 2. If he'd had a gun instead of a car? Not 2.

Poser

An 86 year old hit over 50 people and killed 10 in a tragic accident here in the states.

As for the rest of it, I'd argue that your culture has much more to do with your low crime and murder rates as your gun control. After all, you're relativly next door to Sweden, which has some of the most lax gun control laws in the world, and they do just as good as you.

Personally, I mostly blame the drug war here in the states. That and we're further south*.

*Statistically speaking, the further south you are, on average, the higher the crime rate.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

I absolutely agree with you.... these fuckers don't know what its like to suffer and feel like shit every day......... the bastards at columbine and virginia tech?.......they had it comming!!!

Re:Beyond words...

[mink]

"And most of the Eurotrash socialists don't realize that large portions of the US cannot be without "firearms" being very "wild" in nature. While it seems to be useful in cities and such, banning firearms is useless in Rural Wyoming and Utah, and in the vast waste stretches of Nevada, Texas and Arizona."

I agree with you except one thing that really pisses me off is the assumption by many here (not you) that is only they had been there they would have saved the day (despite many of them never firing to kill another living human or dealing with the fear/confussion/adrenilin rush that goes on). You at least used the word chance, however I disagree that it was a "very good" chance. Sometimes shit happens and nothing can stop it.

Sorry to go back to the "blow by blow".

One of the 4 survivors of one class described hime coming in. She thinks it was about 20 shots that went off before he reloaded. 13 people aparently went down for the count. She stayed down and was quiet/didnt move in the hope he wouldnt shoot her.

Since we are playing fantasy what if. What if there was one or more armed students/teachers in the room and they were part of the initial group that was wounded/killed. He wouldnt have been slowed down or prevented from continueing in that scenario. I frankly think it's almost as insulting to spout all these hero fantasy scenarios as the one poster in this thread who blames the victims for being pussies and not overpowering him.

Sorry if that turned into an angry rant (it isnt aimed at you), but people here are just not thinking or considering what did happen (or aparently who it happened to and why) and have instead turned the whole issue into guns or no guns instead os something more constructive.

The least helpful thing has been everyone posting about what they think/hope is/was going on rather then what did.

Re:Beyond words...

[mink]

I forgot to add.

Thanks for keeping it civil and giving things some thought.

Re:Beyond words...

[mink]

Crap. my buffer pasted the wrong fracking quote of text.

The quoted text should have said:
"The extra shots would explain the large number of dead vs wounded. But it just reinforces my point - a defensive shooter would of had a very good chance of getting this guy before he managed over thirty murders."

Re:Beyond words...

[sgt_doom]

Don't try to claim that these two awful situations are linked in some way to sway people to your side.

As is usually the case obvious connections aren't so obvious to the uninformed and misinformed.

So read closely and read further:

Ronald Reagan defunded the mental health system in the US back in the '80s - Reagan was the precurser, or first of, the neocons and their movement. This action laid the framework for the horrible consequence experienced at Virgina Tech. The illegal and amoral invasion and occupation of Iraq, with the horrendous body count heard about daily on the national news (and far more intelligently and far more detailed in the foreign news, i.e., European and Asian news outlets) promotes a very unhealthy mental health environment for those mentally ill who are not given proper treatment in the failed American health care system, or remnants thereof.

Said Karma in operation, dude.

It takes a village to raise a child, but it only takes one crazed, armed madman to wipe out an entire village.

Re:Beyond words...

[Firethorn]

First thanks for the corrected quote. I was scratching my head about the 'Eurotrash' stuff. If asked to define 'Eurotrash' it'd probably be something along the lines of europeans, mostly living on public assistance, that still commit petty criminal acts. Basically a copy of PWT here in the states.

I agree with you except one thing that really pisses me off is the assumption by many here (not you) that is only they had been there they would have saved the day (despite many of them never firing to kill another living human or dealing with the fear/confussion/adrenilin rush that goes on). You at least used the word chance, however I disagree that it was a "very good" chance. Sometimes shit happens and nothing can stop it.

Which is why I said 'Chance'. Nothing's certain, even if I could travel back in time and be standin in the first classroom with an alarm clock and my AR, fully loaded, I'm still not guarenteed to get him. I'll stand by my 'very good' chance, though. Reports have him shooting through doors and trying to force his way into a number of classrooms. By the sounds of it, he probably killed somebody, on average, every four-five shots. A defensive shooter, scoring the same 'hit ratio', would kill him on average three times over with a single magazine. As for the adrenaline or killing another human being, it happens in defensive fire frequently enough that it usually only makes the local news, when it makes even that. I'd hope to score more, but that's part of why I frequently visit the range. I'm well aware of my limits, but I only have one target(hopefully). He has dozens to choose from. Part of my mental prep for a situation like this is that yes, I would shoot him from behind, in the back of the head if possible. There's no need, no benefit, no sport to giving a murderer like this a chance.

Since we are playing fantasy what if. What if there was one or more armed students/teachers in the room and they were part of the initial group that was wounded/killed. He wouldnt have been slowed down or prevented from continueing in that scenario. I frankly think it's almost as insulting to spout all these hero fantasy scenarios as the one poster in this thread who blames the victims for being pussies and not overpowering him.

I listed that possibility in one of my earlier posts, in response to somebody implying that a defensive shooter would of probably increased the body count. Generally speaking, the worst case scenario is what happened. It wouldn't of been any worse if there had been a CCW permit holder or police officer there, but were shot and disabled before they could draw their weapon. It's just that with the number of people involved, the odds of him getting the armed people first would be remote. After all, I look no different than others when I'm carrying concealed. It only takes a couple seconds for me to draw and fire.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I take it as a truism that no one is born evil. Some people take a lot of shit, and win through it. Some take shit and end up written off for whatever reason. Some people take a lot of shit, and then decide that the only way they can cope with existence is to unload some shit on someone else."

Oh, my no, I would certainly not say that is a truism. You need to teach children not to pull each other's hair and take each other's toys. Morals are taught, and once they are taught, it is up to the will of the person that is taught to uphold their morals (and they might not constrain themselves.) Though, through (presumably) inaccurate worldview, wires getting crossed, etc, you can come what many would consider to be "evil."

Often, I think it stands to reason that people may not be crazy when they do these things, but may have followed a chain of logic.

In example (certainly a controversial example here, but a possible one.)

Biology class teaches naturalism
I am therefore a cosmological accident, with no design or purpose (at this point, many would go out to forge their own definition of meaning and purpose, i.e. "now that we are here, let's do something with our lives") however this _may_ lead to...

If I have no inherent value, life is absolutely meaningless. Not only do I have value, but no one around me does. Not only that, but there is no standard of right and wrong, because everything is relative since we are accidents with no intended purpose.
No matter what I do, I will die. I will cease to exist.
Life is meaningless, people are meaningless, I'd rather not have the burden of living when nothing I do will matter.
But if I am to go, I want to make it remembered, so people will see the worthlessnesses of their own lives.
Let me physically demonstrate this worthlessness on others and myself.

While this chain of thought is riddled with fallacies, and is likely fostered by unloving parents, it is no doubt conceivable that one might believe this without seeing these objections.

Thoughts have consequences. It can be conceived that a person can become evil upon assumptions, and decisions on what is right or wrong, rather than just chemical imbalance or incorrect wiring. I do not believe all evil people are insane. Nor do I believe man is inherently good. I would have to wonder who corrupted the first man and screwed the rest of us up. After all, we've seen what happens when we assume human nature is good by way of communistic nations. Turns out we can't say that's true, because people one "enlightened man" was given power on the assumption he was inherently good. And what happens when you give a man absolute power on the assumption man is inherently good?

It corrupts. And it corrupts absolutely. Or more likely, it brings out corruption, and corruption rises in power. Even if there was no overarching leader, and everyone was expected to cooperate, I assure you, there would still be conflict, and there would still be need for a police force, and that would have to be run by someone. Someone inherently good... oh, wait.

That's why we (I'm speaking for those of us in the states) have the three branch government, because the founding fathers must have known man was inherently evil, and wanted to keep man's power in check.

Then one should also point out that society has to restrain itself. I believe it was in the early 1980s that you could purchase a ticket for a flight and then give your ticket to someone else if you decided not to go (impossible today without violating the laws and creating fake IDs.) No hassle, no security checks. Then someone attacked this insecure system. We had to make new laws and enforce new policies because people did not behave. Now with the different attacks and 9/11, the government constricts our freedom for us.

As individuals become less responsible about how they behave, the state has to pick up the tab. Thus the state gains power, and we end up with things like the patriot act, with its great potential for abuse. The state gets people to give up freedoms for security because there is a threat, not because there isn't one, and the threat is ourselves without moral restraints.

Re:Beyond words...

[Anonymous Coward]

or perhaps there are more murders in the USA than in the UK, because of the major and obvious difference in size of the two? Hardly fair to compare statistics based on the huge difference in population. hmmmm....yah.

Go go Jack Thompson

[heinousjay]

He probably trained on Doom. Someone check to see if he was able to aim up and down.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[RealSurreal]

I can't confirm it but I've read reports that he's already been on Fox saying just that.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Southpaw018]

He was on Fox around 3:15 Eastern (I think. Time may be off), almost in tears talking about how HL2, GTA, and the others prepared the guy for violence - notwithstanding his name hasn't even been released yet.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[eclectro]

He probably trained on Doom. Someone check to see if he was able to aim up and down.

Bad joke, but one has to wonder. Especially with hollywood seemingingly taking an increasingly cavalier attitude about putting hardcore violence in films. A lot of what is passing for R these days would have gotten NC-17 ten years ago. I bet the movie grindhouse tanks this weekend.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a bad joke, just an insensitive one. Given time, I'll have people rolling in the aisles over it.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[_pi-away]

It already tanked last weekend so predicting that it tanks next weekend isn't a risky bet, but it has nothing to do with this.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Hijacked Public]

Every talking head with an agenda will use this.

Jack Thompson will blame video games, Jerry Falwell will blame gay marriage, Rosie O'Donnel will say it is the proliferation of guns, Rush Limbaugh will tell us that this is the inevitable result of a a Democrat majority. This is how these people get their faces on TV.

I don't even think it is seen as grotesque by most people any more.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe its just the ease with which the socially unfit and mentally unstable can get serious weapons.

Kids play games and watch movies all over the world. This only happens in the US. And regularly.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Anonymous Coward]

We should try to blame it on duke nukem forever. :) (Black humor I know, my heart is with the victims. My mind ...)

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[cayenne8]

"Or maybe its just the ease with which the socially unfit and mentally unstable can get serious weapons."

Well, if someone 'sane' in the bldg had been packing a weapon, they might have ended this asshole's rampage a bit earlier....

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[DrXym]

JT's immediate bandwagon jumping, shows him for the c**t that he really is. There is no other explanation. The guy is a scumbag, a slimey, bottom feeding piece of trash ready to exploit any tragedy for his own personal agenda.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[faragon]

[Disclaimer: I'm against weapons for "personal defense"]

Yes, while these journalists use demagogic arguments to point video games as the "cause", I think that the point is: how the hell could be so easy for anybody to get such arsenal?!

While I respect, but not endorse, the decision of a country/state to allow weapons for personal defense, I think that "serious" psychological analysis should be mandatory before some could bring/buy weapons.

Please, US people, think about it!

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[radtea]

Every talking head with an agenda will use this.

Are there any talking heads without an agenda?

That's the whole point of what the talking heads, and the entertainment programmes that foist them on a willing public, do: they promote the agendas of the political organizations they front for.

Nor were there ever any "good old days" when the 6 o'clock entertainment programme actually deserved the name of "news". Journalism has always been about agendas, and healthy journalism in a free society is about lots of different and frequently opposing agendas. The spectacle is at times amusing and at time like this sickening, but it never ceases to be a spectacle. It is always about entertainment and political power, and only incidentally about information.

And never, ever, about anything remotely resembling human decency.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Seumas]

Yeah, I was watching that as well. We don't even know who this guy is or anything about him and Jack Thompson is already out there presenting himself on television as a SCHOOL SHOOTING SPECIALIST, which of course he is NOT. Further, he started to try and tie GTA, Half Life, Counterstrike, violent television and even web based flash games to this shooting spree. With absolutely no evidence or reason to try drawing such a connection at all. And he wasn't almost in tears. He was in tears, because he said "I'm sorry. I'm just looking at my fourteen year old child here".

They've said this guy was in his mid twenties. So if you're a child or a teenager or even in your 20s, violence is the result of movies, television, music and videogames (of course, never RELIGION, huh?). But if the guy was in his 30s and shot up a taco bell or his workplace, jack thompson wouldn't be involved and nobody would even mention videogames or entertainment as a motivation or justification for his actions.

I'm just glad the shooter wasn't clad in black. I remember going through 1999 having to show up on television and radio programs all over the place when I was asked to speak in defense of the goth and geek subcultures, because of course everyone who wore glasses, listened to KMFDM or wore black clothes had to be on the verge of a killing spree; taking out all our precious jocks and little princesses.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[heinousjay]

Sorry, I'm not willing to give up my freedom for the illusion of safety. We have enough of that going on over here already, thanks.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[tempestdata]

And bush will claim it was the terrorists!

Seriously though, To quote a famous comedian on the columbine shooting "whatever happend to just plain old Crazy?". This man was obviously psychotic. He had obviously lost his instinct for self preservation (ie. if I go around shooting people for no reason whatsoever, I am as good as dead). He doesn't need to be a terrorist or a gamer brainwashed by Half Life. He just needs to be nuts.

It would make more sense to blame liquor companies for drunk driving deaths (which by the way are FAR FAR more numerous.. in fact, on average today itself more people will die of drunk driving than this piece of shit killed) than to blame games for psychopathic morons. Ofcourse, NEITHER makes sense. Why? Because BOTH are idiots.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[C0rinthian]

I'm curious to know how many violent crimes committed with firearms are done so with legally registered weapons, and how many with black market weapons.

If the majority is black market, then all the legislation in the world won't matter.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[N3WBI3]

Im all for guns for defence, its the offensive guns that we have to worry about. Every time something like this happens people start screaming about the need for more gun laws when, in fact, more often than not existing gun laws were borken to obtain the firearms in the first place. After all VT is a 'gun free zone' and a law allowing students and teachers to carry arms to defend themselves was defeated last year to much fanfair.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[YrWrstNtmr]

I think that the point is: how the hell could be so easy for anybody to get such arsenal?!

ABC is reporting that it was 2 semi-automatic pistols. Hardly an asrenal.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Carewolf]

Jack Thompson will blame video games, Jerry Falwell will blame gay marriage, Rosie O'Donnel will say it is the proliferation of guns, Rush Limbaugh will tell us that this is the inevitable result of a a Democrat majority. This is how these people get their faces on TV.

And the gun nuts will blame the lack of more guns: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=231053&cid=187 56159

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[twistedcubic]

[Disclaimer: I'm against weapons for "personal defense"]

A few years ago, there were two guys at my door attempting to break in. They lunged into the door so hard, that I was almost certain they would break in. It was pretty scary, because the only weapon I had was a big kitchen knife. Anyway, they failed to break the door in, but after they left, the 911 operator didn't want to send police over, because, well, they were gone. The police didn't even bother to come by and take finger prints (the thugs tried the door knob to see if it was unlocked). I live in Los Angeles. I'm not against weapons for "personal defense". If I had a shot gun, I could have calmly waited for them to knock the door in, and picked them off as they entered. There's a different perspective for you.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Abcd1234]

Illusion of safety? You mean, like the illusion that owning a handgun will somehow protect you from violence? Or the illusion that, in a truly violent situation, you will have the wherewithal to use your gun safely and effectively?

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[WombatDeath]

I'd like to know how many of these events are committed with firearms purchased within a few days of the shooting. While I understand the reasonable motives for wanting to own a gun, I can't think of any non-scary reason why someone would need one right now.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Falladir]

So you think this guy got his guns on the black market? Or through his connection to organized crime?

If they weren't his legally, I bet they were stolen from the owners. The GP's point stands. While restricting gun possession might not disarm the hardened criminals, it would do a lot to keep the psychos in check.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[ciggieposeur]

Well, if someone 'sane' in the bldg had been packing a weapon, they might have ended this asshole's rampage a bit earlier....

Or found their weapon stolen and had been used to kill even more people. Or been outgunned in a hall shootout in the same manner as the armed guard at Columbine.

This is breaking news, can we please all put down our politics until the story becomes more coherent?

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Pecisk]

It is not grotesque. It is disrespect and mockery to the dead ones and their relatives. Fuck such jerks, there is nothing saint in them.

Damn, it is too painful even to foresee this.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[superwiz]

Umm, this was in fact a terrorist act. Whether it stemmed from an organization with agenda or not remains to be seen. But it is very clear that its intent was to terrorize.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Ironically, another term used in video games (from ultimately the real world) is useful here: fog of war

We don't at this time know anything about who did this, much less why.

The 30 second analysis with graphics and 3D models detailing every step will come later.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Falladir]

Mod parent "kneejerk."

So you're saying it makes sense to carry a firearm all day, every day, in case you happen to be near one of random civilian shootings that occur somewhere in the nation every day. No, more like ... every few years?

Get real. People don't carry snakebite emergency repair kits, and they're much more likely than a gun to be useful.

Someone paranoid enough to carry a weapon all the time in this country is probably unhinged enough that they shouldn't be equipped to administer deadly force. Maybe if someone had been packing a taser they might have ended this asshole's rampage a bit earlier....

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Corpuscavernosa]

This is how these people get their faces on TV.

I totally agree with you but you misspelled one word.
This is how these people get their feces on TV. Bunch of opportunistic assholes.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[heinousjay]

It's easy to cast aspersions on people you don't know. Personally, I know several people who own guns and have used them safely and effectively to disperse a truly violent situation. Once, to my personal benefit (and possibly continued life.) That's no illusion.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[cayenne8]

"So you're saying it makes sense to carry a firearm all day, every day, in case you happen to be near one of random civilian shootings that occur somewhere in the nation every day. "

You do know that in many states, you can get a Concealed Carry permit to do just that don't you?

In many of these states (I used to have one), you can and often people DO carry a handgun at least with them at all times, just like an officer does (and is required to in many places) all the time.

Frankly, with me moving back to New Orleans in the next year or so...I plan to get a new CC permit down here.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[polar red]

the question that arises : how much weapons should be allowed for personal defense ? a shotgun with 2 shells ? a small handgun with 6 bullets ? or a semi-automatic with 20 ?

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Milican]

Like the illusion that law enforcement could have helped keep you safe in New Orleans when Katrina hit. Like the illusion that the government is the solution to all of your problems. Like the illusion that someone else will protect you every time when the shit hits the fan. If I had the choice to have a gun in a truly violent situation I would like to have that choice rather than sit around waiting to get shot. Maybe I would have the wherewithal, maybe I wouldn't (unlikely), but at least I would have the choice to defend my life.

Granted, guns aren't the only solution to protecting yourself, but they are a good part of it. Another good solution to have is pepper spray. Much less lethal, easier to use, and pretty damn effective.

JOhn

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[alphamugwump]

Please, US people, think about it!

Also, keep in mind that a non-neglegible chunk of us here in the US live in a rural environment. A gun might be necessary for hunting, protection from predators, or for putting down an animal.

Of course, I can't claim to know how useful handguns actually are for self-defense in cities, and whether they serve as an effective deterrent, etc.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Anonymous Coward]

>>> I can't think of any non-scary reason why someone would need one right now.

That last minute birthday present.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Anomolous Cowturd]

Move to Iraq. Everyone has a gun in Iraq. Safest place in the world.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[golgoj4]

One has to wonder what? That a saw a violent movie or video game was the trigger as opposed to the range of violence one can find on a day to day basis? Equating this to a video game is just dumb, and to say that it 'was those darned movies and games' is just ridiculous. He was a weak minded fuck who chose to seek some attentions in the saddest way, and while not a religious man, it makes me wanna believe in god so that I can know he is somewhere on the 1st level of hell right now...I feel bad for the families.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[russ1337]

>>>The 30 second analysis with graphics and 3D models detailing every step will come later.

Ironically, it will use the HL2 engine....

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Ariastis]

If you are outraged by Jack Thompson and his comments, send an email to Fox News at yourcomments@foxnews.com and let them know. Let Fox News know that we are sick of Jack Thompson.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[corbettw]

how the hell could be so easy for anybody to get such arsenal?!

My point is, how the hell could two 9mm and one .22 caliber pistols be considered an "arsenal"?!

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Danse]

You mean, like the illusion that owning a handgun will somehow protect you from violence? Or the illusion that, in a truly violent situation, you will have the wherewithal to use your gun safely and effectively?

Sure. It happens quite often. http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html Even the very conservative estimates put the number at over half a million per year. The most thorough survey puts it at around 2 million per year.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[heinousjay]

Get real. People don't carry snakebite emergency repair kits, and they're much more likely than a gun to be useful.

Strangely, while I've been at gunpoint, knifepoint, baseball batpoint, and fistpoint many times, I've never been faced with a poisonous snake. I suppose my experience is contrary to yours, but then again, I don't live in a jungle.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Danse]

While restricting gun possession might not disarm the hardened criminals, it would do a lot to keep the psychos in check.

Right, just like drugs being illegal for decades has made it so tough to get them today. You're kidding, right?

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[seaturnip]

Everyone has reasons to use their gun all the time in Iraq, too. Not so in the US.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Anonymous Coward]

Jack Thompson will blame video games, Jerry Falwell will blame gay marriage, Rosie O'Donnel will say it is the proliferation of guns, Rush Limbaugh will tell us that this is the inevitable result of a a Democrat majority.

One of these is not like the others. Can you spot which one it is?

Here's a clue: it's the third one.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[feed_me_cereal]

well, you can't exactly grow guns, so it's not that simple, but that's not to say you're incorrect either. It's odd how everyone in a gun debate oversimplifies everything pretending they have the solution to a very complicated problem...

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[mercthree]

Move to Switzerland. Everyone has an assault rifle in Switzerland. Safest place in the world.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people aren't really jolted by this stuff anymore. A lot of people don't even care that this happened. Shit, I consciously acknowledge this is completely and totally fucking terrible, and I'm having trouble being fazed by it because I'm used to hearing about this shit. I've said a prayer for the families of the people who died, I'm sad for all of them, but I'm really not especially irked by it. Not in the way I was the day Columbine happened.

I've been hearing about this kind of thing since I was in middle school, and I get to hear about the Next Big Massacre daily. I'm fully aware that every day, shit fucking blows up. People get killed in horrible and stupid ways by horrible and stupid people. This kind of thing and worse happens every other day in a certain couple of countries we've been occupying, for example. That doesn't mean we shouldn't care, and it doesn't mean we shouldn't show respect for the people who've died, but let's face it. This just doesn't seem unusual anymore.

That said, if a lot of folks - especially younger people today who come from the 'Columbine Generation' - can't even be moved by the massacre itself even if they do genuinely care, why would they get up in arms when some waste of life opens his big fucking mouth on television to try to capitalize off of the incident politically? Even if they know it's bad in every imaginable way, they have a lot of trouble reacting to it.

Apathy? More like a tolerance.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Danse]

well, you can't exactly grow guns, so it's not that simple,

The vast majority of drugs aren't grown here either. They're smuggled in. Not trying to oversimplify it. Just pointing out the flawed thinking of the parent.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[fsmunoz]

I live in Los Angeles. I'm not against weapons for "personal defense". If I had a shot gun, I could have calmly waited for them to knock the door in, and picked them off as they entered. There's a different perspective for you.

Maybe you can help me with this doubt: can you do that in the US? I live in Portugal, and so the gun laws follow the regular European pattern of being restrictive (basically you are only allowed to carry a gun if you prove you have a very dangerous profession... even certified night watchers pick up and drop off their guns at the police station after ending their rounds), but another point is that I would be arrested for killing people without immediate threat to myself. Not only that, the threat must be considered life threatning for me or for people around me: the simple prospect of getting beaten up isn't enough for shooting someone. This is probably the other end of the spectrum in gun laws, not a big issue since the violent crimes are loew (used to be extremely low a few years ago, they are increasing by 96% per year), but I'm curious in what exactly is the situation in the US: does, for example, caughting someone in your property allow for shooting them? Caughting a burglar breaking in your house? Is there a limit for use of "excessive self-defense" over there?

I'm honestly curious, not advocating either POV. I'm generally against permissive gun laws, but perhaps I have followed the pussification of Europe in general without knowing. I would have little trouble killing someone breaking in my house with the wife and kids there.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Abcd1234]

I think we both know that's a highly disingenuous comparison. All men in Switzerland (much like in Israel) are obligated to military service, and are thus specially trained to make use of those firearms and to use them in situations of duress. This is *clearly* not the case with citizens of the United States (or Iraq).

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Anonymous Coward]

Then let me be the first to blame the RIAA.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Guppy06]

"I don't even think it is seen as grotesque by most people any more." ... which is how these scenes come about to begin with.

Perhaps the talking heads aren't the root cause of the problem, but the constant "How can I spin this for my own personal benefit?" game they play and sell to their viewers doesn't do anything but perpetuate the cycle.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Guppy06]

The illusion that the availability of firearms or the lack thereof will have anything to do with the desire of one person to kill another. The desire to murder is a far greater problem in an individual or a society than the capability to follow through on that desire, and so long as we insist on ignoring this sociocultural problem and instead focus on reactive, stopgap measures that seek to prevent access to lethal tools, those desires will always be able to find a new outlet.

As an analogy, which is worse: someone using drugs, or someone's life being so miserable that they turn to drugs?

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[mac1235]

That proves it! John Woo mode! He must have played video games.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Dun Malg]

I think that "serious" psychological analysis should be mandatory before some could bring/buy weapons.
You're asking for something that doesn't exist. What would be considered criteria for denying access to firearms? Just the real creepy stuff, like schizophrenia? Or only a history of depression? There is no detectable "seed of insanity". What about people who are fine now but then go nuts later? How do you screen out those? Psychology is not an empirical science like physics. There is no established sane/insane, go/no-go, green light/red light dichotomy in psychology. Your suggestion cannot be implemented with any appreciable degree of success. Sorry.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[timothy]

You don't have to believe me, but as I wrote elsewhere on this thread, I saw a very vicious beating (the motivation for which I never learned) curtailed when a non-participant saw the middle-aged victim getting the tar kicked out of him, and fired one shot into the air while stepping toward the 4 or 5 teenagers who were doing the beating and kicking.

They left.

--------------

timothy

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[kestasjk]

I'm not against weapons for "personal defense". If I had a shot gun, I could have calmly waited for them to knock the door in, and picked them off as they entered. There's a different perspective for you.
... Unless they had guns too of course.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[CarnageAsada]

No illusion here, I know for a fact I have what it takes to protect myself if needed. Six years in the Infantry and a CIB, not to mention several thousand dollars spent on handgun courses in addition to my military training are proof positive I would not hesitate to use deadly force if needed. The law says that I am responsible for my safety, and I am.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Xybot]

HL2 and GTA are played in many other countries around the world, none of which seem to suffer this type of tragedy with anywhere near the frequency with which it occurs in the USA. This leaves his hypotheseis with one of 2 conclusions, that I can see, 1 - there is no connection, 2- There is something unusal in the American psyche which renders them more succeptible to influence from violent videogames. It seems to me that a much more obvious link lies in the ease by which Americans can access firearms.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[sean4u]

Reactive? Stopgap? Insightful? I've got to stop reading slashdot.
Every society has nutters, both permanent and occasional. But some societies have nutters with guns.
I don't think anybody is in the slightest bit interested in the link between guns and 'the desire to kill another' (one other). The facility to mow innocents down like wheat should be denied to all.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[mercthree]

I would say that the real difference between Switzerland and the US is the the culture of violence. After all, one would think that thoroughly training people to efficiently kill would increase gun deaths in Switzerland, all other things being equal.
    I am not advocating that restrictions on carrying guns around at places like a university be lifted. However, said restrictions don't stop this kind of thing and the Iraq comparison is a stinky red herring that should never have been modded up.
    One more note: I was shocked to hear that this was not a white guy (we seem to have a monopoly on psychosis) and am curious to see if his motives are different than previous cases.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd just like to point out that as far as I've seen, the gun nuts are defending their views from the gun grabbers. No gun nut here, to my knowledge, has brought this incident up out of the blue as a reason to say "this is why we need more guns!". It's the grabbers who've had the indecency and disrespect to use it as a justification for their opinions.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[turing_m]

"Move to Iraq. Everyone has a gun in Iraq. Safest place in the world."

Not the best idea unless you are an Iraqi... they use those guns to defend themselves from corrupt leaders, invasions, installed puppet governments, etc.

Which was the point of the 2nd Amendment. It's insurance - you trade off the occasional massacre and more regular murder to have a fighting chance to prevent a slaughter where millions get killed, you get kicked off your land, invaded, etc.

Prior to Iraq it was common to hear how useless guns are against modern 1st world armies. You don't hear that argument so much any more.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Mr. Shotgun]

The facility to mow innocents down like wheat should be denied to all. Actually that one is regulated, you need a valid drivers license to operate it on public property.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Dethdoc]

'Tis quite correct to say that all the data are not yet public. I am a pathologist and I have to say that initial impressions in homicide cases are often badly off base.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Guppy06]

"Every society has nutters, both permanent and occasional."

And you honestly believe the United States doesn't have more than its fair share? Everything is just peachy-keen and all we'd need to establish a utopia is to remove all the guns?

"The facility to mow innocents down like wheat should be denied to all."

The only way to accomplish that is to regress to a medieval level technology with the addition of everybody being bound and gagged. I can point out any number of incidents where large numbers of people were murdered by a relative few where there wasn't a firearm involved at all.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not advocating arming the public, but "the simple prospect of getting beaten up" is not so simple. People can, and do, die from a mild beating, so I would certainly seek to defend myself VERY aggresively (with a gun if I had one) against anyone who 'just' wanted to beat me up.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Anonymous Coward]

Spot on.

I've never seen anyone shot, but I did see a guy knifed to death right in front of me. A homeless shitbag was agressively begging - ie getting right in people's faces and demanding money. Most people found this fairly intimidating but just told the guy to fuck off and walked away. He tried it with me and I told him the same, but the next but one person he confronted looked absolutely terrified, pulled a decent-sized hunting knifge from his belt and stabbed him deep in the back, then turned and ran away. Two off-duty policemen saw this and sprinted off in pursuit, whilst us concerned bystanders tried to make the hobo comfortable as he bled to death on the pavement.

I dread to think what would have happened if the guy had been carrying a gun.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[ahodgson]

I think by the time they break in your door, especially if they know you're there, you wouldn't have too much trouble convincing a jury you had an immediate threat to your safety.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[Anonymous Coward]

Illusion of safety? You mean, like the illusion that owning a handgun will somehow protect you from violence? Or the illusion that, in a truly violent situation, you will have the wherewithal to use your gun safely and effectively?

No.

I'm not the grandparent poster, but no. Your safety IS an illusion, whether you have a gun or not. You are not safe. Not now, not yesterday, not tomorrow, not ever. The Patriot Act doesn't make you safe, Gitmo doesn't make you safe, the bullshit at the airport doesn't make you safe, your gun won't make you safe and the cops can't make you safe.

Whether or not you have a gun (and I don't), you're not likely to ever be shot. You're more likely to die of accident or natural causes. But one thing is certain: you will die.

I don't know if you're one of those cowards who are willing to give up liberty for the ILLUSION of safety, but if you are I suggest the movie "Braveheart", about a Scotsman who realized that he could die fighting for his and his disarmed countrymen's freedom, or die an old man who lived a life without said freedom.

It's a really good flick, you should go rent it.

-mcgrew

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[RedWizzard]

There's only one way Jack could know that for sure. So either Jack's a fucking liar, or Jack personally used those games to train this guy up.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[faragon]

Ok, touched. Then, limit it to people without penal antecedents or with a violent historic.

I do not want to use any demagogic argument, as I'm really sad by the incident at Virginia, but, I want to believe that *many* cases could have been predicted via medical or penal data.

Re:Go go Jack Thompson

[hszp]

Persistent people, these Jehova's witnesses, eh?
But seriously:
Did you tell them to leave? It can do wonders. Or else!
I mean even the grass is greener at the neighbour's place.

Suprised it was an asian....

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like someone took Counter Strike a bit too far.....

Congress says more

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress says it may be 32 - more details will come I'm sure.

31 dead, 20 wounded.

[Southpaw018]

See headline. Check favorite news outlets, or see the developing story, including people monitoring scanners, several students posting live in the thread, and people grappling with the various sources of information in this Fark thread.

Re:31 dead, 20 wounded.

[double-oh three]

This is the website of the School Paper which has been working hard at reporting on the shooting. It's also managed to push out some of the facts surrounding the case (like the 32 dead) before anyone but the AP.

Re:31 dead, 20 wounded.

[ergo98]

While Slashdot was a great news source on 9/11, it completely dropped the ball on this.

Re:31 dead, 20 wounded.

[zerocool^]

Dead now at 33, including the shooter, per the news conference on WDBJ7.

Re:31 dead, 20 wounded.

[kidcharles]

Found an interesting reply to a post at around 11:50 am:

There may be up to THIRTY-ONE dead. Seriously, stop it.. If only the first poster was kidding...

Re:31 dead, 20 wounded.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for posting the link...It's no longer just a news, it has affected me personally as I know Prof GV Loganathan, a very soft spoken and gentle man. It's sad it happened in a class room where he might have been lecturing...So far i coudn't get to know if anything happened to him. My heart goes for his students who might have been killed

Re:31 dead, 20 wounded.

[Anonymous Coward]

On 9/11 sites like CNN, Fox news, BBC, etc weren't responding because of the heavy load on them. So the news from Slashdot was pretty damn great. Now I'm able to get to any of those websites to read more on the tragedy, but I wouldn't have known about it right away if it wasn't for Slashdot. Looks like the ball wasn't dropped to me.

Re:31 dead, 20 wounded.

[dpninerSLASH]

ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.

Somewhat of a contorted example, but one that may (hopefully) serve as an example. Who is this person? Do I really care that he won't read my anonymous posts? Not in the least. So what's his point? Who's "Southpaw018" trying to impress? How many of us recognize the rudeness, and how many of us see it as just normal human communication at this point?

This is the sort of generic rudeness that we've become so accustomed to in our society, and that we (yes, myself included) even chuckle at. But how many of us ever stop to think about how we really come across? I didn't for far too long and simply contributed to the problem.

Re:31 dead, 20 wounded.

[Electr!c_B4rd_Qu!nn]

Honestly, who wants to take odds that this will be attributed to violent video games...


Wait...that's higher up in the thread. However, I'm just waiting for them to pull the same set of cards we had in Colombine, the whole "Blame the system" or the giant "ban guns"..

But a question remains. What can we do to reasonably(Non-Orwellian) prevent something like this from happening again?

Gaming

[Beowulf_Boy]

I'm a gaming and simulation design engineering major.

I really hope they don't find any way to blame this on video games, like most school shootings.

Re:Gaming

[Chr0me]

Jack Thompson was already of Fox News today.

Re:Gaming

[projektsilence]

I heard that there was a dorm room level and engineering building level in the latest GTA game!

Re:Gaming

[Anonymous Coward]

Jack Thompson was already on the news blaming it on video games. What a sick fuck. Using this horror to advance his personal agenda. What a sick, sick human being.

Re:Gaming

[AdmiralAudio]

I really hope they don't find any way to blame this on video games, like most school shootings.

Or guns, like all school shootings.

Re:Gaming

[superpulpsicle]

What about Hilary Clinton? And Mr Dubya Bush himself? And the usual anti-myspace/web/videogame group?

Re:Gaming

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be silly. We'll blame the guns /and/ the games. And society. But especially guns, games, and a double-helping of blame for Rockstar Games and the NRA.

One pistol in the hands of another student or a teacher willing and able to use it could have shortened this tragedy.

Re:Gaming

[s20451]

I'm a gaming and simulation design engineering major. I really hope they don't find any way to blame this on video games, like most school shootings.

Quite. In fact, you should request to see the crime scene photos, to make sure your blood spatter models are right.

Re:Gaming

[harrkev]

I really hope they don't find any way to blame this on video games, like most school shootings.

Don't worry. There will be a whole host of people who will blame this on just about everything you can imagine. Some of the likely targets will be:

• Computer games
  
• Music of some sort
  
• Lack of gun control
  
• Religion
  
• Lack of religion
  
• Educational system
  
• Lack of mental-health counseling
  
• If the person turns out to be an engineering student, expect blame to fall on H1B visas for providing too much competition for local engineers
  
• If the person turns out to be foreign, I can imagine a whole slew of others to blame
  

In short, blame everything/everybody except the person who did the deed. Personal responsibility is not even a concept in America any more.

Re:Gaming

[everything_X3N]

The shooter was apparently an Asian male in his 20's, and he was a student at Virginia Tech. I'd say the odds that he played CS and/or other first person shooter games are pretty damn good. Even if he didn't, you can bet that people like Jack Thomson and Hilary Clinton are going to be all over this.

Re:Gaming

[gamer4Life]

Personal responsibility is an illusion. We are shaped by our environment. However, the cause is usually not one specific area, but rather a collection of factors.

Re:Gaming

[Wiarumas]

I agree completely. Its almost a shame. The world loves to point fingers rather than accept responsibility for their own actions. In this case, the murderers were obviously not mentally stable. Their actions are a result of that, not any factor in popular culture. It probably stems from a psychological problem of emotional trauma in their life.

Re:Gaming

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, almost makes you wanna go on a killing spree....

Re:Gaming

[daveschroeder]

No. The biggest target of the blame, by far, will be Virginia Tech itself, even though they didn't do anything wrong, and couldn't have really conceived of anything different to do at the time, given the information at hand.

Re:Gaming

[Pecisk]

When it have been? And seriously, with person who only could provide an answer to the question "WHY?" being dead, does all those blame games and discussions will even matter anymore?

Ohh, yes, we will analyze this tragedy to the death. Whys, Whos, Wheres. Yes, maybe campus security will get better (you can see that I'm optimistic, can't you), but in overall...

We can't get answer, at least not in geek way. We must understand human soul and it's dark side. And we must understand that we must act with responsibility to prevent such tragedy.

I see lot of steam already boiling up between pro and anti gun camps. But they both can be right and wrong. Pro camp can't dismiss fact that relaxed checkings for gun bearers gives very easy access to stuff for any kind of person, including simply evil ones and unstable minds - like this one sad fuck who wanted commit suicide because of girlfriend but taking some 32 innocent young souls with him. But anti gun camp also must admit that if some smart student would have gun, this soul gone craze would have been stopped after first ten victims.

But nothing of this will matter anymore. 33 young people - our future - are gone. There's nothing that can replace emptiness in the souls of their relatives and friends. Let's pray for them - even if you are not believe in God.

Re:Gaming

[lee1026]

And is there anything particularly wrong with this line of thought? It is already far too late to do anything about the shooter in question. Trying to control people at a personal level is also extremely difficult. Now, if there is something bigger that we can find that can accurately predict when someone is going to go nuts or not (which is somewhat unlikely to exist, but looking does not harm), then it will allow us to actively try to prevent the next one. In any case, no one is blaming the shooter, as everyone knows that it is his fault. People tend not to comment on how the sky is blue.

Re:Gaming

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the point in blaming a madman. In a way he took full responsibility for his acts and killed himself. The reason people blame these kind of shootings on e.g. lack of gun control is because they want to do something that could stop this from happening again. Blaming the person who did it who probably is completly out of his senses and dead would not do any good.

best regards
Robert Andersson

Re:Gaming

[Lally Singh]

Well, I'm here at tech, and am still waiting for word on whether or not I've lost any friends today. One roommate of mine may have already lost one, and some friends have lost friends of theirs.

No guns are allowed on campus. We have a few full-time shrinks on campus. The engineering student was probably an american (most of our foreign students are grad students). So far the word is the kid was a senior with 3 engineering majors. We have lots of bible groups, etc on campus, but we're not really known for being very religious or very secular for that matter.

My guess would be stress. I've seen grown men cry over single assignments, several of them, over the years here @ VT. The engineering kids are pushed really hard, and many of them don't deal with it very well. 60 hours a week of real work are pretty normal, with classes that everage 27-50%, which are only curved at the end (and nobody knows the curve till then). Try that for 4 years while growing up... Many engineering students I know end up having fairly empty shells of personalities, as their entire lives so far have circled around work and thinly veiled attempts at having a life on the side.

3 engineering majors at once would break most people. Guaranteed.

So far, the big questions are:
1. Why didn't the students find out about the 7:15am shooting until 2 hours later
2. Why was only the dorm closed?

To be fair, we had two bomb threats (no bombs) over the last 2 weeks, the last one only 3 days ago. So maybe the administration was getting tired of interrupting school for non-issues.

Re:Gaming

[renegadesx]

Thompson has blamed video games for these shootings, this is NOT a joke he has already accused video games of being the cause of the shootings.

This asshole should finally be banned from practicing law in the US, coz he sure as wouldn't have lasted elsewhere

Re:Gaming

[garyok]

Stay in alone and go on a killing spree, you worthless piece of shit.

Re:Gaming

[garyok]

I have to reply to my own comment as I can't just let that be the only thing I say about this horrible tragedy, in this place. People that deserved to live and be happy are dead now, and that saddens me immensely. Our world is poorer for their loss, as it is for every premature death no matter what the cause or justification. My heart goes out to the families of the victims.

And GP: please seek counselling immediately. A cheap joke like that at a time like this is profoundly inappropriate and hurtful. All it will do is cause more alienation and despair.

Re:Gaming

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not going to blame this on games, or on anything else for that matter.

But most of the violent games, movies, etc. are something deeply sick. I simply cannot understand how people can "enjoy" them.

Would you enjoy seeing someone killed or tortured before your eyes? If no, how comes you enjoy seeing this on screen?

I'm not calling for a ban, of course. Maybe (as some claim) they even perform a useful social function by channelling away the violence which otherwise would be done in the real life.

But if that is the case... it just shows that we are an even sicker bunch.

Re:Gaming

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll blame it on the recipients of this assult. They are responsible for their own deaths. If they did not step into those classrooms and halls, they would not be dead. If anyone is to be blamed, it is those who are closest to this incident. Please do not lose sight of all of those who are responsible for these deaths and injuries. Thank you.

Re:Gaming

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. All that hard work, and you end up working as a sysadmin for shit pay, helping people open email attachments, and you still can't get a date. Sometimes I wonder why this doesn't happen more often.

Re:Gaming

[KoldKompress]

I think most of those reasons are bull, but I believe gun control to be a major issue. Simply put, England has most of those problems. Yet we have gun control laws. As far as I know, there has been no shootings in English schools, ever.
I'm not trying to rub it in peoples faces or point a finger but having the ability to walk into a shop and buy 9mm pistols, things like this are going to happen.

Re:Gaming

[dbIII]

Why didn't the students find out about the 7:15am shooting until 2 hours later

It's flamebait to point this out - but you live in a country where emergency workers are trained for a few days in public relations before being sent in to do hurricane relief. I think some idiot promoted beyond their ability would have decided that the important thing is to pretend it didn't happen and try to find a way to not have bad news affect their future career.

It's very sad this happened. Hopefully the gun nuts will not react the same way they did to Australia's Port Arthur massacre and hopefully other groups won't use this as an excuse to push thier personal agenda or political careers (apart from Jack Thomson who is appartently already using this to push his agenda).

Re:Gaming

[mrchaotica]

My guess would be stress. I've seen grown men cry over single assignments, several of them, over the years here @ VT. The engineering kids are pushed really hard, and many of them don't deal with it very well. 60 hours a week of real work are pretty normal, with classes that everage 27-50%, which are only curved at the end (and nobody knows the curve till then). Try that for 4 years while growing up... Many engineering students I know end up having fairly empty shells of personalities, as their entire lives so far have circled around work and thinly veiled attempts at having a life on the side.

Jeez, that's fucked up! I go to Georgia Tech, which has a reputation of being a difficult engineering school, but it doesn't even come close to what you describe.

Re:Gaming

[carn1fex]

"My guess would be stress. I've seen grown men cry over single assignments, several of them, over the years here @ VT. The engineering kids are pushed really hard, and many of them don't deal with it very well. 60 hours a week of real work are pretty normal, with classes that everage 27-50%, which are only curved at the end (and nobody knows the curve till then). Try that for 4 years while growing up... Many engineering students I know end up having fairly empty shells of personalities, as their entire lives so far have circled around work and thinly veiled attempts at having a life on the side."

This is probably the best summary of my impression of engineering school. All work, all the time, no option to ever get behind. One of my roomates once went on a rampage in his room with a folding chair. One time i had to have emergency surgery in a freak mishap and in the emergency room got them to just give me a spinal block rather than put me under so i could recover faster to do homework that night. Its a wonder more people dont snap.

(i went to WPI)

Re:Gaming

[aquiltar]

3 engineering majors at once would break most people. Guaranteed. The gunman may well have been stressed, and 3 engineering majors at VT may well be very hard, but seriously... a lot of people in the world get to deal with much more -- academically, domestically, financially -- in their lives. 60 hours a week of work is hardly a justification for becoming a sociopath. I know, as I'm sure you do, people -- students included -- who work much harder and longer than the gunman probably did. Do they open fire everytime they get stressed? Comments like yours are well-intended in speculating about the problem's cause, but they're in danger of almost justifying the incident. Anyway, I heard that the guy was looking for his girlfriend, and shot everyone else out of rage. Any idea if that story is right?

Re:Gaming

[p0tat03]

Thank you, for saying what I think most people are not aware of. If you could be modded +6 I would do it in an instant.

I am currently going through 3rd year in an engineering school in Canada. We are known to be the best eng school in Canada, and also known to be the toughest, though I perceive this as true for most engineering schools that I have seen.

An engineering degree is no joke. For us 60h work weeks are quite common. Where with other degrees occasional all-nighters are required, for us guys in engineering it's a weekly affair, if not more often. It's crunch time all the time, and most of us learn to take our relaxation like timed medical doses, giving us just enough to move on and stay sane, but not so much that we slack off.

My classes routinely average under 40% going into the final, and curving on the marks are never quite guaranteed. Meet an unlucky prof and 60% of the class gets to repeat the course. Couple that with a pretty hardline fail policy and you've got a lot of people on the edge.

Most of us in engineering dislike the system. We would rather extend our degrees and spend more time in school than dealing with this virtual gulag. Unfortunately there is a lot of "well in my day we did the same thing" thinking going on in the administration which perpetuates this philosophy. This false engineer's pride that there's something *good* about these living and working conditions. Hell, some of the students believe it too - if you don't work like a dog for 60-80h a week you're not a *worthy* engineer. Bullshit of that sort.

All of the engineering students I've met have developed some psychological curiosity or another. I hesitate to call them illnesses, but everyone has developed their own odd psychological defense mechanism to deal with the crushing stress, which is also why many engineers come off as such odd people. It's no surprise to me that one of them would snap and take out their rage like this.

Re:Gaming

[masdog]

Even if he did play CS or some other 1st-person shooter, it doesn't explain how he was able to kill 30+ people.

I have some experience using firearms, and I've owned four handguns in my life. I was also an avid player of CS and some other first-person shooters. Playing those games doesn't make you a good shot, or even a competent shot for that matter. While it may improve your hand-eye coordination, that only has a minor impact on shooting as you actually have to deal with the physical recoil of the firearm and a moving target.

This guy knew how to use the gun, and he probably had considerable practice.

Re:Gaming

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

My guess would be stress. I've seen grown men cry over single assignments, several of them, over the years here @ VT. The engineering kids are pushed really hard, and many of them don't deal with it very well. 60 hours a week of real work are pretty normal, with classes that everage 27-50%, which are only curved at the end (and nobody knows the curve till then).

Thank god for saying this. I'm an Electrical Engineering student at the University of Colorado, and NO ONE else seems to understand the stress of not knowing how you are doing and how prepared you are for the next round of exams. It seems that CU is not alone in professors who only decide on their grading policies at the END of the semester. Whenever someone asks, "how are you doing", I respond "I don't know". When they reply, "how could that be?", I feel like screaming.

Many engineering students I know end up having fairly empty shells of personalities, as their entire lives so far have circled around work and thinly veiled attempts at having a life on the side.

You can't let THEM get you. Your professors are your greatest allies. They are also your greatest enemies.

My professors tell me that I should be working 4 hours outside class for each hour in class/lab. I spend 18 hours in class/lab per week (despite the fact that I'm taking a "light" 14-credit schedule). That works out to 72 hours per week of studying/homework. Add it up, and I'm supposed to be spending 90 (!) hours per week working on my degree. This is in addition to my 20 hour a week part-time job. That's 110 hours per week. There are 112 hours in a week where I am awake. You do the math.

You get over the idea that you're going to get straight As pretty quickly. Even if you wanted to, you're probably not smart enough - most professors in my College only give As to the top 10%. The top 10% probably shouldn't even be attending my University.

Once you resign yourself to doing an acceptable job rather than an exceptional job, things get easier. It's OK to be average compared to your classmates, because your classmates are pretty damned smart anyway. This is a hard transition for many people - going from being one of the smartest people in their High School class to just being average.

Being smart isn't enough to be exceptional. You need to be smart, and you need to accept that you won't have a life outside of your classes. Unfortunately, it's like WoW - there's always someone willing to take it further.

Refuse to let them have you. Be smart, and work hard. But, at the end of the day, if you learn the material and end up with a B- (or, God forbid, even a C+!), don't freak out. We live in a world with over 6 billion people. Chances are that you're not the best at ANYTHING. University can be the best time or the worst time of your life. It's up to you. You're not here to work 100 hours per week. You're here to learn, grow, and network. That should be your priority.

Re:Gaming

[mrmeval]

So are the gun banners and anyone who wantsw to blame anything but the person.

Re:Gaming

[bh_doc]

It probably stems from a psychological problem of emotional trauma in their life.

From GP's list:

* Lack of mental-health counseling

See a problem here?

Personal responsibility exists. So does everyone else's responsibility.

Re:Gaming

[squiggleslash]

Well, let's update the Adequacy.com thing then:

Of course the Virginia Tech shootings are a uniquely tragic event, and it is vital that we never lose sight of the human tragedy involved. However, we must also consider if this is not also a lesson to us all; a lesson that my political views are correct. Although what is done can never be undone, the fact remains that if the world were organised according to my political views, this tragedy would never have happened.

Many people will use this terrible tragedy as an excuse to put through a political agenda other than my own. This tawdry abuse of human suffering for political gain sickens me to the core of my being. Those people who have different political views from me ought to be ashamed of themselves for thinking of cheap partisan point-scoring at a time like this. In any case, what this tragedy really shows us is that, so far from putting into practice political views other than my own, it is precisely my political agenda which ought to be advanced.

Not only are my political views vindicated by this terrible tragedy, but also the status of my profession. Furthermore, it is only in the context of a national and international tragedy like this that we are reminded of the very special status of my hobby, and its particular claim to legislative protection. My religious and spiritual views also have much to teach us about the appropriate reaction to these truly terrible events.

Countries which I like seem to never suffer such tragedies, while countries which, for one reason or another, I dislike, suffer them all the time. The one common factor which seems to explain this has to do with my political views, and it suggests that my political views should be implemented as a matter of urgency, even though they are, as a matter of fact, not implemented in the countries which I like.

Of course the Virginia Tech shootings are a uniquely tragic event, and it is vital that we never lose sight of the human tragedy involved. But we must also not lose sight of the fact that I am right on every significant moral and political issue, and everybody ought to agree with me. Please, I ask you as fellow human beings, vote for the political party which I support, and ask your legislators to support policies endorsed by me, as a matter of urgency.

It would be a fitting memorial.

Re:Gaming

[Mad Dog Manley]

Hell, some of the students believe it too - if you don't work like a dog for 60-80h a week you're not a *worthy* engineer. Bullshit of that sort.

As a engineering grad, and a working engineer, I can safely say, that if you want to be more successful than your peers, you will on occasion be required to work more than 60 hours a week. Engineering teaches you to work under pressure, and weeds out those who are unable to cope.

If you crack under the pressure while in school, where many real life pressures are absent(imagine doing 60-80 hours a week, but also with a wife, 3 kids and two dogs, aging parents, a house and property to maintain, etc etc), then you're also likely to crack later in life.

Better to sort out if you are capable of handling the pressure early on, rather than when you hit your 30s and you waste 10 years of your life doing work you are not cut out for.

Re:Gaming

[cabazorro]

I would like to step back from a moment and reflect on the perception that the for a human to learn she-he must be subjected to stress an alienation of our sysems of education.

Re:Gaming

[Dan Hayes]

This story was the first thing that sprung to mind as soon as I started reading this page - jsm's classic really does cover any such event.

Re:Gaming

[AusIV]

Stay in alone and go on a killing spree, you worthless piece of shit.

Just FYI, it's generally a good idea to quote someone before making comments like this. I thought you were referring to the person who called Jack Thompson a sick fuck for using this tragedy to advance his agenda, when really you were referring to the anonymous coward who got modded below my viewing threshold. Clarifying who you're referring to helps clear up such confusion.

My sincerest condolences

[photomonkey]

I was at the University of Arizona Nursing School shootings in 2001, and know what the folks over at VTech are going through.

My thoughts are with you, your loved ones and for this world, which every day seems to spin more out of control.

Re:My sincerest condolences

[Anonymous Coward]

While I can certainly appreciate the pain that friends and victims must be feeling here, the key word in your latter point is "seems". Check the murder rate since the year 1200 in the world. The fact that this is huge news means we do a lot right.

Re:My sincerest condolences

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and lets hope the video game based on this incident is better than the last one. Do we have to wait a few years first, or would that be censorship?

Re:My sincerest condolences

[tomhudson]

"Check the murder rate since the year 1200 in the world. The fact that this is huge news means we do a lot right."

You have murder stats going back over 800 years?

I'll assume you meant 2001. The United States has much higher murder rates than Canada and European Union countries. It also has both the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world, and, in absolute numbers, the most people in jail.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0818/p02s01-usju.htm l

More than 5.6 million Americans are in prison or have served time there, according to a new report by the Justice Department released Sunday. That's 1 in 37 adults living in the United States, the highest incarceration level in the world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prison s/html/nn2page1.stm The US has more people in jail than Russia or China.

More prisons, tougher jail sentences ... they don't work. There's something about American culture that makes people think a gun is a solution instead of an accident waiting to happen, and we're seeing this attitude bleed over into other countries ...

Re:My sincerest condolences

[babblefrog]

Err, most people in prison are there because of our stupid drug-war, not because of anything to do with guns.

Re:My sincerest condolences

[Anonymous Coward]

You left out that the 10 yr surge of prision populations is largely comprised of illegal immigrants - who have been allowed to run free by the millions. Add to that minority populations whose families are destroyed (most inmates come from single family homes) buy liberals using them as a battering ram on social institutions and the mystery is solved. Wakey-wakey time.

Re:My sincerest condolences

[StewedSquirrel]

Sex crimes is the most rapidly growing category of incarcerated prisoners. If the rates continue for 30 years, more than 5% of the population of the US will be in prison for sex crimes and almost 10% of the population will be on the Sex Offender Registry.

Yes, that's 1 in 10.

*sings* America! Fuck yeah!

Re:My sincerest condolences

[tomhudson]

Still doesn't explain having a higher murder rate than Canada or any EU country ... and Canada has more firearms per capita than the US.

Re:My sincerest condolences

[tomhudson]

Sex crimes is the most rapidly growing category of incarcerated prisoners. If the rates continue for 30 years, more than 5% of the population of the US will be in prison for sex crimes and almost 10% of the population will be on the Sex Offender Registry.

Yes, that's 1 in 10.

*sings* America! Fuck yeah!

... and you'll have a 5-year waiting list of perverts/priests/pastors/politicians all wanting to get in to get some "action" or "rough trade" or "hook up with their homies" ...

Re:My sincerest condolences

[Bo'Bob'O]

Yet other then a bump in the 80s, the violent crime rate has continued to plummet since the 40s. Incarceration is not a direct indication of crime. It means more crimes are caught and prosecuted, longer sentences for crimes, or that the prison system here is more likely to lead people back into a life of crime.

Re:My sincerest condolences

[Snaller]

"More prisons, tougher jail sentences ... they don't work"

Sure they do, they make more criminals - somebody must want that development.

Re:My sincerest condolences

[flynt]

You have murder stats going back over 800 years?

I'll assume you meant 2001.

If you believe Steven Levitt's stats in Freakonomics, I do.

From page 22,

Homicides per 100,000 people (England)
13th/14th c. 23.0
15 NA
16 7
17 5
18 1.5
19 1.7
1900-1949 0.8
1950-1994 0.7

There is a very similar trend in the four other areas mentioned on page 22 of that book. These statistics, according to Levitt, were compiled by the criminologist Manuel Eisner.

Re:My sincerest condolences

[Bob9113]

There's something about American culture that makes people think a gun is a solution instead of an accident waiting to happen, and we're seeing this attitude bleed over into other countries

There is no strong correlary, either positive or negative, between gun ownership and crime rates.

Check out the murder rates in the top five gun owning countries (among those with good gun ownership stats) on this chart; Norway, Switzerland, Canada, US, Finland. They range from the bottom of the chart to the top.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

I'm a big advocate of gun ownership (for reasons that are outside the scope of, and unrelated to, this thread). I would like the chart to show strong correlation between gun ownership and reduced crime - because it would make it easier to argue my case. But it doesn't. Nor does it show anti-correlary. The simple fact is that the causes of violent crime are vastly more complex than simple solutions like less guns, more jails, or a better social net. We kill a lot in the US because we're a relatively violent society - for a bunch of reasons. Not because we have access to guns.

Re:My sincerest condolences

[tomhudson]

The stats for the US are unequivocal - the more guns around, the more likely you are to get killed.

You own a gun, it increases your risk of committing suicide. You have a gun around, it increases your risk of being murdered. Your live in a state where more people own guns, it increases your risk of being murdered - 7x higher in the most-gun-owning states as opposed to the least. You have guns around - your kids are more likely to be shot, or to shoot someone else.

This is a US phenomena - other countries can and do have higher rates of gun ownership and lower murder rates, the difference being that other countries also have stiffer gun control laws. But wackos seem to think its an inalienable right to own a gun, and they have an easy time getting them in the US than most other places, where if you want a gun, you can go to the corner store, or steal one from a neighbour, or buy one off a friendly gas-station attendant or barman, no questions asked "for your protection". The easy availability of guns to the general populace is a crime, not a "right".

BOOK: Hemenway, David. "Private Guns and Public Health" Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2004. This book summarizes the literature on the relationship between guns and injuries and describes the public health approach to reducing firearm-related violence. More information at the University of Michigan Press website: http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=1 7530

A: HOMICIDE

1. Guns and homicide (literature review).
We performed a review of the academic literature on the effects of gun availability on homicide rates.
Major Findings: A broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
Publication: Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. "Firearm Availability and Homicide: A Review of the Literature." Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

2. Gun availability and state homicide rates, 1988-1997
Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period.
Major findings: After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
Publication: Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. "Household Firearm Ownership Levels and Homicide Rates across U.S. Regions and States, 1988-1997." American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.

3. Gun availability and state homicide rates, 2001-2003
Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003.
Major Findings: States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.
Submission: Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. “Homicide Victimization of Americans in Relation to Household Firearm Ownership, by Age and

Re:My sincerest condolences

[Bob9113]

This is a US phenomena - other countries can and do have higher rates of gun ownership and lower murder rates, the difference being that other countries also have stiffer gun control laws. But wackos seem to think its an inalienable right to own a gun, and they have an easy time getting them in the US than most other places, where if you want a gun, you can go to the corner store, or steal one from a neighbour, or buy one off a friendly gas-station attendant or barman, no questions asked "for your protection". The easy availability of guns to the general populace is a crime, not a "right".

I am strongly in favor of strict carry licensing, and I completely agree that allowing possession by those who do not know how to safely handle a firearm is a bad idea.

There was no statistically significant association between changes in concealed carry laws and state homicide rates. The finding was consistent across a variety of models.

Nice. A study in which every single finding is against guns - except one. The ability of people to get a CCW does not affect the homicide rate. This implies that properly licensed and trained gun owners are not a problem. Perhaps not in agreement with the apparent intent of my post, which was light on the details of my support for gun licensing, but in full agreement with my actual views.

Here's a post I made earlier that goes into a bit more detail on a model that I believe works well:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=231053&cid=187 61931

Re:My sincerest condolences

[gregleimbeck]

or that the prison system here is more likely to lead people back into a life of crime.

Congratulations on restating the point of the OP, verbatim.

Re:My sincerest condolences

[iminplaya]

More prisons, tougher jail sentences ... they don't work.

You couldn't be more wrong

A gulag is emerging in America, fuelled by a hysteria against a perceived crime wave - itself in part a media myth - and mobilised by a punitive 'War On Drugs' which is promoted by those with a stake in the highly profitable prison industry. The prison system is big business which is becoming integrated into the national and local economies.

Business is better than ever.

Re:My sincerest condolences

[Anonymous Coward]

Those countries have much stricter laws.
And what is practically only allowed in those countries are rifles
for hunting.

In addition to that they have quite strict laws on how you
are allowed to store the weapons.

Re:My sincerest condolences

[Anonymous Coward]

Erm, what? If I read that right, less than 10 people through out the middle ages. Fuck that - people were going around axing each other like crazy then, I really doubt those statistics. Of course, I wasn't around then, and I doubt anyone who was made statistics of it, so I guess we are both equally wrong.

Re:My sincerest condolences

[strikethree]

There's something about American culture that makes people think a gun is a solution instead of an accident waiting to happen, and we're seeing this attitude bleed over into other countries ...

It is not realistic to expect every gun in the world to disappear. At a minimum, police and armies will have them. This means that guns will _always_ be available to those who will not obey the law.

Now, let's consider what could have happened had even one of the victims had a gun in their possession: They might have been able to prevent all of the other deaths.

An unarmed populace is not the solution, it is the problem.

strike

Re:My sincerest condolences

[thing12]

The murder rate in Baghdad last year was 95/100k. I'd say it's at least 10x easier to kill someone today than it was 800 years ago. It's not nearly as easy to ax someone as it is to shoot them or blow them up. Who knows if it's right, but 10/100k is not unreasonable.

Re:My sincerest condolences

[tomhudson]

... and the studies show that the more guns, the more murders. So, instead of one mass murderer being the exception, you have lots of smaller shooting incidents being the norm, with an overall higher body count. The 17-to-25 age group already has the highest rate of committing murders - don't encourage making it worse.

A simple total ban on civilian gun ownership or gun handling until 30 would cut the murder rate by over half. Caught with a gun in your possession - 1 year in jail, and a lifetime ban. Hunting? Wait until you're 30, and less likely to pull the trigger just because someone else pissed you off, or your S.O. dumped you, or you got a bad grade.

Re:My sincerest condolences

[Anonymous Coward]

Discount the drug prisoners (which I would label political prisoners, freedom my ass) and our incarceration rate is probably quite low.

But I know and have known quite a few people who have spent time in jail and/or prison. I had a cousin go to prison for cocaine, a friend's brother spent 5 years for loaning money to a drug dealer! I have a friend in jail right now, over a traffic citation (granted, it's more likely a "failure to appear" in court but it's still over a traffic ticket).

She's been in jail since Friday night and I and her other friends still can't visit her, or get any clear idea just what, exactly, she's in jail for. Speaking of which I need to call Ralph, a mutual friend of hers who happens to be an 86 year old WWII veteran. I wonder what he thinks of his loss of liberty?

The US has turned into a police state. Lot of good that 2nd amendment has done us, the rest of them have already been trashed but the NRA keeps harping...

Re:My sincerest condolences

[tomhudson]

All the excuses about the "large number of people in prison for drug offenses" doesn't change tha fact that the US has more people on death row than any other country ...

... and if you're not happy with how the drug laws are enforced, change them ... states like California turned simple possession of minor amounts into a citation (like a traffic ticket).

I don't disagree with the 5 years for loaning to a drug dealer. I'll bet the interest rate was "interesting", He's just as guilty as the person dealing ... (actually, he's more guilty, because without him, there would have been no money, and no deal, right?)

As for the coke, you pays your money and you takes your chances. Its not like people don't know what the penalties are. I think drugs should be treated as a social issue, which is why I'm in favour of the government taking over the sale of illegal drugs and taxing the crap out of them, while removing the competition. Or ban them all, including the #1 gateway drug - tobacco. I could get behind that ... an outright ban on tobacco and all other illegal drugs, with mandatory forfeiture of all your assets and 10 years probation on simple possession. After all, if you're going to have a police state, you might as well get some benefit out of it :-)

Seriously, they call it "dope" for a reason ...

More than 20. . .

[treeves]

Worst shooting spree of *any* kind. 31 dead, latest count. How he got away with it again, two hours later, is a question many will be asking.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Deagol]

How he got away with it again, two hours later, is a question many will be asking.

He got away with it *both* times because the law emasculates the citizen from carrying a weapon at all times. If there were no restrictions on concealed carry, more people would carry. If V. Tech (like may schools) didn't ban firearms on its grounds, it's probable that some people in either group would have been armed and could have defended themselves.

Yes, the shooter was clearly out of his mind, and is to blame for the offense. However... we can blame the law for our collective lack of defense in situations like this.

Re:More than 20. . .

[psykocrime]

He got away with it *both* times because the law emasculates the citizen from carrying a weapon at all times. If there were no restrictions on concealed carry, more people would carry. If V. Tech (like may schools) didn't ban firearms on its grounds, it's probable that some people in either group would have been armed and could have defended themselves.

Yes, the shooter was clearly out of his mind, and is to blame for the offense. However... we can blame the law for our collective lack of defense in situations like this.

Well said, friend.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Mr. Underbridge]

He got away with it *both* times because the law emasculates the citizen from carrying a weapon at all times. If there were no restrictions on concealed carry, more people would carry. If V. Tech (like may schools) didn't ban firearms on its grounds, it's probable that some people in either group would have been armed and could have defended themselves.

Christ, can't you shut up with this shit for a day? If morons carried guns everywhere, we'd have many more than 31 killed in spontaneous acts of stupidity every day. There are people who I would generally trust to be around while they carry weapons, but I would not extend that trust of judgement to more than about 5% of the general population. Most of the rest are too damned stupid or impulsive.

In the absence of meaningful regulation of who gets guns - which people like you have fought vehemently against - sane people like me simply don't trust being around any number of idiots with guns. If you want more of society to accept the wisdom of having armed citizens around, you'll have to convince us that there's some method of keeping them in the right hands - which clearly did NOT happen today.

Re:More than 20. . .

[eln]

It's interesting that a couple of threads above this comment, people rail on Jack Thompson for using this tragedy to push his own personal agenda, and then you come in and do exactly the same thing and get applauded for it.

Would guns on campus have prevented more people from getting shot? Who the hell knows? Maybe it would have meant several people trying to play hero and causing even more casualties by shooting wildly in the direction of the gunman. It's just idle speculation. The real question here is how a 911 call about shots fired gets to police at 7:15am and the same gunman (apparently) is allowed to come in and shoot up another building on the same campus TWO HOURS LATER with no police presence.

Re:More than 20. . .

[psykocrime]

In the absence of meaningful regulation of who gets guns - which people like you have fought vehemently against - sane people like me simply don't trust being around any number of idiots with guns. If you want more of society to accept the wisdom of having armed citizens around, you'll have to convince us that there's some method of keeping them in the right hands - which clearly did NOT happen today.

Your argument is based on a specious assumption: that most people aren't competent to own guns. I personally think that's a load of bollocks. But even if you're right, the underlying point is still this: there is NO way to guarantee that you keep guns out of the *wrong* hands. And since the "bad guys" will always have guns, it's wrong to deprive the good guys of the means to defend themselves.

Re:More than 20. . .

[elrous0]

Sounds like some top-notch police work, there.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Joe The Dragon]

The campus rent a cops are not well trained for this kind of thing.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Deagol]

If you want more of society to accept the wisdom of having armed citizens around, you'll have to convince us that there's some method of keeping them in the right hands - which clearly did NOT happen today.

Clearly you missed the point that criminals, by definition, do not obey the laws. There is some logic to that whole "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" motto. It's a truism. Gun laws shift the balance of power in favor of those who don't give a shit about the law.

As with drugs, guns will never be controlled to the point where bad people cannot get them. May as well allow those of us with a moral compass be allowed to acquire them, as well.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Morky]

Thank you - better said than I could have.

Re:More than 20. . .

[elrous0]

Apparently, the Virginia Tech campus cops are every bit as responsive and skilled as those at my old alma mater.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Masque]

Well said. He got away with it until he was stopped, be it by his own hand or others. The threat in a situation like this continues until it's neutralized; Virginia Tech believes that its classrooms should be "free from fear", and implies strongly that fear comes from having firearms in the classroom. I think my fear, and the rational fear of anyone today, would come from knowing that the only firearms coming on to campus would be in the hands of someone intending to use them on students, or on the belt of someone that the Supreme Court has ruled has no duty to protect me individually.

I think there are at least 31 families who would disagree with Virginia Tech's stated policy today. And I pray that everyone at that campus realizes that they could have stopped this themselves if they'd been in the right place with the right opportunities at hand.

Statistically, 33% more people will die today in drunk driving accidents. Far more from heart disease. But here are at least 30 that didn't have to, and just as with taking the keys from a drunk pal at the bar, being ready to act in situations like this - be it with equal deadly force or merely the training to know what to do, who to call, and how to effectively manage panic in yourself and others - can save lives. It probably won't, but you never know when you'll be in the wrong place at the right time.

Re:More than 20. . .

[smellsofbikes]

And if 20x more people were carrying guns, how many more shootings would there be? You assume that the vast majority of people would only ever shoot in self-defense, rather than when they've had a bit to drink and get irrationally mad at someone. Or, in this horrible case, mistake someone firing back at the sniper as the actual sniper and shoot the wrong person.

I don't know what the solution is, but given how many people I see wandering around with bad attitudes and irrational behavior, having more guns in the hands of more people isn't obviously the way to reduce the number of shooting deaths.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

You're gonna let college students, often drunk and partying, to carry concealed firearms.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the point; What happend in the two hours between the two shootings.

Re:More than 20. . .

[OverlordQ]

Would guns on campus have prevented more people from getting shot? Who the hell knows? Maybe it would have meant several people trying to play hero and causing even more casualties by shooting wildly in the direction of the gunman.

To get a CCP in the vast majority of states you have to show you are proficient in handling a firearm. I can't speak for other states, but the people who can pass a CCP exam aren't the type that will be shooting wildly.

Re:More than 20. . .

[div_2n]

If V. Tech (like may schools) didn't ban firearms on its grounds, it's probable that some people in either group would have been armed and could have defended themselves.

What a can of worms this opens. If someone is disturbed enough and really wants to kill lots of people in a school, they will find a way.

Putting more guns in more hands won't stop someone determined enough. It just changes their game plan. I'll leave it up to your imagination on how you stop gun violence lest I open another can of worms altogether.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Coryoth]

He got away with it *both* times because the law emasculates the citizen from carrying a weapon at all times. If there were no restrictions on concealed carry, more people would carry. If V. Tech (like may schools) didn't ban firearms on its grounds, it's probable that some people in either group would have been armed and could have defended themselves. You're playing with hypotheticals here. It is certainly conceivable that, if a large number of VT students were all carrying concealed weapons that, when the shooting broke out, someone would have shot the nutcase. On the other hand it is conceivable that, if a large number of VT students were all carrying concealed weapons, there may have been a number of accidental or mistaken shootings at the same time.

Consider: you are carrying a concealed weapon and you hear gunfire coming from the room down the hall (or maybe from the floor below). You draw your weapon, and the next thing you know someone carrying a gun walks into the room. Is it another student from elsewhere in the building responding to the gunfire, or the nutcase? Do you shoot them before they can shoot you? Now add plenty of screaming and panic, and multiply this scenario by the number of different panicked scared students all carrying firearms.

To my mind each case (the nutcase getting shot, and a anumber of innocent students getting shot) seems equally reasonable, so given that the whole thing is purely hypothetical can you really claim, with any certainty, that lots of students carrying guns would have saved lives? I don't see that that is clear at all.

Re:More than 20. . .

[CastrTroy]

Could we also blame the laws which make it so easy to obtain guns which make crimes like this possible? I don't really think people should feel like they have to carry around firearms to feel safe. What about those that are unable to operate firearms? Should we just let them be killed off? I shouldn't have to become a master marksman to feel safe at a place like a university. It seems like very bad reasoning to just let everyone carry around guns just in case someone goes on a rampage. I'm unsure about this incident and which weapons were used, but at columbine, some pretty powerful weapons were used. Weapons that no high-school kid (or most citizens outside of military and law enforcement) should ever have in their possession. I've seen lots of people in bars get mad at another person and start a fight. If they both had guns, I would be that in many instances, somebody would be killed. Instead, since they don't have guns, it usually just ends with a bloody nose and a black eye. There's also almost no chance of any bystanders getting injured. With guns, things are different, and people are likely to die.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you. I wanted to say the same thing.

Re:More than 20. . .

[norminator]

I'm not anti-gun trolling here, just asking a question... are there any of these killing spree situations that have been stopped by a citizen with a gun in the right place at the right time? What implications are there when armed citizens and police are all in the situation together... does that cause confusion for the police as to who the real criminals are? Are there any specific examples of armed citizens making the situation worse or better?

I'd just like to know... I have seen situations (not these spree-killings) where citizens with concealed carry permits take things into their own hands and potentially endanger a lot of people. I'd be interested in taking the CCP course just to find out what is involved in getting a permit, even though I don't have any plans to ever carry.

I know that here in Utah when the Trolley Square shooting happened back in February, people were saying things would have been better if more people would have been carrying handguns. I'm not sure if that's true or not. My brother-in-law was going to stop by there on his way home from work that day, he would have been near some of the stores where most of the shooting happened, and it would have been close to the same time. It's scary to think that something like this could happen at any random time and at any random place.

Re:More than 20. . .

[doshell]

Your argument is based on a specious assumption: that most people aren't competent to own guns. I personally think that's a load of bollocks. But even if you're right, the underlying point is still this: there is NO way to guarantee that you keep guns out of the *wrong* hands. And since the "bad guys" will always have guns, it's wrong to deprive the good guys of the means to defend themselves.

It's not about the "bad guys", it's about people who are hot-headed and do things impulsively without thinking about the consequences first. They won't do it if they don't have a gun with them at the time.

The bad guys with guns should be dealt with by good guys who know how to properly handle guns. Not by some random John Doe or delusional 16-year-old kid playing vigilante.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Tom]

Maybe, maybe not. Self-defense of people not well trained is as likely to cause more (accidental) deaths than it is to stop the shooter, especially in a crowded environment. People in panic do not fire well-aimed, carefully placed shots.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Nos.]

it's wrong to deprive the good guys of the means to defend themselves

Hate to use your own argument against you but, "Your argument is based on a specious assumption". That is to say that you can only speculate that it would be better (or at least no worse) if some|many|all of the students at staff at Virginia Tech were carrying weapons.

Think for a minute about the chaos that a few shots fired in a school would cause. Now, imagine that a bunch of people suddenly pull out handguns and start looking for the original shooter. I see a lot of problems with this situation.

Re:More than 20. . .

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

If morons carried guns everywhere, we'd have many more than 31 killed in spontaneous acts of stupidity every day.

I don't recall their previous poster advocating encouraging morons to carry guns. I believe he said the college rules shouldn't stop the students from carrying guns (likely assuming they have a permit which requires training and certification). If you want to argue that the students at VA tech are all morons, go ahead and present some evidence. If you are not prepared to present said evidence, however, maybe you should, "shut up with this shit" as you so eloquently put it, or at least expect to be modded as flamebait.

...I would not extend that trust of judgement to more than about 5% of the general population.

What the hell does this have to do with anything? Why do we care who you trust, unless you're the one certifying people to carry? That's why reasonable laws have impartial criteria, so arrogant jerks like you can't dictate who they think should carry and instead it is determined by the law in combination with expert trainers.

In the absence of meaningful regulation of who gets guns - which people like you have fought vehemently against

This is the logical fallacy, argument by association. The previous person argued that there should not be a ban on VA Tech's campus, not that everyone should be able to carry guns whenever they want. Claiming that the previous person must believe that because "people like you" have argued it is absurd and illogical.

If you want more of society to accept the wisdom of having armed citizens around, you'll have to convince us that there's some method of keeping them in the right hands - which clearly did NOT happen today.

Today we saw the folly of restricting the natural freedoms of citizens. In my mind, you need justification to take away freedom from the people, not allow them to keep it. Laws and rules don't stop shootings like this. Right to carry laws statistically do not increase shootings. What then is the justification for these kinds of bans in light of the potential for citizens to avert this kind of madness by having the tools to defend themselves?

Re:More than 20. . .

[bahwi]

Or a couple students or teachers trained for emergencies like this and some heavy objects, same thing, except harder to kill someone, better for interrogation, and better than a bunch of drunk students in their dorm rooms with guns nearby.

Re:More than 20. . .

[john82]

Yes actually. The police were already on campus and looking for the gunman from the first shooting when the second shooting took place. While some responded to the location of the shooting, other LE personnel were trying to ensure the safety of other students on campus.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe.... or maybe the student or students with hidden guns pull them out but are trembling cause they unlike the gunman are scared. Then they start shooting trying to hit the gunman in doing so kill more student? Maybe? Who knows? The thought of worrying about who has a gun and who doesn't or having to worry about whos going to try and be a cowboy and save my life worries me more than the thought that there might be some crazy guy with a gun near me now.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Stevecrox]

Ok I have to ask how many school/university shootings have you heard in the UK or anouther country which bans firearms? If there is one I'll be surprised as hell. More guns increases the chance someone will get hurt not decreases

Re:More than 20. . .

[katmak]

Must we say "worst kind *ever*?" Just Great. Another record to beat. What high standards we set for the youth.

Re:More than 20. . .

[HangingChad]

However... we can blame the law for our collective lack of defense in situations like this.

I'm sure there will be a lot of people who don't like hearing that, but it's true. The US didn't get to be the country it is by people depending on the government to defend them. Did we learn nothing from 9-11? 90 people sat in their seats and let five guys with box cutters take over a plane because they had "just cooperate" drilled into their heads. And some jagoff kills...now 33 kids because they've grown up depending on others to protect them.

I'm so, so sorry this happened. For the kids, their families...everyone. But he killed 31 people with a damn handgun! Come on! We can either take more responsibility for our own protection or accept a police state. You can't have it both ways.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Mr. Underbridge]

Clearly you missed the point that criminals, by definition, do not obey the laws. There is some logic to that whole "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" motto. It's a truism. Gun laws shift the balance of power in favor of those who don't give a shit about the law.

That relies on 2 things: 1) that there is a distinction between good guys and bad guys, and 2) that good guys are good shots. For the first, many (to that point) honest citizens commit "heat of the moment" crimes, which would certainly be made worse with the presence of guns. The second creates problems when well meaning laypeople start playing hero and injure bystanders.

What you're trying to convince people is that a device, whose sole purpose is to maim and kill, should be allowed to be carried in public by anyone, without demonstrating 1) basic competency or 2) psychological dependability. Forget that.

I'm not one of the crazies on either side, but if we have to have licenses for cars, we need licenses for guns. And I'm not interested in the BS slippery slope rhetoric. I'm OK with highly trained civillians carrying guns in public. I'm OK with idiot yokels having guns locked up at home that they use for hunting or target practice. I'm not OK with idiot yokels carrying guns in public. It's not safe.

If you're in favor of licensing, background investigations, testing, and registration, then I'm OK with concealed permit licensing. Until then, no thanks.

Re:More than 20. . .

[imsabbel]

Most people arent competent enough to use a VCR.
Half of the population are dumber than the average.
Many are assholes with an agenda, like you.

Re:More than 20. . .

[orclevegam]

I think the point is, that if more people carried guns, it would make sane people think twice before deciding to try shooting someone, and in the event an insane person went on a rampage like this, it would increase the odds of them being stopped sooner, rather than later. The constitution, and our gun laws are structured the way they are for a reason, which is that it's impossible to prevent people from committing crimes with guns, even if they're made illegal. We just have to go on the assumption that most people are decent and sane, and deal with the ones that prove they aren't.

Re:More than 20. . .

[steveha]

Would guns on campus have prevented more people from getting shot? Who the hell knows? Maybe it would have meant several people trying to play hero and causing even more casualties by shooting wildly in the direction of the gunman. It's just idle speculation.

Actually, if you check the statistics, armed citizens have a better record than the police do of only shooting the actual bad guy. This is mostly because the police come on the scene late and need to figure out who the bad guy is; a citizen on the scene who witnesses the bad guy in action knows who the bad guy is. And responsible adults don't lightly pull out guns, especially if they have had good training.

I believe that if armed citizens trying to play hero caused even more casualties, that would be big news, carried by all the mainstream media. (If someone shoots a bunch of students, that's big news; if a citizen shoots someone by mistake, that's big news; and if a citizen stops a bad guy before he can shoot a bunch of people, that's local-interest news only. You never see a headline like "local man heroically stops gunman at school"; it's more like "local man shoots teen", and it goes downhill from there if the local man is white and the gunman isn't.) Anyway, I cannot recall seeing any news stories like this.

The real question here is how a 911 call about shots fired gets to police at 7:15am and the same gunman (apparently) is allowed to come in and shoot up another building on the same campus TWO HOURS LATER with no police presence.

That's just horrible. But it is an example that you can't count on the police to protect you. In general, the police do their best, and lapses like the above are rare; but it remains true that you can't count on the police to protect you.

steveha

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Handling a firearm, maybe. Shooting the right target, no. There were a panic, you know, and if everybody were having guns in their hands and willing to shoot ...

Re:More than 20. . .

[dotbenjamin]

Are you fucking retarded?

Just ban firearms, throughout the whole country. You do not need them. Don't give me any of this defence shit - you don't need guns to defend yourself if nobody has guns.

If you don't have guns, the worst people can use is knives. Except put it like this - nobody ever knifes 32 people without getting stopped. You stab one, maybe two, and then someone smashes a chair over their head. Knives are not even in the same leagues as guns. Ban guns, this will never happen again.

Don't believe me? When was the last major UK shooting in which more than 10 people were killed? When?

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

A university is NO place for guns weather they be concealed for defense or otherwise. PERIOD

Re:More than 20. . .

[JudgeFurious]

That's right, take a day off from the truth because you don't like the sound of it. Christ that's a good plan.

  People you and I shouldn't trust carry weapons all the time in our presence but I suspect that only one of us (you) is foolish enough to believe that they're safe because the law says that bad people aren't allowed to do that.

  States that allow concealed carry invariably require training courses that help weed out the incompetent and at the same time require background checks which weed out the (known) criminal and mentally ill applicants.

  That's meaningful regulation of who is allowed to carry guns on their person. Again, it doesn't have any affect on those who would ignore it. they're always going to ignore it.

Re:More than 20. . .

[19thNervousBreakdown]

No shit, if I was making $12 an hour I'd be outta there in a heartbeat.

Re:More than 20. . .

[harrkev]

He got away with it *both* times because the law emasculates the citizen from carrying a weapon at all times. If there were no restrictions on concealed carry, more people would carry. If V. Tech (like may schools) didn't ban firearms on its grounds, it's probable that some people in either group would have been armed and could have defended themselves.

Yes, the shooter was clearly out of his mind, and is to blame for the offense. However... we can blame the law for our collective lack of defense in situations like this.

Dude, chill.
While I pretty much agree with you, now is not the time or place to be bringing it up. Let the wounds heal a little first. You can be completely correct, and still be a jerk.

Re:More than 20. . .

[vertinox]

If V. Tech (like may schools) didn't ban firearms on its grounds, it's probable that some people in either group would have been armed and could have defended themselves.

To be Devil's Advocate, how many students carrying guns would have resulted in accidental deaths country wide if this gun policy was allowed?

Secondly, even if the students were allowed to arm themselves, how many would and have proper training in order to defend themselves. Short of anyone who also served in the military, if you have a small hand gun versus a person with an assault rifle (and bullet possibly body armor) the person with the assault rifle will usually win if they have the training to use it.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Lurker2288]

It seems a bit unfair to call it a lapse--we don't know all the details yet, but if the gunman fired a number of rounds inside of one large building on campus, and then quickly left for another large building on the other side of campus, it's not surprising that he was able to strike again before the cops caught up to him. Assuming he wasn't running around the freshman quad with an m-16 and 'born to kill' written on the back of his VT sweatshirt.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Stevecrox]

I thought I would amend as well I'm not telling you guys what to do but I do disagree with the idea that increasing the weaponry isn't the way to stop tradgey's like this. What I think would be extremly necessary by now (whats this the third?) would be a study of the cultural differences between the American Educational system and the rest of the worlds, I'm not suggesting that classmates killing classmates doesn't happen elsewhere (I can think of a few UK stabbings) but what is so different in America which drives people to kill lots of random class mates? I know its not going to be a single factor but could the easy availability of guns have been a contributing factor? Perhaps the educational system? Just what seem to be the common elements driving these things?

My thoughts to the families who have to deal with this

Re:More than 20. . .

[RexRhino]

Your arguement is moot. Guns are easier to get on the black market than they are legally. Anyone who wants to carry a gun, can carry a gun, and most likely will never get caught by the police. Anything short of a police state will not stop guns (and, looking at the miserable state of the US war on drugs or the violence in places like Russia, not even a police state will stop it).

The only effect your gun control laws have (besides providing an opportunity for demogogy), is to:

A) Make guns more available and easier to get by pushing gun sales from regulated and taxed gun dealers into the black market.
B) Making sure that if someone is carrying a gun, they aren't going to bother trying to stop the rampaging gunman unless it is a matter of their own personal survival (because if they do so they go to jail).

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

They attempted to change their "Gun-Free Zone" nonsense by allowing the students with concealed carry licenses to do so...

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658

My favorite quote from the article...

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Calling yourself a "gun-free zone" is NOT going to deter a criminal.

Re:More than 20. . .

[inviolet]

Consider: you are carrying a concealed weapon and you hear gunfire coming from the room down the hall (or maybe from the floor below). You draw your weapon, and the next thing you know someone carrying a gun walks into the room. Is it another student from elsewhere in the building responding to the gunfire, or the nutcase? Do you shoot them before they can shoot you? Now add plenty of screaming and panic, and multiply this scenario by the number of different panicked scared students all carrying firearms.

One factor you left out is the reduction in all nutcasery. A moderately crazy person may enter a school today in order to shoot the place up, but you'd have to be totally crazy to attempt such when you know that one out of ten students will be shooting back. The knowledge that the target is hardened, will surely dissuade some large chunk of would-be berzerkers.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Lurker2288]

I agree with you on the whole, but you should still consider the deterrent effect of a well-armed populace. If I was a nutter looking to exact some vengeance for a lifetime of abuse, I'd be much less likely to do so with an armed assault if I knew that the classroom I was walking into was armed and capable of shooting back. But then again, crazy is crazy, so who knows?

Re:More than 20. . .

[Stormshadow]

Funny, every time someone tries a retort to CCW, they bring up the 'OMG, bloodbaths and shootouts in the OK corral!' yet this hasn't happened.

  How many of you know that the shooting in UT a few months ago was ended by someone with a concealed carry permit? That guy had a shotgun but his death toll didn't top single digits... and we all agree shotgun > handgun.

  What I find funny is that everyone spouting off with this line has obviously never had any sort of training or familiarity with their weapons at all. One of the primary rules of the range: Be sure of your target and what is behind it. If I don't think this guy is the nut, I'm not shooting. He'll get a "FREEZE M-Fer!"

  That being said, until I knew exactly what was going on, I wouldn't be drawing my weapon anyways sheerly to avoid any other CCW guys jumping the gun (hah!)

Re:More than 20. . .

[Kannaida]

I'm not trying to troll... but... is there a psychological exam? Or are we just making sure that the nuts can shoot better? Should I feel comforted that the guy hit everyone he was aiming at? Personally, I'd rather he missed some... oh, I don't know... 50 times or so.

And I'm not trying to bash the CCP idea, I don't rightly know where I stand. Other than for personal target shooting, the majority of my weapons training was of a military type, so the rules were clear. We have guns, they have guns, and we're going to shoot at each other. Not to mention most of the guns I was trained on either shot faster, shot bigger bullets, or shot projectiles that went boom. But, I also learned that just about anybody without a neurological disorder can learn to shoot straight (and probably some of them too).

The idea of making it hard to get and carry a gun isn't to prevent self defense, it's to prevent first time OFFENSE. It's hard to get a gun, so it's more likely that people won't commit that first offense. If they did, then the assumption is that the law enforcement will kick in (assumption vs. reality, I know). I realize that many criminals aren't carrying registered or even legally obtained weapons, and that's where my inability to form a solid conclusion comes to.

I certainly haven't researched everything like I was writing a doctorate thesis, and so I can't feasibly say I know all the angles. I just know that, when I was training, it was one thing to have a gun with live ammo, and another to have a gun with live ammo and be willing to actually do the right thing with it. It's a huge burden to do the right thing, particularly under fire and aiming at another human being. Do you really want to trust everyone who passes the CCP test to brandish a firearm in your vacinity? That's like saying because hunters have to go through classes and get licensed there won't be any hunting accidents...

Anyway, this went off a bit from what I'm replying to. All I ask is that people think about it. Hell, talk to some soldiers and ask them how it was when they were in there first combat experience. Keep in mind, those guys are going under MONTHS of training, not a simple course to see if they can shoot straight.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

And you're playing hypothetical, too. People who are trained to carry concealed firearms (And that includes everyone who legally carry them in every state except Vermont and Alaska) are taught NOT to get themselves into a situation if they don't know EXACTLY what's going on.

The classic example is: "You're walking through a mostly deserted parking garage. A man has a woman pinned to the ground next to a car. What do you do?" Anyone who says, "I shoot him" is told, "The woman assaulted the man, with a gun, and he disarmed her, and was about to call the police. You just shot an innocent man." There are two proper responses, with the amount of information available:
1) find cover, call the cops, and be a good witness.
2) get the hell outta there

Now for statistics - I'm pretty sure it comes form "In the Gravest Extreme", by Massad Ayoob - civilians shoot the right person more often than the police do, when they're involved in a shooting. The police shoot the right person about 70% of the time, whereas civilians get it right about 90%.

Re:More than 20. . .

[jrumney]

Would guns on campus have prevented more people from getting shot?

It seems likely to me that there may well have been fewer casualties in this particular event if guns were widely carried by the students. Overall though, there would probably be a background of a shooting every couple of months when someone lost it momentarily and just happened to have a firearm handy.

Re:More than 20. . .

[gamer4Life]

Who are the "good guys"? Everyone gets angry at some point in time, and some people get angry enough to shoot someone. If everyone had a gun, there could be a potential deadly outcome for every emotional outburst. So while in this case there might have been less people killed if everyone was carrying a gun, these incidents might also be more common if firearms are not banned.

Sometimes the reason we don't commit crimes is because the path to commit one is too difficult.

Re:More than 20. . .

[psykocrime]

That is to say that you can only speculate that it would be better (or at least no worse) if some|many|all of the students at staff at Virginia Tech were carrying weapons.

True, but irrelevant. The *outcome* - in this case - might actually have been worse if everybody had guns (although I seriously doubt it). But regardless of that, it's still wrong to deprive people of the means to defend themselves; it's a principle issue. You are, of course, free to
disagree, but I for one simply do not acknowledge that anybody has any intrinsic authority to disarm me, whatever the supposed justification. My
right to defense is inalienable (as it is with everyone else).

Of course, as the old saw goes, "we have exactly as much freedom as we are willing to demand and capable of defending." :-(

Re:More than 20. . .

[antv]

He got away with it *both* times because the law emasculates the citizen from carrying a weapon at all times. If there were no restrictions on concealed carry, more people would carry. If V. Tech (like may schools) didn't ban firearms on its grounds, it's probable that some people in either group would have been armed and could have defended themselves.

Precisely, the way it works in Baghdad. Once a bad Iraqi shows up, a group of good Iraqis shoot him and violence stops right there. Works like a charm in practice, which is why Baghdad is one of the safest places on Earth, as opposed tho those crazy gun-control places like Sweden.

Re:More than 20. . .

[smellsofbikes]

I don't disagree with the idea. I just suspect that the implementation would lead to a greater number of overall deaths, because I suspect that if more people have guns, they'll be used more often -- in anger, drunkenness, or under mistaken circumstances (shooting the wrong person in just such a situation as we're reading about here.) So, which is the greater good?

The concept of sane/insane is really tricky, here. The two kids at Columbine knew that there was a trained, armed policeman at the school that day, and that there wouldn't be the next day, but that didn't deter them. Does that automatically mean they were insane? Or does it mean that the symbolic nature of the date was more important? Or that the idea of a gunfight was more interesting than deterring? I suggest that a person who is even considering shooting a bunch of other people is unlikely to be strongly deterred by the idea of armed opponents, so then it becomes a matter of whether having more armed people will more quickly remove a gunman than it will lead to additional deaths from those same guns.

Re:More than 20. . .

[DrXym]

He got away with it *both* times because the law emasculates the citizen from carrying a weapon at all times. If there were no restrictions on concealed carry, more people would carry. If V. Tech (like may schools) didn't ban firearms on its grounds, it's probable that some people in either group would have been armed and could have defended themselves.

Yeah, a genius idea. Students would be shooting at each other in the hysteria. Not to mention that the number of fatalities in isolated incidents of an armed populace would undoubtedly be higher tha one-offs like this.

Re:More than 20. . .

[a.d.trick]

It's not the incompetent that are the big problem. In general, stupid people only end up hurting themselves, or other people stupid enough to hang around with them. The problem is that a gun gives someone a lot more power than their used to.

Not many people could reasonably kill someone else with their bare hands, and a knife makes the task somewhat easier, but it is still a lot more difficult than a gun. Power has funny effects one people.

Re:More than 20. . .

[LunarCrisis]

Okay, so person A starts shooting everyone. Person B steps in and shoots the shooter. Person C walks in on the situation, sees person B with the gun, and shoots him in a panic. Three more people walk by and pull out their guns in self defence. Not only does this cause chaos, but no-one even knows who the shooter is anymore, let alone whether he is still alive.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to the nutcase with the portable arsenal. I'm sure he'll be really interested in your input.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a specific example of an armed citizen making the situation better. It happened within the last year right by my sister's house.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8J0MBOG2& show_article=1

Re:More than 20. . .

[RexRhino]

The flaw in your logic is that you assume gun control laws make it harder for people to get guns. If you understand how black markets work, gun control makes it easier to get guns. The more difficult it is for someone to purchase a gun legally, the more financial incentive you offer to those who will provide the service illegally. And the black market won't have to worry about licencing costs, taxes, liability insurance, waiting periods, etc., meaning they can provide guns much cheaper.

Kind of like how alcohol consumption INCREASED during prohibition... or hard drug use INCREASED after the start of the War on Drugs.

How many mass shootings were there in 1900, when a kid could buy a gun via mail order from the back of a pulp magazine?

Re:More than 20. . .

[jez9999]

I'll start out by saying that I'm about 51% on the side of the pro-gun lobby in this debate.

However, before you go all gung-ho about how everyone should be able to carry guns, take a look at the stats on how many school/college shootings there have been in the UK compared to the US.

Only one I can think of was Dunblane, pretty much ever. And Dunblane would've been a tragedy anyway; it was a primary (young childrens') school.

In the US, there have been quite a few such shootings, seemingly happen on an annual basis or more. If (and an important 'IF' there) you could instill in society at large a very strong anti-gun sentiment, and actually do a good job of shutting people behind bars for life that so much as own one, you might get rid of these kinds of killings.

I do think it has to be all-or-nothing, though; I guess my message is, ideally you would have a nothing approach; pragmatically in the US today, you're more likely to succeed (or have fewer deaths) with the all approach. Sad, really.

Re:More than 20. . .

[psykocrime]

The bad guys with guns should be dealt with by good guys who know how to properly handle guns. Not by some random John Doe or delusional 16-year-old kid playing vigilante.

You mean, like, cops? Tell me, from the time the first 9/11 call came in, until the first cop arrived at VT, how much time went by? How many people could an armed gunman kill in that time? Or, if you're at home and call 9/11, how long would it take - on average - for a cop to reach your home? What if there happens to be a major car-wreck or other emergency at the same time and all the cops in the area are even further away than normal? And there's a guy with a gun trying to break down your door...

Just to provide some context here: I used to dispatch for 9/11 for a mostly rural, and geographically large, county in North Carolina. On night shift, the sheriff's department had 3-4 deputies on duty to patrol what was the 4th or 5th largest county in the state. At any given time, a particular home might not have an officer within 20 or more miles. And if something big were going down at one extreme end of the county, the folks closer to the other end might not have a deputy within 40 miles. Now in fairness, there were also municipal cops who could respond to backup the county deputies in some situations... but the point still remains that it would not be unlikely to need a cop and find the closest one 20 minutes or more away.

Relying on other people for your self-defense is a Bad Idea, MMMKAY?

Re:More than 20. . .

[poot_rootbeer]

That's why reasonable laws have impartial criteria, so arrogant jerks like you can't dictate who they think should carry and instead it is determined by the law in combination with expert trainers.

If only that were the case. There's too many firearm advocates arguing that ANY attempt to regulate gun ownership or require certification for gun owners is unacceptable -- that if you can't anonymously walk into a Wal-Mart with a wad of cash and walk out with a handgun and a box of ammo, that means the government's eventually going to use gun registration records to round up the gun owners and take their weapons away. Gun nuts seem to enjoy contemplating the "firefight with an oppressive overlord" fantasy.

I'm all for allowing a well-regulated militia to bear arms. But it HAS to be well-regulated.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Coryoth]

One factor you left out is the reduction in all nutcasery. A moderately crazy person may enter a school today in order to shoot the place up, but you'd have to be totally crazy to attempt such when you know that one out of ten students will be shooting back. I wouldn't presume to know what goes through the minds of the sort of people who go on such shooting sprees, but I'm not certain there is particularly good reason to presume there is significant deterence. Almost all such shooters kill themselves, so I don't think death is particularly troubling to them. The effectiveness of an armed populace as a deterrent to such behaviour is, again, purely hypothetical, with arguments to be made either way (perhaps an only slightly crazy individual would just fire his gun a couple of times then hide "cowering" in a corner and let the resulting chaos of frightened armed students do his work for him -- he could even walk away from that with a decent chance of never getting convicted of anything). I don't think it makes for a very convincing argument.

Re:More than 20. . .

[pete-classic]

There are people who I would generally trust to be around while they carry weapons, but I would not extend that trust of judgement [sic] to more than about 5% of the general population. Most of the rest are too damned stupid or impulsive.

Given your low opinion of your fellow man, I suppose you are against democracy as well.

-Peter

Re:More than 20. . .

[westlake]

He got away with it *both* times because the law emasculates the citizen from carrying a weapon at all times. If there were no restrictions on concealed carry, more people would carry. If V. Tech didn't ban firearms on its grounds, it's probable that some people in either group would have been armed and could have defended themselves/

The killer has likely thought and dreamed of nothing else for months.

He has planned, he has prepared. The initiative is his, the choice of weapons and armor.

He has killed at once and has absolutely nothing left to lose.

You want to take out someone well-armed and well-protected and bent on suicide-under-SWAT-team fire than you going to need more experience and discipline than GTA can teach you.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Subbynet]

The evidence suggests otherwise - you just don't hear of this type of thing happening in countries with stricter gun controls. In the last few years its happened countless times in the USA...

Tbh this type of thing happens all the time in America - but often goes unreported.

In the UK, one person being shot dead is worthy of prime-time news, but in the US is takes more lives to hit the headlines. Are you just more use to this type of incident or is life cheaper?

Despite the contrary, I believe someone armed with a gun is much more likely to use it against someone else carrying, than someone unarmed who they can coerce. When will the US wake up and smell the coffee that two wrongs don't make a right?

-------

Can I just say my thoughts go out to the families of the loved ones.

Re:More than 20. . .

[C0rinthian]

Agreed. Unfortunately, people like this shooter ignore the rules, and innocent people die.

To stop a guy with a gun, you need a gun. You can't just say "Hey, that's not a good thing to do!" and hope for the best.

Re:More than 20. . .

[psykocrime]

Aaarggh... mentally switch all those 9/11's for 911's. I've gotten so used to seeing 9/11 written for various reasons, my fingers just typed
that without me realizing it.

Re:More than 20. . .

[FleaPlus]

Okay, so person A starts shooting everyone. Person B steps in and shoots the shooter. Person C walks in on the situation, sees person B with the gun, and shoots him in a panic. Three more people walk by and pull out their guns in self defence. Not only does this cause chaos, but no-one even knows who the shooter is anymore, let alone whether he is still alive.

Historically, how often has a situation like you describe actually happened?

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

***And since the "bad guys" will always have guns***

The bad guys will *always* have guns only if we continue to have such lax rules about gun ownership and training in the name of patriotism. Your own ridiculous assumption is that any "good guy" (whatever that is anymore)is not only competent enough to use a gun, but that he/she is comforted greatly by the fact that they are carrying a deadly weapon. I know few such people willing to have such responsibilities foisted upon them: if everyone has a handgun, then the bad guys will *always* have assault weapons.

Re:More than 20. . .

[orclevegam]

Well, if you define a fear of death as a indicator of sanity (and I think most people would), then I don't think the Columbine kids were sane as it seems likely they never planned to leave the school alive. Of course, you do want to reduce the risk of guns being used by those with proven poor judgement, so those that are under age, mentally ill, or have been convicted of violent crimes should of course not be allowed to purchase or own guns. Also of course, part of owning a gun is being trained in the rules of using it. Important things like, never point a gun at someone unless you're planning to use it, and being instructed on the definition of whether certain acts count as self defense or not, would go a long way towards reducing accidental shootings.

Re:More than 20. . .

[poot_rootbeer]

the people who can pass a CCP exam aren't the type that will be shooting wildly.

Even the people with CCP certification won't really know how they'll react in a firefight until they actually end up in one.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Das Modell]

Wait a minute... a person carrying a concealed weapon is told to find cover and do nothing, or flee? What? That doesn't make any sense.

Re:More than 20. . .

[einer]

Your scenario is not even remotely realistic. In any population where a choice is conferred you will have people who choose "not to." So not EVERYONE will carry a gun if it's legal. If it were legal for students to carry weapons on campus (not "if a large number of VT students were all carrying concealed weapons") it is more likely that someone able to fight back would have been close enouogh to the offender to... well... fight back... than if it were not legal. The straw man is that "lots of students carrying guns would have saved lives." No one thinks that. "lots of students freely able to excercise their 2nd ammendment rights would have saved lives" is the contention.

Consider: You are carrying a concealed weapon and you hear gunfire coming from the room down the hall. You do not draw your weapon because you have had a mandatory GUN SAFETY CLASS. Instead you do the correct and responsible thing and phone the cops. Then you find a defensible position and hole up.

Additionally, as a previous poster has already pointed out, the right to bare arms certainly played a roll in how the Texas shooting wound up. Go ahead and read an account of that story and tell me that fewer people would've died if arms were restricted.

I hate what happened. I don't think that gun control is the answer unless you can control all guns. And you can't.

Whatever. It's clear that this guy wasn't following the rule about not carrying guns. Good thing his victims were too. It clearly did them a lot of good. Remember, once guns are illegal, no one will have them, not even criminals, so don't worry about it.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Plutonite]

Regulation for firearm possession is not meant to stop criminals - it can't. The point, as others have said, is to limit the effect of impulsive usage of weapons in everyday quarrels between non-criminal elements of society. It's better to have a fist fight which people can break up, than to have 5 dead people every time something happens.

It would be interesting to see figures of gun-related violence in places like Texas, say, from an unbiased source. Even if you can prove what you're saying for Texans, there is still the deeper issue of "cultural maturity" with gun-carrying. You cannot equate someplace like New York with rural areas where fathers teach their sons about these things and give them a good whuppin for misuse at an early age. This subject is as complicated as turbulence in physics.

Re:More than 20. . .

[bheer]

> Don't believe me? When was the last major UK shooting in which more than 10 people were killed? When?

The gun ban in the UK has definitely made it harder for nutcases to get access to guns. That's stopped mass slaughter, but armed assault is rising. Criminals know how to get guns and profit using them. And just because these individual assaults are less newsworthy (and mass murders get 72-point headlines) doesn't make them any less of a problem. Frankly I'd take the risk of the occasional nutjob with a gun than cowering in fear _every day_ in some of Birmingham's rougher neighborhoods.

> Ban guns, this will never happen again.

Yeah right. Guns have disappeared from the UK because of the gun prohibitions. Not. Instead, the state is resorting to ever more draconian legislation (given your big brother sig, I'm sure you know about that) to make sure guns keep out -- good luck with that, given the open access East Europeans have into your country.

Finally, I'll point out that comparing the densely populated UK with the US (parts of which are very far away from any kind of police presence) is ridiculous. For that matter, I'm quite sure British countryside-dwellers will be happy to tell you what they think of the gun ban when they live miles away from any police help.

Re:More than 20. . .

[gomiam]

Most VCRs aren't deadly weapons (beware of some TV programs, though:-). Assholes and agendas come in all kind of colours, as you have just proved.

Re:More than 20. . .

[drinkypoo]

Think for a minute about the chaos that a few shots fired in a school would cause. Now, imagine that a bunch of people suddenly pull out handguns and start looking for the original shooter. I see a lot of problems with this situation.

Me too. The primary problem I see with this situation is that it is fucking imaginary.

See, most of us aren't saying that every mongoloid out there should be issued a firearm. Some are, and that's one particular camp, but I think that you will find that they are a vocal minority. Personally, I'd argue that you should have to pass a fairly serious course before being licensed to carry a firearm in public (aside from transporting) whether it is concealed or not.

In many places, including California, it's actually quite difficult to get a concealed carry permit. The permit applies to a fixed range of weapons - it doesn't just apply to carrying any gun you like. And not only do you have to have taken the bullshit safety course necessary to purchase a handgun in the first place, but they generally give you an additional examination. You may even have to go to a particular range and take an entire safety course. I am entirely in favor of having a process like driver safety for all gun ownership, only a real test and not the bullshit level of nothingness in a driving exam :P

The point is that people who have taken these courses know that brandishing a firearm is illegal. That's right, it's illegal to walk around with a gun in your hand, loaded or not.

Wandering around looking for the shooter is not the issue. Being able to immediately take cover (if you're not already perforated) and draw your own weapon and return fire is the useful action here. If many people (say, 1 in 10) were carrying a weapon, which would not necessarily be all that unlikely if our government hadn't been trying for years to convince us that they will protect us in spite of the fact that the only government employees actually paid to protect us are the national guard and the EPA, then it's highly likely that one of the people who were shot would have shot him instead.

I would love it if all guns could be eliminated from the world forever. That would be wonderful. It is also impossible and will only get harder. With a little skill, a lathe, some saws and some files, you can make a gun. As time goes by, we are seeing continuing advances in CAD/CAM and rapid prototyping that will enable anyone who can make a simple CAD drawing to make as many guns as they want to feed in stock for. It's only going to get more difficult to stop people from making guns. Hell, these days the information and technology needed to utilize primerless ammunition (electronic ignition) is available, so if you find electronics more accessible than mechanics, that reduces the mechanical portion of the gun to a loading mechanism.

Given that it is impossible to prevent people from owning guns, wouldn't it make more sense to educate and regulate than to try to ban, which doesn't work?

Re:More than 20. . .

[Das Modell]

It's strange that a lot of people here have arguments like "well if people had guns then they'd be killing each other every day" but nobody can actually cite cases where this has happened. There's only the assumption that most people are raging psychos who'll shoot up the place at the slightest provocation without any regard for the consequences.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you live in America? Have you driven on the roads here? Most people are barely competent enough to operate a motor vehicle, and you want them to all carry guns? If everyone carried guns the death toll would be even higher than the ~40K dead per year from car crashes.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I figure it's a lot like management. The more desire you have to manage (carry a gun) the less competent you are to carry (manage) one.

Who wants (as opposed to needs, or sees a reason) to carry a gun?

Re:More than 20. . .

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

If only that were the case. There's too many firearm advocates arguing that ANY attempt to regulate gun ownership or require certification for gun owners is unacceptable...

My reply is in two parts. First, no one here ever argued that so claiming that someone else is arguing something is kind of pointless, isn't it? Second, the threat of gun bans in general is main reason for lack of regulation as regulation is often (historically) a first step towards a ban, enabling an unconstitutional and illegal ban to be effectively enforced, and thus undermining the capability of the people at the time when the creators of our government argued we should be overthrowing that government and establishing a new one.

I'm all for allowing a well-regulated militia to bear arms. But it HAS to be well-regulated.

Why don't you look up the original meaning of the phrase " well regulated."

Re:More than 20. . .

[dokebi]

Girls don't trust me to use a condom consistently. But you'll trust me with a gun, right?

Re:More than 20. . .

[RingDev]

I've seen trained officers put holes in the the chests of unarmed teenagers. I've seen highly trained Marines blow their own toes off. I've seen a skilled pistol range shooter damn near blow a man's head off because hot brass flew down her shirt.

Skilled people make mistakes every day. Unskilled people make many mistakes every day. Would more guns have helped in this situation? maybe. It's possible that the gun man could have walked into the first place, started shooting and promptly get shot himself. But it's much more likely that he would have walked in, started shooting, and in the chaos that ensued multiple people would have fired back, most of whom wouldn't even know who their target was. They would resort to shooting who ever had a gun, including each other. Sure, the guy would have been stopped in the first incident, but the cross fire would have killed 30 people anyways.

Once you look at the number of heat of the moment crimes that would escalate to guns instead of fists and knives, and the number of accidental discharges, it doesn't take long to see that while a very, VERY small number of isolated incidents may be avoided, significantly MORE incidents would occur overall.

I'm all for the 2nd amendment. But the purpose of that law was not to protect ourselves from each other, so much as it was to protect ourselves from the government. Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo; Use your boxes wisely.

-Rick

Re:More than 20. . .

[ArcherB]

If morons carried guns everywhere, we'd have many more than 31 killed in spontaneous acts of stupidity every day.

Not true. Nearly everywhere that has carry and conceal laws, crime has gone down. From here:

Ten years ago this month, a controversial "concealed- carry" law went into effect in the state of Florida. In a sharp break from the conventional wisdom of the time, that law allowed adult citizens to carry concealed firearms in public. Many people feared the law would quickly lead to disaster: blood would literally be running in the streets. Now, 10 years later, it is safe to say that those dire predictions were completely unfounded. Indeed, the debate today over concealed-carry laws centers on the extent to which such laws can actually reduce the crime rate.

Either way, I see it as a rights issue. Just like many here think that an increase in terrorist attacks in not worth letting the NSA have a computer monitor their calls to Pakistan, I feel that I should be allowed to carry. Regardless of your opinion, I hope you don't find yourself in a situation like this

Suzanna Gratia Hupp remembers reaching for a butter knife as a madman shot her parents dead at a packed cafeteria one cold October day in 1991.

"I was looking for a weapon, any weapon, because my handgun was 100 feet away, outside in my car. I made an incredibly stupid decision to follow the law, and that cost my family's lives," she says as she reflects on the massacre that ended with 24 people dead inside the Luby's Cafeteria at Killeen, a military town in Central Texas.

Re:More than 20. . .

[drinkypoo]

Could we also blame the laws which make it so easy to obtain guns which make crimes like this possible?

You know, I can get an illegal firearm any day of the week. It's not even difficult. It's not the laws that make it easy. They only make it a little cheaper.

I've seen lots of people in bars get mad at another person and start a fight. If they both had guns, I would be that in many instances, somebody would be killed.

For this reason I actually favor raising the bar on getting a concealed weapons permit, but allowing open carry.

You're less likely to try to fuck someone's woman in the first place if they hav e a forty-five on their hip.

AFAIK AZ and NM both have open carry laws.

Re:More than 20. . .

[thomas.galvin]

It's interesting that a couple of threads above this comment, people rail on Jack Thompson for using this tragedy to push his own personal agenda, and then you come in and do exactly the same thing and get applauded for it.

Jack Thompson is using this tragedy as an excuse to take away people's rights. The grandparent is using this tragedy as an example of why taking away people's rights is a bad thing. They are not the same.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather have the chance to defend myself if confronted with lethal force with the chance that I may become collateral damage in another citizen's attempt to stop the perpetration of a crime than to have no chance to defend myself against lethal force with the chance I'd become collateral damage in the police's attempt, if I was still alive by the time they arrived.

Assault rifles (I'm guessing you meant assault weapons, ie things that look cool but are just as semi-automatic as most hunting rifles) are big and hard to conceal. You see those coming. Generally inaccurate when compared to their hunting rifle kin and lower power to boot.

Atleast those with the handgun would have the chance of defending themselves. Those without would just have to hope the gunman runs out of ammo before they end up in the sights.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Sancho]

I am pro-guns, but your argument doesn't work.

There are hot-headed people who obey the law. These people do not go to the black market to get guns because that's illegal. It's only when they get really riled up that they are likely to break the law by not thinking rationally or letting their emotions control them. It's a 'heat-of-the-moment' thing, and that is the type of person that gun control laws protect against.

It's probably pretty likely that disallowing guns saves more lives than would be saved if people were allowed to carry guns--primarily because this sort of shooting is rare, and situationally, it would require that someone near this shooter had a gun, could safely fire at the attacker, and managed to stop him. Compare that to aggravated disputes on the highway after someone gets cut off, wrecked, etc. There are hundreds of these incidents every day.

As I said, I'm pro-guns, but I would like meaningful restrictions. Perpetrators of violent crime shouldn't legally be allowed to carry guns. If they are found carrying guns, they get sent away, period. Using a gun in the commission of a crime should carry a life-sentence, period. Give us our guns, but make damned sure that if they are used irrationally, that they are not used by that person ever again.

Re:More than 20. . .

[yakumo.unr]

"Like, I was over in England. You ever been to England, anyone, been to England? No one has handguns in England, not even the cops. True or false? True. Now-in England last year, they had fourteen deaths from handguns. FFFFFourteen. Now-the United States, and I think you know how we feel about handguns-woooo, I'm getting a warm tingly feeling just saying the fucking word, to be honest with you. I swear to you, I am hard. Twenty-three thousand deaths from handguns. Now let's go through those numbers again, because they're a little baffling at first glance. England, where no one has guns, fffffffourteen deaths. United States, and I think you know how we feel about guns-woooo, I'm getting a stiffy-twenty-three thousand deaths from handguns. But there's no connection, and you'd be a fool and a Communist to make one. There's no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun and not shooting someone. There have been studies made and there is no connection at all there. Yes. That's absolute proof. You know, fourteen deaths from handguns. Probably American tourists, too.
(Angry tourist voice) You call this a sandwich? BANG! BANG! You don't boil pizza! BANG! BANG!
(Scared English voice) That's the way we eat here, that's the way we eat here! BANG!
(Tourist voice) This food sucks! BANG!" Bill Hicks

It's a terrible thing to happen, it really is, I'm very sorry for the victims and their families and friends.

But don't go claiming more guns = safer.
Guns are banned in the UK and many other countries, and of course plenty of illegal guns are still present all over the place were they are banned, but if anyone would care to dig out the real, current statistics for gun deaths, I think they'll speak for themselves still.

How do most of the illegal held guns in the US come to be anyway? stolen from originally legal owners?

Re:More than 20. . .

[Coryoth]

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing with trained licensed individuals carrying guns, merely the (oft quoted) assertion that "if everyone was carrying guns we'd be safer" which isn't really clear. Certainly if all the sensible people who are calm under pressure are carrying guns then things will probably be fine. I'm not suggesting you ban guns -- I don't think that will necessarily help either -- I'm just arguing that completely free policies don't necessarily offer any improvement, despite constant claims to the contrary. Potentially we agree more than you might think.

Re:More than 20. . .

[C0rinthian]

If you want more of society to accept the wisdom of having armed citizens around, you'll have to convince us that there's some method of keeping them in the right hands - which clearly did NOT happen today. Answer this question: Did the shooter obtain his weapons legally?

If the answer is no, then the current system for legally obtaining firearms has NOTHING to do with the tragedy that took place this morning.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Darlantan]

Wow. Your post is filled with singularly bad ideas, and assumptions that simply aren't valid, as real-life situations have shown. Most of the replies to this already have covered those, but I'd just like to point out one critically BAD IDEA you have in your post -- that charging down a hall with a firearm drawn is a valid response to the sound of gunfire. That's a recipe for getting yourself shot, and possibly killed. In these situations, there is quite frequently no way to tell who the real shooter is. You do NOT go looking for him, and even if you do, you do NOT go charging through doors with your weapon in sight. You will quite likely get shot. It's a stupid move that nobody who actually passed a test to get a CCW/CHP should even consider as a real possibility. Building clearing is for police/SWAT.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

i suppose it wasn't a shooting, but when the atf/fbi shot or burned 74 people to death at waco, might've been a bit worse.

Re:More than 20. . .

[segedunum]

Your argument is based on a specious assumption: that most people aren't competent to own guns. I personally think that's a load of bollocks.

That argument is really specious. Most people aren't competent to own a very lethal weapon (that's what a gun is), and given ease of access to said lethal weapon, there will always be one person who is willing to do what happened today. If people carried Anthrax around then there'd be a terrorist uproar, but you've got far more chance of killing someone with a gun.

But even if you're right, the underlying point is still this: there is NO way to guarantee that you keep guns out of the *wrong* hands.

You can't guarantee anything - but you can dramatically decrease the chances of it happening, as countries with gun controls have proved with their comparitive lack of incidents like this.

And since the "bad guys" will always have guns, it's wrong to deprive the good guys of the means to defend themselves.

You can dramatically decrease the chances of the bad guys getting guns, thereby decreasing everybody elses' bogus need to carry guns - and decreasing the chances of everyone blowing everyone else away, which is what happens when guns are carried by everyone. There is no such thing as a 'good guy' here. There is simply no reason to carry guns just because you think that there are some bad guys around who are carrying guns anyway........that doesn't make it OK.

Re:More than 20. . .

[ChronosWS]

How safe will you feel when an armed madman walks into the room and you only have to wait four minutes for the police to arrive? Since you can't ensure madmen won't get guns, what do you do, if anything?

Re:More than 20. . .

[Das Modell]

Everyone knows that criminals are deeply concerned about obeying laws and will not purchase or otherwise acquire illegal firearms if firearms are banned by law.

Re:More than 20. . .

[kalirion]

The real question here is how a 911 call about shots fired gets to police at 7:15am and the same gunman (apparently) is allowed to come in and shoot up another building on the same campus TWO HOURS LATER with no police presence.

Explained in the CNN article

"Asked why the campus, which has more than 26,000 students, was not shut down after the first shooting, Flinchum responded that police received information that "it was an isolated event to that building and the decision was made not to cancel classes at that time.""

Re:More than 20. . .

[twitchingbug]

I don't have any specific references, but aren't there road rage cases out there of people shooting each other over being cut off on the highway? Maybe someone less lazy than I can look one up.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Das Modell]

Oh, I get it. The only reason why Iraq is such a mess is because people have guns. Yeah, that must be it.

It will be a cold day in hell before I'll see one rational or intelligent argument from the anti-gun crowd.

Re:More than 20. . .

[kalirion]

Heh, parent post reminds me of that early Simpsons episode where the shrink gave each of them buttons to shock any other member of the family. Or the chapter of Johnny the Homicidal Maniac where Johnny goes to heaven where every person has the power to blow up the other people's heads. Didn't turn out too well.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Threni]

> there is NO way to guarantee that you keep guns out of the *wrong* hands.

No guarantee, but in a country like England where practically no-one carries guns it's little surprise that killings by gun are so rare that every single one of them makes national news. In the US it would probably be national news if there were a single day where no-one got killed via guns.

> And since the "bad guys" will always have guns, it's wrong to deprive the good guys of the means to defend themselves.

Only a small subset of the bad guys in the UK have guns, and I'm not sure that owning a gun makes you any safer unless there's some sort of stand-off where one side doesn't know if the other has a gun. Even if you had a gun, if someone is holding a gun to your head you'd probably do what they said, which would possibly include handing over your gun, moving away from it etc.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Goshzilla]

My thoughts from what scant information there is in the news right now. The university police(not the real cops) got the call that gun shots were heard in the dorm. They were doing an investigation at the time, it would take two hours for them to get close to discovering what was going on. My thoughts are that they didn't even realize anyone was injured or killed because they weren't going into people's rooms unannounced. Again I and I'm sure most people do not know the full details, if people were killed and the police knew about it at the time of their investigation, then the only question for that scenario is why did the president of the university not immediately announce a mandatory lock down?

Re:More than 20. . .

[Shivetya]

it is also possible that the gunman knowing there "could be" armed students or teachers might have gone elsewhere.

bringing the lack of guns is a valid point, because criminals, even the insane ones, rarely tread where they know a threat exists

Re:More than 20. . .

[segedunum]

The *outcome* - in this case - might actually have been worse if everybody had guns (although I seriously doubt it).

Imagine everyone opening fire in self-defence and no one knowing who the gunman actually was (sounds like the US Army in Iraq today!). Where you've got a lot of people carrying guns, it's been known to happen.

But regardless of that, it's still wrong to deprive people of the means to defend themselves; it's a principle issue.

There's a difference between defending yourself and carrying around a lethal weapon that has no other purpose than to kill.

You are, of course, free to disagree, but I for one simply do not acknowledge that anybody has any intrinsic authority to disarm me, whatever the supposed justification.

I'm sure that if you carried around Anthrax, or had some fertiliser packed into your car then some serious questions would be asked as to what on Earth you were doing. However, you've got a far greater chance of killing with a lethal weapon like a gun.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Coryoth]

It's a stupid move that nobody who actually passed a test to get a CCW/CHP should even consider as a real possibility. Sure, I agree entirely. Then again having tests and licensing of people for permits to carry guns are restrictions on people's ability to carry guns, which the OP said was the problem. Remove those restrictions and the people who have guns may not be trained, nor particularly smart. I'm not arguing to ban guns, I'm simply arguing that a completely laissez faire attitude isn't necessarily going to result in a marked improvement. The only conclusion I was drawing was an inability to draw any conclusions.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Cow herd]

Wait a minute... a person carrying a concealed weapon is told to find cover and do nothing, or flee? What? That doesn't make any sense.

It makes perfect sense... unless you're under direct life-or-death threat (gun pointed/shot at you) you shouldn't be resorting to the firearm... a CCP isn't a license to be a vigilante.

Re:More than 20. . .

[johncadengo]

Your argument is based on a specious assumption: that most people aren't competent to own guns. I personally think that's a load of bollocks. But even if you're right, the underlying point is still this: there is NO way to guarantee that you keep guns out of the *wrong* hands. And since the "bad guys" will always have guns, it's wrong to deprive the good guys of the means to defend themselves.

Your name is psykocrime.

QED.

Re:More than 20. . .

[aiken_d]

Are you suggesting that this guy today may have only been "moderately crazy"?

Guns have a place in society; what that place is is open for debate. But to suggest that psychopathic killers (especially of the suicidal variety!) would be deterred by a heavily armed citizenry is pretty disingenuous. Like you said: someone with most of their wits about them who was planning on going on a shooting spree might possibly be discouraged. However, I tend to think that those folks are few and far between.

-b

Re:More than 20. . .

[Darlantan]

The short answer here is yes, armed civilians do indeed stop these sort of things. Many, MANY crimes are stopped by simply showing that the person is armed. Of course, those are more of the average street crimes perpetrated by people who actually want to continue living.

This sort of event also gets stopped, though I'll be the first to say that they're not always bloodless. Regular, sane people don't want to kill someone else, so fairly often the CCW-holder fires in response to somebody who has already been shot, and they have seen it, and they are at risk, or are one of a group of people at risk.

The reason you don't see it on the news is because you end up with headlines like this: "Two killed at..." or "3 dead after..." or "Shooter critically wounded after assault..."

It's not quite the same as headlines reading "30 dead at XXX school after enraged gunman..." Also, bear in mind that these school shooting stories happen in _gun free_ zones. They're supposed to feel safe. Not only are there high body counts, but these are people being killed in a place that is _supposed_ to be safe for them to be at. It's a double-whammy, and it's the kind of thing that gets headlines and stays in the news.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Eccles]

It's strange that a lot of people here have arguments like "well if people had guns then they'd be killing each other every day" but nobody can actually cite cases where this has happened.

Huh? Pretty much every time a husband shoots a wife or vice-versa would fall into this category. A few are murders for hire, and others are cold, calculating bastards, but pretty much any gun murder described as a "crime of passion" wouldn't have happened if the murderer hadn't had ready, legal access to a gun.

It's not that "most" people are like this, but enough are that it's likely more die due to widespread availability of guns than are protected by it.

Note that I agree with the NRA's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. (After all, Madison and co. were dealing with single-shot muzzle loaders at the time, which wouldn't have allowed for this sort of horror.)

Re:More than 20. . .

[nbritton]

Consider: you are carrying a concealed weapon and you hear gunfire coming from the room down the hall (or maybe from the floor below). You draw your weapon, and the next thing you know someone carrying a gun walks into the room. Is it another student from elsewhere in the building responding to the gunfire, or the nutcase? Do you shoot them before they can shoot you? Now add plenty of screaming and panic, and multiply this scenario by the number of different panicked scared students all carrying firearms.

Good point. But carrying a gun doesn't automatically make you a police officer. The gun only comes out if you can win a justifiable homicide case.

Re:More than 20. . .

[segedunum]

Your arguement is moot. Guns are easier to get on the black market than they are legally.

What a really stupid non-argument. Since guns in the US are legal to get hold of, if someone wants to blow away a class full of students what's the point of that person skulking around on the black market for a weapon? Does it make any difference to the victims whether a gun is legal, or sold on the black market?

A) Make guns more available and easier to get by pushing gun sales from regulated and taxed gun dealers into the black market.

No. It makes them less accepted in society and all the easier to identify who has firearms illegally.

B) Making sure that if someone is carrying a gun, they aren't going to bother trying to stop the rampaging gunman

Give that gun controls would make such an incident far less likely, then there is no reason for point B and no reason to carry a gun.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Viking Coder]

The *outcome* - in this case - might actually have been worse if everybody had guns... [b]ut regardless of that... it's a principle issue.

Written like a true zealot.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Kjella]

there is NO way to guarantee that you keep guns out of the *wrong* hands.

Premeditated killers and organized crime, no. Your average infuriated and/or mentally unstable guy? Yes. Why? Because they can't just whip out the gun or drop by home for it and go crazy. Most likely they don't have one, or know where to get one easily. Sure with a little time and paperwork or searching the shadier parts of town they could probably get one in a day or two, but not in that rage of fury they're in right there and then. Instead they use knives, which are slow, possible to defend against and a decent counterweapon is found in every kitchen. There's no way you'd get even close to killing 32 people with a knife.

Of course, at this point someone is going to point out the freak case where a 100 pound woman had time to unlock the gun locker, find the ammunition, load the gun, disable the safety and be ready as the furiously mad 300 pound ex-boyfriend manages to break in. Sure, great. The truth of the matter is that in almost any one on one conflict, whoever pulls the gun first is the winner, and the one pulling the gun is normally the agressor. Particularly when it comes to premeditated murder, which are the ones you probably won't stop from getting guns. So that pissed off ex-employee who you had to fire is standing there, gun in hand, what do you do? Do you think you're John Wayne or something?

Whoever is pulling these arguments that if everyone had guns, they'd just drop this guy after the first two-three people completely ignores that there'd be thousands of cases where one guy with a gun would get the drop on another guy (with a gun or not) with noone around to carry out any retaliation. Who'd the hell want to get involved for a complete stranger anyway, unless they were in immidiate danger themselves? If I saw a shootout start I'd duck for the nearest cover I could find, and damned if I'd draw any fire to me unless I had to.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Darlantan]

Welcome to the land of FUD.

If school grounds were places where you could carry legally, then you'd have people who A) Know when they can shoot, and in most states B) Have shown that they can aim. Collateral damage is low. You DO NOT take a shot when you don't know what the bullet can hit, it's one of the fundamentals.

Real life has shown that these "bloodbath" what-if situations don't happen.

Re:More than 20. . .

[mrbooze]

Good point, that must by why shooting sprees happen much more frequently in countries with more restrictive gun laws. You can hardly take a walk without ducking the flying bullets in Japan, the UK, etc.

Re:More than 20. . .

[soft_guy]

If only that were the case. There's too many firearm advocates arguing that ANY attempt to regulate gun ownership or require certification for gun owners is unacceptable -- that if you can't anonymously walk into a Wal-Mart with a wad of cash and walk out with a handgun and a box of ammo, that means the government's eventually going to use gun registration records to round up the gun owners and take their weapons away. Gun nuts seem to enjoy contemplating the "firefight with an oppressive overlord" fantasy. In most places the gun grabbers make the such that anyone who defends themselves from a criminal can be charged with a crime. There was a case in Boston I read about where a woman shot an intruder in her home who had already killed one of her children and had her backed into an upper story bedroom. The prosecutor argued that she and her two remaining children should have jumped out a second story window rather than defend themselves. Basically you gun grabbers want everyone to be so defenseless that they will continue to worship the police and vote higher and higher taxes so that you and your kind can loaf through life on welfare and maybe make a little extra on the side robbing houses without getting shot. My advice is don't try it in Arkansas. That is all.

Re:More than 20. . .

[LurkerXXX]

Please mod parent up. It's the most insightful post I've seen in the entire thread.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Think for a minute about the chaos that a few shots fired in a school would cause. Now, imagine that a bunch of people suddenly pull out handguns and start looking for the original shooter. I see a lot of problems with this situation.

You make a fair point. However, it's not like every student will come running out the hallways waving their gun in a pursuit of the original. There would (most assuredly) be at least 1 person in a room full of people to clearly pinpoint the original shooter - end of story. Also, even if the shooter was hopping from dorm room to dorm room, isolated from others while killing 1 person at a time, it would only take seconds to determine who was the original shooter (by his clearly methodically mad demeanor).

What you demonstrate (in your assumptions) is an elitist perception that everyone is stupider than _you_. Anyone brandishing a concealed firerarm (in those states which permit it), undergo classes, training, and certification. This ain't the wild wild west which some would like to believe.

Either way, no matter how you cut your agenda, the right to bear arms is tantamount in keeping our own government in check, primarily in historical significance, and of secondary effect, to protect oneself from others. What many fail to mention in such debates is the possibility of how much more deaths would occur across our nation if that right to bear arms were revoked. Ironically, it's like never fully appreciating a loved one until they're gone. And where does it end? Many could make a fair argument that just one passenger (under concealed license approval) could have prevented box cutter wielding terrorists on 9/11. Either extreme of the argument (which you clearly demonstrate here) is just unproductive - no more beneficial or disjoint than those current politicians capitalizing on the tragedy of 32 lost students.

Re:More than 20. . .

[tomhudson]

You're making a false argument

He got away with it *both* times because the law emasculates the citizen from carrying a weapon at all times. If there were no restrictions on concealed carry, more people would carry. If V. Tech (like may schools) didn't ban firearms on its grounds, it's probable that some people in either group would have been armed and could have defended themselves.

We'd see more, not fewer, killings. People are less likely to commit murder as they grow older. Universities are packed with prime candidates for committing murder. Load them up with guns and booze at a campus "kegger" and watch how many people end up trying to solve problems with a gun. Or how many other gun-enabled crimes would also be committed. Now add in the "accidental shootings", the "I thought he was going for his gun so I shot him", and the "I was just trying to get him to back off" shootings, and the "he was stalking/harrassing/bugging me" shootings.

Now mix in some drugs ... and more shootings.

Your simplistic assumption that nobody would use their weapons foolishly is just that - an assumption, contradicted by statistics about murder rates by age group.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Darlantan]

Erm...I can think of two within the last five years. I could probably find links, but I'm not going to bother right now. It's not critical to my argument anyway.

Crime overall (especially violent crime) tends to be higher in places that have banned guns. The opposite is true where gun ownership is almost assured. The reason for this is the same reason that an exceptionally high number of incidents involving concealed handgun carriers end without a single shot being fired -- often without the firearm even being drawn. Most people don't want to die, and trying to make a victim of somebody that is equally or better armed than you are is a real risk. If you want examples on a city level, look at Washington DC and San Francisco in the US. Gun control is tight, but murder is a real problem in both.

Not interested in US figures? Compare the Swiss (where a large chunk of the population is armed with military hardware, those eeeevil assault rifles!) to the UK.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Wingnut64]

Just ban firearms, throughout the whole country. You do not need them. Don't give me any of this defence shit - you don't need guns to defend yourself if nobody has guns. I'll be honest, while I'm fairly libertarian on gun control issues I think weapons have absolutely no place on campus. It's pretty much impossible to secure them from other students, and while I hate to stereotype a college dorm is going to have a hell of a lot more drunk young adults then any other place you'd likely find.

At any rate, in this case, did the shooter have a carry permit and use a legally purchased and registered firearm? If he did, how difficult would it have been to obtain an illegal one? I think the war on drugs has shown that banning something does not mean that they disappear in a puff of smoke. Rather then dwelling on what-if scenarios where heroic armed citizens put a stop to the rampage or a gun free alternate universe with unicorns, perhaps we could drop the Thompsoning and ask where the hell the police and school officials where while this was happening.

Re:More than 20. . .

[EvilSS]

So I guess it wasn't until 1996 or so that the UK passed laws banning terrorists? IRA anybody? The law didn't seem to remove their ability to operate and they were able to obtain much more potent weapons that just small arms. Banning guns is not the solution. We ban lots of stuff and guess what: it does jack to prevent it. We ban drugs yet there is little trouble finding any drug of choice in even medium to small towns in the US. Banning guns will just create a (larger) black market for them, and with that comes the violence and ancillary crime that any black market good brings with it. The problem is that, somewhere, we have screwed up and our own society is creating this violence. If we don't address that, it won't matter what we ban because it will just continue to happen.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Darlantan]

Nice try, but this is hardly original thinking. That might be the case if you just handed out guns out front (assuming the people could even figure out how to operate them), and had double-gun-tuesdays for anyone with an IQ under 75. Real life has shown that this doesn't happen. I'd advise you to go pick up some literature on obtaining a CCW/CHP in your area, as well as some general firearm safety booklets. They should both be available locally -- check your local PD, they're bound to have some.

I'm not asking you to go register for a CCW/CHP, but please...at least inform yourself before you speculate.

Re:More than 20. . .

[tomhudson]

So you'd allow anyone and everyone access to a gun, so that "the good guys" will be armed ...

And nobody will lose their self-control fighting over a boyfriend/girlfriend/parking spot/bad grades/bad hair day/failing an exam/getting dumped.

... yeah ... right.

And nobody will ever point a gun at someone just to get them to go away, or scare them or as a prank ...

... yeah ... right.

So you'd arm the age group with the highest murder rate (late teens to mid twenties) and expect them to all behave rationally, when statistics say they're the ones MOST likely to go nuts and murder someone.

... yeah ... right.

If you REALLY wanted to really lower the murder rate (as opposed to using guns as a penis extension) - you'd ban all gun ownership below 30 years of age. You'll cut the murder rate in half or more.

But if you want the killings to continue, just keep on keeping on, same old same old ... because, after all, its more important to let people use guns as a surrogate and outlet for their sexual and other inadequacies than it is to have a safer environment.

They're called "gun nuts" for a reason.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Poppa]

I must not be using my rifles and handguns correctly, since I have not maimed nor killed anyone with them.

The facts:
1) Guns are not allowed on campus. It doesn't matter if you have a concealed carry permit from the state. (And, in fact a bill was just shot down that would have allowed permit holders to exercise their freedom.) This shows how well gun-control works when the criminal ignores the law. (Killing people is also against the law, but that didn't stop him.)

2) All of the mass killings in this country have occurred in places that had strict control.

3) The death toll at the University of Texas would have been much higher, except that some students pulled out their deer rifles from their trunks and kept the murderer pinned down. This is another case where guns saved lives.

4) There are many ways to kill people without using guns. Fertilizer, for example.

5) I don't have a problem with idiots walking around with guns. It is still illegal to shoot someone. And, there are many more idiots driving around with multi-ton vehicles which can do much more damage. Compare shooting deaths to highway deaths some time. And imagine what some twisted creep could do to a bunch of pedestrians, say at a street fair, with a pinned throttle.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Durandal64]

Guns in an environment where binge drinking is at least a bi-weekly occurrence among a population driven by hormones and pharmaceutical drugs. That's absolutely brilliant.

Re:More than 20. . .

[CargoCultCoder]

... It's still wrong to deprive people of the means to defend themselves ...

Last I checked, in the US no one is depriving people of the means to defend themselves (a.k.a. "guns"). People _are_ being asked to demonstrate that they can handle a deadly weapon responsibly. Because (drum-roll please) with rights come responsibilities and when it comes to the right to carry a deadly weapon, it is reasonable to be held to a certain level of responsibility as well. Like taking precautions to make sure your eight-year old can't blow his little friend's head off accidentally, even if means it takes you 500ms longer to release the safety. Or making sure you have acknowledged accountability if you're going to be free to walk around my neighborhood with a concealed weapon.

What is so threatening about this?

Re:More than 20. . .

[s2jcpete]

I had a CCP in Virginia. It requires a gun safety class, and a criminal background check.

Re:More than 20. . .

[nomadic]

A guy I know in Florida got a CCP by taking a short course. He had never touched an actual gun before, and the funny thing is, the CCP didn't actually involve actual guns. So he got the CCP without ever actually holding a gun.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

The important point is that it's impossible for the police to stop all bad guys before they hurt people. They do their best but they can't be everywhere and stop every bad guy.

Re:More than 20. . .

[tomhudson]

Nerdz with gunz.

Scary.

Arming all the students will increase the death toll. The 18 to 25 year old group are already statistically the most likely to commit murder.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't believe me? When was the last major UK shooting in which more than 10 people were killed? When?

March 13, 1996
Dunblane, Scotland

Re:More than 20. . .

[Astro Dr Dave]

Last I checked, in the US no one is depriving people of the means to defend themselves (a.k.a. "guns").
Then you aren't being thorough in your checks. There is an active bill in congress, HR1022, which would ban all semi-automatic rifles (including parts for such rifles, as well as all barrel shrouds or hand guards, which are essentially safety devices). Handguns are banned in several cities, including NYC, DC, and Chicago. In DC, you can own a long gun in your home, but only if it is kept disassembled. In the US, people are being deprived of the right to defend themselves (i.e. guns).

Re:More than 20. . .

[Stevecrox]

Your going to need to back that statement up with some real figures, last time I checked knifings were up statistically in the uk with all other violent crime on the decrease, in three years three gang related stabbings have made the news with perhaps another couple of murders getting there as well, if I'm not mistaken this one act has lead the murder of more people than the total number of murders in the Uk in the last several years. This view is based on my perception from the media and the little I can remember from when I had to research the topic in school. If you actually have proof that violent crime decreases in places which have guns compared to countries which ban them I'd love to see it, more importantly is the murder rate lower? Are accidental deaths due to violent encounters lower as well?

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Girls don't trust me to use a condom consistently. But you'll trust me with a gun, right?

Condoms also break. Girls are allowed and often use their own birth control which allows them a bit more freedom in dealing with males and the condom thing. In a similar fashion we should allow others to have guns whether we trust them or not till they prove they are untrustworthy on an individual basis. Guns are not only a means to commit assault and murder, they can be used as protection against them. Use that condom, it not only protects the person your having sex with it protects you, but never forget, it can fail, but the fact that it can fail in its job of protection doesn't mean we should outlaw it.

By outlawing guns you would stop only honest law abiding citizens from owning and carrying guns, anyone willing to go against the law could have one anyway. So by outlawing guns you only make it illegal for a honest law abiding citizen to protect themselves with one from someone willing to break the law. Therefore outlawing guns only takes them away from those who might be most deserving of the trust to carry and use one. The girls may not trust you to use those condoms or use them properly and even if you do use it properly it may have unwanted results, but is that any reason to outlaw them?

Re:More than 20. . .

[Xybot]

Lets attempt to apply some logic here. The only place in the world where this type of crime occurs with any frequncy is USA. The developed country with the least restrictive gun laws? USA. Can this be any clearer?

Re:More than 20. . .

[Coryoth]

Given some of the replies I've gotten, I think I should make myself clear:

As a result of this incident some people are calling for tighter controls on firearms, claiming it would have prevented the situation. I do not agree with them, since it is not clear to me that tighter controls would have helped the situation.

As a result of this incident other people are calling for looser controls on firearms, claiming that this would have resulted in significantly less deaths. I do not agree with these people either, since it is, again, not clear to me that looser controls woul have helped the sitation.

I will happily argue against knee-jerk reactions in either direction.

Re:More than 20. . .

[dotbenjamin]

Yes. Over 10 years ago. How many American shootings with more than 10 deaths in the last 10 years?

Point made.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I seriously doubt that anyone would go into a public place with the intention of killing dozens of people and actually expect to walk away alive. He wouldn't have cared if there was a chance that some of them were armed.

The absolute best case if people had guns on campus is that someone who had one saw him shooting and took him out before he could continue. Since he left and came back and nobody could identify him, it appears that he kept a fairly low profile and it isn't that likely that someone would have been able to have had the chance.

Putting more guns on campus would have added a bunch more suspects and potentially had confrontations between otherwise innocent people simply because they were found in the area of a shooting carrying a gun. Confrontations between armed people in stressful situations can get much worse than had those people been unarmed.

The proper thing to do instead is that you lockdown/secure your general area until the professionals can clear the danger. That of course wouldn't change if people were carrying weapons too. However I don't trust minimally trained people carrying weapons in high stress situations.

I'm of the belief that if you want to be permitted to carry a weapon, you need to be registered as part of an organized state militia. Monthly training much like the national guard (since the intention is more of a 'state' guard). If you have the training to handle these sorts of situations as well as the professionals, go right ahead and carry.

Re:More than 20. . .

[hurfy]

I am sure the fact that it is a 2600 acre campus with 26,000 students has nothing to do with it. That sounds like a fair bit to 'secure' to me.

I was going to say that the army can't secure a town that size what can you do with a couple patrol cars and some campus cops... BUT according to Google maps, Iraq has NO towns so i can't find one to compare to. WTF even on the map setting only with no satelite there are no towns listed.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Skapare]

You can be sure those who want to make more laws that take guns away from everyone will not shut up about this for years. So unless you have a solution that will shut those morons up, we will be here to counter their stupidity.

First of all, the gun didn't do it. Almost certainly there are lots of whatever model it happened to be. Only in the hands of an idiot do people get killed. There are far far more guns than idiots (really ... and a damned good thing, too).

You suggest "meaningful regulation of who gets guns". First of all, people like me are not fighting that at all. But there has been little or no real opportunity to fight such proposals because those generally do not get proposed very often. I do agree that keeping guns in the right hands is a good thing. The problem is all the gun control fanatics never propose such laws. They propose laws that take guns away from everyone (except law enforcement and military). So when they act stupid and propose dumb laws like that, of course we have to stand up and fight against them. Maybe you could suggest to them this time around that they should instead propose something that takes guns away from idiots, and not the rest of us. You think you can get them all (including all the Democrats in Congress) to do that?

Re:More than 20. . .

[bogjobber]

pretty much any gun murder described as a "crime of passion" wouldn't have happened if the murderer hadn't had ready, legal access to a gun.

That is a ridiculous statement with no supporting evidence. If anything, those are the murders that are *least* likely to be affected by gun control, as only one or two people are murdered and it is relatively easy to kill one or two people if they aren't expecting it by a variety of means. If you could completely remove guns from society (obviously impossible), the crimes most likely to be stopped are large-scale killings like the VT incident and things like drive-by shootings.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
"A state of preparedness obtained after persistent and rigorous training?" The only rigorous training the hick with a gun rack in his pickup has is drawling, persistent use of "ain't", and Nascar watching.

Re:More than 20. . .

[ptbarnett]

Christ, can't you shut up with this shit for a day?

Had you stopped there, I would have agreed. But instead, you went off on your own rant.

Let's make a deal: you shut up with YOUR shit for a day, and I'll do the same.

Re:More than 20. . .

[harves]

Almost. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_Massacre

Re:More than 20. . .

[@madeus]

However... we can blame the law for our collective lack of defense in situations like this. You could, but you'd be barking up the wrong tree.

If the majority of students carried guns, the killings in this incident and others like it may very well have been minimized if he had been taken out early on. I doubt it would have made much difference though to be honest - you'd still need the presence of mind and ability to take the guy out (which few would have) and the shooter has the advantage of already having drawn a weapon (and so can kill you before you've even gotten yours out).

Of course, there is a downside to this scenario that's being conveniently overlooked here. You'd surely see a lot more than the 30+ people in this incident killed every year in shootouts between students (and other young people), just because a bunch of hot-headed young adults had guns on them and got into an argument with each other over something trivial, but they had guns on them, so one guy draws his, they everybody else in the group draws theirs...

Hell, I've been mugged/had random morons start fights with me/people I'm with several times (in some places its remarkably easy to attract scum) and it would have been great to have been carrying a weapon on those occasions, at least for me. If everyone had been carrying, I would be amazed if I'd be alive now (there would have been at least a couple of deaths I'm sure, even if only the assholes had been killed, which seems wishful thinking).

The less hot headed young guys have access to guns, the better. US society is not able to handle the freedom and responsibility that comes with the relatively liberal gun legislation it already has (though some countries do manage the balance quite well it seems). Hopefully things will change some day, but right now, if you care about lives rather than rhetoric, more control - not less - is more likely to save lives (even if it's the lives of poor, typically black kids or 'white trash', in poor urban neighborhoods who tighter gun control would have the most impact on - the thousands of young guys who are killed by other young guys every year that go by without a blip on the news and who few people care about).

Right now, having greater civil liberties when it comes to gun control, won't make society more liberal or more civil, it will just mean more deaths. If you want to improve the quality of your civil society, the answer is the same as ever, focus on education and building an equitable society. You won't stop incidents like this, but you might save far more lives from being taken by angry young men with guns as a result.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Just WOW. One look at your name says it all.

Everyone who replied to this "Mr. Underbridge" can slap a IHBT on their forehead now, and try to HAND the best you can.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Over 10 years ago. How many American shootings with more than 10 deaths in the last 10 years?

Two incl. today's events? (I may be wrong here)

Point made.

Not quite. You forgot to weigh in population sizes.

Re:More than 20. . .

[jez9999]

Umm... can't yo just simplify that to, "perpetrators of violent crime get sent away, period." ?

Re:More than 20. . .

[Chandon Seldon]

Overall though, there would probably be a background of a shooting every couple of months when someone lost it momentarily and just happened to have a firearm handy.

Do you realize how rare shootings from people with CCPs are? Your theory sounds great, but the actual data we have strongly contradicts it.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I must not be using my rifles and handguns correctly, since I have not maimed nor killed anyone with them.

The facts:
1) Guns are not allowed on campus. It doesn't matter if you have a concealed carry permit from the state. (And, in fact a bill was just shot down that would have allowed permit holders to exercise their freedom.) This shows how well gun-control works when the criminal ignores the law. (Killing people is also against the law, but that didn't stop him.)

2) All of the mass killings in this country have occurred in places that had strict control.

3) The death toll at the University of Texas would have been much higher, except that some students pulled out their deer rifles from their trunks and kept the murderer pinned down. This is another case where guns saved lives.

4) There are many ways to kill people without using guns. Fertilizer, for example.

5) I don't have a problem with idiots walking around with guns. It is still illegal to shoot someone. And, there are many more idiots driving around with multi-ton vehicles which can do much more damage. Compare shooting deaths to highway deaths some time. And imagine what some twisted creep could do to a bunch of pedestrians, say at a street fair, with a pinned throttle.

Written like a true zealot.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

BRRRRRR, it's freezing down here....

--
Satan

Re:More than 20. . .

[brianber]

Happened in Grand Rapids, Michigan in October of 2006. Three gunmen held up a grocery store, led the employees to a back room and bound them with duct tape. The manager, with a gun aimed at his head, managed to work himself free enough to draw his CCW and shoot one of the perpetrators twice, killing him. The other two fled the scene. "In my opinion, if this man had not had a gun, my concern is that they would have executed these people," Kent County Prosecutor William Forsyth said.

Re:More than 20. . .

[RexRhino]

What a really stupid non-argument. Since guns in the US are legal to get hold of, if someone wants to blow away a class full of students what's the point of that person skulking around on the black market for a weapon? Does it make any difference to the victims whether a gun is legal, or sold on the black market? You are the moron who imagines that like when god commands "let the sea part", and the sea parts, that the government will command "guns disapear", and all the economic and social cercumstances for gun ownership will magicly fade away and guns will disappear. I know you may worship government, but it is not a diety.

Why buy a hunting rifle for $1000+, that you will have to register with the government, wait 3 days for, fill out a bunch of forms for, and pay taxes on, when for half the price you can get a black market full-auto Tec-9 perfect for shooting up a classrooom and you can get it in 1/2 an hour delivered to your home?

You do realize that there are any number of places in this country were you can purchase illegal drugs, openly on the street? Most high schools have several drug dealers, and it is easier and cheaper for kids to get illegal drugs than booze or cigarrettes? Do you imagine that it is somehow different when it comes to guns?

No. It makes them less accepted in society and all the easier to identify who has firearms illegally. How are you going to identify people with conceilled weapons? By random searching them!!! Of course, white middle aged bankers aren't going to allow themselves to get randomly searched by police, soccer moms with their kids aren't going to be allowing their minivan to be searched for weapons. Those kinds of things don't happen in rich suburbs. The people who are going to be searched for weapons are going to be young people, poor people, ethnic minorities and immigrants, and the people who are going to go to prison for gun crimes are the people who get searched. People like you don't give a shit that the War on Drugs is essentially a War on Poor People and a War on Black People, I don't expect you to give a shit when a War on Guns turns out the same way.

In fact, THAT IS THE REAL AGENDA OF GUN CONTROL!!! Another law that can only be enforced by giving up civil liberties!!! Another excuse for a domestic warfare system! Another excuse for throwing millions of disadvantaged people in prison! This is what the REAL agenda of people like you!

Give that gun controls would make such an incident far less likely, then there is no reason for point B and no reason to carry a gun. Gun control wouldn't have any more effect on gun violence than the War on Drugs stops people from doing drugs.

Re:More than 20. . .

[ConceptJunkie]

No. It makes them less accepted in society and all the easier to identify who has firearms illegally.

Yeah, because murder, being illegal, isn't accepted by society, and we know how seldom that happens.

The logic is simple and irrefutable. Making guns illegal only affects people unwilling to break the law. And you can't "ban" guns any more effectively than you can ban alcohol. All you can do is pass laws on top of laws. It's already illegal to murder someone, yet people are still murdered. In particular, places that have complete (or effectively complete) bans on guns (like Washington, D.C.) often have the highest murder rates in the country (like Washington, or New York up till a decade or so ago)... and those folks aren't being garroted with piano wire or having poison poured in their ears while they sleep.

Banning guns won't work, at best you are preventing a few accidents. In America, it has never worked, it will never work, and ultimately it's unconstitutional. Aside from that, I'd be all for it.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still waiting for a shooting spree to breakout at a gun show.

If I were to commit a "heat of the moment" crime where I knew it very likely that my victims would have access to guns I probably would rethink my plan and by doing so the "heat" would likely cool down.

Think about it.

Re:More than 20. . .

[G-funk]

I want to whack something with a sword, and set something on fire. Does that make me a bad person?

...Or a mythbuster

Re:More than 20. . .

[Poppa]

Ah, this explains why there is such a high rate of gun crime in Switzerland, where every male between the ages of 20 and 42 must be enrolled in the National Guard and keep a military rifle and handgun in their homes.

Re:More than 20. . .

[iq in binary]

The whole point of concealed carry permits is to do exactly that.

In almost all of the states that currently allow for concealed carry, they also require that you undergo a licensing process to do so. This licensing process weeds out alcoholics, felons, violent criminals, those with domestic violence on their record and those not competent to carry a firearm. We're also required to undergo a class addressing the legal issues and often the moral issues of carrying a firearm. Many undergo accuracy training as well as defensive training. So far it has worked. Nationwide, the population that accounts for the lowest crime rate is the population of CCW licensed citizens.

To give you an idea, cops are more likely to become criminals than those licensed to carry a concealed weapon.

Now, with that in mind, if everyone knew that it was actually an arduous and strict process to obtain a permit to carry; would you be more trusting of those who did? If you knew that those that wanted to carry would only be legally allowed to do so if they also fit the same requirements they apply to the police academy; would you rest easier knowing that they were around you? You'd never know it, we're not allowed to brandish our weapons unless trouble is really in the air; nor would we tell you. But we would be there. Most CCW holders are not only more responsible with the power that comes with a firearm than your average cop; they're more often than not more qualified to use the weapon they're carrying. Most with their concealed carry permit love to shoot, and practice with their weapons often. Most officers of the law rarely use their weapon more than once a month after qualifying. All this in mind would you not feel just a little safer knowing that people with their safety and well being as well as that of others around them in mind with the means to defend the aforementioned are around you?

An armed population does not by any means indicate a criminal one. Take for example Isreal. Almost EVERYONE carries a pistol on them when they're not in uniform. Being subject to as many suicide attacks and terrorist shootings as they are, they suffer a phenomenally low casualty rate compared to the number of terrorists attempting to take lives. There are accounts of suicide bombers dropping with neat doubletaps to heart and head a mere half a second after pulling out the detonator to their c-4 vest; never able to detonate their bomb. Terrorists have pulled out AK-47's in crowded coffee shops and dropped dead before ever firing a shot. An armed population is a well defended one, Isreal being a prime example. Many terrorists captured alive have made comments saying that it's not fair how hard it is to pull off a bombing or crowd-shooting in Jerusalem.

To tell you the truth, I'd rather live in a society where every able-bodied and right-minded man could carry a gun on his person for self defense and that of others. Shit like this would never happen.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

The practical result of what you suggest is that you ARE surrounded by idiots with guns. Your not as rationale as you think.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Astro Dr Dave]

You are so wrong, I don't even know where to begin...

That relies on 2 things: 1) that there is a distinction between good guys and bad guys, and 2) that good guys are good shots. For the first, many (to that point) honest citizens commit "heat of the moment" crimes, which would certainly be made worse with the presence of guns. The second creates problems when well meaning laypeople start playing hero and injure bystanders.
Clearly there can be a distinction between "good guys" and "bad guys." The man who killed over 30 people today is not a "good guy."

I recall reading a study of shootings, which indicated that police were substantially less proficient at shooting than citizens. http://www.gsgi.org/wisc_SWAT.htm has some studies of police accuracy... a 25% hit rate is much worse than what is typical for citizens with concealed carry permits in similar circumstances. I also recall that police are more likely to shoot the wrong person.

I'm not one of the crazies on either side, but if we have to have licenses for cars, we need licenses for guns.
First, we don't have licenses for cars. We do need a license to drive a car on a public road, but no license is required to buy or possess a car. So it's not an analogous situation.

Second, requiring licenses to own guns opens a can of worms as to the requirements for a license. And I'm not aware of any other constitutionally-protected right which requires a license.

And I'm not interested in the BS slippery slope rhetoric. I'm OK with highly trained civillians carrying guns in public. I'm OK with idiot yokels having guns locked up at home that they use for hunting or target practice. I'm not OK with idiot yokels carrying guns in public. It's not safe.
Just because you aren't interested in the "slippery slope" argument doesn't mean that it isn't valid. And just who is to decide if someone is an "idiot yokel" or not... you? Or do you trust our idiotic, autocratic, felonious government to make such decisions?

Re:More than 20. . .

[nomadic]

My reply is in two parts. First, no one here ever argued that so claiming that someone else is arguing something is kind of pointless, isn't it? Second, the threat of gun bans in general is main reason for lack of regulation as regulation is often (historically) a first step towards a ban

Yeah, remember when they started regulating cars? Now they've completely banned them. It's sad.

Re:More than 20. . .

[vimh42]

He got away with it *both* times because the law emasculates the citizen from carrying a weapon at all times.

I cannot believe you said that. Original person opens fire, two people draw weapons to defend themselves. Other people seing these new people draw weapons and draw their own in defense not knowing there was somebody else who started shooting first. And so on and so forth. Everybody would just start shooting each other.

I beleive that we have the right to bare arms. But I don't want everybody carrying a gun with them at all times. I think we'd end up killing far more innnocent people than we'd protect.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Most states allow the use of lethal force to prevent a forcible felony. That includes such classics as Treason, Arson, Murder, Armed Robbery, Kidnapping, etc.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Gizzmonic]

A moderately crazy person may enter a school today in order to shoot the place up, but you'd have to be totally crazy to attempt such when you know that one out of ten students will be shooting back.

Yeah, using innocent people as targets is only "moderately" crazy. Again, it's sickening how low you gun nuts will sink to promote your agenda.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

"Note that I agree with the NRA's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. (After all, Madison and co. were dealing with single-shot muzzle loaders at the time, which wouldn't have allowed for this sort of horror.)"

Single-shot muzzle loaders were the military state of the art at that time. They were the M16s of their day. That is some Rose O bullshit.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

My advice is don't try it in Arkansas.

I think most people don't want to try anything in Arkansas. Have fun with your guns!

Re:More than 20. . .

[Darlantan]

I'll have to fetch numbers when I have some free time. The two I remember may not have been in the UK, but I recall them being in a place where firearms weren't "available".

I'll also dig up an interesting example of pro-gun laws lowering crime (though that depends on how you look at it). A town in GA put a law on the books requiring every household to have a gun. It wasn't enforced, but violent crime dropped per unit of population. The town's size increased 3x in a matter of years (not related to the law), and the raw crime numbers went up as well. Percentage wise, though, they fell. It's interesting in that the anti-gun types use it as a failed example of pro-gun laws based on the fact that more crimes were happening, but the 2A crowd uses the same town as an example of pro-gun laws cleaning things up, since violent crimes committed per unit of population fell noticably.

My last post of the day. I'll try to fetch examples when I have more time -- check back in a day or two, if you're genuinely interested.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Chandon Seldon]

"Principles", like "morals", are a sometimes-inaccurate heuristic for making judgment calls quickly. The "personal freedom" principle has developed for very good reason - we've seen again and again that when individuals are deprived of personal freedom there is a very high likelihood of unintended/unexpected negative consequences.

The founders of the United States thought that maintaining that principle was so important that they dedicated the first 10 amendments of our constitution to that single point. By your definition, they were zealots - and I'm damn happy they were.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Frumious Wombat]

Notice that the Swiss take seriously the "Well Regulated Militia" concept, not the frontier, "Have Gun, Will Travel". They do have a rather high rate of firearms-enhanced suicide.

Re:More than 20. . .

[doshell]

No, I never said that only cops should be allowed to carry guns. But the people who do should be certified as able (both physically and mentally) to handle a gun before they go into a store and buy one.

If someone is unable to behave when they have a gun in their hands, I'd rather sacrifice their personal defense than jeopardize mine.

Re:More than 20. . .

[jez9999]

I can cite some stats (see Table 1). Looks like firearms homicide rates for the US are way higher than for most other western countries. Granted this is partially a societal issue, but I bet the high availability of guns also has a lot to do with it.

Re:More than 20. . .

[jez9999]

Guns are not allowed on campus. It doesn't matter if you have a concealed carry permit from the state. (And, in fact a bill was just shot down that would have allowed permit holders to exercise their freedom.) This shows how well gun-control works when the criminal ignores the law. (Killing people is also against the law, but that didn't stop him.)

Right. Maybe we should legalize killing too? Do you seriously suggest that the only purpose of passing a law is to guarantee the elimination of that behaviour?

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

the law emasculates the citizen from carrying a weapon at all times

Look, I'm sorry you have a tiny penis, but blaming the government for it is unseemly, and a gun makes a poor substitute.

Re:More than 20. . .

[doshell]

Your arguement is moot. Guns are easier to get on the black market than they are legally. Anyone who wants to carry a gun, can carry a gun, and most likely will never get caught by the police. Anything short of a police state will not stop guns (and, looking at the miserable state of the US war on drugs or the violence in places like Russia, not even a police state will stop it).

You're missing my point. My point was never about the people who are willing to buy guns on the black market -- those will always get them, with regulation or not. It's about people who lose control of themselves and grab for a gun before they have the time to realize what they're doing. Those people would never do anything illegal to get a gun, but they might have one nearby and see an opportunity to use it.

The only effect your gun control laws have (besides providing an opportunity for demogogy), is to:

A) Make guns more available and easier to get by pushing gun sales from regulated and taxed gun dealers into the black market.

Again, I don't think so. Those who didn't feel the need to break the law to get a gun won't change their mind (if they do, then it's quite likely they're the kind of person who shouldn't be allowed to have one).

B) Making sure that if someone is carrying a gun, they aren't going to bother trying to stop the rampaging gunman unless it is a matter of their own personal survival (because if they do so they go to jail).

As far as I know, the law allows you to act in self-defense, either using a gun or not. That wouldn't change -- only the fact that you might carry one or not would.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

thus undermining the capability of the people at the time when the creators of our government argued we should be overthrowing that government and establishing a new one.

I do not disagree with your position, however unless you have a large number of nukes, tanks, and combat aircraft in your back pocket as well, I find the proposition that any number of people, even 100% of the American population, could overthrow the US government by military means, to be an absurd one.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Firethorn]

Last I checked, in the US no one is depriving people of the means to defend themselves (a.k.a. "guns").

Actually, as others have stated, they are.

For example, even with a Virginia CCW license it's still illegal to carry a firearm in Virginia Tech, the area where this shooting occured.

There was a proposal to allow CCW holders to carry there, but it died in committee, and the schools public affairs guy made statements to the effect of 'allowing people to feel safe here'. Note the usage of the word 'feel' - Ie not actually safe, as it turned out.

The vast majority of mass shootings in the US occur in prohibited areas. I wonder why?

Re:More than 20. . .

[Viking Coder]

I would not define the founders of the U.S. government as zealots. I think they very, very carefully balanced more variables than I can probably enumerate.

The poster I was responding to said, "I for one simply do not acknowledge that anybody has any intrinsic authority to disarm me, whatever the supposed justification." This lacks any such nuances as, "But, sir, you're boarding a plane," or "When you're visiting your cousin in prison, you need to check your firearm at the front desk," or "Sir, you're about to enter a town-hall meeting with the President. I'm afraid you're going to leave your gun outside."

In other words - what he said was spoken like a true zealot would say it.

Re:More than 20. . .

[zoltamatron]

When looking at this situation in hindsight, it seems like "How the hell did the cops let this guy commit more murders two hours after killing people in a dormitory? Wouldn't they have shut down the school if they knew there was a crazy gunman on the loose?"

Well, I have to come to the cops defense and say no, since the first shootings took place on the other side of campus in a dorm and was an isolated incident involving two people being murdered. Trying to forget about the horror of the other 30 people being killed in the classroom, why would the police shut down the entire campus because of this incident at the dorm? What reason would they have to believe that this guy was going to kill more people? I'll bet the first murders were personal....an act of rage.....and the guy just snapped at the reality of what he had just done and went crazy.....thinking he had nothing left to loose.

That campus is huge with thousands of students....the size of a small town. What makes people think that after two students are killed in their dorm, the correct (or even feasible) police reaction is to put cops in every classroom in every building on campus? And collect that many officers in two hours?

It's absolutely horrible that this happened, and we can all sit around and think of ways that the cops could've prevented this, but hindsight is 20/20 and I don't think that the police responded grossly incorrect given the situation at hand at 7:15am. Trying to blame this on the cops is not the right solution......giving love and support to the people affected by this is. My heart goes out to you all.

Re:More than 20. . .

[roscivs]

Premeditated killers and organized crime, no. Your average infuriated and/or mentally unstable guy? Yes. Why? Because they can't just whip out the gun or drop by home for it and go crazy. Most likely they don't have one, or know where to get one easily. Sure with a little time and paperwork or searching the shadier parts of town they could probably get one in a day or two, but not in that rage of fury they're in right there and then. Instead they use knives

I think you mispelled "bombs".

Re:More than 20. . .

[joe_n_bloe]

He got away with it *both* times because the law emasculates the citizen from carrying a weapon at all times. If there were no restrictions on concealed carry, more people would carry. If V. Tech (like may schools) didn't ban firearms on its grounds, it's probable that some people in either group would have been armed and could have defended themselves.

Christ, can't you shut up with this shit for a day? If morons carried guns everywhere, we'd have many more than 31 killed in spontaneous acts of stupidity every day. There are people who I would generally trust to be around while they carry weapons, but I would not extend that trust of judgement to more than about 5% of the general population. Most of the rest are too damned stupid or impulsive.

By and large, anyone who drives a car is a much greater potential - and actual - danger to society than someone carrying a weapon.

But, whatever.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Deagol]

It's a 'heat-of-the-moment' thing, and that is the type of person that gun control laws protect against.

Yup. Those laws protected the rioters of the '92 the Los Angeles Riots, as many fearful citizens tried to buy guns but were stopped due to the 14-day waiting period. Unintended consequences.

Re:More than 20. . .

[XO]

Do you have any idea how many people are around you -every day- that carry?

No?

Didn't think so.

Re:More than 20. . .

[smellsofbikes]

Again, I agree with the idea. But the thing is: for every reason we can come up with to say why children, crazy people, and convicts shouldn't have guns, is basically a reason that sane, healthy, non-violent adults shouldn't have guns -- because they're really only a couple of drinks/a brain injury/a really serious grudge away from being mentally ill/violent-convict-to-be. I wish there were more widespread training for gun usage and ownership. I sometimes wish that gun ownership came with a legal obligation to have initial and recurrent training in ownership/usage, although there are problems with that, too.

Frankly, I think a good reason for guns is because freedom is more important than security, and I unhappily accept deaths from guns because I think that the population is better off with one more freedom/responsibility and a large population with weapons is less likely to be cowed by a government bent on control. However, when it comes right down to it, that's a pretty shaky argument, especially to anyone who has lost family/friends to a shooting. To them, security is certainly going to be more important than freedom, and I think in the long term, that mindset is prevailing, which is scary in its own right.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Dasher42]

You can guarantee nothing, but this isn't a black and white world, and there's meaningful shades of good, better, and best for any observer. Gun control and licensing doesn't stop the black market, but it does keep the legally sold guns in safer hands.

I read a police officer saying that he was for gun control, where he had been against it, because he saw officers who made bad calls when it came time to start shooting. Nobody is really prepared to deal calmly and rationally with a situation like that, and if not a police officer, certainly not a scared guy in his house who assumes all his kids are in bed or the other things you hear about on the news.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks ... this is the best laugh I've had all day.

Re:More than 20. . .

[smellsofbikes]

Alcohol, hormones, immaturity, and guns: yow.

Re:More than 20. . .

[XO]

What about that Japanese guy that killed 30 people with a single-shot rifle, and a couple of swords?

Close enough?

Find a situation where there has been someone starting to shoot up a place, and if there was someone there that had a gun, they didn't end up using it. I dare you.

Re:More than 20. . .

[RexRhino]

You're missing my point. My point was never about the people who are willing to buy guns on the black market -- those will always get them, with regulation or not. It's about people who lose control of themselves and grab for a gun before they have the time to realize what they're doing. Those people would never do anything illegal to get a gun, but they might have one nearby and see an opportunity to use it.

What makes you think that they would never do anything illegal to get a gun? When guns are illegal, buying a gun will become more of a casual and low-risk activity as the black market expands to fill the market void left by the legal gun industry. Gun are going to get CHEAPER when they become fully illegal, as the unregulated black market fills the void left by the highly-regulated market now. No licences, no taxes, no liability insurance, no product safety concerns, no marketing, no government approval process, and guns get to be dirt cheap. Do you think the people in the warzones in Congo, or Somalia have a lot of money to spend on guns? Guns cost nothing. The actual physical manufacturing of weapons is not the primary cost you are paying when you buy a legal gun. For every person who won't buy a gun because it is now illegal, there will be someone who buys a gun because it suddenly has become dirt cheap.

Re:More than 20. . .

[XO]

There are a few cities in the U.S., where gun ownership is mandatory.

They haven't been cut down to a handful of citizens remaining in those cities, yet.

What stops this, is that many people don't -want- to own a gun. I support -everyone-'s right to carry. If -everyone- were able to carry, then anyone who is not willing to risk their own life when they attack somene, is just plain not going to do it.

Re:More than 20. . .

[XO]

Your post makes you look like a complete moron.

In the early days of this country, especially during the Westward expansion, the majority of people carried guns. Strangely, the majority of people still managed to not get themselves killed because of it.

And, of course, there are places where gun ownership is mandatory. At least two cities in the U.S. that I have heard of recently, as well as (Switzerland? Sweden? both?) ...

Re:More than 20. . .

[segedunum]

You are the moron who imagines that like when god commands "let the sea part", and the sea parts, that the government will command "guns disapear", and all the economic and social cercumstances for gun ownership will magicly fade away and guns will disappear.

No, but you can make it far less likely, as countries with gun controls have proved time and again. This non-existant argument is just very tired now.

Why buy a hunting rifle for $1000+, that you will have to register with the government, wait 3 days for, fill out a bunch of forms for, and pay taxes on, when for half the price you can get a black market full-auto Tec-9 perfect for shooting up a classrooom and you can get it in 1/2 an hour delivered to your home?

That's not happening in countries with gun controls, so maybe you should get out more? What has happened is that concentrating on black market guns has enabled police forces to concentrate their resources on what they know to be illegal, rather than having both hands tied behind their backs and having to deal with killings with guns involved that you can by anywhere at any time.

Gun control wouldn't have any more effect on gun violence than the War on Drugs stops people from doing drugs.

Again, there's no evidence for this in countries that do have gun control.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Now-in England last year, they had fourteen deaths from handguns.

To be fair, there were 22 homicides involving handguns in England and Wales in 2005/06 (see http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.p df page 44). Based on a mid-2005 population of 50,431,700 for England and 2,958,600 for Wales (see http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=6), that's 0.41 hangun homicides per million people.

In the United States, there were 8,299 handgun homicides in 2004 (see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weapo nstab.htm). Based on a mid-2004 population of 293,638,158 (see http://www.census.gov/popest/national/files/NST_ES T2006_ALLDATA.csv), that's 28.26 handgun homicides per million people.

Therefore, the per capita handgun homicide rate is about 69 times higher in the US compared to England and Wales.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Kenshin]

Your argument is based on a specious assumption: that most people aren't competent to own guns.

People already have a deadly weapon: Cars.

Given their track record with the rules associated with that (rampant drunk driving, speeding, and all sorts of bad behaviour leading towards death) what makes you think they'd fare any better with a gun?

Re:More than 20. . .

[segedunum]

Yeah, because murder, being illegal, isn't accepted by society, and we know how seldom that happens.

You can make it less likely to happen by not giving people ridiculously easy access to absolutely lethal weapons.

The logic is simple and irrefutable. Making guns illegal only affects people unwilling to break the law.

Sorry, but the umpteen countries that do have gun controls prove you wrong. There is no logic going on there my dear.

It's already illegal to murder someone, yet people are still murdered.

It's quite a bit easier to murder someone when you can buy a lethal weapon from a corner store as you would buy some sweets.

In particular, places that have complete (or effectively complete) bans on guns (like Washington, D.C.) often have the highest murder rates in the country (like Washington, or New York up till a decade or so ago)...

You just go out of state, buy your guns, and then walk back in.

Banning guns won't work, at best you are preventing a few accidents. In America, it has never worked, it will never work, and ultimately it's unconstitutional.

Banning, or at least controlling, unrestricted carrying of lethal killing weapons is unconstitutional? And you lot are worried about terrorism?! Goodness me.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Grishnakh]

You're an idiot.

The "insurgents" in Iraq don't have any nukes, tanks, or combat aircraft, and they're effectively preventing the Americans from setting up an effective government there and maintaining security.

Your argument would only make sense if the government decided to nuke the whole country. When you're fighting guerillas instead of an organized military on a battlefield, things like nukes and tanks become mostly useless.

Re:More than 20. . .

[mpfife]

This is horrible, but just remember this when you read about 12, 15, 20, or 30 innocent people killed in car bombs and shootings in Iraq - every day. Not pushing an agenda or trying to minimize, just know this is what goes on other places too and to stop thinking we're the center of the universe when it comes to suffering...

Re:More than 20. . .

[bziman]

To get a CCP in the vast majority of states you have to show you are proficient in handling a firearm. I can't speak for other states, but the people who can pass a CCP exam aren't the type that will be shooting wildly.

Virginia isn't one of those states. To get a carry permit, you need to show up at the local courthouse and get one. Some localities have stricter rules -- in Fairfax county (about four hours north of Blacksburg) you have to show that you've taken a gun safety class -- which can be had in an afternoon in the classroom without actually touching a real live gun.

But yeah, one student, teacher or campus police officer with a sidearm might have saved dozens of lives. A CCP isn't a sure thing, but it's clearly better than the alternative.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Aciel]

This tragedy has nothing to do with gun control. The incident last semester with William Morva could not have been prevented by either more or less gun control; nor can this one.

Please, please stop using this tragedy to support political agendas. No one could have seen it coming, and most students here wouldn't carry a gun to class even if it were permitted.

Re:More than 20. . .

[quantaman]

pretty much any gun murder described as a "crime of passion" wouldn't have happened if the murderer hadn't had ready, legal access to a gun.

That is a ridiculous statement with no supporting evidence. If anything, those are the murders that are *least* likely to be affected by gun control, as only one or two people are murdered and it is relatively easy to kill one or two people if they aren't expecting it by a variety of means. If you could completely remove guns from society (obviously impossible), the crimes most likely to be stopped are large-scale killings like the VT incident and things like drive-by shootings.

Sorry but I think you're the one who is wrong. In crimes of passion the person is rarely thinking "I want to kill that person" for any extended period (murder may not even be their intention) just take a look at the Sara Easton case as an example, the accused wasn't even trying to hit anybody, he was only trying to scare the group. The fact is you can do a LOT more damage in a passionate moment with a gun than a fist, baseball bat, or even a knife. Thus crimes of passion will go down as the number of guns is decreased (I don't know by how much, would like to see how many murders do occur with registered guns to get an idea).

Now one type of murder that probably won't go down much would be premeditated murder. As you said it's pretty easy to kill someone if they aren't expecting it, it's a bit tougher without a gun but a dedicated individual will still do it.

Re:More than 20. . .

[westlake]

Actually, if you check the statistics, armed citizens have a better record than the police do of only shooting the actual bad guy.

and just where are those "statistics" to be found?

you will excuse me, I trust, if I think that a +5 mod-up demands a show of proof.

Re:More than 20. . .

[myth24601]

I can't speak for Virginia but in North Carolina a person with a Permit to Carry a Concealed weapon (CCW) still can't carry on any school or university campus.

Re:More than 20. . .

[NeutronCowboy]

Erm.... since no one seems to have have brought this up, consider the following scenario.

Shooter opens fire on school with plenty of students who carry guns. People dive right and left at the first sound of gun fire, then pull their guns to take down the shooter. But where is the shooter? Suddenly, someone opens fire again. Is it the original shooter? Is it an honorable defender? Who do you shoot? Now multiply this problem by a dozen, and suddenly, it's a nightmare. This, by the way, is the reason that uniforms with bright colors were popular until the 1800s: to identify who is on your side and who is on their side. And if you think that friendly fire is a non-issue, consider the latest venture in Iraq, and its well-publicized friendly-fire incidents. Now realize that these are trained professionals, with far more battlefield intel than average schmoes can ever hope to come across.

Do you still think that arming everyone in school would have stopped anything? If anything, I can see far more carnage, with nobody knowing who was shot by the crazy person, and who was shoot because they were thought to be the crazy person.

I'm ok with guns. I'd rather only have a very specific set of people be allowed to carry them in public.

Re:More than 20. . .

[dbIII]

USA - the country where you can get charged for having a weapon if you have a telephone but you can legally walk around with unlicenced and concealed military sidearms. I suspect there will be a move to change this.

Re:More than 20. . .

[jrumney]

Do you realize how rare shootings from people with CCPs are?

Do you realize how rare shootings from people living in countries with strong gun control laws are? Your theory also sounds great, but the actual data we have strongly contradicts it.

Re:More than 20. . .

[mrchaotica]

Or, in this horrible case, mistake someone firing back at the sniper as the actual sniper and shoot the wrong person.

In this case, that would have had to happen OVER THIRTY TIMES to become worse than the result caused by the lack of guns. In reality, the more likely scenario would be that that would happen at most once, and a grand total of maybe 2 or 3 people would have been shot, instead of 33!

Re:More than 20. . .

[myth24601]

My brother in law just finished a semester long class (5 day a week all day class) taught at a local university on Management for Law Enforcement at a local University. In his case (and many others from what he had told me), most of this class was active LEO who were sent to this by there departments so many were armed and some were in uniform.

I believe if the VT gunmen had happened to pick a classroom used by a large number of armed cops this would have been over in 2 seconds.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Grishnakh]

It's true, it's allowed. However, that doesn't mean it's always a good idea. Having a CCW doesn't give you a license to be Rambo, or act as a police officer. The purpose is for you to defend yourself.

Yes, if you witness a person committing an obviously heinous act such as pouring gasoline on his girlfriend and lighting a match, or stabbing someone, or walking into a crowded room with explosives strapped on yelling about jihad, you are permitted (but not required) to stop the greater crime by shooting the person. However, what about when it isn't as clear-cut, like the example about the man on top of the woman in the parking lot? If you make the wrong call, you're liable for the wrongful death. So it's important to be as conservative and careful as possible when you're a CCW.

Plus, don't forget the police can't tell CCW holders from criminals. So unless the situation warrants that risk, don't draw.

Re:More than 20. . .

[mrchaotica]

Consider: you are carrying a concealed weapon and you hear gunfire coming from the room down the hall (or maybe from the floor below). You draw your weapon, and the next thing you know someone carrying a gun walks into the room. Is it another student from elsewhere in the building responding to the gunfire, or the nutcase? Do you shoot them before they can shoot you? Now add plenty of screaming and panic, and multiply this scenario by the number of different panicked scared students all carrying firearms.

Fact: today, over THIRTY people were killed (and more were shot and injured). Your scenario would have to occur about THIRTY times to equal that number of casualties. Is it likely that that could happen that many times before somebody took out the real gunman? I think not.

Re:More than 20. . .

[dbIII]

If there were no restrictions on concealed carry, more people would carry

It's statements like this that make me realise I do not understand the USA. Hiding a military sidearm in your jacket is the sort of thing only well organised criminals do in other countries, and is the sort of thing that would grant you suicide by cop in any suspicious or tense situation. Do you really let people carry guns into banks? How do the security guards react?

Re:More than 20. . .

[Overzeetop]

How do you know it was the same guy? They were interviewing another "person of interest" when the second shooting started. The descriptions of the shooter at the first location apparently didn't match the second.

I'm not saying that there was someone on the grassy knoll, but there are still a lot of odd things about this. (like why someone would cap two people on the edge of campus, then go to the center of campus, to a building you can't even drive up to, and go on a rampage).

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

There's too many firearm advocates arguing that ANY attempt to regulate ...

Your obection is that there are too many people speaking a point of view with which you disagree. This is why the second amendment is there: to protect the first.

Re:More than 20. . .

[tomhudson]

"Alcohol, hormones, immaturity, and guns: yow."

"Alcohol, hormones, drugs, immaturity, fast cars and guns: yow."

There, fixed it for you!

Re:More than 20. . .

[Indecision Bob]

Given that it is impossible to prevent people from having sex, wouldn't it make more sense to educate and regulate than to try to ban, which doesn't work?

(I'm thinking about current US policy towards young people / HIV, especially the policy towards African Aid, which comes with Christian strings...)

Re:More than 20. . .

[illeism]

And, of course, there are places where gun ownership is mandatory. At least two cities in the U.S. that I have heard of recently, as well as (Switzerland? Sweden? both?) ... Which cities in the U.S. have mandatory gun ownership laws? I can't imaging that being mandatory...

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

A few are murders for hire, and others are cold, calculating bastards, but pretty much any gun murder described as a "crime of passion" wouldn't have happened if the murderer hadn't had ready, legal access to a gun.

...or access to a weapon of any kind. Of course guns are more dangerous than knives and forks, which is why domestic violence never results in murder outside the U.S.

(After all, Madison and co. were dealing with single-shot muzzle loaders at the time, which wouldn't have allowed for this sort of horror.)

That's right! Most people don't know that the Constitution only applies to the 18th century and its technology.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Grishnakh]

Iraq isn't a place where there's good guys and bad guys; it's a place where a full-out civil war is being waged. When a population turns on itself, great bloodshed is usually the result. What do you expect from a country where the population is divided into three ethnic groups that all hate each other intensely? Take away the strongman who's keeping the peace (at the expense of the ethnic groups he doesn't like) and they all turn on each other. The idea of a united Iraq is ridiculous, and this should have been known before the invasion; the only way those people will live in peace is to be separated into separate countries. To keep them like this is like forcing the Jews at the end of WWII to live among the Germans.

Your comparison is completely useless.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

"situations that have been stopped by a citizen with a gun in the right place at the right time?"

If the citizen stopped the spree before it 'started', it would no longer be a 'spree', and thus would generate no news, and thus not be noteworthy enough that we would have heard or know of it. Thus, why this arguement is a straw-man.

The citizen "in the right place at the right time" in this situation might have reduced the number of shots the gun-person fired, but arming the students would not have prevented deaths.

Re:More than 20. . .

[greppling]

I believe that if armed citizens trying to play hero caused even more casualties, that would be big news, carried by all the mainstream media....and if a citizen stops a bad guy before he can shoot a bunch of people, that's local-interest news only.

Hmm, I thought it was in the national news as well that the recent shooting in the Trollet Square mall in Salt Lake City was more or less stopped by a CCW holder, an off-duty police officer. (He opened fire on him, forcing him to search for cover, thus constraining him until two on-duty police officers arrived. I don't remember whether it was determined which of the three actually killed him in the end, but that doesn't matter so much.)

So while your point may be right (more legal CCW holders will stop such a shooting more quickly), your conspiracy theory is wrong, unless this part of the story was only covered in local news. (I only looked at local news to read about it, as it happened 2.5 blocks away from my home.)

Btw, I am mentioning this despite being more on the side of those favoring tighter gun controls. There were 1,225 lethal gun accidents in 1995 (http://www.hpjc.org/issues_guncontrol.html, I couldn't find more recent figures quickly - I would be glad if someone could post a link for both more recent figures and a more authoritative source), and I am strongly convinced that many of the "crimes of passion" murders (husband killing wife) would not happen if there wasn't a weapon around in the household. Unfortunately I couldn't find figures about the percentage of crimes of passion among gun homicides, and given the climate of the US gun debate it is quite difficult to find good reliable unbiased figures on the web anyway...

Re:More than 20. . .

[Chandon Seldon]

Do you realize how rare shootings from people living in countries with strong gun control laws are? Your theory also sounds great, but the actual data we have strongly contradicts it.

Yea, you're right. They're stabbings instead.

A more interesting question is if the introduction of gun control laws decreases the frequency of violent crime overall, and there is evidence that it doesn't.

In the United States, gun control laws are unconstitutional. Given that, there would have to be some evidence that they're beneficial before I could consider supporting them.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not OK with idiot yokels carrying guns in public. It's not safe.

Vermont and Alaska allow anyone who can legally own a gun to carry it concealed in public. Do you consider those States more unsafe than other parts of the U.S.?

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a whole stack of books at home. I'm not at home right now.

A quick web search did turn this reference up:

...while killings by civilians are held lawful only after at least ordinarily rigorous scrutiny, killings by police enjoy an extraordinary bias toward exonerating the officer even in the most egregious cases. Available data do not allow estimation of how many police killings routinely classified as "justifiable" should have instead been classified as unlawful. But the one comparative study finds that while innocent persons had been misidentified as criminals in 2% of cases where civilians used guns defensively, 11% of a sample of police gun uses involved such misidentification.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kates.defense.ht ml#57

11% vs. 5% qualifies as "a better record", I think.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Coryoth]

Your scenario would have to occur about THIRTY times to equal that number of casualties. No, it would need to happen as many times as would be required to make up the difference between the thirty killed today, and however many would have been killed before the gunman eventually ran into a gun carrying individual who he didn't manage to surprise or shoot and kill first. Who knows what that number is. In practice we really just don't know how the numbers would stack up. That means there isn't really any argument to be made based on this (in either direction, pro or anti gun control).

Re:More than 20. . .

[G-funk]

Assumption: You're carrying a gun, and know how to use it.

If you see somebody in front of you starts shooting ppl left and right, you might decide to shoot him.

If you here some shots off in the distance, you don't "whip out your gatt and go looking for somebody to smoke". You leg it in the other direction.

Re:More than 20. . .

[myth24601]

I wouldn't presume to know what goes through the minds of the sort of people who go on such shooting sprees, but I'm not certain there is particularly good reason to presume there is significant deterence. Almost all such shooters kill themselves, so I don't think death is particularly troubling to them.

They kill themselves when armed police are closing in.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Snaller]

"there is NO way to guarantee that you keep guns out of the *wrong* hands. And since the "bad guys" will always have guns, it's wrong to deprive the good guys of the means to defend themselves."

So sayth the cowards.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Enry]

and we all agree shotgun > handgun.

We do?

Shotguns can have a slower rate of fire and hold fewer shells than the 9mm (and 22) that apparently held far more than 9 bullets. If you're looking at a raw amount of damage to a small number of targets at very close range, yea, shotgun > handgun. In this situation, I'd say that a handgun would be able to injure more people in a shorter amount of time than a shotgun.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Snaller]

" Yes, the shooter was clearly out of his mind, and is to blame for the offense. However... we can blame the law for our collective lack of defense in situations like this."

Naa, we'll blame people like you who made it possible for him to get a gun to start with.

Re:More than 20. . .

[dlanod]

As horrible as it is it isn't the worst shooting spree, Martin Bryant shot dead 35 in Australia back in 1996. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bryant

Re:More than 20. . .

[AusIV]

Right. Forgive the cliche, but if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Snaller]

Well, if you'd had an education you'd know that Switzerland is one of the ritchest countries in the world. 99.9% of them are well educated and have money. Unlike uneducated trigger happy dross of certain countries.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh-huh. That's why crime has dropped in every single state that's legalized concealed carry (35, so far, in every case over the shrill, irrational, screeching objections of people like you).

There's a moron here, all right, but it's not the law-abiding gun owners.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, I thought it was in the national news as well that the recent shooting in the Trollet Square mall in Salt Lake City was more or less stopped by a CCW holder, an off-duty police officer.

I never heard about that. I just searched Google News and live.com news for "Trollet Square" and came up empty.

There were 1,225 lethal gun accidents in 1995 (http://www.hpjc.org/issues_guncontrol.html, I couldn't find more recent figures quickly - I would be glad if someone could post a link for both more recent figures and a more authoritative source)

How about the Center for Disease Control, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control? The below link takes you to a form, and using that form I pulled up the numbers for 2004: 649 deaths.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy. html

I am strongly convinced that many of the "crimes of passion" murders (husband killing wife) would not happen if there wasn't a weapon around in the household.

Sadly, a firearm isn't the only way to kill somone, and there are lots of weapons in a household. You can check the FBI Uniform Crime Reports and find murders cross-indexed by weapons, murderer/victim relationship, etc. You will find that firearms were used in most murders, but also used were knives, "blunt instruments", "pushed or thrown out window", and "personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)". It's depressing reading, really.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_in formation/data/shrtable_10.html

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Your analysis is wrong. This sort of people did not just wake up in the morning, and instead of going studying with a friend, grabbed handguns and ammo and went for it.
It is not a rush, that could have been avoided with the delay of getting a firearm.
This is probably people that thought and thought many times before, of doing something like that. So delay would not help here.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Johnny Mnemonic]

And responsible adults don't lightly pull out guns, especially if they have had good training.

Are you willing to let me determine if you're both a) responsible and b) well-trained before I let you carry a weapon? What if I merely require that you're "well regulated", as the 2nd Amendment does?

Seems to me that we've had all attempts at those three requirements resisted out of hand by pro-gun lobbyists.

Re:More than 20. . .

[StikyPad]

Actually, Virginia has very liberal (conservative?) buyer and concealed carry laws. Just about anyone without a record can obtain both with little effort, so by your logic, we should be seeing shooting sprees all over VA. In reality, the firearm death rate was below the median for 2003 (only year I could find), and the murder rate has been about average (usually below, sometimes above) for the past decade.

I lived in Blacksburg about a decade ago, and my sister is a recent VT alumni who used to live in West AJ, where the shootings started. Many of my friends and family are VT alumni, and while I'm now half a world away, this tragedy hit rather close to home, although obviously not nearly as close as for current students, faculty, residents, and their families. Nonetheless, I can't help but wonder what might have happened if someone with a concealed carry permit had been nearby, or in the class, and had been able to take action. Instead, firearms are completely prohibited on campus -- which makes sense, but only if the playing field is leveled by bag checks and metal detectors at all building entrances. The "honor system" for this sort of thing only harms those who follow the laws and regulations of the state and campus.

I'm personally shocked by this event. As anyone who's ever been to Blacksburg can attest, it's not at all the sort of place where you'd expect anything like this to happen. (Not to say there's anywhere you would expect a massacre, but some places are obviously better candidates than others.) It's a very small-town atmosphere, despite a university population (including faculty) of about 35,000. The environment is very casual and laid back, and people are generally very friendly and trusting. It's almost impossible for anyone to not find a group of peers to which they can "belong," in such a place, especially where so many so-called "nerds" and other social "misfits" abound. Unfortunately, there are always people who feel isolated, alone, and without support, as most of us have from time to time, whether real or imagined, no matter how friendly and open the community is. My deepest sympathy and condolances go out to all who were affected by this tragedy.

Re:More than 20. . .

[SETIGuy]

Why limit it to guns? How does 45 dead, mostly elementary school students, sound? Bath Township, Michigan, May 18, 1926.

I know people like to think that awful acts like this are something new. As it turns out massacres aren't new.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Das Modell]

In true liberal style, the first impulse is always to downmod.

Re:More than 20. . .

[psykocrime]

Imagine everyone opening fire in self-defence and no one knowing who the gunman actually was (sounds like the US Army in Iraq today!). Where you've got a lot of people carrying guns, it's been known to happen.


Some citations to back up that assertion? When and where did these incidents happen?

Re:More than 20. . .

[Das Modell]

Preventing a crime or helping a victim of a crime does not make you a vigilante.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Das Modell]

However, what about when it isn't as clear-cut, like the example about the man on top of the woman in the parking lot? If you make the wrong call, you're liable for the wrongful death.

Or you can just pull out your gun and demand to know what's going on, instead of immediately shooting everyone in sight.

Re:More than 20. . .

[kramulous]

After Martin Bryant murdered 35 people in a killing spree in Australia, John Howard (PM) bought back all guns and then promptly outlawed them. This kind of event has not happened since.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Bob9113]

In the absence of meaningful regulation of who gets guns - which people like you have fought vehemently against - sane people like me simply don't trust being around any number of idiots with guns. If you want more of society to accept the wisdom of having armed citizens around, you'll have to convince us that there's some method of keeping them in the right hands - which clearly did NOT happen today.

Soo... the gun control regulations on V. Tech. campus didn't work.

What would work? It's tough. Can't be the government - the government is the reason the citizens are supposed to have guns. I think Arizona's system comes pretty close: One receives a concealed carry license by taking a rigorous course from a government certified, but not government operated, training facility. At the end the paperwork still goes to the state for approval, which is a somewhat weak link, I believe. However, once approved, no further records have to go to the state. IE: Once one has proven their trustworthiness to the state, that person can purchase firearms without having to notify the government. Of course, if a purchased firearm were used in a crime, there is a records trail that would lead to the training facility, where the proper authorities would subpoena the gun sale record, and it would then lead to the owner. But, of course, anyone who makes it through the course gets a deep lesson about the gravity of gun ownership - most of the people leaving the course wind up buying gun safes (I would say all, but some already have them). Those few that aren't so inclined typically fail the written test, or the proficiency test, or more likely both.

So - that seems like a pretty good system to me. And it seems to meet your criteria that idiots can't just go out and buy guns. What do you think? Will you now stand by your claim that prudent gun certification is sufficient?

Re:More than 20. . .

[khallow]

Why are you claiming this was a spontaneous act? He apparently had two weapons and plenty of ammunition. As another poster pointed out, you don't just pick this up on a whim. And if it comes to me "being John Wayne" versus getting shot at close range by someone who has all the time in the world, I'd chose John Wayne.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Dun Malg]

A university is NO place for guns weather they be concealed for defense or otherwise. PERIOD I agree with your platitude.

Now that it's clear that platitudes have no effect on the way the real life works, how do you suggest we stop nutcases who don't follow the rules? Stand up and shout "that's against the rules!" when they come in to shoot us? Build a wall around campus and force students to wait in long DHS-airport-security-style lines to get in each morning to attend class? Use our magic rainbow powers to change all the guns in the world into butterflies?

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and all that...

Re:More than 20. . .

[Bob9113]

A few are murders for hire, and others are cold, calculating bastards, but pretty much any gun murder described as a "crime of passion" wouldn't have happened if the murderer hadn't had ready, legal access to a gun.

This is flatly incorrect. Stats show that the murderer would use a knife instead.

I would hasten to add that the people saying guns reduce crime are also wrong. Gun ownership has no statistically significant effect on violent crime rates.

Check out the top five gun owning countries (among those that keep good statistics), US, Norway, Finland, Canada, Switzerland. They're nicely distributed from the top of the chart to the bottom, in terms of homicide rate:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

Sorry to those on the pro, and the anti, side of the argument. There's simply no ground for either of you in the crime rate stats. Accidental death rates are equally unimpressive. In countries where gun ownership is common, people are more familiar with firearms and have less accidents per gun - the overall casualness of the society is a much larger determining factor in the rate of accidents.

Alas, like so many serious problems with easy answers, the easy answers are bullshit. More guns won't help. Less guns won't help. Heck, would we even be having this argument if the stats were definitive in one direction or the other?

Re:More than 20. . .

[thrawn_aj]

Given that it is impossible to prevent people from owning guns, wouldn't it make more sense to educate and regulate than to try to ban, which doesn't work? Sorta like the whole sex education/contraception versus abstinence issue? I guess that is the sensible thing to do. We can't really get rid of guns as they're just too powerful as phallic symbols. Besides, they form the livelihood of an obscenely high fraction of humanity (armies, police, workers in armament factories ...) so it would be political suicide to even seriously attempt to phase them out on the civil stage (any apparent efforts are just that - apparent). So, I agree with drinkypoo: we are led to this point not by choice, but by inevitability. I give up already. Gun control is a pipe dream. What we need instead are more advanced weapons. YES! I say more advanced weapons because those can be better controlled. Imagine if the whole gun + ammo paradigm were dissolved through progress in handheld weaponry so that you had things like stunners or any sort of electrical weapon which could be charged and which would be thoroughly computerized. Why is this better? Well, for one thing, guns would no longer be the realm of any noob with a machine shop in his garage - they would be specialized, requiring experts to handle their innards. The same thing has happened with the advent of a new generation of cars with greater computerization - it has become harder for ordinary people to treat cars like toys. Also, it would be much easier to set up safe zones where these things just wouldn't work. These concepts are no longer in the realm of science fiction - it only takes a little ingenuity to bring these into the commercial market.

Further, I find it extremely strange that we have not seen the advent of more non-lethal handheld weaponry. You'd think that some kind of projectile stunner (a longer range taser for instance) would be welcomed by the gun proponents. You get defense and you don't have to kill. How can that be a bad thing? Or do you really want to destroy every badass mugger who dares attack you? Is cold-blooded revenge the point here?

Again, the only point I'm trying to make is why do people insist on thinking in binary? Why is the only choice we have "kill or be killed?". There are other alternatives, and the one I suggested above is only one of several that can be thrashed out if only the right people (gun manufacturers? gun activists?) use their imagination instead of their testosterone. By all means, have your guns. Just rise above the barbarism of the common lethal pea-shooter. Maybe I'll start carrying a crossbow around and see how you like it :P. Pathetic!

Re:More than 20. . .

[Philotic]

I spent a few quarters at a community college a while back, and in one of my courses the student in front of me carried a gun to class every day. He kept it in a holster on his waist. There it was every day, peeking out from beneath his shirt. At first I was somewhat alarmed, but not overly so. I learned he was also a security gaurd on campus, and was licensed to have it on school property. I actually felt very safe with this guy and his gun around all the time, not only because he was a security gaurd, but from his general persona, and the respect he gave everyone. For all the flack that Charlton Heston gets, there is some truth in his now infamous quote.

Re:More than 20. . .

[folstaff]

The idea is that if you know people are armed, you will be less likely to start shooting. It is the same reason you don't see shootings at gun shows.

Re:More than 20. . .

[smellsofbikes]

Holy christ you have a lot of assumptions there. Let's count: you're assuming that the first person he encountered would've shot him dead, rather than after he's already shot twenty. You're assuming that multiple armed people don't shoot each other, entirely unrelated to him, each thinking the other is the evil gunman, leaving him to keep on shooting other people. You're assuming that multiple armed people don't mistakenly shoot other, unarmed people mistaking their identity or just missing the target gunman and hitting innocent bystanders. You're assuming that people trying to shoot him are not in turn mistaken for a gunman or multiple gunmen by the police, who then start shooting at them, possibly hitting innocent, unarmed people as well as the people trying to shoot the gunman. In other words, you assume that everything goes perfectly for a single, armed, ideally fortunate person facing a madman, to come up with your estimate. Cute. Quaint, even. But nothing like reality.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Dun Malg]

No, I never said that only cops should be allowed to carry guns. But the people who do should be certified as able (both physically and mentally) to handle a gun before they go into a store and buy one.

If someone is unable to behave when they have a gun in their hands, I'd rather sacrifice their personal defense than jeopardize mine.

Physical certification requirements? My 80 year old grandmother can fire a shotgun as well as anyone else, and she uses a walker.

As for being "certified mentally", exactly what does that entail? A "passing grade" (whatever that might be) on the MMPI2? No history of schizophrenia? That's an easy one. How about a history of depression? Do you refuse a gun to a woman who took Zoloft for 6 months after her mother died ten years ago? Psychology isn't an empirical science like physics. There isn't a set of secret pschiatrist's questions that will suss out the secretly insane or the sane-now-but-totally-nuts-in-three-years. We already filter for felons and certified nutcases anyway. There's no way to do any more without it turning into a situation where a bureaucrat with an agenda can dole out gun permits according to his whims and fancies.

Re:More than 20. . .

[m0rm3gil]

Port Arthur death toll was 35. It is currently the worst shooting of this type. But it's early on and along with the 32 dead there are lots in hospital so this may well get worse.

Re:More than 20. . .

[yakumo.unr]

Awesome stats, thanks!

Small note of pedantry though, Bill Hicks died in 1994 so when he's quoted as saying 'last year' it doesn't mean 2004, and he might have been using artistic license anyway ;)

Re:More than 20. . .

[Bob9113]

I can't speak for other states, but the people who can pass a CCP exam aren't the type that will be shooting wildly.

I'll go you one better; in Arizona, the people with their CCW are a heckuva lot more likely to be hiding behind a desk on their cell phone. It's part of the training.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Dun Malg]

Imagine everyone opening fire in self-defence and no one knowing who the gunman actually was How could they not know? He's the guy who kicked open the door and started shooting. Are you seriously suggesting that Student A might return fire, and then Student B, somehow not having noticed the gunman when he came in shooting, opens fire on Student A? Gimme a break.

(sounds like the US Army in Iraq today!) How so? I spent 6 years on active duty, two of those in Afghanistan, and not once did anyone ever get confused and start shooting at the guy next to him because he didn't notice that the rest of us were shooting at the guys on the other side of the valley.

Where you've got a lot of people carrying guns, it's been known to happen. What, they start randomly firing?

There's a difference between defending yourself and carrying around a lethal weapon that has no other purpose than to kill. There is? What is it?

I'm sure that if you carried around Anthrax, or had some fertiliser packed into your car then some serious questions would be asked as to what on Earth you were doing. However, you've got a far greater chance of killing with a lethal weapon like a gun. The issue there is control. Anthrax and bombs are indiscriminate. They are not in any reasonable sense usable defensively. Firearms are completely controllable. Your exaggerated analogy is idiotic.

Re:More than 20. . .

[XO]

http://www.mcsm.org/kennesaw.html/
Kennesaw, Georgia I think is the oldest continuous one. I'm searching for the one I just read about passing a week or three back...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/opinion/16reynol ds.html?ex=1326603600&en=3b3fcfadc7e7f096&ei=5088& partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Greenleaf, Idaho (may require registration or BugMeNot)

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_4 80913.html
proposed in Cherry Tree, PA

Re:More than 20. . .

[Dun Malg]

Who are the "good guys"? Everyone gets angry at some point in time, and some people get angry enough to shoot someone. If everyone had a gun, there could be a potential deadly outcome for every emotional outburst. Bollocks. Where does this idiotic notion that the only thing keeping a pissed off person from killing is the lack of a convenient weapon come from? Being "angry enough to shoot someone" is the same as being "angry enough to bash in someone's skull with a [paperweight/beer mug/golf club/etc]". There's nothing magic about a gun that makes people forget it's a deadly weapon. In fact, pop culture has essentially permanently established that GUN == DEATH. Murderous hotheads are murderous hotheads whether they have a gun handy or not.

Now, perhaps you are the sort of person who, when they get angry, would shoot someone if a gun was handy. If that's the case, you need some fucking help. One day you're gong to run someone off the road in your car, once you realize that it can be as deadly as any gun.

Re:More than 20. . .

[littlewink]

Would guns on campus have prevented more people from getting shot? Who the hell knows? Maybe it would have meant several people trying to play hero and causing even more casualties by shooting wildly in the direction of the gunman. It's just idle speculation.

We tried it your way (no guns on campus) and the result so far is a slaughter with 32 dead. Now let's try it my way (allow persons to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun on campus) and see how it puts a stop to such madness.

How foolish to expect police to save you from a nutball. Cops are good for investigating crimes after the fact . If you want protection, do it yourself. Liberals have the silliest ideas about what government can do for you.

The real question here is how a 911 call about shots fired gets to police at 7:15am and the same gunman (apparently) is allowed to come in and shoot up another building on the same campus TWO HOURS LATER with no police presence.

1. No proof then and even now, that it was the same gunman.
   
2. Even if it proves to be the same gunman, the cops aren't gods looking down and following everyone, although GWB and Hilary think they should.
   
3. Police are very good at finding out afterwards what happened and then prosecuting the guilty, but they rarely prevent a criminal action. Police are primarily investigative, not interventional.
   
4. The police WERE present in adequate levels to examine the first incident (2 people shot) and to chase down any suspect.
   
5. Quit trying to point a finger at everyone except the psychopath who did the shooting.
   
6. Everyone should consider that, if they ever find themselves in a similar situation and think they will die, it is better to die fighting.
   

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no way you'd get even close to killing 32 people with a knife.

"qaStaHvsIS wa'ram loS SaD Hugh SljlaH qetboqh loD".

Posted A/C and left in the Klingon to delay the inevitable modding out of existance.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Dun Malg]

I can cite some stats (see Table 1). Looks like firearms homicide rates for the US are way higher than for most other western countries. Granted this is partially a societal issue, but I bet the high availability of guns also has a lot to do with it. No, you'd lose that bet. Availability of guns has little to do with it. As even that blowhard Michael Moore has noted, Canada has similar firearms availability, yet nowhere near the homicide rate. It's entirely societal. The US is a sexually repressed nation raised on TV shows like 24 and action movies like [anything with Schwarzenegger]. Anything fun (like drugs) is villified, and we work ourselves harder than anyone but perhaps the Japanese. Lacking any sort of reasonable safety valve, people tend to explode more often.

Re:More than 20. . .

[dsanfte]

Would mod you up if I could, sorry.

I'm a recent convert from the anti-gun side after experiencing a real school shooting here in Montreal while I was at Dawson. A lot of the anti-gun bias is indeed a stereotype of gun-owners as homicidal maniacs, and guns themselves as some kind of inherent danger to society.

I don't believe that anymore. You can't go backwards. We live in a world of guns. Restricting firearms will reduce accidents, but it also renders the law-abiding populace a very tempting, unarmed, vulnerable target. I really have to wonder which scenario is better.

Re:More than 20. . .

[StikyPad]

Since the minimum age for firearm ownership is 21, the number of students carrying would be limited to begin with. I suspect that the numbers of students who (legally) carried concealed would be trivial in day-to-day experience, although probably somewhat higher after Monday's events. I agree that it's not necessarily a good thing to have a bunch of armed individuals on campus (hell, they don't even carry guns to class at military academies), but with zero security checks in place at any of the buildings, let alone a secure campus border, it's the next best alternative. I'm pro-gun ownership, however I don't believe guns have any place in a learning environment, but I do believe it's necessary to enforce that ban with at least casual security checks at the entrances to buildings, otherwise you're just disarming a large population without taking any effective measures to offset their vulnerability.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you willing to let me determine if you're both a) responsible and b) well-trained before I let you carry a weapon?

I will point out that the courts have determined that there are limits on all our rights: First Amendment rights don't let you yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. And, believe it or not, there are actual laws in place that specify who is permitted to carry and who is not.

In the state where I live, a person must apply for a permit, which involves going to a local police station, letting them take your fingerprints, and having the fingerprints sent to the FBI. There is no required training. Guess what? The people who walk into a police department and say "here, take my fingerprints"... those people aren't the problem. My state has incredibly low rates of crime by permit holders, and also incredibly low rates of accidental gun injuries.

So, any time someone proposes mandatory training, my first thought is: the situation isn't broken here, so don't try to fix it.

And I will point out that there are two states where any adult citizen can carry a firearm with no license required, and those states are not exactly hotbeds of gun deaths.

What if I merely require that you're "well regulated", as the 2nd Amendment does?

Sigh. That statement is the equivalent of "a well-educated population being a good thing, the right of people to own and read books shall not be infringed." "well-regulated" was used in the sense of "practiced in the use of".

At least you didn't try to claim that the Second Amendment isn't an individual right, and I thank you for that. (I'm amazed anyone can single out any Amendment from the Bill of Rights and claim that it alone was never intended to be an individual right.)

Seems to me that we've had all attempts at those three requirements resisted out of hand by pro-gun lobbyists.

Look, there are a bunch of "gun-control" laws and regulations that no-one argues about. The NRA has never proposed that the criminally insane should be allowed to own guns, for example.

The basic problem is that there is a group dedicated to chipping away at the rights of gun owners any way they can, because they sincerely believe that their ideas on "gun-control" would really make the world a better place. If they can't get all guns banned, they go for the handguns. If they can't get handguns banned, they go for "sniper rifles" and draft a law that would ban all deer-hunting rifles. If they can't get that, they draft a law that would ban all "close-in assault weapons" that would ban all shotguns. Or, how about those laws that ban all weapons within a five-mile radius of any school... guess how many people's homes are within a five-mile radius of any school? That's a ban in disguise. If advocates of the Second Amendment are suspicious of "gun-control" laws, it's because of history.

A fun, real-life example: after 9/11, a bunch of airplane pilots got really organized and pressed hard for a license that would allow them to be armed while flying the plane. They succeeded, but it turns out that to qualify, the pilots need to jump through an incredible number of hoops, and only a tiny percentage of pilots has actually struggled all the way through and gotten the license. A quick web search found this; I've never heard of this "cnsnews.com" but I have read a similar story from sources I trust. Or see:

http://secure-skies.org/AirlinePilotsComments.php
http://www.womenswallstreet.com/columns/ArticlePri nt.aspx?aid=1178

As a more relevant example, in New York City, it is actually possible to get a license to carry a concealed weapon; at least in theory it is. In practice, you can get one if you are rich and well-connected, but if yo

Re:More than 20. . .

[Danse]

Gun nuts seem to enjoy contemplating the "firefight with an oppressive overlord" fantasy.

Yeah, that's pretty farfetched? It's not like a bunch of guys with small arms and homemade explosives could cause any trouble for the most powerful military in the world, right? Right?

Re:More than 20. . .

[Danse]

There were a panic, you know, and if everybody were having guns in their hands and willing to shoot ...

Then the guy probably wouldn't have tried it in the first place, or he would have been shot seconds after he started shooting. People licensed to carry a concealed weapon are trained well enough to know how to use it. Yes, it's possible that someone else could be hit as well, but the guy would have been dead or incapacitated long before he was able to kill over 30 people.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Danse]

Even the people with CCP certification won't really know how they'll react in a firefight until they actually end up in one.

Better to have some chance to defend yourself than be one of those poor people there that had nowhere to run and no way to fight.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Wonko the Sane]

Half of the population are dumber than the average.

Amazing! Maybe the next thing you'll tell us is that a line is the shortest distance between two points, or maybe that a prime number only has two factors!

Re:More than 20. . .

[Danse]

Anyway, this went off a bit from what I'm replying to. All I ask is that people think about it. Hell, talk to some soldiers and ask them how it was when they were in there first combat experience. Keep in mind, those guys are going under MONTHS of training, not a simple course to see if they can shoot straight.

Since I've never had to shoot anyone, I can't really imagine what it's like. I can only suspect that it's probably better than being dead. I know where you're coming from when thinking about how to handle things when you don't really think that anyone should just be able to go buy a gun, and yet you know that people can get them illegally anyway, especially if they plan to use them illegally. I've thought about this for a long time. What it comes down to for me is that I have to believe that I have a right and a responsibility to defend myself, my family, my home. Nobody is going to shoulder that responsibility for me. Not the police. Not the government in any form. They aren't obligated to or even capable of defending me. So if it's all on me, I should have the right to own a gun for that purpose, as there is really nothing else that can do the job as effectively. Both as a deterrent, and as a last resort.

Re:More than 20. . .

[mrmeval]

I will soon have an Indiana lifetime carry permit. At my former employer several people had carry permits. Several were women. Whether they carried at work I did not ask. More people per capita carry in Indiana than I think carry in any other state though with the carry laws nationwide that is changing. I feel more comfortable in the company of a group of people who I know could be carrying than I did in a LA shopping mall.

We have meaningful regulation of who gets guns, the law abiding abide by them, the criminals and insane do not.

Guns can be manufactured easily, stolen from police, military or civilian sources, imported with drugs, people or other contraband. If there is a total ban there will still be guns but those that have them will be criminals, police or military.

A gun or guns was not used in the biggest mass killing in US history.

Re:More than 20. . .

[SonicSpike]

When the bill of rights was authored "regulated" meant 'to make regular'. That sort of changes the meaning a bit from our current common misinterpretation of it as well as with the ISCC which says "Congress can...regulate commerce between the states".e regular commerce between the states and for a militia that was in a regular state of readiness.

Regardless of that, in your first paragraph you talk about the slippery slope and the government using the list of gun owners to begin rounding up guns. Don't think that can happen, eh? Tell that to the Britains where the exact thing you mention did indeed happen. The government (especially the Federal gov) really has no authorization to know what kind of items I possesses or things I purchase.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Danse]

It seems a bit unfair to call it a lapse--we don't know all the details yet,

I'm not sure I'd call it a lapse on the part of the police. They responded to what seemed to be an isolated case. I'm more likely to blame the school for not notifying people to stay put and not come to class, but I'm going to reserve judgment on that as well until I hear all the facts. Regardless, it certainly does illustrate the point that either way, the police show up after you're dead and take lots of pictures. They don't usually arrive in time to save you, and even if they do, they may not do so because they generally don't know what's going on when they get there and aren't going to go charging in.

Re:More than 20. . .

[xenocide2]

Your argument is based on a specious assumption: that most people aren't competent to own guns

There's enough speed limit signs with buckshot in them that I'd have to say enough people aren't responsible with the guns they already own.

Re:More than 20. . .

[adrianmonk]

There's no way you'd get even close to killing 32 people with a knife.

Wondering if that was true, I read over part of a list of mass murders. Incidentally, I do not recommend this. It's depressing and sickening.

Anyway, the majority of them did involve guns, I guess because that's just an easier way to kill people. But sadly, yes, you can kill lots of people with a knife. It happened in Japan only a few years ago -- a mentally unstable guy entered a school and killed 8 children, and wounded several others. There were also two stories of people going nuts and killing several people with an axe.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

5% of the 25 people in the German class would mean 1 gun on the side of the defenders

Re:More than 20. . .

[adrianmonk]

You're playing with hypotheticals here. It is certainly conceivable that, if a large number of VT students were all carrying concealed weapons that, when the shooting broke out, someone would have shot the nutcase. On the other hand it is conceivable that, if a large number of VT students were all carrying concealed weapons, there may have been a number of accidental or mistaken shootings at the same time.

Sure, had VT been swarming with gun-toting vigilantes, it's possible that there might have been some accidental shootings today. But would there have been SIXTY? Adding up the current number of casualties (32) and injuries (29), it would appear that the gunman shot about that many people. Even if there had been 10 vigilantes who were very bad marksmen and each of them accidentally shot an innocent bystander before finally one of them got the right guy, that still would've been a much better outcome.

Yes, I suppose mass panic could ensue, and you could have a sort of critical mass self-sustaining chain reaction of vigilantes all shooting the wrong guy, but that doesn't seem very likely.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Viking Coder]

I feel your pain, but your arguments are very, very flawed.

On 9/11, there was another flight, in which a group of Americans stopped a deadly attack on our nation's government with their bare hands. Meanwhile, the most advanced military in the world was flying in circles, with no idea where to go.

Kids should depend on others to protect them. They're kids. We can argue about what age they should become men, but your argument, in your words, is incorrect.

And by the way, I'm glad that it was 32 people with a damn handgun, and not 320 people with a U-Haul full of fertalizer. I'm not aware of any laws that are in the way of you defending yourself from a 45 MPH pile of explosive shit, but I am aware of several bombings that have killed dozens or hundreds, and I don't think you know of *any* solution to that problem.

A determined killer can take out tens, or even hundreds of victims. No amount of "defense" is going to save you - police state, or personal responsibility.

Now, given that there's no such thing as 100% security, the best thing I know how to do is talk about statistics. And statistically, I believe that America is a good example that more guns does not automatically yield fewer gun deaths. If anything, the statistics correlate in the other direction.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Viking Coder]

A moderately crazy person may enter a school today in order to shoot the place up, but you'd have to be totally crazy to attempt such when you know that one out of ten students will be shooting back.

The kind of "totally crazy" to kill yourself at the end, like this guy did?

Re:More than 20. . .

[houghi]

So why not give every Iraqi a gun and then we will see peace imiidiatly. Or is this idea of yours only appliable to Mericans and are other nations/people inferior?

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad there are soldiers and police (and people who are heroes, armed or not) who move into a dangerous situation instead of away from it

ironic comment about knife attacks being defended against by knives that are so common they can be found in any kitchen

there is no silver bullet (pun intended)- a gun will not protect you from every situation and a defender is at a severe disadvantage by the fact that he doesn't know he has anything to defend against until he's attacked

by that same token though, crimes of passion and mass murders are not the same thing- a legal gun used by a legal owner for a crime of passion is horrible- and one of the few downsides to giving select level-headed profiled people guns

this is not the wild west- people can't get legal guns easily- most states have strong restrictions- sometimes abusive cops slip through the profiling for cops, sometimes soldiers slip through the profiling and detonate bombs on their own base, sometimes the civilians with guns snap at something dramatic in the heat of the moment

but to say that people with guns would go around shooting each other over fender-benders makes as much sense as saying that guns should be given without any screening process- there are fender-benders today and we have some semblance of a polite society- if a big guy pounds a little guy who dented his bumper, it's called assault and is treated seriously, so it doesn't happen often
if someone with a gun attacks or threatens someone with it, it is treated far more seriously and happens much less often

we stopped clubbing each other on heads about the time we moved out of caves- I don't know why people assume that by adding guns to the equation we'll revert to our most base, least rational selves- and the people who would would largely be weeded out by the screening

generally they give guns to the civilians who will do good with them, not harm- many police officers are directly involved in the interviews, deciding who gets a permit- they certainly don't want to make their jobs harder or run into nuts who they've given guns to- I imagine they're pretty selective- I know that many officers wish the citizens were armed- it goes without saying that they only want to put weapons into the hands of the people who will use them for good- protecting people- and won't go shooting at random if they come across a shooting, figuring they have a 50% chance of picking the right side

if there are 2 guns drawn and 1 of the people has one legally, you know he was being attacked since that is the only reason to point a gun at another person

standard disclaimers- cutting out misinterpretation since common sense is sometimes lost - "for every rule there's an exception" and even if you knew that 1 person were probably defending himself you wouldn't know which

Re:More than 20. . .

[NaCh0]

Or you can just pull out your gun and demand to know what's going on, instead of immediately shooting everyone in sight.

You watch too much TV. Brandishing your firearm to de-escalate a situation is a bad idea.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I fully support you! Also, I agree with the US government's interpretation of the 1st amendment. (After all, Madison and co. were dealing with manually operated Gutenberg presses at the time, which wouldn't have allowed for the sort of wanton dissent the Internet promotes.)

Re:More than 20. . .

[Jorgandar]

Perpetrators of violent crime shouldn't legally be allowed to carry guns. If they are found carrying guns, they get sent away, period. Using a gun in the commission of a crime should carry a life-sentence, period Yeah, because we all know how much tougher laws against criminals have the effect of deterring crime. Quite frankly, someone who intends to kill doesn't give a fucking damn about what laws are on the books, period.

Re:More than 20. . .

[mrchaotica]

you're assuming that the first person he encountered would've shot him dead, rather than after he's already shot twenty.

Nope, instead I'm making the point that even if that had occurred, there'd still be ten fewer people dead.

You're assuming that multiple armed people don't shoot each other, entirely unrelated to him, each thinking the other is the evil gunman, leaving him to keep on shooting other people.

No, I was just assuming it wouldn't happen "too many" times. I'd consider this a pretty good assumption -- it's not as if, even when guns are allowed, that many people would be carrying them. For example, as far as I know there's no prohibition against carrying a gun to class at GA Tech, but I've never heard of anyone ever doing so. Therefore, the more likely scenario is that there'd be only one or two armed people, at most, in any given place (unless the class in question was ROTC or something, of course).

In other words, you assume that everything goes perfectly for a single, armed, ideally fortunate person facing a madman, to come up with your estimate.

No, if that happened then exactly one person would get shot (the original gunman). The point is that everything doesn't have to go perfectly, because there's a 32-person margin of error! Even if 31 people mistakenly shoot each other before somebody finally disables the original gunman, they still come out ahead compared to not having guns.

Re:More than 20. . .

[dargaud]

I think your comment was intended as funny instead of flamebait... can you just imagine the average campus with a gun on every frustrated student ?!? Arf... It would be worse than Iraq.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Lt.Hawkins]

The bad guys with guns should be dealt with by good guys who know how to properly handle guns. Not by some random John Doe or delusional 16-year-old kid playing vigilante. I own guns, and when I am legally allowed to, I carry one. I've invested a lot of money and time to get the training necessary for the deployment of such, and while I hope I never ever have to, I know that other than having backup, I am just as well trained as your average police officer. I know already that I shoot better than some LEOs that I know, and from speaking, I know that we've covered similar topics in their training, vs my own.

Re:More than 20. . .

[acramon1]

What if someone with a concealed weapon is shot and killed by the shooter before he can hit the shooter? Even someone trained with a weapon can be killed by someone else (who may or may not have been trained) with a weapon. What happens to this someone's gun? Is it possible a bystander would try to pick it up and start firing wildly? Is it possible for the shooter to pick it up as an additional firearm and ammunition?

More guns means more opportunities to shoot guns. It's hard to say that this is a good thing.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

You never see a headline like "local man heroically stops gunman at school" [...] Anyway, I cannot recall seeing any news stories like this.

That's not a very good argument for the point you were trying to make!

Re:More than 20. . .

[asninn]

Actually, Virginia has very liberal (conservative?) buyer and concealed carry laws. Just about anyone without a record can obtain both with little effort, so by your logic, we should be seeing shooting sprees all over VA.

If that's the case, then by the GP's logic, this shooting spree shouldn't have happened, either - somebody should've just stopped the perpetrator by shooting (and either incapacitating or killing) him.

It didn't, though. If anything, I think this tells that "guns automatically lead to more crimes" and "guns automatically lead to less crimes" are both statements that should be taken with a grain of salt and evaluated critically. I'm not saying that one of them can't still turn out to be true in the end, but things probably aren't as simply as they might seem.

Re:More than 20. . .

[asninn]

Hear, hear!

Thanks for that comment; you've just reminded me (yet) again why I marked you as a friend. :)

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

How could they not know? He's the guy who kicked open the door and started shooting. Are you seriously suggesting that Student A might return fire, and then Student B, somehow not having noticed the gunman when he came in shooting, opens fire on Student A? Gimme a break.

No, but a 3rd person (like a cop) can pass by and who is he going to aim to? They guy with the gun? Or the "black" or the "middle eastern" looking guy? American trend is to stereotype people, that could be a big mess.

Firearms are completely controllable.

Yeah right, and this was a perfect example.

Reading your previous posts I can't see if you are or not against gun control. I'm almost sure you have a gun at home though. But as you said in your parent post, this is not a matter of being mad, buying a gun and go shoot everyone. That means something is wrong and that it's really complicated to find out "right people" who can carry a gun.

A gun gives a person a lot of power, and there are many that don't know what to do with power.

Re:More than 20. . .

[CastrTroy]

Nobody seems to be answering my question of what do people who can't operate a firearm do in this "vigilante-everyone-is-packing-heat" world? What about children? What about the disabled? What about the elderly? When you look into this story, and many of the other public shootings that happen, the "bad guy" ends up dying in the end. I don't think they really care if they die, and most of the time it ends when they take their own life. If you don't care if you're going to die, then you're going to take people out anyway, it doesn't matter if the other guys have weapons. Sure he may have killed less people, if someone else had a gun, but he still would have taken a few people with him. I'm not going to debate whether it's possible to get illegal firearms, or drugs, or alcohol. We all know it is. But the government, and our society, shouldn't condone and promote these actions just because it's possible to do it. I also don't really think it's easier to get illegal stuff than it is to get legalized stuff, and it certainly isn't cheaper. How much does a pack of cigarettes cost? it's $10 canadian, and that's with major taxes. The equivalent amount of marijuana would cost much more than $10, probably more than $100, i'm not up to date on pricing. Also, not having everyone brandishing a weapon stops situations of rage from happening. If someone goes through the trouble to go out and get an illegal firearm, then that's one thing, it's hard to stop that. But if someone has a gun on their hip, and don't have to go through any trouble to obtain weapons, then we'd see a lot more people than this getting killed every day by people who couldn't control their anger.

Re:More than 20. . .

[PeeAitchPee]

Last I checked, in the US no one is depriving people of the means to defend themselves (a.k.a. "guns").

Check again. Here in Maryland, I need to provide documentation of several recent threats in order to be issued a concealed carry permit. No "documented evidence of recent threats and / or assaults, supported by police reports and / or notarized statements", no permit.

I'm all for making folks go through the proper training, checks, and procedures in order to carry, but this is fucking retarded. Basically, here in the Free State, you can't get a gun unless a crime has already been committed against you and you're already a victim. The "logic" involved here is incomprehensible.

Note that, of course, this mindless law has absolutely no affect on curbing the monstrous homocide rate in inner city Baltimore.

Re:More than 20. . .

[thesandtiger]

Or imagine that you hear gunshots, you go to the area, and when you get there you see someone who has a gun who says "the shooter is wearing a red-hoodie, jeans, I think he's a white guy, and he went that way" (pointing to a direction you didn't come from).

Is the guy with the gun the shooter trying to trick you? Is the guy just another person responding as you did?

Or imagine that it's a week after this kind of incident. People are on high alert, suspicious of everything. A car backfires in the campus parking lot. All it takes is one person to draw their gun at that point for the probability of tragedy to increase dramatically.

Yes, people are supposedly going to be well trained, but then again, police are supposedly well-trained and there are any number of completely bogus police shootings that happen. People in the armed forces are well-trained, but friendly fire incidents happen.

Who do you think is going to be more likely to keep their cool: a trained police officer, a trained soldier, or a trained college student? My money's on the people who do it for a living, and even then there is still a chance of error.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Eccles]

...or access to a weapon of any kind.

While the biggest mass murders in this country have been committed with airplanes, fertilizer, and gasoline, for the most part a gun is far more effective as a tool for multiple murders than other weaponry. After all, the pro-gun folk here are complaining about VT's gun ban. I haven't heard anyone complain that VT banned throwing stars, blunt instruments, blowguns, throwing knives, etc., or anyone claim they could have stopped this madman if they'd only had their bolas.

That's right! Most people don't know that the Constitution only applies to the 18th century and its technology.

Way to miss my point.

For Madison and co., guns were useful for hunting and fending off hostile governments. So of course they wanted individuals to have access to guns, so the ridiculous, convoluted rationalizations that anti-gun people have come up with to claim the Second refers to the National Guard and similar nonsense just don't make sense. We can discuss whether the Second Amendment should be repealed or not, but I was just saying that its meaning is crystal clear.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Das Modell]

Why would it be a bad idea?

Re:More than 20. . .

[Danse]

Is it possible a bystander would try to pick it up and start firing wildly? Is it possible for the shooter to pick it up as an additional firearm and ammunition?
More guns means more opportunities to shoot guns. It's hard to say that this is a good thing.

I'm not saying it's a good thing. I'm just saying that it's better than being defenseless and dying anyway, which is what happened to those people. They had no defense, and nowhere to run. I can't imagine what that would have been like. Some chance would have been better than no chance.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Xonstantine]

Btw, I am mentioning this despite being more on the side of those favoring tighter gun controls. There were 1,225 lethal gun accidents in 1995 (http://www.hpjc.org/issues_guncontrol.html)

6 people drown in swimming pools in the United States every year. Accidental drowning is the 4th leading cause of accidental death in the United States (AHEAD of accidental gunshot wounds). Source: http://www.poolalarms.com/pool_drowning_statistics .htm

Funny thing is, you don't see a well funded, politically smooth campaign to ban swimming pools, and constant media coverage every time there is a swimming pool incident, do you? This, despite the fact that a child is more likely to die due to a pool than a gun.

Gun control is nothing more than an attempt by the elites to acquire a permanent monopoly on the use of force relegating the citizens of this country to mere subjects more fit to be ruled than led or represented. All this is done under the guise of "public safety", but as just the brief example of the pools highlights, there are better, more appropriate vehicles for improving public safety if that was the intent. Virginia Tech wasn't made safer by being "Gun Free". For the 60 or 70 people shot, it was made much more unsafe because they were denied the one weapon that might've made a difference. And the gun banners reflexive instinct is to make everyone even more defenseless and dependent on authorities, who have done such a bang up job in these spree killings that, Utah excepting, not one single killer has been stopped by the police and instead stopped killing when they got tired of killing. Color me unimpressed.

Re:More than 20. . .

[BgJonson79]

>>There's a difference between defending yourself and carrying around a lethal weapon that has no other purpose than to kill.

Then I should be able to have an M16. It's specifically designed not to kill, but to wound.

Where can I sign up?

Or, how about this: if guns are designed to kill, why don't they aim and fire themselves? Or, why doesn't every guy/ girl who goes the range have the opportunity to sue the manufacturer of their firearms for failure to work when all they do is hit paper targets?

Re:More than 20. . .

[BgJonson79]

You're clearly not familiar with the federal system. It really depends on the state.

My state, NH, doesn't require licensing or permitting of firearms, but does require a license to carry it concealed (can't be nuts, a felon, or a wife beater). We have a very low crime rate. Vermont, our neighbor, doesn't even require a license to carry concealed. They have a very low crime rate. Massachusetts, or neighbor to the south, has very strict regulations. They have 5x the people and 2x the crime rate, giving them 10x the crime.

The difference: socio-economic equality.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back and read it again. That's no headlines like "armed citizens pull out guns and try to shoot bad guy but actually shoot more innocent bystanders, making the tragedy worse", not no headlines like "local man shoots teen".

I guess you thought you were being funny, but it's not a very good argument for your reading comprehension skills.

Re:More than 20. . .

[gg3po]

which is why Baghdad is one of the safest places on Earth, as opposed tho those crazy gun-control places like Sweden.

Likely there are other, more significant, cultural factors influencing the large disparity of safety between Baghdad and Sweden. It's possible, for example, that local religious attitudes and a certain foreign occupying force might be having some slight influence. Were this not so, how could one explain a peaceful, yet heavily armed, society like Switzerland, where carrying full-auto weapons in a grocery store won't elicit even the slightest surprise?

Re:More than 20. . .

[Poppa]

We have this core law against murder. It doesn't matter whether you use a gun, knive, car or a rock, it is against the law to kill someone.

He decided to violate that law. It doesn't matter *how* he decided to kill those people; the fact is, the other students were not allowed to carry a gun to protect themselves.

So, this shows that gun control only endangers the law-abiding.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Swordsmanus]

Think for a minute about the chaos that a few shots fired in a school would cause. Now, imagine that a bunch of people suddenly pull out handguns and start looking for the original shooter. I see a lot of problems with this situation.

Of course in this case, the shooter had a vest on and ammo strapped to him. That'd make him just a little easier to identify as a pre-meditated killer. Other than that, go through concealed carry training yourself before you comment on what might happen when a killer opens fire in an area with concealed carry licensees/users.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Swordsmanus]

1) The killer was wearing a vest and had ammo strapped to him according to the reports.

2) Statistically speaking, licensed concealed-carry bearing civilians at the scene of a crime actually have a higher rate of firing upon the right guy than do police, most likely since they're right there as it goes down and can readily identify the aggressor. They don't have a lag time before arriving on the scene as police do. They don't have to assess who is the aggressor from second hand information, like police do.

3) Go through concealed carry training before considering the hypothetical courses of action and their probabilities if there were several concealed carry-licensed civilians responding to a premeditated killer in the same room.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

The anti-gun bias of /. is always disappointing. Let's see...

Imagine everyone opening fire in self-defence and no one knowing who the gunman actually was (sounds like the US Army in Iraq today!). Where you've got a lot of people carrying guns, it's been known to happen.

Imagine understanding the definition of self defense! Self defense isn't running off, trying to find the killer. It's defending yourself.

There's a difference between defending yourself and carrying around a lethal weapon that has no other purpose than to kill.

Please try to educate yourself just a *little*. Firearms are a single tool in the force continuum. It basically goes: verbal, physical (as in, creating distance, not hitting), bludgeoning, chemical, dog, display of lethal force, use of lethal force. And they're to be used in that order. Lethal force is a last resort. Physical - creating distance, a.k.a getting the hell outta dodge - is to be used first. Armed citizens not in the room when the guy starts killing have no duty, and no reasonable way to burst in and stop it. Armed citizens in the room when a murderer starts his rampage have a very reasonable response to stop it.

Also, please tell us all how to stop a murderer, intent on killing you, when he's armed and you're not? Dasies?

I'm sure that if you carried around Anthrax, or had some fertiliser packed into your car then some serious questions would be asked as to what on Earth you were doing. However, you've got a far greater chance of killing with a lethal weapon like a gun.

Area-effect weapons, such as explosives, or chemicals, are not appropriate for self defense against a single individual, as they are too likely to have an effect upon innocent civilians. However, they are entirely appropriate when dealing with mobs (i.e. tear gas).

Re:More than 20. . .

[compro01]

What if someone with a concealed weapon is shot and killed by the shooter before he can hit the shooter? Even someone trained with a weapon can be killed by someone else (who may or may not have been trained) with a weapon.

one is not enough. i would lay decent odds that the shooter will not win against 5 or so guys with concealed weapons.

Re:More than 20. . .

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

premeditated killers and organized crime, no. Your average infuriated and/or mentally unstable guy? Yes.

You make an implicit statement that the average mentally unstable guy who kills does not do so in a premeditated fashion. I don't think that assertion is supported by the facts of this incident or by statistics in general. You need to provide support for this claim if you want me to take it seriously.

There's no way you'd get even close to killing 32 people with a knife.

Really? I seem to remember something in the news a few years ago about a box cutter... I think it involved a plane.

Of course, at this point someone is going to point out the freak case where a 100 pound woman had time to unlock the gun locker, find the ammunition, load the gun, disable the safety and be ready as the furiously mad 300 pound ex-boyfriend manages to break in. Sure, great. The truth of the matter is that in almost any one on one conflict, whoever pulls the gun first is the winner, and the one pulling the gun is normally the agressor.

This isn't quick draw in the old west. Concealed carry laws save lives when people don't attack someone at all because they fear that person might have a gun. Also firearms are reported used defensively, without shooting anyone more often than they are used to attack an innocent victim. Several incidents of people going "beserk" with a gun have been stopped or mitigated by people who just happened to be there with a handgun, including one last year in Tennessee and a school shooting in Texas a few years back, just off the top of my head.

So that pissed off ex-employee who you had to fire is standing there, gun in hand, what do you do?

Go for cover, then draw my own firearm. Most people are really crappy shots and there have been incidences where even professionals have fired 8 rounds at distances of less than 15 feet and still missed with every shot. The person who takes there time and aims is usually the one who lives. If nothing else, one of my coworkers will hear the shots and pull their own firearm and be ready when he walks into their office.

Whoever is pulling these arguments that if everyone had guns, they'd just drop this guy after the first two-three people completely ignores that there'd be thousands of cases where one guy with a gun would get the drop on another guy (with a gun or not) with noone around to carry out any retaliation.

How does that make a difference? We're talking about mitigating mass shootings in crowds like this one. If, however, you want to open this up to consider all violent crime and murder in general, well take a look at the statistics for concealed carry versus strict controls or bans. It is a pretty open and shut case in the favor of letting people carry.

If I saw a shootout start I'd duck for the nearest cover I could find, and damned if I'd draw any fire to me unless I had to.

That's probably the right thing to do, but if they do happen to come for you, maybe you can save yourself and a few other people besides. The point is not to legally enforce that everyone is a victim.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Das Modell]

Come on... is it no longer possible to post anything on Slashdot without getting downmodded? I guess in the future I'll just post "Bush is dumb" until I have so much karma that it crashes the server.

Re:More than 20. . .

[dbIII]

I live in a different country - the concept of anyone legally carrying concealed weapons is foreign to me. Police and security gaurds carry guns on their belt - they do not hide them.

People keep talking about very high levels of gun ownership correlating to a low crime rate but I suspect there are a lot of other factors that render this comparison irelevant - like population density - you don't get inner city crime in rural areas.

After hearing a lot about the current situation and the position and power of the US gun lobby I've moved my view - I don't think the tragedy will lead to any changes in law at all. It appears that guns are a symbol of freedom and safety in the USA - ironic really. From the outside it's easy to see that as childish and barbaric but I doubt that it is that simple.

Re:More than 20. . .

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Are you willing to let me determine if you're both a) responsible and b) well-trained before I let you carry a weapon? What if I merely require that you're "well regulated", as the 2nd Amendment does?

Of course not. The laws and courts need to impartially decide that, as they do now in most jurisdictions. The argument put forth is that by allowing the university to ban guns from campus the laws/courts set that bar far too high. Even a trained professional with a state concealed pistol permit and expert training in both the legal and tactical aspects of using it was banned from having one if they were a student on campus that day. We saw the results. That is what people are objecting to.

Seems to me that we've had all attempts at those three requirements resisted out of hand by pro-gun lobbyists.

You can argue that all you want, but it does not have anything to do with the issue at hand. It is as if someone was poisoned by tainted aspirin, and it was argued that we needed stricter testing by the FDA, and then you came back and argued that the FDA were the ones making certain drugs illegal and "drug lobbyists" had argued we need to stop the FDA from controlling those drugs. Stick to the issue at hand.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Nos.]

the shooter had a vest on and ammo strapped to him
And of course everyone knew that the moment shots were heard right? Its not like he's standing in a line up and you have to pick out which one is the shooter. You hear shots, you rush out of the classroom while pulling out your gun. In the hallway you see a person pointing their gun down another hallway out of your sight. Is this the gunman? Is this someone like you? What if he fires? What if he fires more than once? Now imagine there are twenty other people that just rushed into the hallway with guns drawn.

I'm not saying its worse, I'm not saying its better. I'm just saying I don't want to be in either situation, and I honestly don't think that many guns around would make the situation "better".

Re:More than 20. . .

[Starteck81]

"If I saw a shootout start I'd duck for the nearest cover I could find, and damned if I'd draw any fire to me unless I had to."

Fine, duck and hide but realized that there are people who will put their lives on the line to save others. Generally this applies to the police but I do not believe that it should be limited to them. People keep saying that chaos would ensue if everyone carried a gun, they're probably right but here in lies the problem with that argument, not everyone carries a gun. In fact I suspect that number of people that do carry, legally, are by far in the minority. The reason, I believe, they are in the minority has to do with general attitude of "I'm not will to fight". Most people are too scared to fight for fear of injury and that is completely understandable and I would say NORMAL but please do not deny those that would stand up to defend you the right to bear arms. Yes, there are many accounts of people taking down armed assailants with out guns but it certainly evens the odds.

That said I think there should be tougher punishments for commission of crimes while in possession of a firearm. I also think that as other have said that the right to carry a concealed weapon needs to be based on a mandatory training but I'll go you one better. I think owning a pistol should require mandatory training to obtain a permit that allows you to buy such fire arms. I see guys shooting at the gun range that scare the day lights out of me because they're shooting while laughing like they're playing a video game. I think a mandatory class would go a long way to weeding out these people. Like wise I think that owning an assault weapon is a legitimate thing, they are fun to shoot for some and can be used for home security, but again there should be mandatory training/permit in order to buy them.

If these measures were enacted then people could have more confidence in those who do carry since they would be trained to respond to situations where someone was going on a rampage.

Finally I agree with others that it's largely the media's fault that there are so many copy cat shooting rampages. The downfall of living in an information age is very apparent when it comes to this. Many of you are familiar with psychological reinforcing of behavior. To draw an analogy, we see it in kids that misbehave to get attention from their parents and teachers. They purposefully act badly so they get attention and unless the parents and teachers realize this and break the cycle by reinforcing good behavior and discourage the bad they just keep doing it. In this case people who go on shooting rampages are the children and the media equal the parents, I know it's scary. The media keeps rewarding this bad behavior with a very large spotlight. There are always those who are going to be lonely to the point of being suicidal/depressed or are a psychopath(not psychotic look it up there is a difference) there is not much we can do about that, believe me I wish there was. The problem comes when they are so far gone that killing people just to be remember becomes an appealing option. Add a media that is willing, because they want ratings, to give you the coverage of your rampage you want and all the sudden killing lots of people to get noticed becomes even more appealing. It's vicious cycle that will keep happening because the next psychopath or lonely suicidal/depressed person will see what it has done for those before him/her.

Alright I'm done but I hope this points out some useful ways to help combat what seems to have become and epidemic of suicide shootings.

Re:More than 20. . .

[BgJonson79]

Well, as a country that gained its independence through force of arms, I'm sure you can see the reasoning behind it.

After all, why aren't their murder sprees at gun shows?

Re:More than 20. . .

[xilmaril]

So if I'm a drunken idiot at a bar, and I hit somebody, in a non-injuring kinda way, I should get locked up? Fuck that.

I don't go to bars or hit people, but it's worth remembering that laws need some kind of reasonable limit.

Re:More than 20. . .

[ArcherB]

So why not give every Iraqi a gun and then we will see peace imiidiatly. Or is this idea of yours only appliable to Mericans and are other nations/people inferior?

Great idea. This way, those innocent Iraqis can finally take their country back!

Seriously though. What is the difference between the first amendment and the second, other than the number? If I were saying that rejecting free speech would have saved those thirty lives, would you be so quick to elevate the idea? How is the right to bear arms any different, or any less important? As soon as we start giving up Constitutional rights in the name of safety, it's all over (at least that's what I keep hearing around here when terrorism is the topic).

Re:More than 20. . .

[Dun Malg]

No, but a 3rd person (like a cop) can pass by and who is he going to aim to? They guy with the gun? Or the "black" or the "middle eastern" looking guy? American trend is to stereotype people, that could be a big mess. You're kidding, right? Cops almost never show up in time to witness any crime. The coldm hard, fact of the matter is that police are entirely a reactive force, who generally show up with a yellow sheet to cover the body, and a clipboard to take statements. You don't construct policy to conform to the 1-in-100,000 incidents case where the cops show up at the scene of a shooting in progress.

Reading your previous posts I can't see if you are or not against gun control. Definitely against, but resigned to the fact that some restrictions (background checks) are inevitable, and probably net positive (so far).

I'm almost sure you have a gun at home though. Indeed. All the better to stave off tyranny! (heh)

But as you said in your parent post, this is not a matter of being mad, buying a gun and go shoot everyone. That means something is wrong and that it's really complicated to find out "right people" who can carry a gun. Well, more to the point, you can't tell the "right people" from the "wrong people" much of the time. Creating restrictive laws that cast a wide net and end up barring many (and sometimes all) of the "right people" in an attempt to exclude all the "wrong people" are counterproductive. as has been noted time and time again, the "wrong people" are exactly the sort that don't obey laws.

A gun gives a person a lot of power, and there are many that don't know what to do with power. True as far as it goes. With great power comes great responsibility. As I noted in a previous post, we can't use out magic rainbow powers to turn all guns into butterflies and live happily ever after. All we can reasonably do is hold people responsible for their actions. All this nonsense about "assault weapons", and "saturday night specials"*, and localized municipal handgun bans is a lot of worthless ex post facto grandstanding. There is no "stemming the tide", as it's NOT a tide, but rather a gently flowing stream of firearms that's been filling a GIANT SEA of private gun ownership for 200 years.

* attempts to ban "saturday night specials" have always struck me as telling. The main objection to these seems to be that they're inexpensive, and sold in the inner city. Apparently they think only the wealthy white suburban and rural folk should own firearms. (watsa' matta', politicians? Too many armed poor "colored folks" make you nervous?)

Re:More than 20. . .

[Dun Malg]

Sorry but I think you're the one who is wrong. In crimes of passion the person is rarely thinking "I want to kill that person" for any extended period (murder may not even be their intention) just take a look at the Sara Easton case as an example, the accused wasn't even trying to hit anybody, he was only trying to scare the group. The citation of a single outlier case does not validate your argument.

Re:More than 20. . .

[quantaman]

Sorry but I think you're the one who is wrong. In crimes of passion the person is rarely thinking "I want to kill that person" for any extended period (murder may not even be their intention) just take a look at the Sara Easton case as an example, the accused wasn't even trying to hit anybody, he was only trying to scare the group. The citation of a single outlier case does not validate your argument. I wasn't using it as evidence, I was using it as an example (which is a valid usage). My argument is that there are many situations where a gun murder occurs as an escalation of a dispute, and that had a gun not been present the escalation would not have been fatal. The Sara Easton case served as an example to illustrate the kind of accidental murder I was talking about, it was never intended as evidence and I tried to phrase it so someone would not think it was inteded as evidence but rather a case to give the argument context.

Re:More than 20. . .

[geminidomino]

For starters, there might already be another gun "in play", as it were.

Re:More than 20. . .

[geminidomino]

Remember, once guns are illegal, no one will have them, not even criminals, so don't worry about it. I can't tell if you're being ironic, or just terribly, terribly naive... I'm going to guess the former, following from the tone of the preceeding sentences.

Re:More than 20. . .

[ConceptJunkie]

Sorry, but the umpteen countries that do have gun controls prove you wrong. There is no logic going on there my dear.

I'm talking specifically about the U.S., where there is not much correlation between gun control and gun violence. I specifically stated that I was talking about the U.S.

I find it funny that the liberals who think gun control will work are often the same ones who are insisting we admit that illegal drugs don't make sense because you can never stop drugs coming into the country. I'd be all for gun control if I thought there was any chance it would do any good. I don't own a gun myself, and have no intention of owning one.

Whatever you think of the logic of the situation, owning arms is explicitly enumerated in our Constitution, and gun opponents know there is no possibility of altering that amendment, so they simply (like everyone else in the U.S. government) just kind of ignore those pesky rights and hope people won't notice too much. Short of the government quartering soldiers in our houses, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that is universally respected (within reason) by the U.S. government so the Second Amendment is unlikely to be different.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Das Modell]

All the more reason for you to pull your own.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, that's "2% vs. 11% qualifies as a better record". 0% is the goal.

Re:More than 20. . .

[geminidomino]

Not at all.

One of the golden rules of gun safety is that you NEVER draw it unless you intend to use it. Not if you are WILLING to use it, but you actually plan, unless the situation changes quickly, on shooting someone. If the situation doesn't call for that extreme, then the gun should not appear.

They do not de-escalate situations. They make them more tense.

Your approach is irresponsible and dangerous.

Re:More than 20. . .

[mink]

Did you read the text for that photograph?
The person was returning from target practice and had no amunition.
AFAIK the law there says apart from going to/from a place where you need the weapon you are issued it is kept at home.

If the person in that photograph was assulted by an armed gunman the most that person would have been able to do would have been club someone with the rifle.

Re:More than 20. . .

[Das Modell]

If my opponent has a gun, I'm being irresponsible and dangerous by drawing my weapon? Okay...

Re:More than 20. . .

[geminidomino]

If you don't plan on shooting him, then yes.

Basic gun safety.

Queue Jack Thompson

[Anonymous Coward]

He should be blaming this on computer games any moment now. He will use the death of innocents to further his idiotic agenda.

Re:Queue Jack Thompson

[Anonymous Coward]

The word you are looking for is "cue", as in cue card.

ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[Apocalypse111]

In case anyone has missed it, Jack Thompson has already gone on the major news networks predicting that the shooter's computer will have Counterstrike installed.

How the hell does Jacko correlate the skill of properly aiming and discharging a firearm with moving a thumbstick and pressing a button on a control-pad? There is no link there!

Listen Jack, just because your addled mind cannot disassociate video games from reality doesn't mean that the rest of us can't either. For fuck sake, the bodies aren't even COLD yet, we have no idea who the shooter is, and already you're exploiting this situation to try to push your illogical and ultimatly incorrect agenda?

You are a sick, sick man Jacko. Human filth. The only person worse than you in this situation is the shooter, but at least he had the decency to get killed.

My heart goes out to the victims of this tragedy, but right now I can't help but feel only rage at the baseless lies and unabashed opportunism displayed by this man.

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[Anonymous Coward]

It'll really suck for him if he's wrong.

There are far more computers out there *without* Counterstrike than with.

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[Badgerman]

I'm seeing a lot of people making political hay out of this already. Really, can't we let the bodies get cold?

Though this is what we can expect in a mass media age. Here we are, on Slashdot, already discussing it when they're still counting the dead.

But I'm glad there is a place to discuss it. I have friends in the area, I know people who went to the colleges there. It's really freaky.

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[KingKiki217]

http://kotaku.com/gaming/virginia-tech/breaking-id iot-thompson-blames-va-shooting-on-games-252702.ph p I was wondering if this would be on Slash yet when I came here.

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[Anonymous Coward]

I also send my condolences to those affected. It's always amazed me that people can just snap and do something like this, almost as amazing as how easy it is (which is a tribute to how well behaved people are in general).

In Counterstrike's defense, I'll bet it's on at least 75% of male college students' computers, so why should you make a correlation at all?

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[DoctorPepper]

Yeah, mine. I do have Nethack installed (ASCII version), so I would probably get pinged by ol' Jacko too.

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[tenchiken]

Other then both involve the idea of killing another human being? The only difference is that one has virtual consequences, the other real. I don't agree with Jack Thompson on many things (or perhaps anything), but you may want to avoid the same rush to judgment he made, and see what occurred here.

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Ooh, ooh, can I get on TV predicting how the shooter's computer has Microsoft Word installed on it? I'm more likely to be right.

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[techstar25]

For everyone's sake...let's pray the shooter owned a Wii.
Coming next year from Michael Moore "Wii Bowling for Virginia Tech."

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[Pup5]

While I don't agree that computer games lead to violent crimes, I can see how having played them can make one a more effective violent criminal. Although I agree that handling a firearm is a much different motor skill then a mouse/keyboard, after playing FPS for many years I can more effectively:

  1. clear a room/check corners
  2. identify peripheral motion
  3. prioritize targets
  4. view all action through the weapon site

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[Pax00]

what surprises me is that all this arguing over what causes it to happen and the blame is put on video games, yet video games were not around, and neither was D&D and yet in 1966 Charles Whitman does the same thing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman.

now finally the CNN article mentions it briefly. maybe if people brought this more to the attention of others, people will realize that it is a problem that involve personal choices, mental illness, and/or social interaction, not because of a stupid video game.

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[Tom]

He is prime asshole material. But then again, that's how you get headlines. It's sad but true, very few news agencies and even less TV stations are interested in a careful, balanced POV.

Blame the stations that air him as much as the sicko himself. Write them a letter (not an email!) telling them how disgusted you are that they put a man like that on air instead of someone to bring calm and reason to those affected, and that it did cause you to switch away from their channel and you don't know if or when you'll have the stomach to turn them on again.

I would, but I'm not in the US so I don't think they'd care. I do regularily write letters like that, though. I think they help. In PR classes people learn that for every letter you get there are at least 10 people out there thinking the same thing who didn't write a letter.

Be the one who did.

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[Anonymous Coward]

Jack Thompson is a loon. However, he's a dangerous one; FOX News didn't catch on that he was a nutjob; his broadcast pushed his message to a lot of people who count on reporters to think for them. With someone as unstable as him, the fact that the Louisiana SC and a Florida judge rejected his crap doesn't mean everyone has the insight to do so. Chances are GOOD that today's shooter happened to have a violent video game SOMEWHERE in his domicile, which obviously could be stretched to suggest that he played it for 14 hours a day while listening to death rock and eating uncooked bunny rabbits, which in turn gives "think of the children" -style politicians fodder to make their constituencies think they are doing something. Someone needs to fast-track his removal from the justice system, even if formal charges are a no-go.

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[MeanderingMind]

There's nothing wrong with discussing what's going on, it's perfectly natural human behaviour. When 9/11 happend, first thing I did was sit down with friends in the cafeteria and talked. Granted, it was largely about how shocked we were, how we knew people there, and how horrible it was.

It's the political schilling, the jokes, and the "OMGMEDIA" that's horrifying.

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[Anonymous Coward]

whether or not playing games does make you a better gunman is one thing. whether it makes you *think* youd be a good gunman, and that it would be fun, is another. I dont think id outfight any marines, but I know i enjoy shooting at people 1 hour at night. Im glad that where I live, handguns are totally outlawed. Our gun crime rate in the Uk is wayyyyyyyyyyy lower than the US.

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[grub]

I hope he didn't own a Wii. Manhunt 2 is coming out soon and I'm getting a Wii just for that.

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[mgabrys_sf]

re: Ooh, ooh, can I get on TV predicting how the shooter's computer has Microsoft Word installed on it?

Not until I finish up my amended report from the RIAA on how his pirated music collection was to blame. It was also tied into Imus but I'm having trouble working that in. No wait - I know - the FOX angle. Clinton's failed administration is to blame.

Lessie - double checking to make sure the shooter isn't to blame anywhere here.

There we go! Pulitzer prize! Bleeding and leading baby! Someone tell me what the Arbitron numbers are, because it's entertainment tonight on all channels and satelite feeds.

Or pehaps I'm just being cynical.

Nah - RUN THAT BABY! Guns! Kids! Dead dead dead! - don't know how many died in car wrecks today - or died in Iraq - but KIDS N' GUNS GUNS GUNS! That's good journalism.

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[Reality Master 101]

How the hell does Jacko correlate the skill of properly aiming and discharging a firearm with moving a thumbstick and pressing a button on a control-pad? There is no link there!

Jack Thompson is indeed an idiot, but you're not helping with silly statements like this. The theory isn't that video games teach one how to fire a gun (truthfully, any fool can do that), but that it desensitizes certain people enough so that they're capable of performing the violence.

Obviously video games don't affect the vast majority of people, but I'm not prepared to say that they don't affect people predisposed to mental illness.

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[Badgerman]

Pretty much my statement. I'm annoyed with the sudden shilling - but happy the tools used for shilling ALSO let me talk about this with people.

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[Anonymous Coward]

In case anyone has missed it, Jack Thompson has already gone on the major news networks predicting that the shooter's computer will have Counterstrike installed.

Sounds like a pretty safe bet to me. Little-known fact: if you have a 'Y' chromosome and live on a college campus, Counterstrike just appears on your computer. The sad part is that people will give Jack Thompson credibility for being right...

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[ZachPruckowski]

I'm not even pissed about bodies not being cold, I'm pissed about PEOPLE TALKING WITHOUT FACTS. We know nothing about the shooter, and people are talking about his motives and passing blame. We know nothing about how the response went on the police side, and we have no idea whether having more students armed would have helped. I mean, there's plenty to say about how we could have prevented this, and being just up the road at Univ. of Virginia with lots of friends at VT, I certainly how we go over in detail how these things can be improved, but WE NEED THE FACTS FIRST. Throwing out there random stuff about gun control or video games doesn't help until we know if its relevant.

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, he *does* call it "training" all the time - although I fail to see how shooting blue-blooded aliens in Halo could desensitize someone for the DC Sniping attacks as he claimed.

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we haven't missed it. We just prefer to ignore the usual attention whores, lest we give their inane ramblings any legitimacy.

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, can't we let the bodies get cold?

That's the third time in these comments someone has used that line.

It's the most heartless and cruel thing you could possibly say. Those WERE living people, you asshole.

Show some compassion, or are you Slashdot nerds so "digital" that you can't feel any emotion about something unless it has source code?

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[coren2000]

There is a correlation between video games and violence. You see GAMES are a way of learning. When you play a violent video game you are learning to be violent. Counterstrike allows your brain to learn "this isn't a person, this is a think to kill." Counterstrike doesn't teach you how to aim, it just teaches you that 'its ok to pull the trigger.' However, just because you learn something doesn't mean you are going to use that learning. When it comes right down to it, the murderer is a skick f#ck, and sick f#cks are drawn to violent video games. Gun tragedies are not caused by violent video games, but to say there is no correlation is wrong.

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[Anonymous Coward]

How the hell does Jacko correlate the skill of properly aiming and discharging a firearm with moving a thumbstick and pressing a button on a control-pad? There is no link there!
Are you sure about that? Just like, for instance, there's no link between video games and skill at surgery?

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe someone should light Jack up next for being such a dumbshit. That'd be a shooting I'd be glad to hear about for once, along with all the other stupid self-important cocksuckers capitalizing off of this. I'd imagine he'd shut up real quick if someone were kind enough to just let all the air out of his head. It's not like he's using anything you might expect to find in there besides his big fucking mouth anyway.

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[tomhudson]

Perhaps that's because Jack Thompson is funded by the gun manufacturers to help take attention away from the fact that guns, not games, kill?

Guns are the tobacco of the next generation.

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[Strych9]

There has always been something for someone to blame youth "problems" on:

Let us recap:

50's : The start of Rock and/or Roll
60's : Hippies, Drugs, the counter culture
70's : DISCO? (I'd go crazy and want to shoot people if I had to hear that crap all day long)
80's : Heavy Metal, or perhaps just Twisted Sister and Ozzy, drugs etc
90's -> now : Horrific Video Violence that has "never" been seen before, and video games, not to mention music, drugs, etc

It isn't like there were time's before violence that were good(TM) and true(TM) yadda yadda. In Roman times you watched people getting eaten alive for sport in the Ring, we don't have anything close to that to watch yet, in fact I'd argue that were are far more tame as a society as we have ever been.

Point is there is always a scapegoat for a nutcase that decided to go out with a bang and take as many with him. 1/300 Million isn't against the odds of someone existing that is crazy enough to do that.

My 0.02

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[Guppy06]

Jack Thompson, Jack Thompson, Jack Thompson... when do we blame the news networks for rushing to some Florida lawyer to comment on a shooting in Virginia?

Re: ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[Black Parrot]

Jack Thompson has already gone on the major news networks predicting that the shooter's computer will have Counterstrike installed. How come nobody goes on the news to predict whether he owns a Bible.

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear aunt,

Let's set so double the killer delete select all

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[Anonymous Coward]

How the hell does Jacko correlate the skill of properly aiming and discharging a firearm with moving a thumbstick and pressing a button on a control-pad? There is no link there!

Yeah. I'm a bloody good shot. Very good. And good in many types of guns. But I outright suck at counterstrike. Cannot play it for the life of me. Actually, I suck at all fps. I don't even bother trying them anymore.

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[paitre]

Actually, Thompson specifically called the games trainers for this sort of thing in the interview.

So, yes, his theory really IS that the games are teaching the kids that play them how to kill.

Of course, he's completely overlooking what is likely to be a fact here - the shooter was an adult. All the anti-violent games laws that he's trying to get on the books wouldn't mean dick here.

He's a sanctimonious fuck-wad, and if I'd been able to find a call in number, I'd have tried to get on as a rebuttal. Oh, well.

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[darkpowrjd]

Can you please give me the EXACT quote that he used, word for word if you can, or give me a link to the video of this. I would like to read him ad-verbatium of what he said on a vblog I want to do with this. And a personal to Thompson: This has nothing to do with games anymore. You are now doing the exact same goddamned thing Bill O'Reilly did to those nine children that died in the fire (the day of the funerals, he unleashes an attack against the "pro-open-border, pro-amesty crowd" because his show could not confirm they weren't illegal immigrants, and did it AGAIN one day later). Even if the guy WAS influenced by ANY kind of game, on ANY platform, in ANY sort of way, now is NOT the time to bring it up. Let the families of the people who have died mourn first before you blame ANYTHING! And the fact that you did this not even one hour after that last body was found, if not before that, just shows what a disgusting human being you have become.

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[Apocalypse111]

Even if we assume you are correct, correlation does not equal causation.

I don't know what crazy stuff *you* learn from CS, but the rest of us just learn how to better play the game, since we can tell games from reality. We're not learning violence, we're learning mouse clicks. We're not desensitizing ourselves, we're enjoying a rousing game and all becoming closer due to the shared collective enjoyment and camaraderie. We're killing each other's virtual avatars and forming a community at the same time.

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[Apocalypse111]

There is a link there due to enhanced hand-eye coordination - but surgery isn't exactly something that the untrained can do either. I'm an amateur marksman (read: I like to shoot guns at long-ranges with a scope on some weekends every couple of months). I'm also a gamer. In a game, I'm an OK sniper. In life, I'm pretty good at ranges up to 150 yards with a .22 caliber rifle. In the game, I just point, click, and score. In life, I have to lay prone, line up my cross-hairs, steady my breathing, and squeeze my trigger-hand in a practiced ritual to get anything near the target for a single shot - and that assumes that my barrel isn't too hot, that my scope doesn't need to be sighted in again, that my ammunition is consistent with my scope settings, and that there isn't too much windage to account for.

My point is, being a good shot/good surgeon requires more than just video games, it also requires a great deal of practice with your craft.

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[coren2000]

We are in agreement that correlation does not equal causation. Just because you learn a thing does not mean that you practice what you learn. I am not blaming violence on video games, I blame violence on the people who do violence.

However, an already violently intended person (VIP for this discussion) can learn to desensitize themselves via video games. If a VIP has never experienced video games yet picks up a gun and shoots someone in the head, he might think "OMG there is so much blood, and he fell to the ground with such a sickening thud!" and might be shocked and temporarily stop the violence. Yet when a VIP plays video games he may think "YES HEADSHOT!" after shooting someone in the head.

Creatures use games to learn things... thats the point of games. I again agree that you are learning shared collectives and camaraderie when playing Multiplayer games, but you are also learning to respond to violence when you practice violence in a violent game.

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[Apocalypse111]

A VIP, as you put it, could probably use it to desensitize himself, but he'd have to be pretty mentally unstable to begin with to make the leap from playing a game to committing such an act in reality and not being affected by it. Most other rational people, however, never make such a jump.

Yes, all types of creatures use games to learn. However, even a wild animal knows the difference between a friendly game and an actual fight. The difference there is that their game actually practices the physical motions required in a real fight, where our games teach mouse clicks. Also, the games we play beyond our formative years quickly cease to have any educational value, and instead are just a form of entertainment. You *might* end up learning a way to respond to a violent situation from a game, but even in that possible case you won't have *actually* practiced what to do.

Re:ALREADY Jack Thompson blames games

[EBishop]

If verified, this will be the fourth such clippy-related tragedy.

over 30 dead according to the beeb

[maharg]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6560685. stm

that's one fucked up motherfucker. I can't begin to imagine how anyone related to this must feel.

Re:over 30 dead according to the beeb

[grub]

I can't begin to imagine how anyone related to this must feel.

Probably pretty bad.

Re:over 30 dead according to the beeb

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't begin to imagine how anyone related to this must feel.

I can. And trust me, you don't want to know. Ever. Some folks will never be 'right' again, especially those closest to the incidents. Survivors guilt will wreak havoc on some, others will turn to drugs and liquor to mask the shear amount of pain involved. Severe paranoia will set in in many, and I can guarantee that every thud, bang, and other loud noise will send shivers down their spines for *years* to come. And then there's the nightmares, the inability to trust people, and the inability for any loved ones to ever even *begin* to help the survivors to deal with their pain.

This sort of pain is very personal, very intense, and worst of all you suffer *alone* no matter how many you share it with simply because nobody can relate (even fellow victims - everybody is affected differently and has different experiences).

This is just awful....

Re:over 30 dead according to the beeb

[maharg]

sadly, grub, I don't think that covers it..

Federal Sources Cite 31 Dead Now

[nexuspal]

link. My question/concern is why did the police not lock down the campus after the shooting in the residence hall. 2 hours later, the SAME shooter went into classrooms and started killing students. If this is indeed the case, I believe it was gross negligence on the part of the police and I would be very disturbed if I was a family member of one of the students killed in the second shooting.

Re:Federal Sources Cite 31 Dead Now

[toleraen]

From what I've been reading they did lock down the campus to a point. After the first shooting they told everyone to stay inside, away from windows, etc etc. They just couldn't get to this sick @#$* in time.

Re:Federal Sources Cite 31 Dead Now

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a student at VT. The first shooting happened at 7:15 and I went to my 8:00am class and was headed to my 10:00 before I found out about either shooting.

Re:Federal Sources Cite 31 Dead Now

[AsnFkr]

I've been to the campus a few times and a good friend of mine lives and works there. Even if it was locked down....it's hard to find a student in amongst a huge crowd of their peers. And in that area, there are A LOT of places to hide. There is no simple solution.

Re:Federal Sources Cite 31 Dead Now

[oddaddresstrap]

Myself being the parent of a kid in college, I predict that you'd be WAY past "very disturbed" and into oscillating between unbearable grief and the most god-awful wrath you can't even imagine.

Re:Federal Sources Cite 31 Dead Now

[CKW]

I'm usually the first critic of responses and everything in general in life - but in this circumstance it's really easy to understand how it would happen.

It doesn't take long to shoot 50 rounds from a gun and leave the area. The fire department's response time is 4 minutes, police are usually much slower - 5-10 minutes, and that's just the first few officers. That gives TONS of time for someone to quietly leave.

And the residence it started in was for like 800 people - that's huge. There are probably 20 doors on a building like that. If the shooter stopped shooting and/or left his first set of guns behind and quietly left the building 5-10 minutes in, then got a second set of weapons some time latter and started again - it'd be impossible to stop.

The ONLY way you could make it impossible for them to "move on" would be if they cooperated and kept their gun and kept shooting long enough for you to find them, and/or if by co-incidence you had 50 officers right across the street.

(It's just amazing how high people's standards are and how small their ability to think rationally and systematically about the real world is when they're jerking their knees involuntarily)

Re:Federal Sources Cite 31 Dead Now

[AK Marc]

The ONLY way you could make it impossible for them to "move on" would be if they cooperated and kept their gun and kept shooting long enough for you to find them, and/or if by co-incidence you had 50 officers right across the street.

Or, if you called off all classes for the day (or unless the killer was caught quickly). Send everyone home (yes, I understand that the dorms were the initial target). Disperse the crowds and the groups of people that might be targets. It's the job of the police to secure the original scene and catch the person that did it, but it is the university's responsibility to prevent/minimize the recurrence.

Re:Federal Sources Cite 31 Dead Now

[drago177]

I agree its not necessarily the schools or police's fault. But this really supports my argument since doing a research paper in high school: ban *hand*guns at least. Handguns are designed to kill *people*. Hunting, home protection, fighting your government can all be done with shotguns (actually more intimidating to intruders than handguns anyway). But if you want to shoot up a school building, then quietly walk out of it, you would want a couple handguns that are easily concealable. I wonder how much the number of killed would have gone down if this killer walked into or out of the 1st building with a huge shotgun under his arm, and someone saw him and phoned the cops with his location. 2 hours! Somebody would likely have seen him, and it likely would have ended sooner.

Second Amendment Rights

[drinkypoo]

This is why it is wrong for your second amendment rights to end at the boundary of a school. Nothing is preventing from people illegally bringing guns on to campus. The same argument applies, well, anywhere.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[Yusaku Godai]

This is what I'm worried about though. On the one hand, I think it goes without saying that guns *should* be prohibited on college campuses, and they are.

But now we're already hearing things about how universities are going to have to review their security, and some campuses are going to have to start clamping down on security. But at what cost? College dorms are already bad enough as far as privacy is concerned (I'm fortunate in that I barely spent any time in on-campus housing when I was in school). But the last thing we need is for college campuses to become police states. And it'll get ugly if too many campuses try to clamp down too much, especially on the more liberal campuses.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[drinkypoo]

This is what I'm worried about though. On the one hand, I think it goes without saying that guns *should* be prohibited on college campuses, and they are.

Well, I don't think it goes without saying.

I don't think you should be prohibited from carrying guns anywhere.

While this didn't happen in CA, California actually used to have a law explicitly protecting your right to carry firearms on public property. That means schools, courthouses, you name it.

Regardless, I think this event proves that people should be allowed to bear arms on campus. If for no other reason than their own protection. Obviously the criminals have them.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[FleaPlus]

This is why it is wrong for your second amendment rights to end at the boundary of a school. Nothing is preventing from people illegally bringing guns on to campus. The same argument applies, well, anywhere.

Just to fill everybody in, the campus is designated a "gun-free zone." There was a state bill last year to change this, but it didn't make it out of subcommittee.

Of course, in all likelihood, we'll end up seeing even more restrictions that feel good but end up in more people being hurt. There have already been talking heads on TV advocating "making university buildings into lock-down prisons, with no classroom windows, and wanding of everyone going in and out."

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[psykocrime]

On the one hand, I think it goes without saying that guns *should* be prohibited on college campuses, and they are.

I don't think that "goes without saying" at all. In fact, I for one vehemently disagree. I have an inalienable right to defend
myself, wherever I may be, IMO. And I believe that extends to being armed in order to do so, if necessary.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

On the one hand, I think it goes without saying that guns *should* be prohibited on college campuses, and they are.

Why does that go without saying? So we can condition college students to expect to have their civil liberties arbitrarily removed in certain locations or times? Gun bans like the one at VA Tech and gun laws both do the same thing, they stop people who obey the law from having guns. Since most people who go on shooting rampages aren't obeying the law in the first place, how do the bans help? We can see here how they hurt. In other places school shootings were stopped or at least mitigated when armed citizens fired back. Here people could only run away while the shooter walked all the way across campus and shot a bunch more people.

But the last thing we need is for college campuses to become police states. And it'll get ugly if too many campuses try to clamp down too much, especially on the more liberal campuses.

You're way too late. Banning the populace from owning/carrying weapons is indicative of a police state. VA Tech was already there. This is just on consequence thereof.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, in nearly all other countries where firearms are restricted we don't have mass shootings like this.

Your point is completely flawed.

Considering the American culture, if guns were more freely allowed, there is little doubt that you would just have even more mass killings - and more innocent people dying from misfires and poor aim on the parts of citizens "defending" themselves.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[eclectro]

This is why it is wrong for your second amendment rights to end at the boundary of a school.

Nothing like a bunch of students shooting at eachother trying to get the killer. 10x dead.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[bugnuts]

I think it goes without saying that guns *should* be prohibited on college campuses, and they are. Hmm, I don't think it does go without saying... I certainly would have something against that statement.

I would say that firearms have nothing to do with getting an education, but that's beside the point. The purpose of having firearms, no matter where you are, is for defense against illegal or insane use of them. Prohibiting firearms on campus didn't stop the shooter, but the prohibition may have prevented defending oneself against it.

Irresponsible carrying is just as bad... so I would never advocate everyone carrying, especially not on campus. Even 50% is *way* too high. Only those that had the responsibility for it and the training, should carry if they choose. But if only 10% of the witnesses were armed (and I know plenty of engineering students like firearms, as does virginia in general), it might've reduced the loss of life significantly.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[elrous0]

Well, I'll say this: If you ARE going to ban civilians from carrying guns, you had damn well make sure that you have a police force that doesn't sit on their lazy asses for 2 hours after getting a report of a nutball going around shooting people.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[cyberkahn]

I agree. I wonder how far the shooter would have gotten had the students been armed? The opposite argument could be made on the issue of video games in this case. You have 50 armed nerds who are aces at Counter Strike now facing off with one mad gunman. ;-)

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[Johnny Mnemonic]

You're right. Although I'm drunk 1/3 of the time, if only I'd been armed so I could defend myself against guys like this. Or shoot wildly, anyways.

Here's my point: if guys like you didn't oppose reasonable measures to ensure that only responsible citizens could bear arms, a lot more folks would be entrusted to carry weapons. Yes, there is a value judgement in there that has to be made by the government. We do the same thing for the right to drive, too.

However, since you want to extend the right to every slinging dick that has $150 for a Sat Night Special, we prefer to ban everything.

I don't know at all if 25% of the folks were armed that there would be an organized resistance to the lone crazed individual. More than likely it'd be a free for all firefight, with lots of friendly fire casualties. Even professional soldiers can't keep from killing friendlies, and they train for such situations.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it goes without saying that guns *should* be prohibited on college campuses, and they are. If guns were prohibited then how did this monster bring his guns onto campus? Was he not afraid of the law written on a piece of paper?

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why it is wrong for the second amendment to exist at all. It's obsolete. You can't overthrow the USA federal government with a few rifles any more, and even if you could, the people of the USA have made it clear that they are unwilling to do so, and the states won't maintain their own militias.

The UK had a similar massacre years ago, but we took the hint and banned guns. It worked. No more massacres.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[drinkypoo]

Here's my point: if guys like you didn't oppose reasonable measures to ensure that only responsible citizens could bear arms, a lot more folks would be entrusted to carry weapons.

Excuse me, but what the fuck is a "guy like me"?

You're making unfounded assumptions. When you pull your head out of your ass, we can have a conversation.

But as long as you make assumptions about precisely what my stance is, you are the problem, not me.

I wanted to have a rational conversation about this issue, but people like you who make assumptions about what kind of person I am (and the people "like you" are people who are making assumptions without knowing me - I know you are in this group, you have proven it, so it is not an assumption, before you make that idiotic argument) make that impossible. You assume you know precisely what my position is. Thus we can not have a conversation.

However, since you want to extend the right to every slinging dick that has $150 for a Sat Night Special, we prefer to ban everything.

Actually, I don't. Thanks for proving my point.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[cain]

Shootings would be much more frequent if eveyone carried guns, especially on school grounds.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[nbritton]

This is why it is wrong for your second amendment rights to end at the boundary of a school.

I agree with you... But I'd restrict carry on campus to teachers, staff, and postgrad students. Your typical undergrad college student is not responsible enough to carry a handgun... anywhere.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[Sylver Dragon]

if guys like you didn't oppose reasonable measures to ensure that only responsible citizens could bear arms...(emphasis added)

This is the problem, what do you consider reasonable? I'm willing to bet that we probably won't agree. I will agree that a large part of the problem is that there are the extremists, on both sides, which refuse to budge and which refuse to find a reasonable compromise. The problem is that, these are the people who seem to get the press; so, each side ends up pushing further and further to its own extreme. And we get what we have, a patchwork of gun laws which have arguable effects, and no useful dialog on guns.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[drinkypoo]

Shootings would be much more frequent if eveyone carried guns, especially on school grounds.

Do you have some reputable reference to cite in support of this statement?

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[cain]

Do you have some reputable reference to cite in support of this statement?

Nope. Annoying, huh? It's not exactly an experiment I'd want to get scientific data on, either. I know that college is a generally stressful time though, and people under stress do irrational things. And with a gun it only takes a momentary lapse of reason, a momentary impluse, to do very bad things.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[gb]

Since most people who go on shooting rampages aren't obeying the law in the first place, how do the bans help? Is that actually true ? I mean trivially, once they start going on the rampage they are breakign the law, but is there evidence that the people who commit these ofenses have a significant criminal record beforehand that would prevent them from having access to legally owned firearms ? It seems to me that there are essentially two classes of people committing firearms offenses:

1) People with a significant criminal record, who would normally not be allowed legal access to firearms and who are committing ofenses with illegally held firearms.

2) People without a significant criminal record, who do have access to legally held firearms and who then go and use them illegally.

Anecodatlly it seems that a lot of the massacre type events involve the second category. That's what gun control laws/policies are aimed at addressing - they can't do much about the first category of people because they're unlikely to be deterred or prevented by a gun control law. Of course, a gun control policy that only applies to a limited jurisdiction can't prevent someone who is already determined to carry out a shooting to enter the controlled area and fire away, but it can make it significantly harder for someone already in that jurisdiction from accessing firearms and then using them illegally. That is unless the supply of illegal firearms is so prevalent that there is no possibility to control the supply of weaponary. In which case you have a big problem.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Does he need one? If there were no guns, there would be no shootings. An increase of guns would produce an increase in shootings. It's not really that complicated.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[tthomas48]

How do you know that no one was armed? That's the big lie of the pro-gun lobby. There's an assumption that if students were allowed to bear arms that they would have been able to apprehend the suspect before he killed too many people. But what if they themselves were shot first?

Please, please, please remember before you try to bring guns onto our campuses that schools are still statistically one of the safest places on earth to be. They are safe without guns. I don't know how kids with guns could ever be a good idea. Would you be comfortable with a frat house full of concealed handgun owners? Knowing that the crazy pothead next door was packing? If you think college students and guns are a good idea, I think you don't remember college very well.

This site has information on guns and schools. Schools are very safe without guns. Let's consider keeping them that way:

http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsaf ety/statistics.htm#school

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[Darlantan]

While your point about further 'locking down' security-wise is valid, I take exception to your statement regarding carrying weapons on school grounds. I would like to ask you to think about your standpoint logically.

I felt the same was until I thought about it a bit, and could not come up with a valid reason to prohibit firearms in such places. I'm curious if you have any reasons I haven't considered.

The main point of the argument is this: People who would take a firearm and murder others are obviously not concerned with the legal implications. One doesn't commit open murder of 1 person, let alone 30, if they are worried about going to jail. As such, they simply don't care about the lesser crime of carrying a weapon in a prohibited area. It's a non-factor to them, and the result is that you're vulnerable because you are a law-abiding citizen, and the criminal is gauranteed victims that are largely incapable of defending themselves.

In light of this, there is no reason to prohibit firearms from campuses other than the false notion that firearms should be banned to make them a safe haven. The same is true for churches, libraries, etc. While the idea is appealing, with no way to actually enforce the law until after the fact (no metal detectors, screening, etc), the law is only a disaster waiting to happen -- and this is just another example of how those disasters happen.

Airports are somewhat different, as are most federal buildings these days. They do screen, though the screening can be lacking. That's another argument, though.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[vertinox]

This is why it is wrong for your second amendment rights to end at the boundary of a school.

If you heard gun shots at your school and you pull out a gun and ran down the hall way and saw another student with a gun, how can you be sure:

A. It is the killer
B. Is not another student trying to protect himself with a gun
C. That you won't be mistaken for the killer by a police sniper

Given that you have a split second to decide... You really would have to have gone through police or military training to know how to deal with this situation.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[heinousjay]

It's not annoying, it just makes it easy to ignore what you say. I consider it helpful in that regard.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[eobanb]

Shame on you for capitalising on this tragedy in order to inject some stupid politics into this! Not only that, you're wrong too. If general gun posession was illegal, who knows if this shooter would have even been able to get a hold of a gun in the first place?

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[Yusaku Godai]

There is one part of what you say that's hard to reconcile--the question of "why should someone be allowed to carry a gun on the street, but not onto a public college campus which is just as likely as anywhere else to have some nutball running around that you'd need to defend yourself from?"

I can't answer that question. There's clearly a slippery slope there and I recognize that. But does being allowed to carry a gun around with you really make you, and the people around you safer? Just look at how responsible the average freshman college student is with a car. Often, not very, which is why many schools ban freshmen from having cars on campus (a policy I disagree with). I wouldn't disagree with disallowing freshmen (or most students for that matter) from having a hand gun on campus. First of all, it's of far less general utility than a car. And while it's easy to misuse a car, it's also much easier to learn to use safely than a gun. I'll give kids the benefit of the doubt when it comes to cars, but you just can't trust people the same way with guns.

Do you think Joe College who just his gun license would necessarily be able to defend himself, even with a hand gun, against an insane killer with an automatic weapon? He might get lucky, but more likely he'll mis-aim and hit someone innocent himself. It takes a lot of training to use a gun safely and effectively. There's a reason we have trained and (sometimes) vetted police officers. It makes a lot more sense to have better trained, better funded police forces than just giving every asshole a gun and saying "defend yourself."

If you're concerned about giving the police too much power, a valid concern, I would be in favor of making the same training available to average citizens if they want to be vigilantes like that. But they should have to go through the same training and the same background checks before we just hand them a gun.

So maybe I would agree to allowing people to carry guns in that case. But really it's still far too easy in most places for irresponsible people to legally get a hold of one. And in a world where responsible people *are* allowed to carry guns around on schools, it's not even necessarily that likely that there will always be someone standing around with the courage and the skills to take on an armed psycho.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[RexRhino]

However, since you want to extend the right to every slinging dick that has $150 for a Sat Night Special, we prefer to ban everything.

Um, every dickhead with $150 for a Sat Night Special will continue to carry one, after the ban. In fact, there is an even greater incentive to carry one after a ban, as it gives the dickhead way more of a sense of power to be the only one carrying a gun.

Weed is illegal, the penalties for selling large amounts of weed are greater than murder. Not only that, it is a CONSUMABLE, meaning that people need a constant supply (unlike guns, which they only have to buy once). Weed also takes a lot more space to produce, where anyone with some basic metal working equipment and a basement can make fully auto weapony.

I am not worried about guns being banned, your gun bans will be as effective as the bans on weed. You gun ban will ensure that there will be an unstoppable black market of guns readily available to anyone who wants it. Your gun ban will make guns ubiquitous.

What I worry is the collateral damage you will do with your gun bans. Already, there are over a million people in jail because your your attempts to ban drugs (most are minorities and the disadvantaged), and the drug war has eroded civil liberties, resulted in para-military style raids of suspected "drug houses" being commonplace, and resulted in essentially a defacto war on young black urban males (we know the police certainly aren't sending the SWAT teams to kick down random doors in rich white suburbs). How many young black urban males will you be willing to sacrifice in order to carry out yet another shameful and doomed attempt at social engineering?

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[drinkypoo]

Does he need one?

Yes.

If there were no guns, there would be no shootings.

That's true. And if the river ran with whisky, we'd all drink wine. But the river is still water, and it's still impossible to eliminate all guns.

An increase of guns would produce an increase in shootings.

Do you have a reputable reference to cite in support of this statement?

There's already more guns than people in the USA, so this isn't even a slightly logical statement.

It's not really that complicated.

Then it should be trivial for you, and the other guy, to come up with data supporting your conclusions.

And once you do so, then I will be interested in listening.

Certainly, in cases in which there have been people around with guns, these sorts of things have tended to go a much shorter distance. A marine with a highly accurate high-powered rifle in a clock tower in a school in Texas only managed to kill 15 people. So it seems that the burden of proof is on you.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[sixteenbitsamurai]

Would you be comfortable with a frat house full of concealed handgun owners? Knowing that the crazy pothead next door was packing? Change the "pothead" to "methhead" and maybe I'll be concerned. Weed doesn't make you crazy. Paranoid, maybe, but then you're Mr. Happy-giggles and you don't have the desire or ambition to even lift a gun, much less shoot somebody. Now meth users, with half their cognitive capability eroded away in a single use. Give then some guns: THAT"S scary shit.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[Yusaku Godai]

That's why it's difficult. I see where some people are coming from when they reacted to my statement about it "going without saying that guns should be banned on schools". Perhaps "it goes without saying" should have been dropped. The whole point is that I don't want to see students' freedoms infringed upon.

But letting every asshole defend themselves isn't the answer either. Most people don't have the wherewithall to defend themselves in such a situation. But perhaps it should be possible to give citizens access to the same training and vetting as a police officer. Certainly many people would be capable of defending themselves and others in such a situation given the right training. But not anybody. As it is getting a fire arm license is far too easy in most states. And I don't think there's any reason to need it concealed either. If you have the license to carry a gun, the people around you should be able to see that you're armed, and you should be able at any time to show your license, just as a police officer should be able to show their badge. In other words, have the same training and responsibilities, without making it your full time job.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[Megane]

There have already been talking heads on TV advocating "making university buildings into lock-down prisons, with no classroom windows, and wanding of everyone going in and out."

For what it's worth, the original four buildings at the University of Texas at San Antonio were designed in the early '70s. Because of the campus riots of the '60s, they were specifically designed with campus riots in mind. The buildings have very few windows, none in classrooms, and have 3 foot square hollow support columns. These each have one or two sides open on each floor, with big plastic knockout panels, and every classroom has at least one of these knockout panels. They allow a SWAT team to infiltrate the building from the bottom floor by climbing up the shafts of the support columns. (The bottom floor serves as a basement for most of the buildings, but the central area is raised such that the second level is the "ground" floor between buildings.)

Of course all that was rather a pointless extra expense since campus riots were a fad that had already passed.

But wanding everybody like they were getting on an airplane (what's next, strip searches with a body cavity option?) sounds more than a bit excessive. The cost-benefit ratio just isn't there. Incidents like this are the exception, not the rule.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[drinkypoo]

Knowing that the crazy pothead next door was packing?

You just lost every iota of credibility.

I would be far more comfortable with potheads packing heat than pretty much anyone else.

In fact, I would be more comfortable with the cops having guns taken away, and the potheads being armed.

Marijuana does not make people insane. Marijuana does not make people violent. Even the US government did a couple of studies on this and came to these conclusions before they terminated their studies - they had been hoping for an opposite result. They didn't get it, and the end result has been that marijuana research is heavily suppressed in the US, mostly by making it illegal.

This site has information on guns and schools. Schools are very safe without guns. Let's consider keeping them that way:

That site (or at least that page) has no statistics from which supported conclusions can be drawn, so I'm not sure what point you had in linking it.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[drinkypoo]

If general gun posession was illegal, who knows if this shooter would have even been able to get a hold of a gun in the first place?

I can't speak for that guy, but I can get pretty much any kind of gun I want, legal or not.

Also, I can play the what-if game all day too. I'd accomplish more by masturbating, but here's my what-if for you: If general gun posession was illegal, who knows if this shooter would have just poisoned a vat of beans in the cafeteria?

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[tthomas48]

My point being that I don't like the idea of people in altered states playing with guns. Really stoned people often find stupid things funny. Like pointing a gun at a wall and pretending to pull the trigger. And then accidentally pulling the trigger because their motor skills are diminished. I believe that potheads are generally more peaceful, but they definitely can be just as stupid as drunks.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[tthomas48]

I have no problem with Marijuana. I think it should be legal, and I think it's much less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. That said, marijuana usage does diminish judgment and motor skills. I fear people with guns accidentally firing them more than I fear them coming after me with them.

The link has the statistics for the number of kids killed at skill per year by gun violence. It shows that a lot more kids are killed outside of school by guns, then inside schools (which are predominantly gun-free zones). I don't understand why you don't find those statistics pertinent.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[drinkypoo]

The link has the statistics for the number of kids killed at skill per year by gun violence. It shows that a lot more kids are killed outside of school by guns, then inside schools (which are predominantly gun-free zones). I don't understand why you don't find those statistics pertinent.

I'm not proposing to allow children to bring guns to school.

I'm proposing to allow adults to do so.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[Darlantan]

You make some very good points that appy to colleges specifically. Drunken frat boys (or drunken anyone) and guns don't mix. Impared judgement + lethal device = bad news. Perhaps background checks limiting CCW licenses to those under 26 who don't have records of public drunkeness and (especially) DUI should be considered. At any rate, getting caught with a gun on your person while drunk should be an instant, irrevocable loss of CHP/CCW privs.

Joe college vs. a person armed with a fully automatic weapon isn't going to stand a very good chance, admittedly -- unless he's not being paid attention to. This is more likely in a crowd, but crowds interfere with one of the most basic rules of concealed carry: ALWAYS make sure you have a clear shot AND know what is behind the target. Still, it's a better chance than nothing at all. The situation also changes as more people are armed: Joe and Bob may not be much more of a threat than Joe alone, but when it's Joe and 12 other people in class, there's substiantally less of a chance that the crazy shooter is going to be able to engage all, or even most of the armed students before he dies.

I'm all for required training, as long as it is either free or reasonably priced. Taxes and spiked prices are a "secret" control method frequently used, let's not forget. IMO, more training should be required, and gun laws should be relaxed for those who are willing to be trained and prove that they are responsible and stable. Also, I'd like to note that everyone with a CCW has gone through some sort of background check, and usually some training. I'd suggest stopping by your local police station if it is convenient and picking up literature on what it takes in your state. You may not be interested in it personally, but it's good to know what those around you that do carry concealed have to know, and what they're expected to do/not do.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[despik]

Just to fill everybody in, the campus is designated a "gun-free zone."

Yeah, it's a real pity the perpetrator didn't know that.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[iabervon]

What I don't understand is why nobody takes the "well-regulated militia" part seriously. Just arming arbitrary people won't help, and could hurt, depending on how jumpy people are. (E.g., I bet, if they repealled the law today, somebody would shoot somebody for gesturing too wildly next week, because people will be paranoid.) An elaborate gun safety and situation awareness program which is non-trivial but accessible to students, as a requirement for being permitted to carry a (concealed) weapon on a campus, with the whole thing widely publicized, would increase the likelihood of somebody taking down an attacker like this.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[AK Marc]

Also, I can play the what-if game all day too.

And that's all you have been doing. Guns are easy to get illegally because they are legal. Pretty much all illegally purchased and used firearms were legally manufactured and legally imported to the US (if foreign) and after having been legally owned in the US, made their way into the hands of criminals. If all guns were illegal, then the number of guns available to criminals would shrink considerably. Note, I'm not stating anything about safety, just the availability. That's one thing that is completely based in fact.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[sixteenbitsamurai]

I don't understand why you don't find those statistics pertinent. Because statistics are a step above damned lies.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[khallow]

How do you know that no one was armed? That's the big lie of the pro-gun lobby. There's an assumption that if students were allowed to bear arms that they would have been able to apprehend the suspect before he killed too many people. But what if they themselves were shot first?

"Big lie" eh? Don't lies have to be false first before they can be lies? Of course, if I were to shoot a bunch of people, I'd start by shooting the people who could shoot back. That's common sense. But have people shooting back will restrict my actions (unless I am bullet-proof). I could get lucky and shoot the right people, but arguing that guns are ineffective as a defense because the gunman could get lucky is some pretty screwy reasoning.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't answer that question. There's clearly a slippery slope there and I recognize that. But does being allowed to carry a gun around with you really make you, and the people around you safer? Just look at how responsible the average freshman college student is with a car.

There's a selection bias at work, of course. I believe that the right to self-defense using any (proportionate) tools available is an inalienable human right (and I wish the Second Amendment had been written that way.) That makes me a strong supporter of CCW permit laws, and a strong opponent of arbitrary "gun-free zone" legislation such as applied on the Virginia Tech campus.

However, I don't actually own any guns. Why not? Because I'm a goddamn spaz. At the ripe old age of 38, I recognize that I would be a threat to myself and everyone around me if I walked around with a loaded weapon... and I am quite certain that I would have made the same call as an 18-year-old freshman. Someone else can play the archetypal hero character when the shit hits the fan, thanks very much.

What's more, I trust people who are otherwise qualified for a CCW permit to make that call for themselves. I would be more inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to carrying guns, than I do with cars. Everybody pretty much has to own a car to survive in most places in the US, and that includes a lot of people (like myself) who probably shouldn't. Nobody has to carry a weapon, though. Apart from criminals, only those who are interested enough to understand and train with their weapon are likely to bother carrying in public on a regular basis.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[tthomas48]

I'd agree that statistics based upon surveys are often nothing more than damned lies. Ones based on hard numbers are a little more trustworthy. If I know that 253 kids died from gun violence in schools between 1994 and 1999. I can take the public school attendance rate and come up with a pretty decent statistic. I might need to factor in a few things like absenteeism, but considering the number is so low compared to the number of kids enrolled in public schools, that probably won't nudge that perecentage of a perecent around a whole lot.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

People without a significant criminal record, who do have access to legally held firearms and who then go and use them illegally. Anecodatlly it seems that a lot of the massacre type events involve the second category. That's what gun control laws/policies are aimed at addressing - they can't do much about the first category of people because they're unlikely to be deterred or prevented by a gun control law.

Are you serious? So you think if this shooter had not been legally allowed to have the firearms this shooting would not have occurred? Guess what, it is already illegal for students to have firearms on that campus. For some reason this guy did not stop at the edge of campus and go home because of that any more than anyone determined to kill people is stopped by gun control laws.

Of course, a gun control policy that only applies to a limited jurisdiction can't prevent someone who is already determined to carry out a shooting to enter the controlled area and fire away, but it can make it significantly harder for someone already in that jurisdiction from accessing firearms and then using them illegally.

Unless you can ban all guns worldwide, including police and military then you will always be considering a limited jurisdiction. If they are banned in Virginia, people will buy them in Pennsylvania. If they are banned in the US, people will buy them from Mexico and Canada. If they are banned in north america... well you get the point. Also, in places with strict gun control laws, it is common for people to buy weapons from corrupt police and underpaid military staff. Do you advocate removing guns from the US military as well?

Statistically, gun control does reduce availability of guns to people significantly. It also increases rates of murder and violent crime in general. Assuming the shooter here was unable to acquire firearms, what makes you think he would not have built a bomb or ten? So while your statement is perfectly accurate, I think it is a logical misstatement of the problem that is your mistake. If your goal is to reduce shootings, gun control makes sense. If your goal is to reduce stabbings, laws restricting knives and swords make sense. If your goal is to reduce clubbings, laws restricting ownership of baseball bats, crow bars, hammers, etc. make sense. If your goal is to reduce violent crime and murder, none of those make sense. All they do is change the types of weapons used in most attacks.

As near as I can tell, people in favor of increasing gun control are ignorant people who are emotively reacting to things and thinking "guns bad" and hoping there is some easy way to reduce violence and trying not to look to hard at the practicalities of the situation or the numbers which contradict their beliefs... well and, of course, the politicians who are happy to exploit those misguided beliefs to get votes.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[Cro Magnon]

Yeah, it's a real pity the perpetrator didn't know that.

Actually, I'm sure he DID know it. :(

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[drinkypoo]

What I don't understand is why nobody takes the "well-regulated militia" part seriously.

What I don't understand is why you and most of the other people participating in this thread assume that people don't agree with you!

You and every other motherfucker have been assuming that those of us who decry the campus gun ban as unconstitutional (if they receive one penny of public funding, then this is an issue of government) would like to arm every dipshit from here to Tallahassee. Well, stop making idiot assumptions. I am highly in favor of a nontrivial firearms license to carry in public, concealed or not.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[drinkypoo]

I'd restrict carry on campus to teachers, staff, and postgrad students. Your typical undergrad college student is not responsible enough to carry a handgun... anywhere.

You are an ageist bastard.

Get this: your typical human is not responsible enough to drive a car. Regardless of age. The same would probably apply to guns, which is why I favor a fairly strict certification process before someone is allowed to carry a loaded firearm (regardless of whether it's a concealed or open carry state.)

I also, however, think that we need a much much harder driving test...

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[asninn]

Also, I can play the what-if game all day too. I'd accomplish more by masturbating, but here's my what-if for you: If general gun posession was illegal, who knows if this shooter would have just poisoned a vat of beans in the cafeteria?

Unlikely: people like that want recognition. There's certainly modi operandi that don't involve random shooting sprees (read Andrew Vachss' "A bomb built in hell", for instance - I very much recommend that book), but poisoning a vat of beans doesn't sound like a realistic scenario. The killer doesn't care about people being dead: he cares about killing people, and about people knowing that HE killed people. He wants to feel power and enact revenge, and he wants to shock people and leave a mark and just "stick it to them". Why do you think so many shooting sprees end in suicides?

Sure, people like this could find other things to do if they couldn't get their hands on guns, but poisoning the ingredients used for lunch in the school cafeteria... somebody who finally wants to be heard when he goes out with a bang wouldn't do that.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[iabervon]

I didn't think you wanted no gun laws. I was talking about the people who write the gun laws that actually get passed, who seem to exclusively write pointless and unconstitutional ones. I think that this is because the debate largely gets framed between people making knee-jerk reactions to rare events and people opposing those knee-jerk reactions, and little attention goes into proposing actual solutions, even when everybody who've looked into the statistics and thought about the issues knows what a reasonable solution would be. You let yourself end up in a debate between something implicit you don't agree with and something explicit you firmly oppose, and I think that does our position a disservice.

Re:Second Amendment Rights

[drinkypoo]

poisoning the ingredients used for lunch in the school cafeteria... somebody who finally wants to be heard when he goes out with a bang wouldn't do that.

Right, because no one has ever killed people and claimed responsibility later.

Except just about every terrorist organization around...

...and they are very much in the news at the moment.

Re:slashdot?

[darkrowan]

I was about to ask this, then realized they took out the engineering classes. 'Bout the only relivance I can see here.

Checked in with people I knew as best I could.

[Badgerman]

Have some friends in the area, so our usual gang was trying to figure out what was up.

From what I heard they put all schools in the county into lockdown when the attack was detected - not just college campuses. The gunman is apparently dead, but obviously everyone is extremely nervous.

Apparently the campus had had bomb threats in the last two weeks. No idea if they're connected:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18134671/

My thoughts are with the lost and their loved ones.

Re:Checked in with people I knew as best I could.

[gotgenes]

FWIW if you're on Facebook, current VT students on Facebook are checking in via joining the group "I'm okay at VT". You might find friends checking in there.

Jack Thompson Strikes again

[b0wl0fud0n]

And once again, before any details about the shooter are released, Jack Thompson is blaming video games for the shooting.

from the funny-not-appropriate dept.

[stratjakt]

then how about leaving out the clever tagline altogether?

Re:from the funny-not-appropriate dept.

[Anonymous Coward]

he did. duh

Re:from the funny-not-appropriate dept.

[Cederic]

or actually make it funny.

From the empty-cartridges-for-sale dept
From the jack-thompson-wet-dream dept
From the come-back-jon-katz dept
From the shortage-of-engineering-graduates dept

Doesn't black humour exist in the US?

Re:from the funny-not-appropriate dept.

[Nimey]

I laughed, at least.

Re:from the funny-not-appropriate dept.

[Plutonite]

It's just that the digital age is so bent on speed - Taco's point was that the bodies are still warm. Very funny post, but show some respect for the unburied dead.

Re:from the funny-not-appropriate dept.

[geminidomino]

Judging by the troll mod, I'd say it doesn't exist on /. at least.

I chuckled.

Very sorry

[Maxo-Texas]

I'm really very sorry for these kids.

This is a terrible tragedy.

Get ready...

[psykocrime]

...here come the "knee jerk" reactions, which - with Democrats in control of Congress - will almost certainly include new gun-control legislation. Legislation which - if history is any indicator - will do nothing to prevent tragedies like this, and will actually make our society more susceptible to this sort of thing, as fewer people have the means to defend themselves.

Does anybody know if Virginia Tech has a policy against firearms on campus? If so, I hope people stop and ask: could one student, armed with a handgun, have prevented the death toll from climbing as high as it did?

Re:Get ready...

[mwhahaha]

VT is a gun free campus. They have banned guns from the campus.

Re:Get ready...

[mwhahaha]

http://www.judicial.vt.edu/upsl.php

10. Fireworks/Explosives/Hazardous Chemicals/Weapons
Unauthorized possession or use of fireworks, explosives, or weapons is prohibited. Hazardous chemicals that could pose a health risk are also prohibited from the campus, including chemicals that, when combined with other substances, could be hazardous or present a danger to others.

Unauthorized possession, storage (in vehicles on campus as well as in the residence halls), or control of firearms and weapons on university property is prohibited. (NOTE: Organizational weapons of the Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets, approved by the commandant, are not prohibited by this policy.) Firearms are defined as any gun, rifle, pistol, or handgun designed to fire bullets, BBs, pellets, or shots (including paint balls), regardless of the propellant used. Other weapons are defined as any instrument of combat or any object not designed as an instrument of combat but carried for the purpose of inflicting or threatening bodily injury. Examples include (but are not limited to) knives with fixed blades or pocket knives with blades longer than four inches, razors, metal knuckles, blackjacks, hatchets, bows and arrows, nun chahkas, foils, or any explosive or incendiary device. Possession of realistic replicas of weapons on campus is prohibited. Students who store weapons in residence hall rooms, who brandish weapons, or who use a weapon in a reckless manner may face disciplinary action which may include suspension or dismissal from the university.

Refer to Section V.W. for additional information about Weapons.

Re:Get ready...

[smashr]

Does anybody know if Virginia Tech has a policy against firearms on campus? If so, I hope people stop and ask: could one student, armed with a handgun, have prevented the death toll from climbing as high as it did? Virginia Tech does have a policy against firearms on campus. The Virginia Attorney General a couple years ago clarified that the administration of Virginia Universities has a right to prevent students from having weapons on campus but not citizens attending a public event or in public spaces. (As virginia is for the most part an open-carry state)

Re:Get ready...

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. Or you could outlaw firearms altogether.

Re:Get ready...

[jockeys]

this is what happens when you artificially, (thru legislation) create a Defenseless Victim Zone. or, as they are sometimes called, Gun Free Zones. there will most likely be a bunch of post-facto firearms legislation after this to make everybody feel better.

Remember kids, you should give up your rights because FEELING safer is more important.

To anyone who has lost someone important, I know that nothing I can say makes it hurt less. My thoughts are with you.

Re:Get ready...

[Waffle Iron]

Your plan would do more harm than good. Given how much college students drink, if even 10% of them regularly carried firearms, there would undoubtedly be > 30 additional accidental deaths every year due to alcohol-related stupidity.

Re:Get ready...

[Stickerboy]

And to respond to the gun nuts who come out and say, "Well, gee, if everybody was packing heat, somebody would have shot the guy before he killed 30 people!":

How would death rates on campus be affected in the long-term with tens of thousands of college students with ready access to large amounts of alcohol and firearms?

Because no one gets into a fight over stupid shit in college... especially while inebriated.

Re:Get ready...

[Sciros]

I don't know, but I can tell you for sure what one student armed with a firearm DID -- kill 31 people. The more guns there are in the public the more guns will be fired.

Re:Get ready...

[Anonymous Coward]

Give one single example of anyone ever defending themselves in a situation like this, with a gun they happened to be carrying at the time.

Re:Get ready...

[PranksterJD]

Legislation which - if history is any indicator - will do nothing to prevent tragedies like this, and will actually make our society more susceptible to this sort of thing, as fewer people have the means to defend themselves

I'm not meaning to preach, but what historical indicators are you using to base this on? What exactly about this makes you think that our current system ended this any better? What makes you think it would have been 33 instead of 32 if it had been harder for the shooter to get a gun? As for defending themselves, was there a mad rush of gun owners running into the building to plow this guy down that I'm unaware of?

Re:Get ready...

[east coast]

Right. Or you could outlaw firearms altogether.

Yeah, because past and current prohibitions have worked out so well for the public.

Anytime you create a prohibition you create a black market. Black markets create violence. Or do you think the violence heavily associated with the illegal drug trade is just a coincidence?

Re:Get ready...

[winkydink]

There already are > 30 deaths each year due to alcohol-related stupidity

Re:Get ready...

[Quila]

How would death rates on campus be affected in the long-term with tens of thousands of college students with ready access to large amounts of alcohol and firearms?

Don't know, but there haven't been any murders among the general public with millions of concealed carry permits issued, and I'm sure that includes a good number of drinkers.

Re:Get ready...

[amishdisco]

I hate sharing a country with people who think like you.

Re:Get ready...

[elrous0]

Guess the bad guy didn't give a shit about the policy.

Re:Get ready...

[FleaPlus]

I'm not meaning to preach, but what historical indicators are you using to base this on? What exactly about this makes you think that our current system ended this any better? What makes you think it would have been 33 instead of 32 if it had been harder for the shooter to get a gun?

Here you go...

Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement

JOHN R. LOTT Jr.
State University of New York - Department of Economics
WILLIAM M. LANDES
University of Chicago Law School; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)

Abstract:
Few events obtain the same instant worldwide news coverage as multiple victim public shootings. These crimes allow us to study the alternative methods used to kill a large number of people (e.g., shootings versus bombings), marginal deterrence and the severity of the crime, substitutability of penalties, private versus public methods of deterrence and incapacitation, and whether attacks produce copycats. Yet, economists have not studied this phenomenon. Our results are surprising and dramatic. While arrest or conviction rates and the death penalty reduce normal murder rates, our results find that the only policy factor to influence multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws. We explain why public shootings are more sensitive than other violent crimes to concealed handguns, why the laws reduce both the number of shootings as well as their severity, and why other penalties like executions have differential deterrent effects depending upon the type of murder.

Re:Get ready...

[RexRhino]

Your plan would do more harm than good. Given how much college students drink, if even 10% of them regularly carried firearms, there would undoubtedly be > 30 additional accidental deaths every year due to alcohol-related stupidity. By the same logic we should ban automobiles as well, since they are hundreds of times more likely to kill a student (especially when alcohol is involved). Or why not ban alcohol, which in itself causes many deaths, and many life-destroying mistakes (unwanted pregnacy, sexual assault).

If you are going to go for reactionary prohibition, there are any number of things that you can ban that aren't a part of the bill of rights. All of them are going to fail miserably (as prohibition always does), but you will have less of a battle from civil libertarians.

Re:Get ready...

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but given the requirements for a concealed carrying license, the students too busy drinking wouldn't have a firearm anyways. He isn't proposing we start handing our guns to students, but simply extend already existing laws to the university classroom.

Re:Get ready...

[Teckla]

...here come the "knee jerk" reactions, which - with Democrats in control of Congress - will almost certainly include new gun-control legislation. Legislation which - if history is any indicator - will do nothing to prevent tragedies like this, and will actually make our society more susceptible to this sort of thing, as fewer people have the means to defend themselves.

I can't believe it's only been a few hours since the tragedy and jackasses like you are already trying to spin this into a political issue.

Excuse my French, but you're an asshole.

Re:Get ready...

[OverlordQ]

Does anybody know if Virginia Tech has a policy against firearms on campus? If so, I hope people stop and ask: could one student, armed with a handgun, have prevented the death toll from climbing as high as it did?

Last year the VA legislature tried to amend the laws to allow licensed students and faculty to carry concealed on campus. Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Re:Get ready...

[zippthorne]

Well... in the towns where it's been tried, the death rates have gone down, so perhaps until we actually try this on at least one campus (and even just one campus really isn't enough to gather any meaningful statistics), we won't really know. The number of people who have a desire to shoot/kill people is astonishingly low, especially when you consider all the non-restricted ways in which one person can kill/maim another individual and which are also found on college campuses.

Of course, you could just hole up in the "guns are bad" knee-jerk opinion and never actually try to find out. In which case, I suggest installing 5mph governors on all motor vehicles, filling in all swimming pools and buckets larger than a fist with sand and covering that with turf, requiring all furniture larger than a person to be made by Nerf, and require extensive licensing for possession of kitchen related appliances and tools.

Just because guns are present and anger is present, doesn't mean the guns will be fired in anger, any more than everyone who fights in a kitchen gets stabbed, or anyone who fights in a parking lot gets run over.

Re:Get ready...

[database_plumber]

Yeah, great. Let's visit this alternative reality for a minute. Word goes out that a 'young guy with a handgun' is wandering around campus killing people. In response, all these students break out their handguns and start popping off at anyone matching that description. Hilarity ensues.

Re:Get ready...

[mhall119]

I'm willing to bet that one student, armed with one or more guns, caused the death toll.

Re:Get ready...

[kalidasa]

It looks to me like all the knee-jerk reactions around here are coming from people who think that complete gun deregulation would have stopped this. Even with complete gun deregulation, the odds are that the concentration of students carrying guns wouldn't have been enough to get to this guy any faster than the campus police did. So you're hijacking this tragedy for your political agenda, too, and with very little evidence to back you up.

Re:Get ready...

[poot_rootbeer]

could one student, armed with a handgun, have prevented the death toll from climbing as high as it did?

Probably not. I mean, it's not as if dozens of police and campus security officers, with guns in hands and a lot of training in how to use them safely and effectively, were able to prevent the death tool from climbing so high.

Re:Get ready...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
"They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen."
And you thought you were joking....

Re:Get ready...

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to having everyone not think, like you?

The removal of legal guns from the market will not prevent deranged people from building bombs out of piss and deisel fuel, and blowing up federal buidlings, taking their cars and running into crowded areas, or any other act of violence.

I hate to sound like a stupid bumper sticker, but that gun didn't kill anyone.

The debate isn't black and white, like both sides try to make it. Both sides tend to be closed minded. There really needs to be frank and open discussion with people willing to consider other sides. But the real consideration is, error on freedom, or error on a false sense of safety?

Re:Get ready...

[mgabrys_sf]

Well that settles it! The gunman should be expelled! The system works!

In other news half the dead students and their families are still being sued by the RIAA.

After all - rules are rules.

Re:Get ready...

[Waffle Iron]

Nevertheless, what I said still stands. If enough students carried weapons to significantly reduce the risk of mass shootings like this, then at the end of the day overall deaths would go up, due to increased accidents (not to mention suicides, fits of rage, etc.). Facts is facts, regardless of how well they harmonize with your principles.

Re:Get ready...

[ciggieposeur]

...here come the "knee jerk" reactions, which - with Democrats in control of Congress - will almost certainly include new gun-control legislation.

Thanks for providing the required "OMG Liberals want to take our gunz!!" comment now that a tragedy involving firearms has occurred.

And for doing it within 6 minutes of the announcement, you get the special Gun-Luvin' Wingnut lapel pin!

Fucking asshole.

Re:Get ready...

[maharg]

oh, for mod points. god bless you.

Re:Get ready...

[drinkypoo]

It looks to me like all the knee-jerk reactions around here are coming from people who think that complete gun deregulation would have stopped this.

It looks to me like you're making an anti-gun knee-jerk reaction, because I've been actively participating in the pro-gun side of this conversation and out of literally dozens of comments, not one of them has advocated allowing everyone to carry a gun. In spite of that, there have been many accusations, including yours, of people holding that stance. Even I have been accused thereof, and I know that I have never advocated, in my adult life (and I count from about the age of fifteen up in this) that every one should have guns.

In fact, I was raised to believe that taking away guns was a good thing. But then I grew up, learned to think for myself, and realized that you can't take all the guns away, so the axiom that states "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" is utterly true. It's perhaps more true here in the US, a nation built on the gun, than anywhere else in the world.

Re:Get ready...

[silentbozo]

Also, by law, under the Virgina right to carry statute, concealed carry permits do not apply in most universities and colleges (as well as to a whole laundry list of other areas):

http://www.vacle.org/php-bin/ecomm4/products.php?p roduct_id=771

Chapter 2, Section V, item L

So even if there were people who had permits for concealed carry, if they were on campus at the time, it's likely that they would not have been armed, for fear of arrest and prosecution.

Re:Get ready...

[drinkypoo]

could one student, armed with a handgun, have prevented the death toll from climbing as high as it did?

Probably not. I mean, it's not as if dozens of police and campus security officers, with guns in hands and a lot of training in how to use them safely and effectively, were able to prevent the death tool from climbing so high.

You truly do put the "tool" in "death toll".

I'm sure the shooter was avoiding doing his shooting in places where the cops &c were concentrated. In fact, if they're like most campus police departments, they are utterly incompetent. They follow regular, easily memorized patrols, and there are large caps in coverage.

Then again, most cops are incompetent. Police are literally hired for their sheeplike qualities - people who will go along with authority. Most cops are simply armed, glorified parking attendants. Their sole function is to write tickets. They are trained to shoot, but they are frankly not all that highly trained. Some of them are excellent shooters, but not all of them.

I am not saying here that all cops are incompetent, or that all cops are idiots. But you have to keep in mind that the police are just a slice of the population like everyone else. And the majority of people are fucking lames. Ben Franklin is said to have stated that nine tenths of all men are living suicides. Personally, I accept that estimate - most people walking around might as well be dead for all the enjoyment they have of life and all the contribution they make to it. Even if the rate is half that amongst police, that means that the vast majority of them are walking around like robots. Robots with guns, hopped up on bad food and with a perpetual bad attitude from being hated all day.

Re:Get ready...

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse my French, but you're an asshole.

And you are a facist... but assholes are better for democracy than facists with good manners.

Re:Get ready...

[Anonymous Coward]

Legislation which - if history is any indicator - will do nothing to prevent tragedies like this

The UK's gun ban was instated after the Dunblane school massacre, and we haven't had one since. The USA hasn't tried a nation-wide gun ban, and anything less than that is obviously counter-productive. What history are you referring to?

Re:Get ready...

[corbettw]

How would death rates on campus be affected in the long-term with tens of thousands of college students with ready access to large amounts of alcohol and firearms?

But the drinking age is 21, which means most college kids can't drink alcohol. You aren't suggesting that someone would *gasp* break the law, are you?

Surely they would only break laws about drinking, and not about carrying firearms, though. So we're still safe.

Re:Get ready...

[qqaz]

I'll bet ol' Larry is feeling pretty silly now!

Re:Get ready...

[kalidasa]

So, what percentage of VTech students do you think would have been carrying if VTech permitted the carrying of concealed weapons on campus? I'd guess 1% at most. That wouldn't give you much of a chance to stop the shooter, would it? By the way, claiming that something is an axiom and then claiming that it is "utterly true" is petitio principii.

Re:Get ready...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dork,

You want to put up $5 for every Democrat in Congress that mentions gun control?

Re:Get ready...

[smilingman]

Simple question: how many times have armed citizens actually taken down a spree killer?

Re:Get ready...

[jdunn14]

Alright, lets go with that math. Personally, I think 1% would be a little low for that portion of Virginia, but let's compromise to 1%. He KILLED 32, shot a couple dozen more. IF he ONLY encountered the people who were shot, and this is EXTREMELY unlikely, and 1% were armed he would have around a 50% chance of running into someone carrying. That's flipping a coin. Heads someone is shooting back, tails no one is. You know what? I like those odds better than 0% allowed to carry in the area.

Re:Get ready...

[abb3w]

Other weapons are defined as any instrument of combat or any object not designed as an instrument of combat but carried for the purpose of inflicting or threatening bodily injury. [...] Students who store weapons in residence hall rooms [...] may face disciplinary action which may include suspension or dismissal from the university.

I suppose this is a lousy time to point out that technically they've banned the brick? Take apart those bookshelves, gang....

Alas, it's simpler to get rid of a weapon than an attitude.

Re:Get ready...

[DerekLyons]

Does anybody know if Virginia Tech has a policy against firearms on campus? If so, I hope people stop and ask: could one student, armed with a handgun, have prevented the death toll from climbing as high as it did?

Two answers;
 
First - it probably wouldn't have stopped the madman. It's not enough to be simply carrying a gun, one has to be willing and able to use it. (And to use it properly and in a timely fashion.) If your hypothetical armed student pulls his gun and fumbles it, and if the shooter (perpetrator) is as methodical and observant as one eyewitness account implies, then said armed student is now an armed corpse.
 
This is why cops (and soldiers) spend so much time not only practicing their Weaver stance, but on pop-up ranges and other combat/crisis simulators.
 
Second - Imagine this not too unlikely scenario; Armed Student #1 hears the rumor/news of an armed madman on campus, he pulls his gun and starts circulating around campus looking for the madman. Armed student #2, having heard the same rumor keeps watch out of his dorm window with his buddies... He see #1 on 'patrol', and egged on by his buddies takes aim... This scenario will probably not end well.

Re:Get ready...

[siriuskase]

All the guns in hands and training in safety and efectiveness is useless if it takes 2 hours to respond.

The RA who was killed seems like a great kid. He was the first responder. If he had a gun, could we have trusted him to use it instead of or in addition to calling the cops.

Re:Get ready...

[BoberFett]

If you weren't such a fucking moron you'd realize that brandishing a firearm is against the law for CCW license holders. CCWs don't wander around with their guns drawn looking for people to shoot, asshole.

Re:Get ready...

[kalidasa]

But the odds weren't 0% - there were the odds he would run into a cop, which are somewhat higher than 0% - say there's 1 cop for every 1000 students: that's 0.1% x 50 = 5% odds he would run into a cop.

Re:Get ready...

[drinkypoo]

Cops, especially campus cops, usually follow a predetermined route on a predictable schedule. There are pretty much always gaps in the patrol, as well. If he had been planning this for even a couple of days he could easily have figured out what times were best to attack his target. You are lots of other people are acting like cops are smart or something. Sure, some of them are, but cops are hired specifically for their conformity. This is not a troll. This is not something I just pulled out of my ass. It's the truth. Detectives need to be intelligent and fairly independent. But most cops are glorified ticket writers. Sometimes they deal with a violent asshole but most of the time they're doing two things: showing the colors (like a gang) and making money by writing tickets.

Re:Get ready...

[kalidasa]

This guy really doesn't strike me as the type who planned out a route, but I'll grant you that you have a point there (that a sufficiently motivated shooter could avoid most patrols, though a reasonably responsive police force would one would hope change its tactics the moment the first shooting was reported).

I still do not see this as an argument in favor of concealed carry laws. When was the last time a nutcase firing a weapon randomly in a state with concealed carry laws was stopped in this way? And don't tell me this kind of shooting doesn't happen in concealed carry states - it does. Take a look at the crime news in Missouri.

My own feeling is that the intention of the Second Amendment - leaving enough force in the hands of the populace to serve as a brake on potential governmental tyranny - is served well enough without concealed carry laws, and that the existence of concealed weapons in the general population is very unlikely to deter a potential spree killer: the best you can hope for is to stop the spree before the maximum number of victims is killed, and most often, I think that will simply happen because law enforcement has arrived or the nutjob has finally toppled over the edge and offed himself (as in this case). And I think that trying to use this case as an argument for concealed carry laws, when there is no statistical evidence and no unassailable logic behind the argument, before the bodies are even cold, is no better than using the case as an argument for gun control. (I happen to favor a great deal of regulation of guns, but won't be so opportunistic as to try to construct an argument in favor of gun control on the basis of this incident.)

Re:Get ready...

[geminidomino]

No! It's the WEED that makes people violent, STUPID!

*removes tongue from cheek

Case of the Mondays

[stickynips]

Sounds like someone has a case of the Mondays.

Re:Case of the Mondays

[HTH NE1]

Sounds like someone has a case of the Mondays. Are you saying the silicon chip inside his head got switched to overload?

Re:Case of the Mondays

[Anonymous Coward]

No man... Way too soon

Re:Case of the Mondays

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but it seems like you are not fully grasping the seriousness of this scenario. 31 people are dead! I don't think this is something to joke about. I work for a college and there are people reviewing our policy for such an event right now. This sort of thing is 'freak' and not common, but at the same time it is random and to be ready for such an event is a need if such an event were to arise. This is a tradgic loss of life. I think we should all look both a little inward and more outward towards others today.

Re:Case of the Mondays

[Morrigu]

Please, folks with mod points, mod the above into oblivion. This is completely tasteless, even for Slashdot, despite anyone's fondness for Office Space.

Re:Case of the Mondays

[Anonymous Coward]

Argh! That's so hilariously wrong! I'm going to hell for laughing so hard at that I think.

Re:Case of the Mondays

[Anonymous Coward]

The silicon chip inside her head got switched to overload?

Re:Case of the Mondays

[HTH NE1]

Seriously though, I'd wager this gets mentioned on Real Time with Bill Maher this week and he'll trot out his observation about school shootings that it's "never a girl". I just wish some guest would come back with, "Oh, come on, Bill, you know `I Don't Like Mondays'."

Re:Case of the Mondays

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh sure, God forbid we ridicule the shooter! Won't someone please think of the killers?

Re:Case of the Mondays

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, folks with mod points, mod the above into oblivion.

I wrote a /. journal entry early this morning, with jovial musings about the effects of normal Mondays upon me. Unfortunately, I made reference to shooting out my alarm clock and shaking my fist to the day, calling it instead, Gunday. Hours later, when I heard this news, I felt quite embarassed. Needless to say, I promptly deleted that journal entry. In good tact, I would hope many such posts in this thread receive the heavy hand as well. Hey, I'm no witch with eye of newt in a kettle pot, and I surely didn't see this one coming, but my apologies to anyone who happened upon my journal.

Re:Case of the Mondays

[Anonymous Coward]

Just for that, I've modded him underrated. Enough with the sanctimonious bullshit.

Re:Case of the Mondays

[damsa]

I don't like Mondays was a reason Brenda Spencer gave for going on her shooting spree in 1979. So however distasteful the post, I think it is still on topic.

Re:Case of the Mondays

[MeanderingMind]

I think it's proper to forbid such tasteless jokes.

Even if it's targeted at the shooter, it's trivializing his actions. Whether intended or not, you're sending a message to anyone affected by these horrific events that this terrible experience they're going through doesn't matter.

That's not a message I think we should want to send.

Re:Case of the Mondays

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please.

Stop trying to manage everyone's thoughts, realize that people cope with events in different ways, and the world will be a much more understandable place.

If I wasn't laughing I'd probably be crying.

Re:Case of the Mondays

[Anonymous Coward]

While reading it I wondered why such an obviously tasteless joke could get modded up to 4. Thing is I couldn't help but chuckle myself, while at the same time feeling bad for my sense of black humor. So I didn't mod it down. I didn't mod it up either as i figured it will be modded 5 anyway if it really deserves it.

Re:Case of the Mondays

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess whoever modded you down doesn't know about the boomtown rats' song "don't like mondays". It starts out:

The silicon chip inside her head
Gets switched to overload.
And nobody's gonna go to school today,
She's going to make them stay at home.
And daddy doesn't understand it,
He always said she was as good as gold.
And he can see no reason
'Cause there are no reasons
What reason do you need to be shown?

Tell me why?
I don't like Mondays.
Tell me why?
I don't like Mondays.
Tell me why?
I don't like Mondays.
I want to shoot
The whole day down.

seems the more things change the more they stay the same

Re:Case of the Mondays

[MeanderingMind]

I do realize that people cope with such events in different ways. What I object to is coping at the expense of other people. Just because you do something to cope doesn't make it right.

e.g., someone who copes with such events by holding up a convenience store. He might feel better, but it only causes and compounds problems.

Call it what it really was: murders

[postbigbang]

not "death of innocents".

DId video games play a part? We don't know. I do know that there's just far too much violence out there and violence as an easy-end.

Don't mince words, and don't describe this in the form of a euphenism-- it was cold blooded murder.

20%

[Anonymous Coward]

If 20% of adult population were well trained and well checked before hand with license to carry concealed firearm, then this sort of mass shooting would have never achieved their goal of having lots of casualties - they all rely on the fact that opposition (you and me) will be unarmed and thus can kill and would lots of people. There is simply no other way to protect _general_ population because attackers will always have upper hand in choosing the place and the time to hit.

another victory

[Anonymous Coward]

Another victory for victim disarmament.

Re:slashdot?

[StarvingSE]

I submitted this story as well, and in my summary I stated that this being a tech site, there are probably a lot of virginia tech students alumni in the readership, and therefore it is appropriate to post this on /.

This whole incident makes me sick to my stomach, and my thoughts/prayers go out to the families and victims.

Untrue!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spree_killing

Worst school shooting in American history. So far this body count hasn't even reached the top 3 spree killings in history, all of which fyi weren't inside the USA. Wikipedia also has a disturbing play-by-play of the Australian Port Arthur massacre that is truly horrifying to read.

Re:Untrue!

[treeves]

I meant in US History, as that's what the summary referred to. Terrible in any case.

Re:Untrue!

[Anonymous Coward]

There were 15 injured.. maybe they'll die and make it the worst.

I wonder what this will be blamed on

[pv2b]

I wonder what video game Jack Thompson on the like will be trying to blame this on, and what insane laws will be passed to Stop This From Ever Happening Again(TM).

Seriously. This is a tragic incident, and I have the deepest sympathies for the families of all struck. But I predict a lot of knee-jerking in the days, weeks and months to come, which will showcase an even worse human behaviour, politicking and fear-mongering.

I don't want to diminish the significance of this event, but hundreds, possibly even thousands of people die in equally tragic human-created events every day -- most of them don't even make the news. Most of them are in other countries -- Darfur anybody? Remember that when you consider what happened here today, and when you see the long-standing ramifications and moral panic that will follow this.

A wise man once said, his name escapes me, and I paraphrase -- the world will be considered to be sane as soon as no new laws are passed, simply because some nut guns down a school full of people.

Re:I wonder what this will be blamed on

[UbuntuDupe]

I don't want to diminish the significance of this event, but hundreds, possibly even thousands of people die in equally tragic human-created events every day -- most of them don't even make the news. Most of them are in other countries -- Darfur anybody?

I think the difference is the unpredictability. That is, if you don't want to die in genocide, stay out of Sudan. If you don't want to be eaten by sharks, stay out of the water. If you don't want to die in a hurricane, stay away from the coasts. If you don't want to be gunned down in an ordinary classroom, ____ ?

Kinda like when I was installing Ubuntu. Could I forsee it might not install? Sure. Could I forsee there would be complications that would suck a lot of time? Sure. Could I forsee it might lead me to having to format a hard drive it installed to? Sure. Could I forsee I might not have all the functionality in Windows? Sure. Could I forsee that it would lock me out of my computer entirely until I could find a separate, high-speed internet connection and CD burner and then use a separate computer to get help while I tried to troubleshoot through a Live CD? No, there was no reason to.

Re:I wonder what this will be blamed on

[tsalaroth]

He's already blamed it on Counterstrike.

I'll give you three guesses which cable news channel had him on the air - the first two don't count.

sigh.

Good news!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now they can make a sequal to enter into next year's Sundance Festival.

Where is now the patriot act?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the huge databases are useless afterall :|

Re:Where is now the patriot act?

[ZachPruckowski]

You say it sarcastically, but it's worth pointing out that one guy with two 9-mils is able to inflict enough terror to grab the headlines for a few days. If there were 2-3 of these within 2 weeks, you'd have a type of terror attack that we can't deal with through the current methods.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[Anonymous Coward]

Cue irrational gun control supporter in 3..2.. What? they went in early?

The only thing gun control does is prevent law abiding citizens from defending themselves. Think he would have got as many if someone in that classroom would have been carrying besides him?

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[zulater]

Yes, because criminals respect the law! [/sarcasm]

Contrast this with Iraq Violence

[Anonymous Coward]

Over there - it's religion causing ignorance. Over here - it's false freedom (right to bear arms) causing ignorance.

Imagine a world without religion. Do you notice the lack of guns?
Imagine a world without guns. Do you notice free religion really being free?

Re:Contrast this with Iraq Violence

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh. I thought guns just killed people. Now you're saying they make people ignorant, too? Judging by your post i'd say you've got quite an arsenal.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[ivan256]

Right, because there's no way this guy could have killed 30 people without a gun (say, with a bomb, or something)... No way he could have gotten a gun if they were against the law... etc.

How many fewer people in that classroom would have died if one of the students in the room was carrying?

Best to respond to tragedy with a knee-jerk revocation of civil liberties.

The "firearms" cat is out of the bag. You can't undo technology with laws. Readers of this site should know that better than most people.

Link please

[stratjakt]

I've only seen this, which has no quotes, or supporting links, and starts with "Yep, despite the fact that he's a known liar,".

Not that I'm saying this is fake, but it sure reads like fake.

Do you have a link to any sort of statement/quote that he made? Or is this pro-gaming a-holes doing exactly what you're accusing him of, exploiting this tragedy to push their (anti-thompson) agenda?

Re:Link please

[Apocalypse111]

Just saw him on CNN and Faux News doing this, the transcripts aren't out yet.

I am no fan of Big Brother....

[The Media Mechanic]

I hate Big Brother just as much as the next guy, but incidents like these make me wonder if perhaps installing HDTV video cameras in all public areas, might make for a slightly safer environment. If this guy had been spotted carrying 2 guns sooner, maybe security guards could have confronted him and prevented this massacre. I mean college campuses are notoriously open and friendly environments... I would hate to see them "locked down" with barbed wire fences and metal detectors. Maybe security cameras really are a less obtrusive alternative to increasing security...

Then again, someone will always find a way to circumvent even the tightest security and observation..

Is this a problem we can solve with technology? Or is the true solution only psychological, cultural, emotional...?

If I sound confused, it's because I am... I don't understand why someone would inflict such pain and suffering on their fellow human beings... We're all in this together guys! Come on! Please stop the violence! Peace.

Re:I am no fan of Big Brother....

[MightyMartian]

The problem is that cameras really only can help you identify and prosecute the perpetrator (providing he or she hasn't blown their own brains out). It isn't going to help you actually save any lives. Anybody who is so fucking nuts as to walk onto a campus ready to blow a lot of people away isn't going to give one sweet shit about whether he's caught on camera doing it.

I honestly don't know if there is a way to prevent this sort of thing. Great Britain has some pretty strict gun laws, and yet sixteen children were killed in the 1996 Dunblane Massacre. If someone is crazy enough and dedicated enough to killing a lot of people, he's going to find a way to do it. All the pro-gun or anti-gun laws in the world, all the surveillance in the world and all the armed guards and metal detectors in the world will not stop someone clever and maniacal enough.

Re:I am no fan of Big Brother....

[photomonkey]

Security cameras would do little to stop such crimes. From a technical standpoint, it's VERY easy to conceal a weapon. I myself have a concealed carry permit and when I carry, do so in such a way that the weapon is undetectable to the eye, and even in casual, brushing contact.

Instead of security and legislation, we need to look at ways to prevent these kinds of things from happening at all. Why would someone, even suicidal, decide to take 30+ other people with him?

What have we done as a society that drives certain people to these completely senseless acts of violence?

How can we design public buildings in such a way that it would make it difficult for a madman to get access to multiple parts of a building?

Is it a family thing? Do we as a culture need to look at what values we hold dear and what we can do to help each other create a healthy and happy community?

It is my fear that fear will become the solution. Massive lawsuits will be filed because of this, and likely, many bills will be put forth to limit the rights and freedoms of many in the hopes of stopping the madness of a very few.

I remember reading the autobiography of a former Secret Service officer, and in it he disclosed that it is nearly impossible to stop these kinds of crimes. There is no true 'profile' for the shooter, and anyone who is willing to die to do something will likely get away with it.

Re:I am no fan of Big Brother....

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate Big Brother just as much as the next guy, but incidents like these make me wonder if perhaps installing HDTV video cameras in all public areas, might make for a slightly safer environment.

You obviously don't hate big brother enough to give up your rights for a single isolated incident. A part of having rights to privacy means giving up the very minor (if any) benefits of being constantly monitored. And besides, how can you guarantee a rent-a-cop watching 200 screens will catch a glimpse of a gunman flashing by one camera?

Re:I am no fan of Big Brother....

[Anonymous Coward]

"incidents like these make me wonder if perhaps installing HDTV video cameras in all public areas, might make for a slightly safer environment."

No, but they mean lots of YouTube footage of kids dying to ponder after the fact.

"I would hate to see them "locked down" with barbed wire fences and metal detectors"

No shit? Fortunately that's not a viable way forward.

"Maybe security cameras really are a less obtrusive alternative to increasing security..."

At least you recognise by your implication that cameras do not actually increase security.

"Then again, someone will always find a way to circumvent even the tightest security and observation."

Like wearing a coat. Or maybe you could strip search and x-ray everybody entering or leaving the campus?

"Is this a problem we can solve with technology? "

No.

"Or is the true solution only psychological, cultural, emotional...? "

Yes! Well done.

"If I sound confused, it's because I am..."

You are not alone.

"I don't understand why someone would inflict such pain and suffering on their fellow human beings."

Usually for the pleasure of revenge at abuses and pain that have been enacted upon them. Not that I'm prejudging this case, perhaps the
killer was a paranoid schizophenic. There is no sense in looking to rationalise the behaviour of the mentally ill, but if you are
looking for an "explanation" then I expect it's the same old stuff we never seem to learn from, ie the killer was abused, tormented,
bullied and oppressed by the psychopathy of peers, parents, teachers or others who have a social responsibility to treat him with
respect and care.

"We're all in this together guys!...Please stop the violence! Peace."

No doubt the violence will stop when society stops making it acceptable. Video games and films are not violence. Wars, secret prisons,
torture, razor-wire fences, surveillance and police brutality are violence. A society that legitimises, and glorifies violence can expect this kind of thing to happen eventually. It's simple psychology.

"Peace"

There is no way to peace. Peace is the way.

Re:I am no fan of Big Brother....

[Anonymous Coward]

actually dunblane was when we started to take a hard line on guns and since then there have been exactly none of the incidents, before you could own handguns - there only purpose is to kill people.. when will america learn?

Re:I am no fan of Big Brother....

[pembo13]

It's okay if it makes you wonder, just don't do it.

Re:I am no fan of Big Brother....

[Paladin144]

I hate Big Brother just as much as the next guy, but incidents like these make me wonder if perhaps installing HDTV video cameras in all public areas, might make for a slightly safer environment.

No offense, but what is it with you people? Are you unaware of how video cameras work? Do you think they emit some sort crime-prevention rays or something? I honestly don't understand the obsession with allow the state to monitor everything, as if that will help somehow. Most CCTVs are not monitored live and in no way resemble the cool technology you see in the movies. Clearly, this guy was crazy and didn't care if he got shot repeatedly, so why the hell would he care if he was caught on video tape? If they could have monitored him realtime, would they have even had the weaponry to take him out? Most campus security guards are rent-a-cops without much training or heavy artillery.

...Honestly, I don't get it. Sometimes I think people who suggest this sort of constant monitoring just want to see the video tapes played on the news so they can see faceless strangers crumple as they are shot. I'm not accusing you of that, but you just wrote a whole post about how video cameras somehow magically increase security, after a tragic scenario that obviously would not have been prevented with a million CCTVs. To me, this is just a peeping-tom obsession, similar to craning your neck to look at car-wrecks. I don't see how you could reasonably make a case that video cameras would help anything other than to satiate our basest urges. Sure, we could employ millions of people sitting in front of huge banks of screens watching/recording everything the powers that be determine to be of value, but then why not just rename ourselves the Soviet States of America and be done with it. There's a certain price to freedom. You can't have it both ways.

I'm hoping for peace, too. It just doesn't seem to be in the cards. Why let Big Brother make you into a scared little child who needs protecting by the all-powerful state? Why not carry a weapon yourself, for protection of your person and those around you. It wasn't too long ago that carrying rifles around was the social norm. If you went on a long journey without one people thought you were acting irresponsibly. Now it's the opposite.

It occurs to me that incidents like this help the state more than anybody. The asshole who did this is dead. His victims are dead or suffering. There's no obvious motive, and even if it was something like jealousy or anger it really doesn't explain his actions. Maybe I'm a nut but I am suspicious, especially since there's huge, Constitution-hanging-in-the-balance testimony scheduled for tomorrow and a regime of fascist zealots in control of the country. Events like this only serve the powers that be. They get to look compassionate while tightening the screws on what little liberty we have left while the populace is shell-shocked and pliant. Good thing there's no rational explanation for this sort of senseless violence *cough-MKULTRA-cough*.

Re:I am no fan of Big Brother....

[Achromatic1978]

This is a pretty silly conclusion you jump to:

Great Britain has some pretty strict gun laws, and yet sixteen children were killed in the 1996 Dunblane Massacre.

Yet, in the very same Wikipedia article you used to make your point, lay this rather big nugget:

Political impact

Mrs. Ann Pearson, a friend of some of the bereaved families, founded a very widely supported campaign, named the Snowdrop Petition (because March is snowdrop time in Scotland), which gained 705,000 signatures in support, and was successful in pressing Parliament, and the then-current Conservative government into introducing a ban on all cartridge ammunition handguns with the exception of .22 calibre single-shot weapons. The families of the victims were active in the lobbying campaign as was the Gun Control Network, also set up in the aftermath of the shootings, and whose members included parents of victims at Dunblane and of the Hungerford Massacre. The campaign was also supported by a number of newspapers, including the Sunday Mail, a Scottish tabloid whose own petition to ban handguns had raised 428,279 signatures within five weeks of the massacre.

Following the 1997 General Election, the Labour government of Tony Blair introduced the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, banning the remaining .22 cartridge handguns, and leaving only muzzle-loading and historic handguns legal, as well as certain sporting handguns (e.g. "Long-Arms") that fall outside the Home Office Definition of a "Handgun" due to their dimensions.

i.e. that almost all of Great Britain's gun control laws came into effect as a result of Dunblane, so "pretty strict gun laws" had nothing to do with it.

People tried the same thing when it came to Port Arthur, citing that Victoria's homicide rate went up 4% or so the year following Australia's nationwide gun ban. But in reality that meant that in a state of 4 million, the number of homicides changed from 72 to 74, i.e. a statistical blip, not "proof that gun control is bad" as the gun nuts tried to spin it.

Re:I am no fan of Big Brother....

[Anonymous Coward]

incidents like these make me wonder if perhaps installing HDTV video cameras in all public areas, might make for a slightly safer environment

Let's say you're right, just for argument, even though you're wrong as other posters have pointed out. Let's say that installing video cameras everywhere would have prevented this shooting.

Is saving 33 lives worth a massive invasion of privacy and enormous government control over everybody's lives?

I personally say no, and have no qualms about doing so.

Historically, vastly more people are killed by their own governments than are killed by criminals, particularly in the past hundred years or so. You should be much more afraid of your government than of criminals, and you should reject measures which slightly decrease your risk from criminals but greatly increase your risk from government.

Re:slashdot?

[thryllkill]

Um... current events can be important to nerds too.

Just be glad there's no Jon Katz around. Last thing we need are some, "...in this post Virginia Tech world..." articles.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[Flizesh]

I don't think gun control laws can really stop something like this. If someone is going to murder people they will have no trouble obtaining a gun illegally.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[Anonymous Coward]

You're dead on right. It is very important that we do away with Disarmed Victim Zones as soon as possible.

Oh wait, you think we can get rid of guns........
You can't think that can you? You honestly think we can get rid of guns? What possesses you to think we can get rid of guns? We can't keep guns or drugs out of prisons, how on earth can we keep them out of a country?

Sadness from an alumnus

[jchenx]

Yeah, this sucks. I lived in AJ. As a CS major (and grad student), I had classes in Norris. I spent a lot of time there in general (thanks to various club activities). As the numbers keep growing and growing, it just becomes more and more shocking, yet numbing at the same time.

That said, everytime the press says, "This has set a new record in campus killings", I want to throttle someone.

Re:Sadness from an alumnus

[Anonymous Coward]

I know how the previous poster feels. I graduated from VT last spring from the ME dept, and my younger brother is now a freshman. I also had several classes in Norris, and lived in AJ for three years. But it could have been my brother among the dead and that scares me pretty bad. (He heard the police use an explosive to get into Norris as he was walking to class)

Blacksburg and VT are pretty safe places ( I dont want to say were, that depresses me further).
Unfortunately, things like this seem to becoming part of living in America. If people are so depressed and suicidal please just kill yourself with out innocent casualties

Re:Sadness from an alumnus

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I lived in East AJ my third year at Tech. Only had two classes in Norris though. Shocking and numbing at the sametime is a pretty good way to put it, my thoughts and prayers are with everyone involved in this :(

Sick to my stomach

[crea5e]

Hey I had classes in Norris. It's very small building in comparison to others. I had thermodynamics and maybe like game theory there at the very least. I remember it was like mineral science and mechanical engineering... I am sad. very sad. My prayers and thoughts to the students, families, friends, alumni... Suresh thakoor.

Re:Sick to my stomach

[mabarlow00]

I am too Suresh. I am sick and devastated. I also had class in Norris Hall (Dynamics, and I think 2 more), and this just is such a sad day for Hokies, and everyone in the country and world. Matt Barlow

Re:slashdot?

[gregmark]

Er.. aren't there some stories that transcend the typical boundaries of the Slashdot? What did we do on 9/11? The fallout of this event will affect student civil liberties all over America. Once the "we gotta do *something*" people take over, it's going to get spectacularly ugly. After they find his My Space page, this might even become a YRO issue. This is *very* relevant.

Promise to reform your gun control laws in '08

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree 100%!

That's while I'll be voting for the candidate that allows the individual RKBA to trump the local campus law that left students unable to defend themselves while the police were waiting outside.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[Anonymous Coward]

Take this as (another) wake up call. Vote for the candidate that promise to reform your gun control laws in '08.

If we are going to start editing parts of the Constitution, why not fix the 14th Amendment? We can change the "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" part to something about earning citizenship, and as a side benefit completely remove chickenhawks and anchor babies. If we make firearms training part of how it is earned, it would fulfill the "well-regulated" requirement, and we can let states decide about gun ownership of non-citizens.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[fletcherthunder]

yes, we do. if he would have been in a public place, a citizen that was bearing arms could have shot him after he killed only a couple of people, not 31+. the problem isn't having arms available to the public. and it's not video games. if you will do a bit of research, the "shooting spree" phenom has been going on a long time, much longer before video games came along. the second largest killing spree at a campus was in 1966 at the U. of Texas campus. the rate hasn't increased, just the publicity in the past 15-20 years. this is a very sad situation, nothing to joke about or to try and push your own agenda with, it is disrespectful to the people involved....

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[Known Nutter]

Disgraceful comment.

You're no better than Jack Thompson.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[psykocrime]

And still you fight for your right to bear arms
(Score:2, Offtopic)
Take this as (another) wake up call. Vote for the candidate that promise to reform your gun control laws in '08.

Yeah, existing laws - making it illegal to walk on campus with a gun and shoot 30+ people - really did a lot of good, no? What makes you think passing more laws is going to help?

Something like this actually makes me MORE determined than ever to fight for my 2nd Amendment rights. You can do whatever the fuck you want if some nut with a gun shows up and starts trying to kill you, but I want to be able to defend myself. I may not succeed, but at least I won't go out cowering under a desk, praying to a god that does not exist, that the killer won't find me.

As horrifying as this is...

[TomatoMan]

As horrifying as this sickening act of violence is, it's sobering to recognize that this kind of random death toll is practically a daily event in Baghdad. We should be equally shocked and horrified by that.

Thoughts and prayers for all victims of violence.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[dedazo]

The deaths in Baghdad you seem so concerned about are not "random", they are carefully targeted attacks explicitly carried out by terrorists to either escalate the sectarian divide or demoralize US forces. There's nothing "random" about strapping 10lb of high explosive and ball bearings around your torso and detonating them in the middle of a crowded market full of civilians.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[pv2b]

Does it matter if the deaths were random or part of some bigger plan?

People are dead. Killed by other people. That's all that matters in the end.

It's a pity the media won't see it that way, and countless douchebags like Jack Thompson are already using this to push their own agenda.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[arcite]

It's only random if you're the victim.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[DocSavage64109]

Exactly. There are exactly zero innocent civilian casualties caused by U.S. armed forces in Baghdad. Any reports to the contrary are obviously liberal media falsehoods.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[gotgenes]

As horrifying as this sickening act of violence is, it's sobering to recognize that this kind of random death toll is practically a daily event in Baghdad. We should be equally shocked and horrified by that.

It's interesting you say this because I had the same thought today as the events unraveled. I'll be back on campus, walking across Drillfield, without having to worry about this tomorrow, and hopefully ever again. I feel sick to my stomach right now but in a few months, it will be a dark memory. How do people survive being a possible victim to this level of violence every day of their lives?

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[pembo13]

So true, but apparently, an American life is worth more than an Iraqi life.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[hazem]

There's nothing "random" about strapping 10lb of high explosive and ball bearings around your torso and detonating them in the middle of a crowded market full of civilians.

Nor is there anything random about dropping a clusterbomb from an aircraft in the middle of a crowded market full of civilians. Both are equally heinous, but in one case, the perpetrator will not offend again.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[Abcd1234]

And you think this guy "randomly" went to the university and started shooting? I'm sure he had a plan in his mind when he started out. That doesn't make the violence any more senseless, or the GP's point any more salient.

The fact is, in both cases, innocent civilians are being killed, but here in the west, if something like this happens, the event is met with horror and outrage. Why? Because it's close. Because it's not supposed to happen here. But it's different in Baghdad because, as we all know, Iraq is a third-world hell hole populated by murderous, religious fanatics that we don't care to understand.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[dedazo]

I'm sorry, I guess I'm missing your point here. Are you saying the US military kills more civilians than the terrorists? Or are you saying that the US military specifically targets civilians when it carries out operations?

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[Cederic]

To the people dying they are.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is sickeningly true when you read news reports (atleast where I'm from, in the US) about how a brave U.S. soldier was fatally wounded in Iraq during a raid on insurgants. And then immediately afterwards they make a nonchalant comment about how 50 innocent Iraqi citizens were killed in a suicide bombing.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[dedazo]

People are dead. Killed by other people. That's all that matters in the end.

Absolutely agree. Thanks for that.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[A beautiful mind]

There are roughly 10000 people killed with guns in the USA yearly.

That's 27 deaths a day.

Curious that people get all worked up when those deaths happen at the same place, and the perpetrator is the same person. Human nature I guess.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is happening throughout South America also with all the MS-13 gangs and the daily body counts, kidnappings, threats where they shoot up mother fuckers with AK-47's/Uzi's.

Also in Africa there was a small genocide in a village of about 300 slaughtered with butcher knives and rusty AK-47's; they also killed a bunch of French aid workers.

In the phillipines they kidnapped some aid workers and butchered them to death in the jungle; also lots of pirates down there taking over boats and killing everyone on board to rob them. Even an incident where they went onto a private island and shot up all the people working on there.

World is a crazy place out there and somebody always is going to want to feel like they are god.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[A beautiful mind]

That is shockingly true, even if a bit contrasted. Why are people talking about the few thousand professional soldiers, that agreed to be in the army and willingly risked their lives and died, and not about the 650000 iraqi civilians that are dead?

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[keytoe]

You're presuming that the 'background count' of murders was somehow replaced by these killings. Instead, you should look at it as a sudden 100% increase over 2 hours.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[A beautiful mind]

No, I've actually thought of that, but that would have been just a minor point compared to the issue. 32 deaths inconvenience the average only so slightly.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they kill more civilians than terrorists. How can you even conceive that the number of 'terrorists' killed by US troops in the Iraq war comes anywhere near to the civilian death toll??

Look, when you use massive bombing campaigns, helicopters, tanks and artillery, cluster bombs, white phosphorous, depleted uranium munitions, missiles and land mines in urban areas, you get dead civilians, and thousands of them.

The very idea that the US is in Iraq fighting 'terrorists' is a joke. They are attempting to pacify a poorly understood civil war between various Iraqi factions, which they started when the US illegally invaded Iraq to effect 'regime change', in order to control Iraqi oil and follow some retarded 'Project for the New American Century' plan cooked up by a bunch of cowardly draft-dodgers in your white house.

Basically, the only reason there is any long term violence in Iraq is because of US action, and US forces have certainly been responsible for the bulk of civilian deaths. They're the only ones with weapons of mass destruction in the country.

It has nothing to do with terrorism, or 9/11, or 'Good vs Evil'. The War on Terror is a myth, a lie. Its just a pithy catch-phrase spouted by your idiot president's handlers to justify war without end in the middle east so they can siphon off as much taxpayer money to military/industrial corporate entities as they can before Bush's term ends. Loss of civilian lives has absolutely no bearing on these matters.

Really, after the death your country has inflicted on a massive scale recently in Iraq and elsewhere, hearing about 30 dead Americans doesn't evoke any sympathy from me at all. Is it only white people you're genuinely upset/horrified/outraged about dying? Or just rich people? Or just people in America, because it's certainly not people in general.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[oGMo]

10000 people a year. Compare that to an average of about 36000 a year caused by accidental automobile accidents. (You can find other sources if you google.) That's almost 100 people dying per day. Essentially, more than three times as many people are killed by accident by automobiles than are killed intentionally by guns. But you don't hear anyone wanting to ban cars.

I guess people feel in their gut the truthiness behind the necessity of banning guns. Legitimate use, illegal weapons used for crime, alternative weapons? Don't try to confuse the issue with facts.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[harrkev]

Well, I do find it interesting how the media reports the result of offensive operations by quoting hospital doctors as getting "civilian" casualties. The problem with that is that the "bad guys" in Iraq do NOT wear uniform. They look JUST LIKE civillians.

I do not claim that the US Military is 100% fool proof. But, if a soldier shoots somebody, I would say that they most likely needed shooting. The doctor at an Iraq hospital just sees a dead guy. He was not there to see the guy pointing an AK47 or RPG at US soldiers. So, I always take those "civilian deaths" statements from Iraq with a block of salt.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[Anonymous Coward]

...it's sobering to recognize that this kind of random death toll is practically a daily event in Baghdad.

Yeah, earlier in the day I actually glanced over the story on google news without even noticing it. I'm in the habit of scanning for events in Baghdad and anything less than 100 is routine. I was like 20 dead? Why are they even bother to report it?.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[General Wesc]

Don't try to confuse the issue with facts.

He didn't say anything about banning guns. He commented on the fact that we're all concerned with only those that happen in groups.

Don't try to confuse the issue by falsely attributing political claims to the poster and then going into an off-topic rant criticising him for it.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[h4ter]

But you don't hear anyone wanting to ban cars.

That's a ridiculous comparison. Cars have beneficial uses. Many, many uses which make the world a better place. Guns? Even close to automobiles in positive results from usage? Hardly.

Also, the CDC reports about 30,000 gun-related deaths per year. Also, more people drive or are passengers in a car than fire a gun. Also, the time spent by people around cars as drivers, passengers, or pedestrians nearby far far far far outweighs the time spent by people wielding or around other people wielding guns.

Don't try to confuse the facts with poor analogies. That's the road to truthiness.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[catbutt]

That is a silly comparison. Nobody wants to ban cars (well, most people don't) because to do so would radically change our lifestyle and cripple our economy. And while I don't necessarily advocate gun control, I don't think banning guns (excepting law enforcement etc) would make a huge change in everyday life.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. 9950 of those were 1)Justifiable Homicides (Police shoot bad guy), 2)Suicide (Dumbass kills them self) or 3)Murder. #1 is legal. People who commit #2 and #3 are by definition criminals. There are less that 100 accidental deaths a year from firearms in the US. You are more likely to drown in your bathtub.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[abshnasko]

As a student of VT, I find your lack of perspective offensive. This was not a gang fight or a bank robbery; this was a lunatic with two handguns who decided to kill innocent kids for no reason. Many of these kids have great futures ahead of them. Particularly shocking is that I would have been in the middle of this had I not skipped combinatorics this morning.

Think about what you say before you say it.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[coren2000]

What made you skip class?

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[A beautiful mind]

You have a personal perspective. I have friends who have the same personal perspective. I don't have a personal perspective about this.

Young people die all the time, who had their whole life ahead of them. From a personal perspective, this is a great loss. Everyone who has had people close to him die knows and feels that. My post wasn't about the personal perspective, but about society and the government. If you want to look out for the best interests of the people, you have to get rid of the personal perspective, as it clouds judgement. My point was that from a sociological or safety viewpoint, 32 dead people in a single day due to gunshots is not exceptional. It is only seen that way because it is very rare that those 32 people died at the same place by the same killer. If you're a responsible government official, you'd only care about giving priority to saving the many instead of saving the few.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[LoRdTAW]

I don't know what your curious about. This isn't your typical scared thug shoots clerk or jealous beau kills ex. This is about a kid (most likely a student) who woke up with his mind made up to kill a bunch of kids for reasons unknown. Thats the "holy fuck" part. Hell even a dope head might kill one or two people for money but at least he has a clear motive. You don't hear on the news "thief kills 30 patrons in convenience store" or "drug dealer shoots up school yard". Even some of the most fucked up people in prison (lifers even) didn't do this kind of shit.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can gain a personal perspective by empathizing with the victims. Events like these are shocking on a national scale because, unlike crime which occurs on a daily basis, everyone hears the story and can imagine the emotions those directly involved must have felt.

This is a sad day because over thirty people, may their souls rest in peace, of whom we know something - they were young, American college aged students studying engineering - died in awful circumstances.

Statistics does not enter into it, nor does any quirk of human nature.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[Anonymous Coward]

The 27 you refer to are gang bangers, not college students. Apples to apples please.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[Grishnakh]

So what? That's a useless statistic.

How many of those "killings" are cases of police officers shooting criminals? I certainly have no problem with that.

How many are suicides? While regrettable, people who want to kill themselves can find lots of ways to do so. Plus it's their life, and their choice.

How many are criminal-on-criminal violence, like all the gang activity? This accounts for a large portion of our gang violence. While a little sad, it's not really something I worry about since I'm not in a gang and don't deal drugs, and don't frequent the parts of town where this is common.

What's important is how often regular, non-criminal people are affected by violence, and I'd say the answer is "not that much". It's far less than in the UK, where you'd be lucky to go a week without being mugged.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[Viking Coder]

There are less that 100 accidental deaths a year from firearms in the US. You are more likely to drown in your bathtub.

I think your numbers are way off. From the CDC:

Table 18, Number of deaths in the U.S. in 2003, by Firearms:

Unintentional - 730
Suicide - 16,907
Homicide - 11,920
Undetermined - 232
Legal intervention / war - 347
TOTAL FIREARM: 30,136

By that, I see 730 Unintentional deaths by firearms in 2003.

By comparison, Drowning (Unintentional) is 3,306. I don't see any available statistics about bathtubs, but I suspect it's nowhere near as high as 730 per year (which would be 22% of all drownings.)

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[kir]

Yes. It is.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[adrianmonk]

But it's different in Baghdad because, as we all know, Iraq is a third-world hell hole populated by murderous, religious fanatics that we don't care to understand.

No, it's different in Baghdad because the US went in and created a power vacuum in a country with a history of violence between different ethnic groups. Under Saddam, there was some order to the whole thing because there was a strong central authority not to be fucked with. (Of course, there was still lots of killing then, maybe just not quite as much.) Right now, the power vacuum is sustaining itself because anyone who tries to become a leader is viewed as a puppet of the US and/or gets killed by someone with an opposing viewpoint.

The main problem in Baghdad isn't that there are too few people in the United States who really understand them. The main problem is that there are groups who would fight were there nobody to stop them, and there isn't anyone to stop them, because nobody is in control.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[Anonymous Coward]

If we let everyone carry guns, we won't see 27 deaths per day with a big spike on one day every other year or so, we will be seeing 50 deaths per day with somewhat smaller spikes. But yeah, as long as many people don't get killed at the same time and the same place, it's better to have twice as many people killed every day all over the nation.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[TempeTerra]

But it's different in Baghdad because, as we all know, Iraq is a third-world hell hole populated by murderous, religious fanatics that we don't care to understand.

And I hear that the people who were there before the Americans arrived weren't all sweetness and light either.

Whew, it's good to get that out of my system. There's something about innocents dieing that makes me want to insult people. I'm glad the opportunity for some good ol' America bashing turned up before I found something in really poor taste to say. Perhaps I feel obliged to water down the inevitable earnestness and righteous indignation.

Re:As horrifying as this is...

[asninn]

Even though this may sound absolutely cold and cynical, I suppose you get used to it after while - just like people don't care about the more than 40,000 fatalities in traffic accidents in the USA each year.

It's the unexpected, rare, out-of-the-ordinary things that scare us most.

i guess its time to lower bookstore prices...

[plasmacutter]

mod me down if you like, but my unbelievably morbid personality is kicking in, and i really cant help myself here.

Or the other possibility...

[Xocet_00]

What if, on one of the other thousands of days that a shooting didn't occur, one of those students carrying a handgun gets into an altercation with another student and shoots him/her in moment of rashness?

Having everyone carrying guns around is just asking for them to be used during those moments we all have when we're not thinking clearly.

Re:Or the other possibility...

[EvilSS]

This type of thing comes up a lot when talking about open/concealed carry laws. If you look at gun crimes committed by CCW holders, however, you see that this is an extremely rare occurrence.

Re:Or the other possibility...

[RexRhino]

Having everyone carrying guns around is just asking for them to be used during those moments we all have when we're not thinking clearly. But anyone can carry guns around the campus and shoot someone in a monent of rashness as it is. If they are rash enough to shoot someone, they are rash enough to carry a gun illegally. The law doesn't actually stop anyone from carrying a gun or shooting someone.

What we are talking about is making it legal for the non-rash and non-trigger happy person to carry guns, under the assumption than unless you want to turn the country into a Big Brother police state, anyone who wants to can get and carry a gun illegally.

Re:Or the other possibility...

[iggymanz]

no evidence citizens who went through the classes and license procedure commit crimes of passion with firearms in those states that allow it. "i'd love to shoot this s.o.b. but then I'd lose my carry permit and my beautiful collection!"

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think reformed gun control laws will solve this problem? There will still exist a black market, and anyone that really wants to shoot up his classmates will still find a way. Look to DC itself as evidence against gun control.

All you are doing is taking a knee-jerk reaction, with no real analysis into the cause. This is the problem with the nanny state, you punish the responsible majority for the actions of the minority and it isn't even for a valid reason. If you want to solve the problems with gun violence, you should look towards solving violent crime in general. You will find many more die at the hands of a baseball bat or knife than a gun.

Republicans call for Guns in classrooms

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly I'm not making this up. Instapundit, arguably one of the central voices of modern republicanism, is pointing out how this only happens in places that prohibit guns. But don't click that link since it will just bring them advertising dollars. Here's what he says:

These things do seem to take place in locations where it's not legal for people with carry permits to carry guns, though, and I believe that's the case where the Virginia Tech campus is concerned. I certainly wish that someone had been in a position to shoot this guy at the outset.

Re:Republicans call for Guns in classrooms

[MightyMartian]

We all know that the route to safer campuses is giving everyone guns.

Re:Republicans call for Guns in classrooms

[Anonymous Coward]

Why draw the line at guns?

Go the whole hog and better still, give everybody in school a live hand grenade each. It can be the nuclear option for people who get up on the wrong side of bed in the morning or are stoned or who have had too much to drink.

Re:Republicans call for Guns in classrooms

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, we tried banning them and that got all fucked up.

Maybe if we post signs, maybe with a lunatic guy holding a rifle with a circle and slash through it? Maybe that will work?

Re:Republicans call for Guns in classrooms

[hamburger lady]

These things do seem to take place in locations where it's not legal for people with carry permits to carry guns, though, and I believe that's the case where the Virginia Tech campus is concerned. I certainly wish that someone had been in a position to shoot this guy at the outset

yeah, if only the other kids at columbine high school all carried guns, the situation woulda fixed itself.

Re:Republicans call for Guns in classrooms

[RexRhino]

And sadly, you couldn't think of anything to say to counter his point. You are simply shocked that not all people believe in prohibitionism like you do.

Re:Republicans call for Guns in classrooms

[Cigarra]

Well, guns are not allowed in any major university or school of ANY "civilized" country I know, and yet, this kind of happy shooting incidents only seem to happen in the USA.

There must be something causing these incidents... and everyone NOT having guns doesn't seem a logical answer.

land of the free^Wdead

[Cederic]

hurrah for the constitutional right to bear arms and shoot your fellow Americans.

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[0kComputer]

ah for the constitutional right to bear arms and shoot your fellow Americans.

I agree with the right to bear arms, what I don't agree with is the right to bear fully automatic weapons. I truly don't think this would have been possible with a asaiilant carrying only a shotgun or a hunting rifle. Unfortunately Bush and the other douchebags let the Brady Bill expire, so here's what we are stuck with.

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[razorh]

right, because if we had the right to chicken arms, nobody would ever shoot anyone else...

and though it has been mentioned in 100 places in this thread already, if someone really wants to go on a shooting spree, no LAW is going to stop them.

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[RiskyChris]

Too bad making guns illegal does nothing to stop someone from illegally owning one and killing others.

Why must you take advantage of such a tragedy to spew your opportunistic trash?

My heart goes out to the families and students affected...

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow the fact that you are using this tragedy to spout fallacies to push your agenda is sick. I'm not even going to bother poking holes in your non-argument, since you don't deserve conversation.

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[RexRhino]

hurrah for the constitutional right to bear arms and shoot your fellow Americans. And hurrah for the constitutional right to be a troll.

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[Cederic]

Aww, c'mon - it's not hard to convert a semi-automatic rifle into a fully automatic one. Sure, it's against the law - but so's shooting people.

As for whether this would be possible without fully automatic weapons? Definitely. None of the shooting 'rampages' in the UK have involved automatic weapons.

Would the body count be quite as high? Probably not - unless he was stopping to apply the coup de grace each time. Which is possible.

You'd still have a similar number of casualties though.

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[Anonymous Coward]

Semi-automatic: you pull the trigger, the gun fires, you keep holding the trigger, nothing happens.
Fully automatic: you pull the trigger, the gun fires, you keep holding the trigger, it keeps firing.

The brady billy only banned semi-autos that _LOOKED_ like fully automatic weapons. Fully automatic weapons already had rather severe control and permitting processes.

Seriously people, if you're going to be anti-gun, atleast learn about them first.

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[MSFanBoi2]

We don't even know what the shooter used yet. Hell it could have been a 100 year old revolver... Or even a hunting rifle. It doesn't take long to reload either, and with the chaos this guy caused, its rather simple. From the audio posted on CNN, it sounds like an pistol, not a rifle too. So he gets an illegal pistol from DC or Georgia, a half dozen clips and kills 31 people...

It's a sad world...

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[Cederic]

20+ americans dead a tragedy? Or just a good start.

This isn't opportunistic trash. This is mocking the bullshit Americans spew about their constitution and the rights it gives them. Seems to me it gives them the right to shoot each other. I'm kind of amused by the number of people that take offence at this.

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[Archangel Michael]

FYI, it was a violation to carry ANY firearms onto campus. So, the law didn't protect anybody. Bad Laws rarely do.

And most of the Eurotrash socialists don't realize that large portions of the US cannot be without "firearms" being very "wild" in nature. While it seems to be useful in cities and such, banning firearms is useless in Rural Wyoming and Utah, and in the vast waste stretches of Nevada, Texas and Arizona.

So, there is not going to be any gun bans in the US for a very very long time, (if ever). And the Brady Bill probably would have done NOTHING to prevent this.

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[Anonymous Coward]

What? Brady didn't have anything to do with fully automatic weapons and this guy wasn't carrying a fully automatic weapon. You really ought to learn what you're talking about before posting.

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[night_flyer]

Fully Automatic weapons have been heavily regulated since the mid 1930s. they had nothing to do with the assualt "weapon" ban or the Brady act

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[Cederic]

I do find it curious that people are getting modded 'insightful' for suggesting that allowing everybody on the campus to carry a firearm would have prevented this incident (despite, as another poster highlighted, causing considerably more incidents, albeit of lesser individual magnitude) yet my sardonic take on the situation is deemed to be trolling.

Guess Americans don't have a sense of humour. I know I'm laughing.

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[Cederic]

Simple fact : If the individual responsible had not had access to firearms, he would not have shot anybody.

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[ShorePiper82]

20+ americans dead a tragedy? Or just a good start. This isn't opportunistic trash. This is mocking the bullshit Americans spew about their constitution and the rights it gives them. Seems to me it gives them the right to shoot each other. I'm kind of amused by the number of people that take offence at this. you are a fucking prick. how's that for a good start?

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[FleaPlus]

I agree with the right to bear arms, what I don't agree with is the right to bear fully automatic weapons. I truly don't think this would have been possible with a asaiilant carrying only a shotgun or a hunting rifle.

According to initial reports the shooter was just armed with a couple of 9mm handguns.

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[razorh]

Simple fact #2: making a law causing it to be illegal to carry a firearm is not going to automatically make every gun in the world simply vanish. Laws are words, guns are physical items. You can outlaw books, food, breathing, or pretty much whatever you want, but it's not going to make them go away. If someone wants to acquire a gun badly enough no law is going to stop them. Hell, if I wanted one bad enough (and have no interest in owning one personally) I could probably even MAKE one with a bit of research and ingenuity.

Simple fact #3: You are correct if he had no access to firearms he wouldn't have shot anyone... he would have simply found some other method. Humans are soft skinned animals, not that hard to kill. There were already bomb threats and bombs can kill lots of people too. A little research into poison and access to a food source/water supply works just as well I would expect. If someone REALLY wants to kill lots of people, they'll find a way.

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[IRIGHTI]

Seems to me it gives them the right to shoot each other.

Thats a hell of a leap don't you think?

Let me go to the hardware store and buy a broomstick because apparently just having one gives me the right to beat the living hell out of everyone with it.

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[Anonymous Coward]

are you sure he used an automatic weapon? the shots I've heard on TV were not from an automatic weapon. (at least not from one fired in automatic mode)

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[Anonymous Coward]

>This is mocking the bullshit Americans spew about their
>constitution and the rights it gives them.

It's not about that, it's about the misunderstanding:

A) The constitution doesn't grant rights to the people, it prohibits the government from making laws against rights the people have.

B) The 2nd amendment is in reference to the individual State's rights to have their own militia instead of cowtowing to a single, Federal militia.

It is a matter of interpretation to say that the 2nd amendment gives the American individual the right to carry guns and kill other individuals. That's what's offensive.

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[Cederic]

Ah, petty name-calling. And I'm the one modded 'Flamebait'?

What, you expect sympathy for dead americans? I lost all my fucking sympathy for your fucking country when American funded bombs started killing the people around me and damaged my fucking school.

Give me a button marked "Kill all Americans" and I'll personally ring each of the six I actually give a damn about to apologise in advance for pushing it. That's the only delay you'll get.

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[Anonymous Coward]

There hasn't been a crime committed with a legally owned fully automatic weapon in the US since 1932. The term "automatic" is confusing when referring to handguns which this shooter used, an automatic pistol means that it automatically reloads mechanically not that it automatically fires mechanically. The shooter still needs to pull the trigger to fire each shot. It is the same action (from an outside observers perspective not necessarily a technical perspective) as a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun, which reloads automatically but requires the trigger to be depressed before firing.

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[Cederic]

Yotal prevention isn't necessarily required. Raising the barrier to achieving high body count is often all that's needed.

Researching bombs, making them, testing them, positioning them for adequate effect are very much more difficult than grabbing firearms out of the cabinet and stepping outside.

Bombs tend to be less effective too. Sure, in Iraq they're getting pretty expert, but even there not many individual bombs achieve the same body count that's happened here. Most amateur stuff kills far fewer.

Trying to disarm America though - that would be quite an undertaking. I'd want to watch that one from a safe distance..

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[CrimsonAvenger]

I agree with the right to bear arms, what I don't agree with is the right to bear fully automatic weapons. I truly don't think this would have been possible with a asaiilant carrying only a shotgun or a hunting rifle.

Luckily for you that it's largely illegal to own a fully automatic weapon. Yah, there are exceptions (get the License, pay the fees, allow BATF to do random inspections of your home), but in general, fully automatic weapons are illegal.

That said, you're mistaken in believing that a man carrying only a shotgun couldn't have done this. Would have been easy with just a pump-action shotgun (which can be fired about as fast as a semi-automatic), since you don't often have to shoot someone twice with a 12 gauge to make him stop twitching. Unlike most semi-automatic weapons....

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[Anonymous Coward]

Are sick of your fucktarded posts being modded into oblivion?
Are you sick of being so fucking stupid?

Here is what you can do to eliminate both of those. Go find a cliff or a bridge somewhere, then take your entire fucktarded family. Have all of them jump off to their deaths, and after that jump to yours. Then you won't ever feel so low again and we won't have to put up with fucktards like you ever again. The bonus is the gene pool would be a whole lot closer to being cleansed from fucktards like you.

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[Xybot]

...and though it has been mentioned in 100 places in this thread already, if someone really wants to go on a shooting spree and a gun isn't handy LESS PEOPLE GET KILLED.

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[Xybot]

And I can tell you from living in a country where it is NOT easy to obtain firearms, that this does not happen! We had a case of road rage recently, someone saw red and attacked someone with a hammer, he is now recovering in hospital and the person responsible was arrested. If a gun was handy at least one and probably two people would be dead. It's time you removed your blinkers and start to clean up your country, this problem isn't going to automagically disappear. Your Firearms are mean't for ONE purpose only. To kill people. None of these nutcases are hunters, they are unstable individuals with easy access to guns. The USA is ALONE in it's support of easily accessible firearms, and you are ALONE in facing these types of masscres. Why does this not ring alarm bells?

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we're rock stupid!

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[Apocalypse111]

Maybe you're forgetting about a couple of incidents in Australia and South Korea where a lone gunman killed many, many people - in fact, the S. Korean incident had about 8 villages totally wiped out by one man. I'll leave the wiki footwork to you, but the Spree Shootings category is a good place to start.

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but the fact that I cannot lay my hands on a gun means that I cannot entertain that idea. If *I* really wanted to go on a shooting spree, I'd have to plan w-a-y in advance as I do not live in the US and don't know anyone who owns a gun.

That alone means that people where I live are safe from those who just "flip out". If I'm going to get shot it'll be by someone who's planned it for a long time, or by someone who's flipped out when I'm on holiday somewhere like the US.

This, coupled with the recent rules regarding fingerprinting of foreigners entering the US (I have never been fingerprinted in my life - not gonna start now) means that I won't be visiting the US anytime soon.

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to me it gives them the right to shoot each other.

Thats a hell of a leap don't you think?

Let me go to the hardware store and buy a broomstick because apparently just having one gives me the right to beat the living hell out of everyone with it.


No, what you did was a hell of a leap.

Buying a broomstick gives you the right to fly (maybe just on full moons or Friday the 13th or something...not sure about the rules.).

If you want to beat the living hell out of everyone then you'll need to buy a whip, riding crop or some other thing designed for beating things ;-)

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[mink]

What sucks is he bought both guns and the ammo legally.

Re:land of the free^Wdead

[mink]

"And most of the Eurotrash socialists don't realize that large portions of the US cannot be without "firearms" being very "wild" in nature. While it seems to be useful in cities and such, banning firearms is useless in Rural Wyoming and Utah, and in the vast waste stretches of Nevada, Texas and Arizona."

Why exactly. I spent a number of years in "wild" West Virginia and didnt feel a pressing need to be armed.

Not now! - was Re:Second Amendment Rights

[mattt79]

IMO you're right. But that's not the point.
It's too soon, and the wounds are too fresh.

Right now, my heart goes out to the families of those killed, and prayers that the injured all recover.

Let the political arguments, the gun control and video game fights, and even the Jon Katz stories just wait until later.

-Matt

Coverage with a slant

[ctrawick]

I am struck by the consistent description of this event as the "worst school shooting in U.S. history." While this is certainly true, it artificially makes this into a tool for the anti-gun lobby. A more balanced presentation would include mention of the Bath School Disaster-- a 1927 school BOMBING in which the eventual toll was 45 dead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster The subtext seems to be that we've got it really bad today, and that good people don't own guns.

MOD PARENT UP!

[Critical Facilities]

This is an excellent point. While this is a tragic and inexcusable event, we should not allow our emotions and sympathy to blind us from glaring procedural mistakes (or complete lacks of policy). Where I work, we have just under 4000 employees on our campus, and we have VERY strict emergency/hazard communication procedures that we practice regularly. I'm not saying that the apparent lack of this is necessarily the cause in this particular case, but it's worth asking why in the world students had no idea there had been a shooting on campus until almost 2 hours later.

Imagine it like this: someone comes into your office 2 hours before you do and shoots someone there. You would naturally expect to know about it before waltzing in to work as though it were any other day, right? Why wasn't this the case here?

*A* shooter is dead.

[MufasaZX]

During TOTN on NPR they made it clear that the police are very specifically saying *A* shooter was dead, not *THE* shooter. You can draw your own conclusions, but it sounds like they are still trying to figure out WTF happened, and how the two shootings MAY be connected and aren't wanting to speculate until they know more.

Re:*A* shooter is dead.

[Badgerman]

Thanks for the correction - and you're right. We still are figuring this out and should, in this case, actually assume the worst.

Way to miss the point

[squiggleslash]

If I understand the AC correctly, (s)he's concerned about the exploitation of the victims, hence the use of the term "death[s] of innocents" rather than "murders". Both terms are technically correct. One focuses on the victims, the other on the technical legality of their deaths.

In context, I'd say "death[s] of innocents" is the appropriate term to use.

Re:Way to miss the point

[Russ Nelson]

You'd probably say "people were killed" rather than "the shooter killed them". Your kind always does.

I bet you feel safe...

[Dunbal]

I bet a lot of people feel safe in a country where you can be Tasered with impunity if you forget your library card, make a fuss in your library and refuse to leave, however this "security" that is supposed to prevent this kind of crap has no effect whatsoever. Or could it be that this security that is shoved down our throats isn't really designed to prevent this stuff at all?

      Yet another example of how most security is MAKE BELIEVE, and apart from keeping the sheep in line and obedient, it does absolutely nothing to prevent the REAL crime. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the security guards were hiding - probably behind the students.

Thank gun control for this

[Zexarious]

If there was even a few students there with concealed carry weapons and proficient in using them. None of this would of happened.

Re:Thank gun control for this

[night_flyer]

what's sad was they voted down concealed carry on campus last year...
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658

Re:Thank gun control for this

[nikostheater]

I live in Greece,a country that we have very very strict gun control laws. Only the army,police and hunters can have weapons and with very strict control. This is a country that exists from 1928,freed from 400 years Turk oppresion,we've been through Balkan wars,World wars,dictatorships,and again,we dont have the insanity that you have about guns. In My country these tragic events rarely happen. Only in USA i here every now and then about some whako with a gun to kill innocent people like this. Your attitute about "the right to have guns" in your country is suicidal.

Re:Thank gun control for this

[tthomas48]

>> If there was even a few students there with concealed carry weapons and proficient in using them. None of this would of happened.

If there were even a few students "within range of the killer" with concealed carry weapons and proficient in using them "and lucky enough not to have been shot first." None of this would have happened. Remember, there was armed security on campus. Just not the right part of campus. The devil is in the details.

Re:Thank gun control for this

[drpimp]

While you can spin this any way you want for or against gun control, you point you are making states that every person that can legally carry a gun in your country is not crazy (hard to believe there isn't at least one) and if it has never happened, it never will??? Wow, your fantasy world is great, where can I get a flight there? Guns don't kill people, people kill people.In addition, I have heard of an incident in a country WITH STRICT, nearly a complete ban on gun control (I believe it was an East Asia country) a man walked into a school and killed a number of children with a knife. Gun control is NOT the answer, it is only means for political agendas on both sides of the tracks.

Re:Thank gun control for this

[ShorePiper82]

before anyone combats the original poster with arguments based on students not being proficient with firearms vs. local police force... I will make the statement and reference the several NYC cases where police firearm accuracy has been sub par (and has consequently proven effective). I agree that concealed weapons and right to carry laws may not eliminate these tragedies, but could prevent some of them before they occur.

Mod parent up

[Lt.Hawkins]

Wish I still had points.

I am also very surprised, and glad, to read that most comments have focused on "what a sick fuck" vs. "guns r bad mmmkay?"

Re:Mod parent up

[gad_zuki!]

> vs. "guns r bad mmmkay?"

Well, the gun-nuts here quickly seized the issue and even before the bodies are warm, are screaming "GUNS R GOOD MMMKAY?" all over this thread. Disgraceful.

Re:Mod parent up

[psykocrime]

Well, the gun-nuts here quickly seized the issue and even before the bodies are warm, are screaming "GUNS R GOOD MMMKAY?" all over this thread.

Conditioned response. We learned after Columbine that the gun-control nuts would quickly sieze the issue and - even before the bodies are warm, start screaming "GUNS R BADMMKAY?" all over the place. So instead of waiting for the knee-jerk reaction and all the wailing for more useless gun-control laws to begin; all of which might influence an otherwise rational person to adopt a anti-gun attitude, might as well make the point right out of the gate that gun-control is NOT the answer to issues like this.

Disgraceful.

Yes, we've lowered ourselves to the level of the anti-gun nuts, in that regard. I guess that is sad, but it would be sadder to say nothing, do nothing, and watch more innocent people die in Defenseless Victim Zones like Virginia Tech.

Re:Mod parent up

[RexRhino]

Well, the gun-nuts here quickly seized the issue and even before the bodies are warm, are screaming "GUNS R GOOD MMMKAY?" all over this thread. Disgraceful. Not quicker than the politicians you vote for to be on CNN calling for a complete gun ban. It is only disgraceful because they disagree with you.

Re:Mod parent up

[Ctrl-Z]

But ... guns are bad, mmmkay?

Re:Mod parent up

[HTH NE1]

vs. "guns r bad mmmkay?"

Well, the gun-nuts here quickly seized the issue and even before the bodies are warm, are screaming "GUNS R GOOD MMMKAY?" all over this thread. Disgraceful.

Um, "guns 'r indifferent, mmmkay"?

Re:Mod parent up

[poot_rootbeer]

"guns r bad mmmkay?"

Guns ARE bad. Mmmkay? Handguns are designed to kill people.

If nobody, citizen nor criminal, had access to guns, there would be 30+ people still alive at Virginia Tech right now. The eternal debate is how to give the Good Guys the ability to use guns for defense without allowing Bad Guys to use them offensively. And I don't have a good solution for that puzzle.

Re:Mod parent up

[poot_rootbeer]

So instead of waiting for the knee-jerk reaction and all the wailing for more useless gun-control laws to begin; all of which might influence an otherwise rational person to adopt a anti-gun attitude, might as well make the point right out of the gate that gun-control is NOT the answer to issues like this.

A knee for a knee, a jerk for a jerk.

If you're this twitchy in everything you do, I'd rather that you chose NOT to carry a handgun. I don't know that I could trust you to use it responsibly (ie, NOT use it).

Re:Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Sorry, I'm willing to take responsibility for my actions, with or without guns.

Why are you unwilling to take responsibility for your actions with a gun?

Re:Mod parent up

[C0rinthian]

And black market firearms dealers are affected by legislation?

Face it, guns exist, and if someone really wants one they can get one. The government can't just say 'No more guns!' and magically poof away all existing firearms.

Re:Mod parent up

[RightSaidFred99]

This is simply untrue. The gun control nuts have a bigger megaphone and _immediately_ jumped on the bandwagon. For proof see abcnews.com's headlines, one of their front page stories is rampant conjecture about how "assault weapon" "clips" were used and that congress missed their chance to renew the ban on them.

Re:Mod parent up

[wiggles]

If nobody, citizen nor criminal, had access to guns,

He would have used a sword or some type of IED, or something else completely. The gun is just a tool, of which there are millions of others that can accomplish the same thing. The real problem is the sick fuck who did this.

Re:Mod parent up

[Cigarra]

I'm willing to take responsibility for my actions, with or without guns. Good for you, mr... Anonymous?

Re:Mod parent up

[Ctrl-Z]

I take no action with a gun. I take responsibility for my actions. I also take no responsibility for those around me who are less responsible.

Re:Mod parent up

[RobertLTux]

Given that this is a Geek University you do know that 95% of the student body could design and create a multitude of even more dangerous things

1 While Drunk/Stoned/Sleep Deprived
2 with minimal lead time
3 without using anything not already on campus
4 with nobody knowing anything

Re:Mod parent up

[cmarkn]

I don't know that I could trust you to use it responsibly

And there you have the crux of the matter. Since you don’t trust the other guy to use his gun responsibly, you should have your own -- just in case you are right. If just one of those kids in the classroom had been armed, he could have saved more than his own life.

Every one of those deaths belongs squarely on the shoulders of the gunman; but some of the blame has to run off onto the politicians who go around armed while they try to forbid everyone else to do the same, and onto the sheeple who don’t trust anyone else to have a gun and by doing so turn people into victims.

Re: Mod parent up

[Black Parrot]

might as well make the point right out of the gate that gun-control is NOT the answer to issues like this. How do you know that? Have we ever had stringent enough gun control to put the idea to the test?

Re:Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about you, friend, but I don't want to live in anywhere where only the "Good Guys" (army and police, right? Are those the Good Guys?) are the only ones who can get a gun.

Who decides who the Good Guys are?

Oh, right - the people in power.

I think you'll find that there are plenty of folks who wished they had a gun when they needed one and very few who wished they needed one and didn't have one.

Re:Mod parent up

[Lt.Hawkins]

Yes, if guns had never been invented, history would have been different, and I might have had spaghetti for dinner last night. The point is that they DO exist, and no amount of legislation will uninvent them. As someone else mentioned here: Legislation is not the way to undo technology, and everyone on slashdot should know that better than most. It hasn't worked for the RIAA, the MPAA, the DMCA doesn't work, anti-spam laws, anti-hacking laws, video game censorship laws. Be a realist, and instead of promoting feel-good legislation that won't work, how about speaking to those who made defense at VA Tech impossible.

At this point, its security theater.

By the way, in 2006, a law was shot down that would have allowed those who can *already* legally carry handguns, to have had those handguns on campus.
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." I guess the students felt safe as can be, right until the shooter pulled the trigger.

Re:Mod parent up

[asninn]

Yes, we've lowered ourselves to the level of the anti-gun nuts, in that regard. I guess that is sad, but it would be sadder to say nothing, do nothing, and watch more innocent people die in Defenseless Victim Zones like Virginia Tech.

...because *not* immediately screaming "GUNS R GOOD MMMKAY" would somehow lead to more people dying? I'm sorry, but appeals to emotion like that sicken me. Can't you at least wait until the bodies are cold before you use them as a justification for your non sequiturs?

Of course a *rational* debate on the merits and flaws of gun control would be good, as would be a rational debate on why things like this happen and how they can be prevented in the future (to the extent that that's possible). And of course, immediately screaming "GUNS R BAD MMMKAY" is just as disgraceful as what you did.

But that doesn't give you a (moral) right to act like an arsehole now. If you see someone screaming "GUNS R BAD MMMKAY" now and using the victims of this shooting spree as a justification... by all means, do tell them that that's sick and tasteless, but also have some fucking decency and common sense and don't do the same thing.

Not to mention that you shouldn't complain about someone do something and then use the fact that he did it as a justification to do exactly the same thing. Hypocrite.

You're a fucking idiot.

[Anonymous Coward]

More laws would do nothing to prevent things like this. Get a clue.

Re:Article Offtopic

[nexuspal]

I would have to respectfully disagree. This shooting impacts ALL of those in the technology community. It is also probable that a few Slashdot readers have also died in this incident, so I would say that it is indeed "on topic".

Hear, hear

[XanC]

I'm actually agreeing with drinkypoo! Perhaps if just one of the law-abiding citizens involved had been armed, much of this would have been avoided...

But of course for some reason, this always has the effect of strengthening the very policies which failed.

Re:Hear, hear

[FleaPlus]

I'm actually agreeing with drinkypoo! Perhaps if just one of the law-abiding citizens involved had been armed, much of this would have been avoided...

It sounds counter-intuitive to many, but here's a study which supports your position:

Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement

JOHN R. LOTT Jr.
State University of New York - Department of Economics
WILLIAM M. LANDES
University of Chicago Law School; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)

Few events obtain the same instant worldwide news coverage as multiple victim public shootings. These crimes allow us to study the alternative methods used to kill a large number of people (e.g., shootings versus bombings), marginal deterrence and the severity of the crime, substitutability of penalties, private versus public methods of deterrence and incapacitation, and whether attacks produce copycats. Yet, economists have not studied this phenomenon. Our results are surprising and dramatic. While arrest or conviction rates and the death penalty reduce normal murder rates, our results find that the only policy factor to influence multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws. We explain why public shootings are more sensitive than other violent crimes to concealed handguns, why the laws reduce both the number of shootings as well as their severity, and why other penalties like executions have differential deterrent effects depending upon the type of murder.

Re:Hear, hear

[Anonymous Coward]

Just so you know, John Lott's theories have been discredited by most of mainstream criminology. He's a political partisan hack, who even went so far as to create the identity of a supporter of his work (i.e. Mary Rosh) just so he could have someone other than himself backing up his assertions.

You may not be a criminologist. Or even a social scientist. But at least bother to do the bare minimum and read the wikipedia article before you go spouting off nonsense that "research has shown x or y".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott

Re:Hear, hear

[Anonymous Coward]

Rate this up. The supposed academic article being cited is by a discredited hack. (Makes sense: murder rates are uniformly high in U.S. states that employ the death penalty.)

Re:Hear, hear

[Astro Dr Dave]

While some of Lott's practices have been a bit suspect, I suggest you have a closer look at the Wikipedia article. There are a number of independent papers which support and confirm his results.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[Anonymous Coward]

It's already illegal to shoot people. How would an extra law prevent someone from breaking it?

Re:slashdot?

[double-oh three]

Quote the head: Stuff That Matters. 31 killed on a College campus, a majority in a EE/CS building, well, it just damn Matters.

Re:University of Texas Tower

[zbychu900]

Yes, "extremely low": 14 dead in UofT shootings. Good job that all those who kept the shooter pinned down did not turn around and started shooting everybody at random. Get real, man - if everyone around you carries guns and automatic rifles, then don't be surprised that once in a while something like this happens. If this guy had only access to knives and similar things, he could've killed 2-3 people at most, but not 32. What an insane country. Next time we'll hear about another "record"...

Re:slashdot?

[Cederic]

Were you here in the Jon Katz days? Half the blinking articles were about Columbine.

Lonely disaffected socially excluded individuals reading slashdot seem to like reading about similar people that fight back.

Expect to see a discussion on the weaponry used, there's already discussion around whether it was video gaming that made him do it, there'll be follow-up articles about people being banned from school for wearing trenchcoats and obviously there'll be Europeans exhibiting schadenfreude.

This is classic Slashdot material, expect a couple of thousand posts and a similar number of mod points wasted here.

Re:Gaming, no

[Anonymous Coward]

Gaming is not responsible for this. Guns are.
If only there were MORE guns in the U.S. and everywhere... Then any time some crazed lunatic like this goes on a rampage, everyone can whip out their guns and kill the lunatic.
We need more guns.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[BristolCream]

Well look at the UK. We've had one such incident in history, commited by a man lisenced to carry arms. He killed 17. In England this has never happened.

While it's true that some people are insane and will go to silly lengths to cause destruction (think 9/11), most crimes of this kind are carried by "ordinary guys". That are very few criminal masterminds. Thousands that have a bad day, get dumped by their girlfriend or loose everything on red. Arm them when they're sane of mind and watch the destruction when they're not.

That's the American way.

Virginia Tech policy against firearms on campus

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

Does anybody know if Virginia Tech has a policy against firearms on campus?

Gun bill gets shot down by panel
Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658

gun control comments

[codepunk]

I see a lot of gun control comments already...I am interested, what is your solution?

As I recall it only took a couple of guys with some simple box cutters to kill 3000+ people, so what would
a gun ban do?

Re:gun control comments

[Archangel Michael]

Well armed and trained people allowed to carry concealed weapons at all times in all places, UNLESS they specifically search EVERYONE for weapons. Banning weapons doesn't stop people from killing, it only makes them less successful at killing masses. Unless you count box cutters (and now knitting needles).

We should be teaching people how to fight back against such things rather than quivering under desks.

Re:gun control comments

[lbbros]

Just a simple question: why tehse events are generally more rare in Europe (where using firearms generally requires a license)?

In my country we've had our fair share of madmen shooting (the worst being a few years ago when a psycho fired blindly from his apartment in the street), but AFAIK, nothing as big as this.

Guns are useless if the mind who controls them is not sane. Actually a lot of family murders happen because people, totally angered, throw away thinking and grab a gun or a rifle.

And don't say "you can do this with a knife as well". A knife has other, legitimate use. A gun's sole purpose is to wound or kill.

Re:gun control comments

[0kComputer]

As I recall it only took a couple of guys with some simple box cutters to kill 3000+ people, so what would a gun ban do?

Maybe the same thing that dissallowing box-cutters, screening passengers, reinforcing cockpit doors, and including air marshals on flights does e.g. prevent it from happening again.

Re:gun control comments

[fishbowl]

>Just a simple question: why tehse events are generally more rare in Europe

Lot of things are better in Europe than in certain other parts of the world, for myriad reasons. Next question?

Re:gun control comments

[Stalyn]

Just to counterpoint having an armed population would probably decrease mass killings because it would increase the chance someone would be armed and stop the assailant(s). However this would probably do nothing to decrease gun crime in general and may even increase gun related deaths.

In the end mass-murders is a psychological (group and individual) dilemma and not something that cat be solved with something as simple as more or less guns in the general population.

Re:gun control comments

[Cunjo]

Nothing.

Guns were already banned from the campus. That's part of the problem. As a gun-free zone, it creates a situation in which nobody has a means of defense from an attack, but anyone who doesn't care about obeying the law (such as serial killers) is still free to pack heat and kill people. Gun-free zones such as VTech make up the majority of all major shootings, because like anyone else, the killers know that nobody is permitted to carry weapons there, and will be unarmed.

And let's face it. There are more guns than people in the U.S. Even if you banned guns completely, you've only created a situation where the law abiding citizens turn in their guns, but anyone else can always acquire them illegally. If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns, and that creates a bigger problem than it solves.

Re:gun control comments

[Cunjo]

They're more rare in europe because it's harder to procure guns illegally. In the US, there are so many guns around that it's impossible to keep track of them all. There are more guns than people. Even if you take away people's right to bear arms, you haven't taken away their ability to acquire them illegally. In some parts of the country, the police confiscate weapons from gang members who can't legally posess them... and then confiscate more weapons from them the next week. The kind of people who are going to use guns to kill innocent victims cannot be prevented from obtaining them by the law. By creating gun-free zones such as VTech, you're only creating areas where nobody can posess a gun legally, but as the shooting today has proven, that doesn't stop people from bringing them illegally, and killing many garunteed defenseless victims.

Re:gun control comments

[Grishnakh]

Don't forget, in this endless Europe vs. USA debate, that Europe is very demographically different from the USA. How many slums with drug gangs are there in Europe? Most of the gun violence in statistics are showing the high rate of gang violence in the USA, which doesn't significantly affect normal people.

Re:gun control comments

[ciggieposeur]

As I recall it only took a couple of guys with some simple box cutters to kill 3000+ people, so what would a gun ban do?

We must be seeing different sites, because most of the comments I see modded up are of the "this is what happens when we ban guns, only bad guys have them, and Democrats and liberalz suck".

Regardless, here is MY solution: guns are allowed everywhere, of any kind. Automatic, rifles, bazookas, I don't care anyone. However, all guns are required to be colored hot pink with embedded glitter and have ribbons hanging off the handle. Possession of a gun illegally colored something else or missing the ribbons is automatic life imprisonment.

I think we would see an immediate drop in gun fatalities both in the cities and on hunting ranges everywhere.

Re:gun control comments

[The Fourth]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

What will Gun control do? Have a look at this list. Compare with Australia who has Gun Control AND watching your TV shows 70% of the time AND plays video games just as much as you do. We are probably more multicultural than you so you can't really blame minority groups either. What's left to blame? No Really? Are you all nut cases or is having a ranged weapon that can kill multiple people in seconds without thought before you calm down a better thing to blame.

Many people state that criminals will always find guns. This is true. But the guy stealing you Xbox won't be carrying one. Nor will the muggers on the street. It's more likely that organized crime will hold guns. If it costs $5k on the black market to get a gun how many psychopathic kids or crazed ex lovers will have the connections and cash on hand to get themselves in trouble.

As a side point look at the countries above and below the United States on that list. Doesn't really look like company I would like to be keeping if I called myself 'Leader of the free world'.

Gun Control in the short term will have almost no effect. In the long term however... well you just need to see the results are are obtained in other countries. Personally I don't think US citizens will seriously start to question the morality of carrying guns until your society resembles a war zone.

Re:gun control comments

[paitre]

And yet, you conveniently ignore all the research findings that airport and airliner security is, today, not appreciably better than it was on 9/11.

Knee-jerk reactions like 'banning' specific items will never, EVER solve the under-lying problem. Sadly, you obviously think that gun-ownership is the root of all criminal evil in this country, and the cause of such crimes. You, sir, are an idiot.

Figure out the root of criminal behaviour and get back to me. Guns are merely a tool. Others are just as effective, including for mass killings such as this.

Re:gun control comments

[BESTouff]

what would a gun ban do?

Come here in Europe, and count the number of school shootings (or more generally death by gun). Even if you have a brain washed by the US pro-gun lobby you may understand.

Re:gun control comments

[moosesocks]

The box-cutter approach could never work again, and for only one of the reasons you mentioned.

The public is now well-aware that any airline hijackings are not going to result in hostage-type situations, but 9/11-type scenarios instead.

A box-cutter is not a formidable weapon when dealing with a large mob of people. The hijackers would be immediately overwhelmed by the passengers and subdued before they even get anywhere near the cockpit which they wouldn't be able to access due to the reinforced doors.

Personally, I feel that the cockpit should be completely separate from the passenger compartment -- the pilots enter through a separate door on the exterior of the plane. The fact that the doors weren't reinforced and kept locked in the first place represents a HUGE failure on the part of the FAA.

Terrorism is still scary. Box-cutters are not. This has NOTHING to do with the effectiveness of pre-flight screenings and EVERYTHING to do with passengers being more vigilant of their surroundings.

Re:gun control comments

[jez9999]

Banning weapons doesn't stop people from killing, it only makes them less successful at killing masses.

Are you saying we shouldn't try to make them less successful at killing masses?

Re:gun control comments

[jez9999]

Others are just as effective, including for mass killings such as this.

Please tell me why crazies don't go around shooting people up with bazookas or throwing grenades at them. I'll let you go and research that and when you can come back see if you can reaffirm the notion that lack of availability of a weapon doesn't reduce its general use.

Re:gun control comments

[LS]

Your logic is flawed. In fact it is riddled with several logical fallacies:

1. Black-or-White Fallacy - Either you stop can stop all murderers, or you can't stop any murderers. WRONG - you can stop SOME murderers.
2. Composition Fallacy - Certain murderers are this way, so all murderers are this way. WRONG - some murderers are in the heat of passion searching around their closet for a gun, and might calm down if they don't find one. Others plan for years to carry out international acts of war.
3. Red Herring Fallacy - Bring in something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand to draw attention away from the original issue. What the hell does 9/11 have to do with this??!?

LS

Re:gun control comments

[geschild]

It would allow you to run away from the person with the box-cutter. Now please go sell your apples and oranges elsewhere.

Re:gun control comments

[TempeTerra]

I'll counter your opinion with one of my own. I live in New Zealand, where (as I understand it) a licence is required to own firearms. People do; mostly farmers and hunters with rifles. It's not very difficult. I've never seen a handgun, and I've only seen half a dozen rifles plus assorted air guns, bb guns, paintball guns and a couple of crossbows. Our police are generally unarmed, except for the Armed Offenders Squad who get called out for the rare armed nutcase such as in todays events. In New Zealand we don't have any cultural association with guns except as tools for hunting - specifically no second amendment style glorification of being armed.

You're probably correct that an armed populace would have ended the killings today much sooner, but as tragic as these rare events are, I'm much happier living in a low-gun society. My understanding of violent crime in New Zealand (never first hand, thankfully) is that it's based around knives and blunt instruments. Sure, being robbed isn't great, but I'd rather be robbed at knifepoint than gunpoint. I imagine the gangs like it too, since nobody wants to actually die in a brawl. Stab wounds are very survivable and running away is a practical option if things look really bad. I also feel safer knowing that my mugger doesn't think I'm going to pull a gun on him. I'm a total pussy, and hypothetically if I was robbing people in America I'd sneak up on them and shoot them several times in the back on the off chance that they happened to have a gun which they might pull out and try to be a hero with.

You've probably seen the statistics (already posted at least once today) that show that you're three times as likely to be a victim of violent crime in the US as you are in Canada, the UK or Australia - which all have stricter gun control than the US. I put the difference down to the gun-culture (rather than gun availability) which is ingrained in America. The world is a much more frightening place if you think that the people all around you have the power to whip out a gun and shoot you. It puts a very different tone on run-of-the-mill violence like bar fights, domestic abuse and road rage. I'm sure you've heard the quote from (Heinlein? I thought it was one of your founding fathers, but maybe I was wrong): an armed society is a polite society. I'm sure this is true to a degree, but nobody can be polite all the time (see: New York).

For these reasons I would strongly oppose any relaxation of gun controls in my own country. On the other hand, I do believe that in the US guns are so ingrained that even if most of them were removed from circulation, everyone would still feel the same way and criminals would be the only ones who still had guns. A bad situation. Perhaps an armed populace is the right solution for the US.

Anyhow, lots of people have posted a similar sentiment to you. I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but this is where I'm going to post my dissenting view.

Re:gun control comments

[0kComputer]

Knee-jerk reactions like 'banning' specific items will never, EVER solve the under-lying problem. Sadly, you obviously think that gun-ownership is the root of all criminal evil in this country, and the cause of such crimes. You, sir, are an idiot.

And whats the under lying problem? Criminalism? Please explain how to solve that. The pragmatic approach is not to rid the world of criminals but to mitigate the damage that they can cause. Making assault weapons less accessible is not a "knee jerk reaction" but common sense. Look at other developed countries.

Re:gun control comments

[Archangel Michael]

New Zealand isn't really the same as America, so your comparison isn't really valid. We have very large and empty land spaces here in the USA, where the nearest police or law office can be 50 or more miles away. It is quite common in fact.

That, and we Americans (for the most part) are fairly self sufficient type, and guns are a large portion of that self sufficiency. While I realize that socialism by its nature requires less self sufficiency most of the complaints about American gun culture are from mostly socialist nations.

I actually pity them, for they don't know that freedom has costs as does the supposed security of the nanny/police state. I'm willing to pay the costs for freedom, with the occasional tragedy, rather than have my soul sucked dry by ever increasing intrusions by the state into my life.

Re:gun control comments

[TempeTerra]

I'm not sure what to make of your comment. I don't think you're replying to what I was trying to say.

Yes, America and New Zealand are different places, and as I said gun ownership isn't common but any non-crazy non-criminal won't have any trouble getting one. I don't see the relevance of your comment about empty spaces. There are isolated areas in New Zealand too, and I'm sure more of the people there own guns, because they have uses for them. I was trying to say that the problem seems to be that America has a different <i>attitude</i> to guns than NZ, or the rest of the western world - regardless of availability.

I could have a gun if I wanted, but I don't want to. My countrymen mostly feel the same way. Guns are not an issue here, and I like it that way.

What's all this talk of socialism and the price of freedom? Sounds like a non sequitur to me, unless you're saying that NZ is a socialist police state which is an... odd argument.

Why are people allowed to possess guns in the US?

[pario]

Every time a news of shooting breaks out, I always wonder why the possession of firearms is not banned entirely in this country. I am native of Japan, and where I grew up nobody but cops were allowed to carry guns. I live in New Jersey now, and I really miss a sense of security I used to have back home. Back there I never worried about getting killed and such, whereas I feel physically threatened where I live now since there have been a number of incidents of armed robberies on campus at Rutgers and in my neighborhood. (My own apartment was robbed several years ago, too.) Seriously, it makes a huge difference when I have to take into consideration the possibility of the possession of firearms when some strangers attacked me. I am aware that there are gun lobbies working against the ban of firearms, but it never made any sense to me. Could anybody enlighten me as to why people want to carry guns at all?

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[Anonymous Coward]

Take this as (another) wake up call. Vote for the candidate that promise to reform your gun control laws in '08.

Ron Paul? Or by "reform" do you mean "abridge freedom"?

Perhaps you might consider that this even occurred in a "gun free zone" just like most other similar incidents, and that perhaps your pre-conceived notions of how to eliminate such tragedies are the cause of, not the solution to, such incidents.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure all of the guns used in this were properly registered in the shooters name. Bets? On the other hand, if there weren't a campus ban on guns and the teachers and/or students all had guns do you think there would be over 30 dead or do you think someone might have been able to fight back? I don't know how gun control laws could have played any part in this if the person who did the shooting already posessed the guns illegally. Might as well blame video games. They are just as much responsible.

It's all Sanjaya's Fault

[Anonymous Coward]

The person who did the shooting was just upset that Sanjaya might actually win American Idol

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18136712/

I mean after all that dude sucks!

Re:It's all Sanjaya's Fault

[MeanderingMind]

This is not funny, and tasteless given the circumstances. It should not have been modded up.

Re:It's all Sanjaya's Fault

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you, Cathy Guisewhite. Now would you please lay off with your sanctimonious posting? Some people react to horrible events by making jokes that others deem off-color. Nobody tells you that your way of dealing with this (criticizing everyone who isn't offering their thoughts and prayers to the victims and their families and their friends and their dogs and their housekeepers) is tired. Well, nobody except for me. Who granted you dominion over the right way to react to things?

Re:It's all Sanjaya's Fault

[MeanderingMind]

If I were to criticize everyone who isn't offering thoughts and prayers to the victims, I'd have 300+ posts here alone.

I have responded a number of times here stating my opinion that certain posts are in ill-taste. I am well aware that people react to events in different ways.

However, I don't believe that all reactions are created equally. If someone's reaction to this shooting was to shoot people, we'd comdemn them rightly for it. While making jokes is not remotely that bad a reaction, I still find some of the jokes here reprehensible.

I Blame. Jack. Thompson

[Prysorra]

Thanks to Jack Thompson, everyone knows that video games are a catch-all excuse.

Why Did He Do It?

[blueZhift]

I suppose the usual gun control debates will ensue, along with the bashing of video games. But none of that really matters. The real question is why did this guy shoot all of these people? What made him so angry/hopeless that he felt the need to commit this mass murder? And the more chilling question in my mind is, why doesn't this sort of thing happen more often? There's a lot of pain and ugliness in the world, more than enough to produce thousands, if not millions of shooters. And perhaps therein lies the hope. As bad as things can be, they haven't reached the point where these mass shootings happen every day. Will we be wise enough to do the things we really need to do to prevent this from happening again?

Re:Why Did He Do It?

[Stumbles]

You forgot one question. Just WTF were the police doing for that 2 hour span? Eating dognuts?

Re:Why Did He Do It?

[hansamurai]

Maybe because most people can deal with pain and ugliness in a non-violent way? Whether it's through art or religion or the internet or just breaking down and crying. But days like today remind us that not everyone is the same, and not everyone can deal with pain. To me, this person is an anomaly, and I agree with you that hopefully we can keep it that way.

Re:Why Did He Do It?

[Doctor-Optimal]

Yummy yummy dog nuts! I take mine with sugar!

Re:Why Did He Do It?

[ClickOnThis]

The real question is why did this guy shoot all of these people? What made him so angry/hopeless that he felt the need to commit this mass murder?

An excellent question that deserves to be answered, and I have no doubt it will be as the news unfolds. Keep in mind though, that this guy was undoubtedly insane. His mind just didn't process things the way the rest of us do. He simply couldn't constrain his anger impulses, or point them in a harmless direction.

And the more chilling question in my mind is, why doesn't this sort of thing happen more often?

Because, thank God, (1) most of us are relatively sane, (2) we rarely if ever get as angry as this guy was, and (3) if/when we do, thankfully we can hang on to enough of our humanity to manage our anger benignly.

Will we be wise enough to do the things we really need to do to prevent this from happening again?

I doubt we could ever completely prevent such a thing from happening again. Gun control is a good step but it can't eliminate the problem. If everyone went to see a psychologist or psychiatrist as routinely as a dentist, no doubt that would help as well. Perhaps most importantly, I think we need to teach and know the warning signs that can lead to behaviour like this. And urge whoever shows the signs to get help.

Re:Why Did He Do It?

[Lockejaw]

Another question:
They say that they locked down the campus. If that is the case, how did the shooter get into or out of any buildings during that time?

Re:Why Did He Do It?

[palladiate]

Well, this has been floating around a couple of the internets (Fark, 4chan) the last few minutes (know one has been able to verify the authenticty of it yet): http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog. view&friendID=171473490&blogID=254062324&MyToken=9 445f281-3ecf-42f5-9759-a309acba61af

Re:Why Did He Do It?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. To claim he was insane is an absolute copout: "Hey the guy was insane. What a relief, that means it wasn't our fault and nothing has to change".

He might have cracked, but something probably drove him to the edge. Something that is deep seated in *our* society.

Re:Why Did He Do It?

[lukesl]

He did it because his brain was defective, much like a diabetic's pancreas is defective. The mind is a set of processes going on in the brain, and as a result, "mental" illness IS a physical illness. 100 years from now, people like that will be identified through neurophysiological screening tests, and they will be cured through neurosurgical procedures. They will look back on our views of the brain and human behavior with derision, mocking us in much the same way that we mock the vitalists of the 19th century today.

Re:Why Did He Do It?

[khallow]

My take is that no this isn't what really matters. There will always be thousands of motives and reasons for killing people. And some people even among those with working brains will chose to kill other people. You can't "prevent" this from happening again, but you can reduce its frequency and reduce the amount of harm.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[drinkypoo]

Take this as (another) wake up call. Vote for the candidate that promise to reform your gun control laws in '08.

That makes sense. I'll vote for the candidate who promises to grant me the right to carry a concealed firearm anywhere I wish, across all states of the nation, because that individual understands the second amendment.

Oh wait, you think I should be against guns? Perhaps you should wake up and realize that the US was founded on the idea of personal freedom, while the UK was founded upon the principle of a monarchy. The UK was disarmed much earlier and people would stand for that shit. Today there are vastly more guns than people in the US. You'll never get rid of them all. And there are an absolute crapload of gunsmiths here. One person I know showed me a submachine gun he built himself. It is a truism that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

There are less guns and less of a gun mentality in the UK, and that was true from the start. But here in the US, it was formerly considered every citizen's responsibility to own a gun, for two purposes. One, to protect us from fascism. Well, that hasn't worked. But Two, to provide for the defense of the nation. Disarmed countries are easy to control.

And on that note, I leave you with the following quotation: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest..." --Mahatma Gandhi

Morons already carry guns

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ, can't you shut up with this shit for a day? If morons carried guns everywhere, we'd have many more than 31 killed in spontaneous acts of stupidity every day.

Morons already carry guns everywhere today. The laws just take the guns away from people who could potentially stop them or make them think twice before escalating to a gun, knowing they might be shot - it's a lot easier to reach for a gun when you know it will instantly give you more power than anyone around you.

It's no coincidence that the worst problems of this sort happen in "Gun Free Zones" such as this school was.

Limbaugh Talking points

[goombah99]

Drinkypoo, I guess you got the Right Wing Talking points memo from instanpundit, who posted "These things do seem to take place in locations where it's not legal for people with carry permits to carry guns, though, and I believe that's the case where the Virginia Tech campus is concerned. I certainly wish that someone had been in a position to shoot this guy at the outset." before he even had any of the links to the facts. Good for you. Will you be on Rush Limbaugh tonight?

Re:Limbaugh Talking points

[drinkypoo]

Drinkypoo, I guess you got the Right Wing Talking points memo from instanpundit

Look at the fucking timestamps. When I started my comment there were 0 comments in this story.

I have my own mind and can make it up on my own. Welcome to my foes list.

The Libertarians' website thingy tells me that I am an upper left centrist. Make of that what you will.

Accusing people who don't agree with you of following someone else's agenda is a sorry excuse for an actual debate. Mudslinging is easy, but it still makes you look like an ass.

before he even had any of the links to the facts.

Fact: Some guy shot a bunch of people.

Fact: You are not permitted to carry guns on campus.

Fact: Someone with a gun would have been in a better position to shoot the shooter than someone without a gun. In fact, once the event was confirmed, they called some men with guns and those men came and shot the man shooting people.

Fact: You are making stupid assumptions. One of them is that he had no facts before you did.

Good for you. Will you be on Rush Limbaugh tonight?

Ah yes, compare me to Rush in order to discredit me. That will work fine on the idiot sheeple who respond predictably to such stimulus. But it will not work on rational individuals who are not afraid to make up their own minds.

Also, if Rush takes the same stance on carrying firearms, then I am not afraid to stand up and be counted as someone who agrees with him on the individual point, because issues and people are different things. Congratulations on being a sheep who does not understand this, and who even attempts to use that confusion to paint me as intolerant.

Never mind that denying someone their constitutional rights is what's genuinely intolerant here.

Re:Limbaugh Talking points

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of making stupid assumptions;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter _hoc

ie, your belief in more guns to solve the problem of nutcase shooters is just an example of someone subscribing to magical thinking, and a severe case of god-syndrome. More guns isn't the solution to a gun problem. Any rational person realizes that. Christ, just look outside your borders, you know the parts of the world that isn't Iraq. Or they don't show stuff like that on Fox? When were the last time you heard of a shoot up like this in for instance the UK, France, Norway or Sweden? Or do you think they are such regular occurances in these countries that they don't get reported?

I just can't understand how any sane person could just blatantly disregard the fact that you guys already have *more* guns per capita, and have more gun deaths than any other nation who isn't involved in something that looks like a civil war. And I can't understand how you could possibly think adding *more* guns to the stew would make it any safer.

Re:Limbaugh Talking points

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you useless ideologue, the man shot HIMSELF dead, after killing everyone. Do you see a pattern? Mass murderers of this type usually kill themselves. Please, tell me again how everyone having guns saves me from these things happening. I would have thought that noone having guns would ensure that crazies don't end up with them. Silly me. Those per capita firearms homicide rates from Western, industrialized nations WITH sane gun control laws must all be made up.

Re:Limbaugh Talking points

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you harp on timestamps. look at the instampundit article first he says he does not know anything yet abut what happen, makes the quoted illogical comment about this being a problem with too few guns, then later posts a series of update to stoies with actual facts about the events. So chowder head, he was not informed just spinning like the GP said. second, it's really weird you would be proud that you came tout your rash knee jerk opinion before Instapundit did, when instapundit is saying it's too early to know the facts. Please add me to your dreaded foes list too and have another drinky poo.

Re:Limbaugh Talking points

[asninn]

Fact: Someone with a gun would have been in a better position to shoot the shooter than someone without a gun. In fact, once the event was confirmed, they called some men with guns and those men came and shot the man shooting people.

But those people (I suppose you're referring to the police) were trained to do so, right? They knew how to handle their weapons, they had proper training, and - maybe most importantly - they probably were in contact with each other and wore uniforms so that they were able to identify each other (and, therefore, avoid shooting each other instead of the killer). If they'd been a bunch of random people instead - even ones with proper training -, they likely would've ended up shooting each other instead of the killer.

Seriously, think about it - there is literally NO way to tell the killer apart from a random well-meaning student who just runs around with his gun drawn and fires it occasionally who's just trying to hunt down the real killer. Your only options would be to either shoot the guy and try to incapacitate rather than kill him so that if it turns out he really isn't the killer, at least he'll recover, or to not shoot the guy at all; but in the latter case, you obviously haven't gained anything, and in the former case... well, good luck trying to incapacitate someone without killing him or doing permanent harm, and good luck trying to survive yourself when he thinks *you* are the killer.

It's a nice movie plot scenario - heroic students down gun-touting madman before he kills anyone -, but in real life, it just doesn't work. There's a reason why the police exist and why they are trained to handle situations like this.

Re:Limbaugh Talking points

[drinkypoo]

But those people (I suppose you're referring to the police) were trained to do so, right?

I just want to issue a self-correction before I continue: the shooter shot himself. So the cops were actually of no utility whatsoever in this incident. NONE.

In fact, the last shooting was something like two hours after the first one. So when I read your last line:

There's a reason why the police exist and why they are trained to handle situations like this.

...I just have to shake my head at your naivety. Get this through your head right now: The cops are not there to protect you. They are part of a system of punishment.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Daily tasks are best done /w extra preparations.

[NRAdude]

My daily tasks involve Administration of distributed computers closeley Networked. A tool of choice is a packet sniffer, while there is a tool outside the scope of my office that I carry without anyone needing Notice according to Congressional Supplements to Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims jurisprudence.

Moving to a neighboring workforce in an Industry over at Iraq, a friend of mine was recently killed there; he doesn't need a packet sniffer, let alone a Network line to call for assistance; his Office was prepared for the task, as is mine.

The difference between here and there is that his government and preception decided him to carry a sidearm while his job/employer went around dis-arming and un-equipping the necessities of sidearms from the people in Iraq that needed it most.

Some would ask, why would I need two slices of bread to repair a computer, and I would reprove that it is a necessary of the officer to perform his job, having the same hindrance as would a firearm; they are extras, necessities, not to be applied to the subject matter but to reprove any undue challenge to a lawful Grant to enter a premise/jobsite to enact one's work/remedy.

Ever since the riots occurred in Los Angeles and the gangs have grown into the Courts, I've packed "heat" in my Office in one form or another, simply because the bitter truth that nips at the heals of good/kind well-meaning unarmed and unequipped men and women is that someone gave us all intentional phobias that resort to laying dormant your better judgment to request someone else (police/firemen) to arrive at the scene to keep you alive.

THEY ARE NO MORE THAN FIVE MINUTES AWAY IN THE FUTURE, and you can't expect ANY assistance when the law of the jungle returns to civilizations front door.

Trust yourself with your property, in the execution of your task to Preserve your Life on Demand please carry a sidearm that is usable; don't kill the Adversary, just wound the Adversary.

And for the 10th time for those creatures on Slashdot that like to make presumptions on my userID, I'm not a member of that dishonerable NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION...I'm a Network Redundancy Administrator.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[ZHaDoom]

Maybe if other people where packing heat, they could have responded sooner.

No gun law would have stopped that guy from coming on campus and doing what he did.

Lots related to /. but too early for speculation

[jchenx]

Being a tech school, I'm sure there are a lot of Slashdot readers that are fellow VT alumni (like myself).

There is, unfortunately, a lot that might ultimately be connected to topics that are normally associated with Slashdot:
- Might this be a disgrunted engineering (including comp sci) student? (Pressure thanks to exams, weed-out classes, etc.)
- As a possible engineering student, it's extremely likely he/she plays video games, so unfortunately that gives opportunity for anti-gaming advocates to thump their chests
- Possible that gun-control (or lack thereof) may have affected this?

For now though, I think it's too early to start the speculation. I hate how people are already using this awful tragedy to promote their own opinions/ideas. There will eventually be a time for this. Today, is not such a time.

Re:University of Texas Tower

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an idiot. Students wouldn't have been able to "pin down" the UT tower shooter unless they were carrying rifles in their school packs. You think a handgun has that kind of range? The death toll was so low because he was sniping at distant targets, not spraying bullets w/ a semi-automatic.

Virginia Tech not to blame

[daveschroeder]

When what is believed to be a single, isolated shooting in a dorm happens on a 2600 acre public, open campus with hundreds of buildings, you can't assume that you're about to have the worst shooting incident (of any type) in US history.

Yet, people are already blaming Virginia Tech.

Would we close or "lock down" a city of 40000 people if there was a shooting? Because that's exactly what a campus of this size and type is (including students and faculty/staff).

No, but people are already calling for siren/PA systems in EVERY of HUNDREDS of buildings, of varying ages and constructions, centralized door locking/control and camera systems for not just outer building doors, but ALL doors.

The University reacted in a reasonable way. Yes, a shooter was "on the loose". Someone who had shot a person in a dorm, and the University immediately sent out notifications that such an event occurred; to be cautious and aware, and to report any suspicious activity to campus police. The area was "locked down", but after over two hours elapsed, there was no reason to believe that a madman was about to go on a random killing spree across campus.

This is not an elementary school. This is not a high school. This is a massive, open research campus with tens of thousands of people spreading over 2600 acres, with private, residential, and other buildings intermixed.

The only person to be blamed here is the shooter. And yes, he's dead. But Virginia Tech is not at fault.

Re:Virginia Tech not to blame

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Virginia Tech not to blame... This is not an elementary school. This is not a high school... The only person to be blamed here is the shooter. And yes, he's dead. But Virginia Tech is not at fault.

I pulled together some various statements from your comment, but I believe I managed to accurately portray the intent of your post. A apologize if this is not the case. Obviously the shooter is the person most responsible for this and yes, he is dead. The people will not accept that and will need to find living people to punish so they can feel better and think they have done something, and in some small way believe they've stopped the potential for this to happen again.

I do not, however, hold VA Tech entirely blameless because they are the ones who instituted a ban on students possessing firearms on campus, thereby ensuring that the only person with a firearm was the person planning on breaking the rules anyway. I think their policy is moronic and is one of the reasons why this shooting claimed so many lives compared to incidences elsewhere where a few random students were able to fire back and mitigate the situation.

As you said, this was not an elementary school or a highschool. These were supposedly responsible adults and US citizens. Why were they denied the right to bear arms and defend themselves? Yes, this was the shooter's fault. VA Tech stupidly passed policies that made things worse, but it was the shooter who killed these people.

Re:Virginia Tech not to blame

[daveschroeder]

I do think you may have misunderstood one element of my post. When I said this was not an elementary school or high school, I meant it was not one, self-contained building. But your additional point is well-taken: not only was this not a single, self-contained building; it wasn't a single, self-contained building of children who need to be protected, and for which the school is charged with such responsibility.

A large research university like Virginia Tech is an open campus with hundreds of disparate buildings intermixed with non-university buildings, streets and roads, walkways, fields, laboratories, administrative offices, academic buildings, housing, dorms, and so on. Nearly all of the academic and administrative buildings are wide open, and, in an open society, rightly so. it is essentially a 40000-person city of (almost exclusively all) adults. This is a terrible tragedy, and the power of hindsight will no doubt provide many suggestions for what VT could have done differently.

Re:Virginia Tech not to blame

[ben there...]

Working for a hospital, I'm familiar with their lockdown procedures and surprised that a college does not have the same procedures. From what I've heard, the first shooting took place in a dorm and killed 2 people, on campus. Then the second shooting happened 2 hours later in an engineering hall, killing 31 people? And he barricaded himself in the engineering hall during the shooting?

Why wasn't the engineering hall and any other major building in the facility locked down with restricted entry and armed campus or city police guarding the doors and inspecting people for weapons? Wouldn't that make sense if you were looking for a shooter, in any type of facility? I know that's what they'd do in a medium-sized hospital. I don't know why that wouldn't be in the emergency plans of a college, at least for the primary buildings and the dorms and other smaller buildings in the vicinity of the first shooting.

I don't know enough about this story yet, but rather than arguing for/against gun control, it seems like the first defense would have been the emergency plans and increased police presence. Even if he wasn't a mass-murderer yet at 2 killings, he was still a murderer loose on campus at that point. Maybe they did increase security in the engineering hall, and I'm just not aware of it. But that's the first thing I'd look into in this case for preventing additional shootings.

Re:Virginia Tech not to blame

[Workaphobia]

When there was a recent suicide at my university, they closed campus and sent the swat team to bust into classrooms because they mistook his fall-impact wounds for gunshot or stab wounds. Granted, I'm sure their campus topology is very different from ours.

Re:Virginia Tech not to blame

[daveschroeder]

Colleges and universities do have the same kinds of procedures.

But a hospital is typically one building. Virginia Tech is hundreds of buildings - I believe close to 700 - of varying types, purposes, and ages. There is no central PA system or door locking system. Most of the buildings are wide open. They're intermixed with non-university lands and buildings, and span 2600 acres. Some of the buildings are over 50 and 100 years old. Do we retrofit literally tens of thousands of doors with centralized locking and cameras and install central warning/PA systems in all buildings, just because you might be the site of a madman's rampage?

There's security and prudence, and there's waste and ridiculousness.

And the area in the vicinity of the shooting was locked down and blanketed with police. It was determined to be a domestic-type, targeted incident. And by the time VT had a handle on the situation, thousands of students were already on their way to campus. Nothing happened for over two hours. Then what do you do when you have no means of directly communicating with everyone? Should the university have had a knee jerk to a shooting in one dorm, and before they even knew nearly anything about the situation, have canceled classes within the first 15 minutes? Even if they decided that, how do you contact everyone? Email? Facebook? The web? There would have been no practical way to notify everyone, meaning literally thousands of students would have made it t campus anyway, and then what do you do with them once there?

Lockdown is simple in a controlled setting or a high school or elementary school. But at a 40000-person public land-grant university with hundreds of buildings? I'm sorry, but Virginia Tech simply has no culpability here. This is going to result in a lot of additional security measures that are either artificial and useless, or not representative of a free and open society, or both. I'm sure it will result in several multimillion dollar lawsuits by families against VT, too. After all, you can't be angry at a dead killer.

This tragedy has exactly one culprit: the killer. The alternative is locking down something that is essentially the equivalent of a city when something bad happens, because there is a chance that something else bad might happen. And even if we wanted to do that, it's barely possible or practical on this scale. Even assuming it is or should be represents a failure to understand the scope and logistics here. It's not just "oh, it's just a little bit of money" or "how about mass SMS messaging?" It's nowhere near that simple and there simply would have been no way to reach anything but a fraction of the students even if they had wanted to immediately after the first shooting. Even the "delay" in notifying students of the first shooting, which is now being bandied about, is meaningless, because it would have told them nothing different: there was a shooting today in the dorms. It is being investigated. Be cautious and aware, and remember to always report anything suspicious to the police.

When you have a shooter in a hospital or elementary school, you lock it down.

When you have a shooter in one of several hundred buildings on a sprawling city-like campus with 40000 adults, you don't lock anything down unless you want to live in a vastly different society than I.

Re:Virginia Tech not to blame

[nexuspal]

Sending out an email saying "look out for suspiscous activity" is not the solution to having an armed killer on the loose. If they had dispersed say, 20 police officers throughout campus for the day, that would have been an acceptable solution. If they completely shut down the campus for the day (cancelled all classes before they started 30 minutes later), that would have been an acceptable solution. The initial shooting WAS the warning to hope for the best but prepare for the worst. The fact that they knew an armed killer was on the loose and did not act on it (in a meaningful way) is reckless in my opinion...

Re:Virginia Tech not to blame

[ben there...]

When you have a shooter in one of several hundred buildings on a sprawling city-like campus with 40000 adults, you don't lock anything down unless you want to live in a vastly different society than I.

I think I already do live in a different society than you do: one that is much safer. I think there's still about 12 homicides a year in my state. So metal detectors and armed guards aren't exactly commonplace. But we take murdererers and in the case of the hospital, potential baby kidnappers, very seriously. I'm not sure exactly what your comment "a vastly different society than I" was supposed to mean, but I think extra security for at least 24 hours after 2 people were murdered is not to much to ask, even in an "open society" in a more murderous state.

If it had happened at UVM, I know the dorms and major buildings would be locked down and they'd be looking for the killer. Everyone would know about it immediately, likely through TV and radio combined with word-of-mouth. Again, I know we're talking about a larger campus, but the first incident still happened on campus, correct? And the second incident happened in one of the university's major buildings, correct? So what I want to know is what was the emergency plan for that building and what additional security did they have there? In my opinion, emergency planning does not make you a less "free" and "open" society. And it does a lot more than gun control or widespread gun-carrying would have done in this case. You don't have control over murderers. You do have control over your emergency planning. It is that simple.

Re:Virginia Tech not to blame

[daveschroeder]

So, if there's a shooting in a city of, say, 35000 people, what would you do with, say 700 or so buildings across over 2000 acres in the city center?

How would you communicate with those people? (Email is really the only practical different option for the university.)

Would you go into a temporary state of quasi martial-law because a "killer is on the loose"?

I can see locking down a high school. I can't see anything different Virginia Tech could have done, especially since thousands of students would already have been on their way to campus or class by the time the university even figured out what the response to the first situation was.

And no, the appropriate response isn't to immediately close and evacuate what is essentially a good-sized city at the first sign there might be a shooting (which would have been the only thing they could have even tried at 7:15am, which would have been ridiculous).

Any claims that Virginia Tech could or should have done something to prevent this represents a massive misunderstanding of the scope and logistics of the situation - and I mean massive - and represents the worst in 20/20 hindsight armchair quarterbacking. Not to mention a worrying tilt toward apparently wanting the kind of police state infrastructure we'd need to even THINK of "locking down" a 2600 acre campus with hundreds and hundreds of buildings.

Re:Virginia Tech not to blame

[nexuspal]

You're right, hindsight is 20/20. Locking down the campus is not entirely feasable. That's why my first suggestion was to AT LEAT position police around the campus for the day to minimize the time a shooter would have to kill indiscriminantly. I can guarentee you if this happens again they will do just that. It's just a shame that the administration there couldn't be somewhat more forward thinking and decided to take a "reactionary" position to a killer on the loose. If its your job to protect someone, plan for the worst, always... Don't wait for the worst then say "next time" we'll do it right, by that time it's too late.

Re:Virginia Tech not to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

I am posting as an AC because I already moderated in this discussion (I ran out of points before I got to your post), but I have to say, good post.

I am sick of hearing talking heads on the news claim VT could have done this or should have done that. Ironically, last fall when they did shut down the university, I heard people complain that if the gunman had gotten into a dorm students would have been trapped. Yes, VT is notorious for refusing to cancel classes (when I was there, classes were not canceled until the afternoon on 9-11, and don't even get me started about the ice storm that happened when John Edwards visited), but its not like it would have really mattered. Aside from the fact that a lot of students who were on campus wouldn't have gotten the message, if all the students were locked up in their dorms, an even bigger tragedy could have occurred if he had returned to another dorm (which, if he were to return, would have been the logical place to expect him). If they had evacuated the buildings, he could have shot kids in the street. If they had moved everyone to a 'secure location', he could have snuck in with them and then had even more targets.

When tragedies happen like this, it is human nature to want to assign blame and hand out punishment. Unfortunately that is difficult when the only person responsible (that we know of so far) is already dead. But if it is any comfort, know that if their is an afterlife based on rewarding virtue and punishing sin, this asshole is burning in hell as we speak.

Re:Virginia Tech not to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

First, you cannot expect an entire campus, no scratch that, an entire town to be put on lockdown due to what by all first appearances is nothing more than an isolated crime of passion. Thats just silly. The gunman would have most likely already fled the state, let alone the local area, and if he was still around you would probably end up pushing him into a suicidal rampage like the one this guy just went on.

Second, no it did not happen at one of the university's major buildings. Norris is actually a relatively small building in a completely different part of campus. It was not the engineering building like many news reports state it was. Based on the reports I have heard, it was most likely targetted because the shooter expected to find someone there.

Third, they did broadcast the message on the radio, TV, through the phone lines, email, etc. Still a lot of people (especially those who ended up going to class) did not hear it because they did not turn on the TV or check their email first thing when they got up (most college students wake up just in time to get to class), and phone connections often suffer during events like this.

Please learn all the available facts before jumping to conclusions on who to blame.

Re:Virginia Tech not to blame

[paitre]

Except, as previously noted, it's NOT the 'job' of the police to protect you.

It's YOUR job to protect you.

The job of the police is to clean up the mess, and catch the perpetrator, not to prevent a crime from occurring, particularly if they don't have evidence that the crime is continuing elsewhere.

Re:Virginia Tech not to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a quick correction, the main office of the college of engineering was in Norris (though its on the third floor, and I believe these events all occurred on the first and second), so I suppose if you want to assign a building to the college of engineering it would be Norris. However, most engineering classes are in different buildings. Norris is still far from what you would call a major building. Hell my senior year when I had to deliver a form to Norris hall I had to stop and think a minute where it was (and I had a class there Freshman year).

Re:Virginia Tech not to blame

[khallow]

At first, I felt like you. "Golly, they had two hours to lockdown the campus. Why didn't they?" Then I thought about it.

If it had happened at UVM, I know the dorms and major buildings would be locked down and they'd be looking for the killer.

UVM is also a third the size of Virginia Tech. It's still too big IMHO for a lockdown to be effective in 2 hours starting right when people are coming in to school. And Virginia Tech already had extra security. They had blanketed the dorm with a lot of police. Finally, the gunman thwarted emergency planning by chaining the entrances to the hall. That not only hindered the escape of the victims, but also the attempts of police to rescue them. Sounds to me like you should learn what happened before you open your mouth.

Re:Virginia Tech not to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

Would we close or "lock down" a city of 40000 people if there was a shooting? Because that's exactly what a campus of this size and type is (including students and faculty/staff). Bad example and bordering on a straw man for two reasons. One, your 2600 acre campus is only 7 square km, probably less than a tenth the size of a city of equal size. Two, everyone in the university are either students or faculty to whom you have some level of direct responsibility towards and control over. This is not the case in a city where most people do not work for a single entity (especially in a town of 40,000+) and are not directly controlled by the administrators of the city.

No, but people are already calling for siren/PA systems in EVERY of HUNDREDS of buildings, of varying ages and constructions, centralized door locking/control and camera systems for not just outer building doors, but ALL doors. Some of these items are not unreasonable. There were PA systems available on my college campus, at least enough to be heard from just about anywhere, and the weather siren could probably have been easily modified to handle additional situations. I would venture most of the alarm systems could also be easily modified in some way as well.

I do not know if I heard anyone calling for entry control at all doors, but I can tell you most exterior entry to buildings is pretty bad. This doesn't really fall on the university so much as the students who allow people in through access controlled doors, probably on a regular basis. I know it happened during my college career. I also know all entry ways to the dorms were monitored. It is possible other places had cameras, but I never bothered going on a hunt to find out where they were.

The University reacted in a reasonable way. Yes, a shooter was "on the loose". Someone who had shot a person in a dorm, and the University immediately sent out notifications that such an event occurred; to be cautious and aware, and to report any suspicious activity to campus police. The area was "locked down", but after over two hours elapsed, there was no reason to believe that a madman was about to go on a random killing spree across campus. First, the request to report suspicious activity is stupid. Most people who have been involved in these types of shooting have been very calm and aware of what they were doing. This is so stupid that if cops really think they will ever catch anyone short of the schizophrenic in this manner, they are truly as dumb as some people think they are. The next problem is they only "locked down" the immediate area, eventhough they surely did not arrive immediately after the incident. With only a 7 sq km campus, someone could cover that in probably 20 - 30 minutes. When you have someone in such a small area, I do not believe it is unreasonable to "lock down" an entire campus, or at the least, cancel classes and limit places where people are congregated for easy targets.

This is not an elementary school. This is not a high school. This is a massive, open research campus with tens of thousands of people spreading over 2600 acres, with private, residential, and other buildings intermixed. This is Blacksburg, VA not Madison, WI. This is a big open campus yes, but how much of those 2600 acres is the farm (as another poster mentioned). I also doubt there are that many private and residential building intermixed as there are with campuses in larger metropolitan areas. Even those that are in metropolitan areas are largely contiguous with many of the off-campus buildings being relatively far away and with minimal usage. Also, your population density in this 2600 acre area is probably much more dense than the 40,000 population town. (see the size issue above)

The only person to be blamed here is the shooter. And yes, he's dead. But Virginia Tech is not at fault. I am not a huge fault bringer, but I do believe VA Tech was ill-prepared to handle this sort of situation; however, ignoring the possible errors on their part as people over-reacting is simply naive.

Re:Virginia Tech not to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

Would we close or "lock down" a city of 40000 people if there was a shooting? Because that's exactly what a campus of this size and type is (including students and faculty/staff).

The difference is that there are no other cities of 40,000 people in the U.S. where a shooter could be guaranteed that all 40,000 are unarmed and helpless (unless you count other universities, of course).

Re:Virginia Tech not to blame

[benspionage]

You make some good points, and I agree that it is unfair to say VT is culpable here. There are practical impossibilities with an institution that size, and a flawed or incorrect early notification to students would have been a nightmare they wanted to avoid.

Having said that, if I was on campus would I want to know there was a shooter about? You betcha'. Would I only want to be told that if it was damn sure it was true? You betcha'. So I'm not sure what improvements can be made for the future, but don't rule out things like blanket SMS'ing too early, its at least worth investigating.

Re:Not now! - was Re:Second Amendment Rights

[drinkypoo]

IMO you're right. But that's not the point. It's too soon, and the wounds are too fresh.

The wounds are fresh? That means that this is the only time you might actually have to change someone's mind.

Most people walk through this life with both eyes and their mind firmly shut. The only way a new idea ever enters either is if you shock them first.

There is no time that is wrong for rationality.

Shame on you for politicizing this event

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that whenever a horrible shooting occurs, another gun advocate will immediately jump on the news to promote their own political agenda.

You immediately blame the schools, blame the gun laws as if somehow you are an expert on this shooting. After laying blame onto everyone else, you finally mention the shooter at the end of your post, almost as an afterthought, in an attempt to justify your position.

Shame on you Deagol, for politicizing this event so soon after the fact.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[fatcock84]

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658

Gun bill gets shot down by panel
HB 1572, which would have allowed handguns on college campuses, died in subcommittee.
By Greg Esposito
    381-1675

A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.

House Bill 1572 didn't get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.

The bill was proposed by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Gilbert was unavailable Monday and spokesman Gary Frink would not comment on the bill's defeat other than to say the issue was dead for this General Assembly session.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Del. Dave Nutter, R-Christiansburg, would not comment Monday because he was not part of the subcommittee that discussed the bill.

Most universities in Virginia require students and employees, other than police, to check their guns with police or campus security upon entering campus. The legislation was designed to prohibit public universities from making "rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit ... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun."

The legislation allowed for exceptions for participants in athletic events, storage of guns in residence halls and military training programs.

Last spring a Virginia Tech student was disciplined for bringing a handgun to class, despite having a concealed handgun permit. Some gun owners questioned the university's authority, while the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police came out against the presence of guns on campus.

In June, Tech's governing board approved a violence prevention policy reiterating its ban on students or employees carrying guns and prohibiting visitors from bringing them into campus facilities.

Re:University of Texas Tower

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because we all know that the only way someone can get a hold of 9 millimeter handguns is through legal channels.

33 confirmed dead

[Torrey Clark]

33 confirmed deaths now.

2 at the first shooting, and 31 at the second shooting.

I used to work at the Inn at Virginia Tech.

And the Hokie administration led the charge...

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

He got away with it *both* times because the law emasculates the citizen from carrying a weapon at all times.

And it was the Hokie adminstration that led the charge to dis-arm the students and the faculty:

Gun bill gets shot down by panel
Tuesday, January 31, 2006

...Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus"...

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658

Re:And the Hokie administration led the charge...

[AK Marc]

"I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus"

I don't see the problem. It's the same as the fight against terrorism. The government screwed up that one too. What's important? Safety? No. Read the comment above closely. Safety is irrelevant. "Feeling safe" is what's important. The US people don't care if they are safe, they care whether they feel safe. They aren't smart enough and logical enough to do a risk analysis and address the actual safety issues. They want the issues that cause them stress to be eliminated, like the guy next to them carrying a gun or people with beards on planes.

Re:And the Hokie administration led the charge...

[quarkscat]

The establishment (feds/state/local governments and MSM) does not trust armed citizens. Most politicians also
do not trust armed constituents. Besides Constitutional issues (2nd Amendment), Western civilization historically
has deemed an individual's right to self-defense an inherent right. When the government (any) takes away that
right to self-defense, they bear the burdeon of responsibility for their citizens well-being. Repeatedly, government
has fallen far short of their responsibility for protecting citizens. Contract armed mercenaries (Blackwater Group) used
deadly force to disarm citizens of New Orleans after the Katrina Hurricane. The court system has repeatedly denied
citizens from suing local governments that not only disarm their citizens, but then fail in their obligation to protect
these same citizens from harm.

Virginia Tech/Blacksburg is in a rural area where local/regional students routinely engage in hunting during the season.
VT / Blacksburg has a rifle range, and there are several additional target ranges within a 30 minute drive (on National/
State Forest property. There is no good reason why students and faculty who can demonstrate both good citizenship
and good familiarity with handling of firearms should not be permitted to be armed on campus. In point of fact, Virginia
has a concealed carry program that vettes individuals for this right-to-carry and licenses them.

This tragic incident should never have happened. The extent of the tragedy was preventable. I do not expect that either
the government, MSM, the politicians, or the university will learn the correct (but not politically correct) lesson.

Here come the flames

[mobby_6kl]

Based on the Fark thread, this one will involve some or all of the following:

• Guns should've been banned
  
• Guns were already banned from VT's territory
  
• Everyone shoud've been given more guns
  
• Tasteless jokes
  
• Complaints about tasteless jokes
  
• It's Hitler's birthday in just a few days
  

Re:Here come the flames

[iggymanz]

you forgot the "maybe extended magazines were used since congress didn't renew the ban" the major news media are already spewing; as if you can kill 30+ with extended mags but not with a few standard ones nor with revolver speedloaders for that matter. morons.

Right to bear arms

[FMota91]

If noone had guns would you need the guns for protection? I don't think so.
As for hunting, you would have to get a permit.
As for assuring liberty... well, that's what politics is for (HA! As if).

I honestly can't see how the benefits of allowing everyone to bear arms outweigh the disadvantages. Disadvantages such as these shootings.

In my opinion, we can blame the law for facilitating situations like this.

My condolence to everyone involved. :/

Re:Right to bear arms

[Astro Dr Dave]

If nobody had guns, some people would still need firearms for adequate protection... the elderly, or people who are small, physically weak, or disabled. Furthermore, you are making an assumption that if guns are outlawed, nobody would have guns. That assumption is demonstrably false. Most criminal shootings occur with illegally owned firearms. Outlawing guns would simply prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves. Furthermore, you assume that these shootings are the result of the right to bear arms. I see no evidence or reason for that assumption.

Re:Right to bear arms

[FMota91]

Evidence? How frequent are the school shootings in Europe? How frequent are they in the USA? I'm pretty sure the latter is more frequent. If you weight it (with population), I don't know, but I've got an inkling it would still be the USA.

I never made the first assumption. Outlawing guns would simple mean there are less guns lying around for eight-year old kids and mentally unstable, AND for criminals. They can still get guns illegally, but at least it means HAVING a gun is illegal, not just shooting people with it.

Outlawing guns would prevent previously law-abiding citizens from becoming murderers.

I can't see why the elderly, people who are small, physically weak, or disabled should need firearms to protect themselves. If they're afraid (with reason) that something bad is going to happen, there are other means of protection that are probably less dangerous than possessing a gun.

Re:Right to bear arms

[Astro Dr Dave]

Your arguments are preposterous and irrational. First, yes... you have no evidence. Yes, the US appears to have more school shootings than Europe (though I am not particularly familiar with any crime statistics regarding Europe). And gun ownership is somewhat more prevalent in the US. However, that correlation does not mean that the higher rate of mass shootings in the US is due to higher gun ownership. Correlation is not causation.

Furthermore, some parts of Europe have high gun ownership... Switzerland, and I think Norway... and low incidence of shootings. That suggests that the presence of guns alone is not a predictor of the gun-related crime rate.

I never made the first assumption. Outlawing guns would simple mean there are less guns lying around for eight-year old kids and mentally unstable, AND for criminals. They can still get guns illegally, but at least it means HAVING a gun is illegal, not just shooting people with it. Why should it be illegal to possess a gun? Possession alone does no harm.

I think it's interesting that so many of the people with your position have no knowledge of firearms whatsoever. It's like the ignorant are trying to teach the educated.

Outlawing guns would prevent previously law-abiding citizens from becoming murderers. So, you're saying that guns cause people to become murderers? And that, with the absence of firearms, the murder rate would be zero?

In that case, I imagine you must be terrified of police.

I can't see why the elderly, people who are small, physically weak, or disabled should need firearms to protect themselves. If they're afraid (with reason) that something bad is going to happen, there are other means of protection that are probably less dangerous than possessing a gun. Why should people not have the means or right to protect themselves? No society is perfectly safe. The police can not protect everyone, and indeed have no duty to protect anyone. Look at the events at Virginia Tech... all these people died because school policy disarmed everyone... except someone who was willing to disregard that policy. The students and faculty had no means to protect themselves. Just like Columbine, the police were called yet the police did stop the violence... the shooter did that, by killing himself.

You envision a society where everyone is forced to be a victim. I do not wish to, and will not, live in such a society.

Jack Thompson loses another one

[KenAndCorey]

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?st ory=13542Louisiana To Pay ESA $91,000 Over Violent Game Law

Game industry trade body Entertainment Software Association has announced that the U.S. District Court of Louisiana has ordered the state to pay the organization $91,000 in legal fees it incurred fighting the overturned HB 1381 anti-violent game law.

I wonder if he's ever won in court in his battle against video games?

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[night_flyer]

Could anybody enlighten me as to why people want to carry guns at all?

Because guns are legal, and as long as there are guns, bad people will get ahold of them.

there are over 300 million weapons in the US... the odds of getting shot, much less killed, are minute.

Curiously...

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot, which is usually known for joking around even in threads about famous funerals, is posting nothing but condolences for once.

Whereas JT is apparently predicting something obvious for political benefit--just what percentage of computers would have one of the most popular games around? It's like predicting that the shooter wore clothes, ate bread, or breathes air; just as likely among non-murderers as it is among murderers, meaning that you can't reasonably draw any conclusions from that information.

I guess it's too much to wish that tragedies weren't so politicized, huh? :/

Re:Curiously...

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot, which is usually known for joking around even in threads about famous funerals, is posting nothing but condolences for once.

Or at least fervently taking over the first page so anything else will fall in the inaccessible in-between. It's free-as-in-market speech, where only the most successful opinions survive. It would be nice to filter out the high mods and see just the low ones for the alternative opinions.

Re:Gaming, no

[pkbarbiedoll]

What happened to the man pulling the trigger? Did the gun sprout legs and arms and go beserk??

Exactly What the NRA has been trying to say..

[Anonymous Coward]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people...
We are still primates with a bit bigger/smarter brain than before. We haven't learned anything much in the few millions of years we've been here. What's our fascination with killing and guns? Who knows.
Same old thing, just different place....

Sadly more than when you posted

[SuperKendall]

According to the list you posted, this event is already in the top three, and it seems to me like the count must be even higher before all is said and done.

I have a family member that goes to school there as a grad student, but happily she is OK. I'm just sad to hear that so many were not...

Re:Sadly more than when you posted

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fucking scumbag.

In Other News...

[anomalous cohort]

Attendance at CBT focused colleges is trending up.

But seriously, what is the trade off in face time versus online community? With online, you get more protection from biological/chemical/random suicide killer attacks without surrendering civil rights since there is no single high value target. With face time, you get more presence because the amount of information that current collaboration tools provide does not even begin to match the depth and bandwidth of face time (i.e. face time 5 senses and a tighter feedback loop versus online 2 senses).

Re:University of Texas Tower

[drinkypoo]

Get real, man - if everyone around you carries guns and automatic rifles, then don't be surprised that once in a while something like this happens.

Wake up. Almost no one had a gun (P.S. an automatic rifle is a type of gun, bright boy) and yet this STILL happened.

If this guy had only access to knives and similar things, he could've killed 2-3 people at most, but not 32.

Yes, and if this guy lives in a glass bubble, he might not have been able to get a gun. But I will bet you that I can purchase an unregistered handgun within 24 hours in any city over 20,000 people in this country. It might cost a few extra bucks, but it can be had.

Frankly it's not hard to get guns. And on top of that, it's not very hard to make guns. A revolver is an amazingly simple device.

What an insane country. Next time we'll hear about another "record"...

What's insane is having a constitutional right guaranteeing you the right to bear arms, and then to have it denied you simply because you are on a college campus, as if the rule prevented people from bringing guns onto the campus. Clearly it does not, but flawed reasoning like yours will argue that it is a good rule anyway.

Outlaw guns tomorrow, and the huge numbers of unregistered guns in this country will simply be hidden and only pulled out when someone wants to shoot someone. It will make little to no significant difference in the availability of firearms.

As soon as you invent a fucking magic wand, though, feel free to wave it and banish all guns and the ability to create them. That would truly be a better world. But it's not going to happen, and meanwhile even if it did the end result would be a lot of people building crossbows and brushing up on their archery skills.

In Soviet Amerika: +1, Insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

Guns shoot people.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[0racle]

It is a very old constitutional amendment that was considered required in the event of a British invasion after the revolution. It has since grown and been indoctrinated in to many as a god given right, or to others as a 'protection' against the government, and further been perverted by some as a macho act that they are allowed to own an arsenal and carry weapons to kill their fellow citizens.

There is a Canadian comedian, and as much as I hate to quote him (he's not funny) he has said this, "There is one thing Charlton Heston won't tell you. The British aren't coming."

Worked at the University of Texas

[Quila]

Would guns on campus have prevented more people from getting shot? Who the hell knows?

Very likely. Not long after Charles Whitman started shooting people at the University of Texas in 1966 a lot of locals showed up to help provide suppressive fire with their rifles. That forced Whitman to keep his head down, and he could no longer shoot freely as he had done earlier. This was kept up until two people (one an armed civilian) managed to get to the top of the tower and shoot Whitman.

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[eln]

At Texas, there was a gunman sitting way up in a tower all by himself. It was easy to identify what to shoot at. In this case, if someone saw the gunman and started shooting, you could have ended up with someone else coming in later and shooting at the wrong person. In this case, no one knew what the gunman looked like or where he was, and the gunman was moving. There would be a much higher risk of "friendly fire" casualties in this case. It's not like the bad guys have devil horns and the civilians carrying weapons have halos so you know what to shoot at.

So I stand by my original statement that trying to push a gun rights agenda on this discussion is pointless and disgusting, as there is no way to tell how having more guns around would have affected (for better or worse) this particular situation. Not to mention it's despicable to push any sort of political agenda on a tragedy like this, particularly so soon after the fact.

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

n = 1 -> "very likely" , nice use of reasoning there.

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[YGingras]

But, if everyone is free to jump in with his own gun, how does the improvised sniper tell the improvised tactical ops from the real mad gunman? Real tactical ops have a really tight communication channel to minimize the probability of errors. I sure would not feel safe if my life was protected by a trigger happy random snipper. The world is much better without vigilantes. Didn't we learn since the lynchings?

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

Very likely. Not long after Charles Whitman started shooting people at the University of Texas in 1966 a lot of locals showed up to help provide suppressive fire with their rifles. That forced Whitman to keep his head down, and he could no longer shoot freely as he had done earlier.

And how exactly would that help in this scenario? This gunman was sneaking around campus. He wasn't exactly popping his head up out of the clock tower, such as during the UofT shootings.

Are you going to send in dozens of armed civilians to run around campus, on the off chance that they *might* run into the shooter, and that they might then win in a gunbattle?

his was kept up until two people (one an armed civilian) managed to get to the top of the tower and shoot Whitman.

Two cops, and one armed, deputized civilian:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman#Whitm an.27s_death

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[fishbowl]

>This gunman was sneaking around campus.

It's starting to look like school officials had gotten together to decide how they were going to cover their asses on what they thought was a single crime-of-passion type of incident. While they were deciding what to say to the press, they got the news all at once, all together, that *dozens* had been killed. They must have collectively realized that they had played down the incident, their only warning being an *email* urging "caution", rather than locking down the perimeter of the campus (should have locked down the state all the way to Roanoke!), and getting the helicopters up. They sat on their hands, and the "audible gasp" is their realization that their careers have all just ended, that they are responsible for the deaths of at least 30 people, and the largest incident of this kind in the history of the country has just occurred on their watch when they could have done more to prevent it, and chose not to.

There is a lot that needs to be explained. First, they need to explain why at 7:45 everyone was allowed to leave classrooms to go to 8:00 classes. Second, they need to explain when email became the sole medium for emergency alerts. Bullhorns from police cars, motorcycles, and helicopters, and activation of volunteer militia is how this is supposed to go -- where the hell are the famous Va Corps for fuck's sake? All in Iraq I presume.

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

Not long after Charles Whitman started shooting people at the University of Texas in 1966

This is suppose to be a "score 5 informative" an example?????..... up until today this was the biggest body bag total on the books. Preventing people from being shot? He shot 20+ folks before the rifles showed up.

That example is more of an example of Police forces being caught flat footed and/or ill equipped (no officers with and trained on rifles). Yeah if the police are not going to show up with SWAT after someone has shot 20 people you might want random citizens to show up with rifles............ but if your tax dollars aren't being wasted that shouldn't be neccessary.

Going from everyone should carry concealed weapons to everyone should walk around with rifles. High number of rifles... keeps the death rate down in Somalia, Bosnia, Darfur, and Afganistan doesn't it?

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[ConceptJunkie]

We don't have any facts about the original shooting, including if it is even connected to the latter shooting. At this point, I would give the school administration the benefit of the doubt. Do you know how expensive and disruptive it is to "lock down the state all the way to Roanoke".

If the administration believed that the original shooting was under control, i.e., a suspect was in custody, then they absolutely did the right thing. If, on the other hand, they knew the suspect was still at large, then perhaps they didn't. However, recall that when a crime like this is committed, 99.99% of the time, the person _does not_ go on to commit a wild shooting rampage, killing dozens. If people were to react as you suggest, our country would literally come to a standstill. Would we be safer in a police state? Probably. Are you willing to live in a police state? I'm not.

Regardless, my sympathies and prayers go out to the victims, their families and the community of Virginia Tech.

On a personal note, this really hit home to me since I went to Virginia Tech, spent many an hour (and many a night) in Ambler-Johnston dorm where a large PC lab was housed at the time, and had several classes in Norris Hall.

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[Monkeyman334]

"It's not like the bad guys have devil horns and the civilians carrying weapons have halos so you know what to shoot at."

But bad guys use towers and good guys don't?

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[eln]

I'm not pushing anything, I'm saying stop pushing your agenda because there's no way to know one way or the other, and because taking out your soapbox in response to a tragedy like this one while the bodies are still warm is sick.

If, after all the facts are in, it seems likely that having an armed citizenry would have stopped this situation, then go ahead and mention that. At this point, it's inappropriate and ill-informed.

Gun rights IS a political agenda. The opinion that disallowing citizens from carrying weapons around wherever they want infringes on their rights IS a political agenda. You may agree with it, but that doesn't make it any less of an agenda, and it doesnt make it any more worthy of being thrown in peoples' faces while they are still trying to assimilate this tragedy.

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[pete-classic]

You took my question too personally. I'm not saying you're pushing anything. The question was: "Is it equally despicable when people use a tragedy like this to push restrictions on the possession of firearms?" I'm asking for your opinion, not making an accusation.

By your standards is Sarah Brady sick?

-Peter

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[eln]

The question was: "Is it equally despicable when people use a tragedy like this to push restrictions on the possession of firearms?"

If they are using it before all the facts are in, and before it is clear whether or not their agenda actually would solve the problem, and if they are doing it while people are still in the midst of trying to come to grips with a tragedy that is only a few hours old, then yes, it is. Was Sarah Brady sick? Maybe so. I don't recall how soon after her husband got shot that she started her crusade, and I don't know how much research she did. If she was pushing her anti-gun bill based on a knee-jerk reaction to the situation, then she was absolutely wrong to do so in my opinion. If she only started pushing her bill after she had become familiar with the entire situation and convinced herself that her bill would prevent future attacks like the one that paralyzed her husband, then I can't really fault her for that.

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[Hackie_Chan]

Not to mention it's despicable to push any sort of political agenda on a tragedy like this, particularly so soon after the fact.
 
An open debate could've been useful immediately after 9-11 and during the build up to the Iraqi war. Using this tragedy to stifle public debate is just as despicable in my opinion.

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[Chandon Seldon]

I'm saying stop pushing your agenda because there's no way to know one way or the other

Bullshit. It's not impossible to know the answer to simple questions like "would guns in the crowd have prevented deaths?".

Nor is this an inappropriate place to discuss the issue of gun laws. The primary political reaction from this incident is going to be a push for further restrictions on gun ownership - if that's not obvious to you, you're oblivious. Politcally, that is the issue that is relevant to this news story.

Thirty three deaths on a school campus is a horrible tragedy - it would be nice to implement policy that reduces the threat of such incidents in the future. Not only is is possible to figure out what policy choices are available (increasing or reducing gun restrictions are obvious choices), it's possible to make predictions about what the effects of those policies would be.

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[Chandon Seldon]

If we can't have political discussions in the wake of politically significant events, I'm not sure what good democracy is.

It's extremely easy to predict that both sides of the gun control issue are going to get pushed here, and giving people crap for "pushing their agenda" is a waste of time. If gun control laws are intended to stop incedents like this, this is an excellent time to look at the question of how good a job they are doing.

If the only goal of gun control laws is to prevent this sort of shooting (I don't know if that's true), and if gun control laws actually prevented people from defending themselves with guns, then gun control laws should be weakened. If gun control laws are expected to reduce shootings of this kind (obviously they are), and if there is an obvious weakness in gun control laws that allowed this shooting to occur without some other benifit (It's possible), then that weakness should be addressed.

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[Poppa]

It isn't vigilantism. It is about self-defense. If one of the murdered was allowed to carry a weapon to protect themselves, they surely would have known who to shoot. Anyone that has a carry permit is well aware of their legal rights and liabilities. Even when you are in the right, you are likely to go bankrupt due to legal fees. Permit holders do not shoot without being sure of their target.

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[rfunches]

rather than locking down the perimeter of the campus (should have locked down the state all the way to Roanoke!), and getting the helicopters up

I believe someone mentioned that the high winds - there was a high wind warning for a large part of Virginia - prevented the use of any helicopters, even for medical transportation. Their options for securing the campus were limited to the ground.

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[Chandon Seldon]

People have a right to self defense. People have a right to use force in the defense of others. This is different from vigilantes, who use force not to defend someone (i.e. prevent harm) but for vengeance (i.e. to punish harm).

As for people having trouble identifying the mad gunman, that's unlikely to be relevant. It's possible, and that's a risk of carrying and using a gun, but it's more likely that more people with guns would simply have disrupted the mad gunman's ability to openly walk around shooting people uncontested.

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[pete-classic]

I was actually defending the pushing of agendas. I'm sorry that I failed to communicate.

-Peter

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[pete-classic]

I think that's all perfectly fair.

-Peter

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever held a gun?

If not, then please shut up.

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

There would be a much higher risk of "friendly fire" casualties in this case. Yes, if some yahoo in the crowd started firing back a couple innocent people might have gotten wounded or killed. Try to keep it in perspective; 31 people shot by this maniac. At this scale it's well worth the risk.

The debate is pointless; we're never going to see high schools or universities populated by well armed students and staff ready to defend themselves against rampaging spree killers.

I know this; if those killed today had another chance they would attack at all costs. A pistol can't stop a crowd of people who know they have little choice. Sometimes it's hard to stop one person with a pistol. It's sick to imagine being faced with this situation but, as we can all see, it does happen.

After 9/11 airline passengers stopped tolerating other passengers unreasonable behavior. Story after story where some fool drunk, hysterical idiot or shoe-bomber terrorist got 'subdued' by other passengers for the duration of a flight.

At what point will we see the same thing in a school shooting? It's getting pretty obvious that when some armed dink shows up in a school or business and tells a room full of people to get on the floor he's going to start slaughtering people. Die passively or throw something at his head and charge... what would you do? Your answer is determined by your level of doubt; if you see enough of this you might just compute your odds are better not cooperating.

The good news is that no training is required. Airline passengers didn't need prompting to discover how deal with threats or morons. Despite a millennium of 'civilization' there still appears to be sufficient aggression even among ordinary civilians. If a few of these spree killers get beat to death by a crowd of their victims...

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[melikamp]

This is the smartest reply I've seen to the notion that "it would have ended so much sooner if other students were carrying guns". I can just imagine a couple of guys with no military or police training pulling out their weapons: "Justin, what a fuck is going on? -- Some Asian kid with a gun went postal." Then they go out in the hall and see a bunch of other guys, some of them Asian, with guns at the ready. Oh, that is going to work out well...

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I think trying to keep politics out of such a controversial legal issue is pointless. Not to mention it's despicable to push your anti-political agenda on such a tragedy as this, particularly so soon after the fact.

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[OverlordQ]

It's starting to look like school officials had gotten together to decide how they were going to cover their asses on what they thought was a single crime-of-passion type of incident.

You just answered your own question. If some nut job in the apartments down the street shoots somebody, they don't lock down the surrounding 5 miles. As far as the administrators were concerned, it was a single homicide, there were probably no indications the guy was going to go across campus and kill 30 more people.

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[DamnStupidElf]

It's not like the bad guys have devil horns and the civilians carrying weapons have halos so you know what to shoot at.

The good guys aren't pumping bullets into unarmed civilians. These are my best attempt at some rules of engagement for armed citizens:
1. Don't shoot first.
2. Only shoot at an attacker if they have just obviously and directly injured an unarmed person.
3. If anyone shoots at you, only shoot back after you have identified yourself as a good guy and they keep shooting.

An attacker does not necessarily need to be shot to stop an attack, just convinced that it's futile to shoot anyone else. There will be an uneasy standoff until witnesses can identify who the real attacker is, but in general reaching a stalemate or physically stopping all the attackers should occur reasonably quickly, with a minimal number of shots fired. Feel free to find weaknesses in the rules.

If there are too many attackers, then the situation is basically hopeless, especially if they are well coordinated. An obvious example is a special ops team that can infiltrate a military installation in spite of numerical disadvantages. The biggest problem the armed civilians have is the identification of each other and attackers, but in an open area this usually becomes apparent when the unarmed civilians run and hide, the attackers keep shooting them, and the armed civilians are holding guns and looking for attackers. The worst case for the armed civilians is when the attackers return fire, reducing the available information about who the attackers and armed civilians are. That's why a heavy emphasis on rule number 1 is important. The more people who are armed and *not* shooting, the easier it is to identify the clique of armed citizens. The unarmed civilians will ultimately aid in the attacker identification process.

It almost makes me think mandatory police (or military) training would be a good idea.

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[Snaller]

"Very likely. Not long after Charles Whitman started shooting people at the University of Texas in 1966 a lot of locals showed up to help provide suppressive fire with their rifles. That forced Whitman to keep his head down, and he could no longer shoot freely as he had done earlier. This was kept up until two people (one an armed civilian) managed to get to the top of the tower and shoot Whitman."

Of course if it was a civilized country where you can't get guns he wouldn't have been sitting there in the first place.

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[bogjobber]

Your original statement was that it was "idle speculation" that armed people would have prevented additional casualties. He gave an example of a situation where armed people nearby did most likely prevent casualties. There are a few situations that I have heard of where a gunmen has been shot down by concealed weapon holders. Do *you* have any examples of people acting as "heroes" and creating a worse situation or are you, as you originally stated, just idly speculating? You can't just throw your hands up and say that there's no reason to think that the gunman could've been stopped. It actually *has* happened in similar scenarios.

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[littlewink]

But, if everyone is free to jump in with his own gun, how does the improvised sniper tell the improvised tactical ops from the real mad gunman? Real tactical ops have a really tight communication channel to minimize the probability of errors. I sure would not feel safe if my life was protected by a trigger happy random snipper. The world is much better without vigilantes. Didn't we learn since the lynchings?

Nice try, but bogus.

The bad guy is the one indiscriminately shooting people. The good guys are the ones payng attention to where their handgun barrels are pointing and who are carefully stalking and shooting at the bad guy.

As for "real tactical ops", the SWAT team usually won't arrive until after action is over. Again in this situation, the good guys are the ones who welcome the arrival of police and do as the police request (e.g., put their hands up and their handguns down).

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[NotAnotherExit]

It's been shown, statistically, that vigilance committees are more effective than lawyers and judges. Look at your gold rushes. Armed men kept each other in check. Firearm free areas are a safety hazard, because anyone can bring a firearm into them, and all you have are a bunch of sitting ducks. Fish in a barrel. If Darwin is right, anyway, then the people who are too stupid to have guns will take care of themselves, anyway.
Still, it's easy to look back and say it should be this way, or if we did that...
Hindsight is 20/20 and all those cliches. Really, we never know what would have happened if someone there had been armed. There still would have been a great tragedy, and maybe the "kill count" wouldn't have been as high, but really, we'd all be harping on another aspect of the incident.

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[Danse]

In this case, no one knew what the gunman looked like or where he was, and the gunman was moving. There would be a much higher risk of "friendly fire" casualties in this case. It's not like the bad guys have devil horns and the civilians carrying weapons have halos so you know what to shoot at.

The people he was shooting at knew what he looked like. If they'd had the ability to defend themselves, I'm sure they would be very willing to do so and take their chances regarding friendly fire. The unfriendly fire certainly was going to kill them if they didn't. It might have been over in less than a minute if someone had had the ability to fight back. Nobody did. So they died.

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[Danse]

The world is much better without vigilantes. Didn't we learn since the lynchings?

Trying to protect people from an imminent threat such as someone shooting at them is not vigilantism. Look it up. And since it actually seemed helped in that case, I don't think your argument is holding up too well.

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[Suhas]

where the hell are the famous Va Corps for fuck's sake? All in Iraq I presume. Slipped that one in quite nicely there. Not that I disagree .......

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

The world is much better without vigilantes.

Maybe for you. Not so for the 33 dead students.

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[fishbowl]

>Do you know how expensive and disruptive it is to "lock down the state all the way to Roanoke".

Marginally disruptive, considering what they have on their hands now.

I'm even more convinced of my initial analysis. They thought they had the incident under control, and were in the process of figuring out how to get their story straight for the press, when they needed to be *told* that they now had an incident on their hands that was front page global news. "Audible gasp" says it all.

I don't know how you get to "police state", and I'm not going to dignify that remark.

The people who should have been going into fifth gear on an emergency response were sitting in a conference room getting their story straight, while people were being massacred on their "watch" (not that they were actually "watching").

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[Quila]

Of course if it was a civilized country where you can't get guns he wouldn't have been sitting there in the first place.

And what fictional society is this?

Re:Worked at the University of Texas

[Snaller]

Well you are right of course, in the other countries they get them from america.

Gun toting just esculates things

[EmbeddedJanitor]

One nutter starts shooting then half the dorm draws guns and start blazing away unsure as to who the original shooter is and start shooting each other. Cop snipers arrive and see a whole bunch of people running around with their guns blazing. Who should they shoot at?

Civilian firefights are not going to solve the problem unless you get people to wear good guy/bad guy armbands or something.

Sure, there are a few times, like perhaps this one, where a few lives might have been saved if someone had been armed, but there would likely have been more single event shootings (fight over a girl getting out of hand etc). When you work the averages, gun toting adds up to more deaths.

Re:Gun toting just esculates things

[Stormshadow]

Get most of your gun knowledge from movies and TV?

  48 states have CCW laws in effect and legal CCW has been around since the 80s... yet, where's the bloodbath you are promising? Hasn't happened. Stop spreading anti-gun FUD; if you really want to know how this stuff works, log off and go to a range. Shoot some stuff and take some classes. Learn the real reasons why this isn't a likely scenario instead of spouting off at the mouth like the anti-gun version of SCO or the MAFIAA.

Re:Gun toting just esculates things

[WrongMonkey]

Where are you getting this idea that just holding a gun causes instant insanity? Another poster already mentioned that civilian firearms helped control the incident at UT Austin without any of the chaos you're describing. Every once and a while some genius will make headlines by trying to rob a gun show or gun shop and it ends with only the bad guy taking any bullets. There's been several cases of bank robberies ending similarly. In most situations it doesn't take much to decide who's the bad guy or not.
I think one caveat should be added. That if more people carried firearms and were trained to use them appropriately, these incidents could be mitigated or prevented.
Why are so many people perfectly content to cower and wait until the police get off their asses?

Re:Gun toting just esculates things

[Monkeyman334]

That's nice subjective reasoning. It still doesn't change the fact that this guy's spree would have ended if one guy had a gun (and had been trained) for self defense.

And to give you an answer, when the cops show up, they take control of the situation and detain *everybody*. The ones that don't follow instructions can be shot.

Re:Gun toting just esculates things

[Grant_Watson]

One nutter starts shooting then half the dorm draws guns and start blazing away unsure as to who the original shooter is and start shooting each other. Cop snipers arrive and see a whole bunch of people running around with their guns blazing. Who should they shoot at?

Has this ever actually happened?

Re:Gun toting just esculates things

[Anonymous Coward]

bullshit. straight up bullshit. you have nothing to substantiate this and the vast number of self-defense shootings don't reflect this as a fact either.
 
so much for the scientific on slashdot, the proof is out there, seek it out and learn that this guy has no clue what he's talking about.
 
just trying to push a political agenda and nothing more. fucking lies.

Re:Gun toting just esculates things

[kabocox]

Civilian firefights are not going to solve the problem unless you get people to wear good guy/bad guy armbands or something.

Um, so all cops and soliders are always the good guys, and who ever they happen to be shooting at are by definition the bad guys?

Re:Gun toting just esculates things

[Dragonslicer]

It still doesn't change the fact that this guy's spree would have ended if one guy had a gun (and had been trained) for self defense.

And exactly what sort of omniscient being are you? As many other people of said, what happens when the whole situation turns into a chaotic firefight because 50 students have guns? For that matter, what would happen in your "factual" scenario if the one guy with a gun was the first one killed?

Re:Gun toting just esculates things

[Anonymous Coward]

When you work the averages, gun toting adds up to more deaths.

Averages of what? You have stats on incidents where "half the dorm draws guns and start blazing away"? How many school shootings have taken place in schools that were not "gun-free zones"? If you look at the actual numbers there's always a chance that you could be surprised.

Re:Gun toting just esculates things

[Anonymous Coward]

If one group of people had been brave enough to confront the guy, even with knives, they could have subdued him. Guns are not necessary to take someone up. Someone could have thrown a brick at him. Some could have maced him. All these things could have happened, and did not. There is wonderful line in Casa Blanca where the Germans are asking Rick if he would mind if they invaded New York and he responded there were parts of new york that there were parts of New York they should not invade.

Clearly, these gunmen go for the sheep. Sheep, even with guns, are still sheep. Recall that the High School shooting occur at suburban and rural schools where the coddled kids don't know any better, not a urban schools where shooting each other is a way of life, and no one needs a gun to take out an adversary. I often see the damage that can be done with fists.

Furthermore, if the kids had guns, and I am not saying the shouldn't, that would certain lead to gun fight, where the assailant may or may not get away. Even cops with guns get shot. I suggest that an RPG would be much better at insuring security. The gun thing is an illusion. In Iraq we have a well armed militia, and they regularly get taken out with cleverly placed bombs.

Guns just escalate the odds. If everyone has a gun, then the assailant uses more advanced weapons. Just look at these idiot in these well defending compounding, pretending that their guns and stuff will defend against the FBI. They say look at us with out big guns and big dicks. You can't do anything. Then the FBI reasonable serves a warrent and in the result all the kids die, and all these idiots starts crying, that not fair. What dumb asses.

The fact is that many of the kids I know die because of the availability of guns. Instead of having to go home and take time to think, they pull their gun and settle the situation immediately. The possible lives saved in this case pales in comparison to the number of kids killed because they believe packing 24 hours a day is their right.

Re:Gun toting just esculates things

[Anonymous Coward]

> When you work the averages, gun toting adds up to more deaths.

This is a valid utilitarian argument. People who want to carry guns aren't making the same argument: they want each specific death to be someone else's.

Re:Gun toting just esculates things

[Monkeyman334]

And exactly what sort of omniscient being are you? As many other people of said, what happens when the whole situation turns into a chaotic firefight because 50 students have guns?

I already explained that in these situations, even in Columbine, the cops were keeping an eye on *all* the kids. How did they keep from shooting all the kids that were running right towards them? Of course, I understand your point, and that's really all it's worth, because there is no good data on it.

For that matter, what would happen in your "factual" scenario if the one guy with a gun was the first one killed?

It's not like he's sneaking up behind people and popping them in the back of the head. If a guy was going door to door with the purpose of killing people, who is going to the stop the guy? The odds that it would be the person with a gun are really good. That's like saying "Seat-belts save lives!" isn't appropriate because some people could have been better off had they been ejected. Guns protect people.

I understand that there are arguments for gun-control, like if this had just been a burglar, then maybe you'd be better off just not escalating the situation. However, he was killing people. A gun would have been a good defense in this situation. This situation is not a poster boy for gun control.

Re:Gun toting just esculates things

[aslate]

What is very interesting is the way the press are reporting it.

The British press are not reporting it as "US is shooting themselves again, guns kill people" or "US School shooting, gun free zone increases death count". It's the fact that the police were inept at dealing with the incident, absolutely nothing is being reported about gun crime comparisons at the moment.

Re:Gun toting just esculates things

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not so sure I agree with what you've stated either. While it is clear that the guy that intended to go on a killing spree may have been shot but it is unknown what the consequences of someone else assuming the role of the "good guy." If only one "good guy" had a gun, and shot the bad guy, then there'd be no problem. If more than one "good guy" had a gun, and one good guy shot the bad guy, but the other good guy(s) were not around for the event, the good guys would not know who is a good guy and who is a bad guy so they could potentially shoot each other (misunderstanding). Finally, in the worst case if all the "good guys" had guns, and a good guy shot the bad guy, but then another "good guy" shows up to the scene with his gun out, how would the rest of the "good guys" know that he wasn't just another bad guy? In this last case, had there been a misunderstanding, the "good guys" that were at the initial event would band together because they shared information but all others arriving at the scene could misinterpret the entire room of "good guys" to actually be bad guys. All cases are possible and the only pure solution is to remove the weapon from the picture. Gun training, laws, and other restrictions may reduce the problem, but at the end of the day, the probability of the problem occurring is still there so long as the tool is available.

Re:Gun toting just esculates things

[SpooForBrains]

What about the ones who can't hear the instructions because of the general panic? Or because they're deaf? What about the people that are terrified beyond the capacity for rational thought? Is it OK to shoot them?

Re:Gun toting just esculates things

[marvinglenn]

When you work the averages, gun toting adds up to more deaths.

Oh really? Why don't you work those averages for me? Or is this just an "well, everybody *knows* this to be true" statement?

Last time I worked those averages I found the opposite conclusion.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[psykocrime]

Every time a news of shooting breaks out, I always wonder why the possession of firearms is not banned entirely in this country. I am native of Japan, and where I grew up nobody but cops were allowed to carry guns. I live in New Jersey now, and I really miss a sense of security I used to have back home. Back there I never worried about getting killed and such, whereas I feel physically threatened where I live now since there have been a number of incidents of armed robberies on campus at Rutgers and in my neighborhood. (My own apartment was robbed several years ago, too.) Seriously, it makes a huge difference when I have to take into consideration the possibility of the possession of firearms when some strangers attacked me. I am aware that there are gun lobbies working against the ban of firearms, but it never made any sense to me.

Because in this country we - historically - believe in certain inalienable rights of all men; and that includes - in addition to the phrase "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - the idea that individuals (or groups of individuals joined together for a common good) can defend those rights, using violence if necessary. Now no sane person *wants* violence or war, or bloodshed, but our Founding Fathers acknowledged that sometimes you have to choose to utilized armed forced in order to defend your "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Case in point, the US Revolutionary War.

And to this day, US citizens generally understand that if the government ever becomes tyrannical and repressive, "we the people" have the right (and must have the means) to overthrow it.

Could anybody enlighten me as to why people want to carry guns at all?

Because there is no way to prevent crazy nuts like this guy from VT from getting guns. And some people want to be able to defend themselves when these nuts show up and start shooting.

Why don't the Swiss have this problem?

[Colin Smith]

The shallow analysis is that this guy was insane, a random nutcase, but this is the Nth time it's happened in the US. Why isn't the same thing happening in other countries? What is it about American society which creates these young men who have so little to lose?

Re:Why don't the Swiss have this problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, I don't know. Maybe the fact that the US population is 40 times the size of the Swiss population?

Re:Why don't the Swiss have this problem?

[m0rtadelo]

IMHO it is not an issue of the presence of insane people, which are ubiquitous, but the availability of firearms.

I refer to my previous post

Re:Why don't the Swiss have this problem?

[Rudisaurus]

Oh, but they do! See here or here.

And so do the Canadians -- see here.

No one is immune to such aberrant behaviour.

Re:Why don't the Swiss have this problem?

[corbettw]

IMHO it is not an issue of the presence of insane people, which are ubiquitous, but the availability of firearms.

Did you not read the heading of the original post? The Swiss have more firearms per capita in their civilian population than any other country, including the US. But you don't see them going into their engineering colleges and killing 31 other people at a time. So what is different between the US and Switzerland that results in these facts?

Re:Why don't the Swiss have this problem?

[SecurityGuy]

It's not just America. Look at the Middle East, for example. Why are young men and sometimes women blowing themselves up? To get the US out? Maybe, but why are they blowing themselves up in crowds of their own countrymen?

I think you hit a very important point, though. The solution isn't more guns or less guns, more surveillance and security or less, or any of that. It's a saner society. It's more people actually giving a damn about each other. A little more live and let live. A little more human and a little less animal. It's possible, it just takes 6 billion people to make the choice and act on it.

Re:Why don't the Swiss have this problem?

[NeutronCowboy]

The fact that people aren't allowed to carry arms in public in Switzerland?

Re:Why don't the Swiss have this problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just the US. Schools have been targets of significantly worse violence than this in a variety of other countries, the difference is that typically it has resulted from organized groups. Ltc. Dave Grossman is a leading authority on violence (previously nominated for a Pulitzer for his work) cites some examples of schools as targets and the difficulty/importance of protecting them here:

http://www.killology.com/schoolattack.htm

He also has an essay that I strongly recommend reading for perspectives on why some of the concealed carry advocates are so passionate.

http://www.killology.com/sheep_dog.htm

Disclaimer: I'm an Army infantry officer, so I tend to fall under the "sheepdog" category. His books are also on several of the US Army's recommended reading list.

Re:Why don't the Swiss have this problem?

[rayvd]

Uh, this does happen in other countries. And it's not really fair to compare a tiny culturally non-diverse country like Switzerland to the giant melting pool we have here.

Seriously, how does stuff like this get modded up? Let's not let our hate for the US turn silly over-simplifications into pearls of wisdom...

Re:Why don't the Swiss have this problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, what does "diverse" and "melting pool" have to do with this?

Re:Why don't the Swiss have this problem?

[soccerisgod]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erfurt_massacre

It happens elsewhere. Now, what do Germany and the US have in common? Two things. For one, yes, guns are easy to get. Some people will say that someone could just as well grab a knife, but you can't convince me that you can do as much damage with that. For one thing, you can physically resist someone attacking you with a knife, fending them off with a chair if must be. Can't do that with a gun because they're probably some distance away when they end your life.

The other thing which is probably more at the root of the problem is the school system. While both school systems have very little in common, both put a great amount of pressure on some of the students. In the case of the Erfurt massacre, the shooter felt he had been robbed of all perspective in life. In this case? Who knows. Wouldn't be surprised if it was something similar.

Re:Why don't the Swiss have this problem?

[ralphdaugherty]

What is it about American society which creates these young men who have so little to lose?

      Well, let's see. The last two mass shootings were by a Bosnian immigrant and now a Chinese national on a student visa.

      Now how was it that American society created these young men?

  rd

Re:Why don't the Swiss have this problem?

[spamking]

Uh, maybe because the US is full of diverse cultures and people who may not share the same values of oh I don't know . . . life, women, children, dogs, cats, cars, alcohol, etc.

The diversity that is here in the US has a ton to do with how people react in certain situations. People may not want to admit it, but folks from different ethnic backgrounds may be more aggressive or more passive depending on the situation. They may handle depression differently (binge drinking, drugs, violence and then others may actually seek professional help or take to family and friends about things).

Re:Why don't the Swiss have this problem?

[gg3po]

The fact that people aren't allowed to carry arms in public in Switzerland?

Guess again.

Re:Why don't the Swiss have this problem?

[NeutronCowboy]

Nice that you read the same paragraph I did, but failed to notice the following tidbit: "a person must have a Waffentragschein (weapon carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security though some cantons issue the permits very liberally."

Besides, have you been to Switzerland? There are less guns in public there than in small towns in Texas and Virginia.

Re:Why don't the Swiss have this problem?

[gg3po]

There are less guns in public there than in small towns in Texas and Virginia.

It's not common for people to be carrying out in the open in the U.S., either. However, I think that someone carrying a full-auto military-style rifle slung on their back in a grocery store would probably generate some 911 calls in either Texas or Virginia, though people don't appear particularly alarmed in this photo from Switzerland.

Re:Why don't the Swiss have this problem?

[corbettw]

Besides, have you been to Switzerland? There are less guns in public there than in small towns in Texas and Virginia.

Sounds like you haven't been to any small towns in Texas or Virginia.

Re:Why don't the Swiss have this problem?

[mink]

Read the text with that photo.
The person was on the way home from the practice range. They had no ammo. It was as useful as a baseball bat for shooting at that point.

University has policy

[Anonymous Coward]

The university has a policy that disarms students and
faculty.

The police will not be there when the killing
starts and will form a secure perimeter yards away
after they show up.

After a killer acted last fall, there was an attempt
to stop universities from barring trained law abiding
people from having means to protect themselves.

That new legislation died. At that point, a Virginia Tech spokesperson,
Larry Hincker said:

"I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's
actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel
safe on our campus."

Wonder what he thinks now?

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[winkydink]

Ever been in a firefight? Because if you haven't, I can assure you that having a gun doesn't make you grow a big, brass pair all of a sudden.

Again...

[BristolCream]

Well look at the UK. We've had one such incident in history, commited by a man lisenced to carry arms. He killed 17. In England this has never happened.

While it's true that some people are insane and will go to silly lengths to cause destruction (think 9/11), most crimes of this kind are carried by "ordinary guys". That are very few criminal masterminds. Thousands that have a bad day, get dumped by their girlfriend or loose everything on red. Arm them when they're sane of mind and watch the destruction when they're not.

That's the American way.

Re:Again...

[Just Some Guy]

OK, since you don't seem to know much about America:

1) We have hundreds of millions of firearms already. Illegalizing them won't make them disappear, except from a disproportionately high number of law-abiding citizens.

2) Our constitution says that we get to keep guns. Getting rid of them, even were it physically possible, would involve repealing one of the the amendments in our Bill of Rights, which is perhaps the most cherished legal document in our culture.

Basically, it can't happen, and it's not going to happen.

Re:Again...

[Russ Nelson]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article15 52956.ece

But I don't expect facts to change your mind.

Re:Again...

[Anonymous Coward]

"the most cherished legal document in our culture." The government already ignores a bunch of other parts of the constitution, what's to stop it from ignoring that one?

Re:Again...

[Just Some Guy]

The government already ignores a bunch of other parts of the constitution, what's to stop it from ignoring that one?

Guns.

Re:Again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Votes. You guys just love your guns, that's the way it is. More than you love your children, or your own life. Makes you feel all powerful and godlike, with the power over death and life right there in your pocket. Pure power, most powerful drug available. That's the sad truth. Not some romantic idea about "we'll take our guns and show them if they try to take them away. Handguns are useless against tanks, so the entire notion is down right silly. Grow up.

violence

[Magic Fingers]

I wonder why Americans are so violent?

Re:violence

[Red Mage 13]

I love how every country other than America seems to think that only America has violent idiots.

Re:violence

[tsalaroth]

Whatever. This has nothing to do with nationality, and everything to do with an individual. We don't even know if the shooter WAS an American. Not to mention, there's still word that there may have been more than one shooter.

Re:violence

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever. This has nothing to do with nationality, and everything to do with an individual.

Then why is it that the only first world country this sort of thing happens in is the US?

You're country is full of violent idiots. Harping on about this wouldn't have happened if the students had the 'right to defend themselves', it's this sort of attitude that causes these problems in the first place. So if everyone had taken a gun to school that day it would have all been alright would it? Wasn't he wearing a bullet proof vest? If he knew everyone had pistols he could get a sniper rifle, or an assault weapon.

It's not your laws that need to change it's your weird, paranoid, overbearing, attack-first (ask questions later) culture.

Re:violence

[mandelbr0t]

The most US-centric report about the idea that the United States is filled with gun-toting violent crazies still fails to exonerate the United States entirely. The key column here is Firearm Homicide. The rest are just there to confuse you, pointing out that violent deaths don't always involve guns. Duh. While it's true that Estonia, Brazil, Mexico and Northern Ireland have higher Firearm Homicide rates than the US; Canada, Germany, Singapore, Japan, England, Australia, Norway, Ireland, Israel and Spain have only 25-50% of the Firearm Homicide rate per 100,000. OK, so there's more violent people out there, but even statistics that are attempting to prove your point have a difficult reality to overcome.

Here's the other side of the coin, which is what most people think of when they think of the United States and their gun problem. The numbers aren't substantially different, but the presentation sure is. Gotta love statistics -- I had to read these two articles for 30 minutes before posting to be sure I didn't put my foot in my mouth.

Re:violence

[Anonymous Coward]

DipShit

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1953542.st m

Re:violence

[Anonymous Coward]

It's still only America where gun crime is so rife, this is mainly an American problem, where gun crime is about 10 times that of the civilized world.

Re:violence

[btooms]

Sure, by banning guns we can save lives. We can also save lives by forcing everyone to stop drinking. 40% of all deaths due to accidental falls are attributed to alcohol. 45% of all deaths in automobile accidents are attributed to alcohol. 60% of all homicides are attributed to alcohol. http://www.come-over.to/FAS/alcdeath.htm But oh wait, we like drinking too much. There are a million other ways we could make people live longer with more regulation and dictation over people's personal life styles. Let me LIVE and die free, than EXIST and die a slave, even if it for a longer period of time.

Re:violence

[vrtulobjeq]

On this mornings news report of the incident at Virginia Tech (ABC Radio Sydney Australia) the reporter interviewed an American statistical professional (didn't catch his name) quoted that "in an average USA year there are 32,000 gun related deaths". Just wonder how many of those people were innocent victims and what the stat on that is that weren't able to defend themselves with a gun ?

Re:violence

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally who cares how many Americans arm themselves so long as they don't try to push their 'freedom' onto anyone else.

Freedom to me means I don't NEED to have a gun to feel safe.

If guns were the answer then countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada would have higher gun related murders per head of population than the US, and they don't even when you add all 3 countries together.

More guns in the USA will not mean more freedom, it will simply mean more dead Americans. So long as they just kill themselves in their own country the rest of the world can move along nicely and not worry about it. The rest of the world does not want your Gangsta culture, your gun culture, your drugs culture, your war culture, your copyright laws, your patent laws, your anti-terrorism laws.... why... because we enjoy far greater freedom and democracy without them.

Slowly but surely the USA is loosing the respect of the rest of the world. US morals are something that can be bought, the US people have less ability to say what they believe in than a bunch of dead presidents who grace their banknotes.

Re:violence

[tsalaroth]

Since I made the GP post, we've found out he was a South Korean national who was just completely messed up in the head.

To answer your question, though...

We have a huge media complex that likes to report bad news as much as possible. That being said, yes, this sort of thing seems to happen more in the US than anywhere else. It's probably because we're encouraged to NOT stand up and speak our mind (even with Free Speech) when we feel that something's wrong with our government or way of life. This leads to someone bottling up and eventually snapping. It isn't just Americans, it's a symptom, however, of America's other (less-violent) problems.

As to "you're country" being full of violent idiots - the whole WORLD is full of violent idiots. I don't necessarily agree that students carrying guns would have helped the situation, but it might have ended it at 3 bodies instead of 30.

Lastly, the "weird, paranoid, overbearing, attack-first culture" isn't mine. It's not this country's culture, either. It is, as I said, a culture that has emerged from other problems this country DOES have. I take severe issue with religious fundies trying to turn morality into laws, and I'm Christian. This country was founded upon some things that have been forgotten over the past couple of decades, and it sucks hardcore. As with my previous example, people seem to think these days that this nation was founded as a "Christian nation", when it WASN'T. The fundies will tell you that it was the founding fathers' intent to do so - if that's the case, why does Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli specifically stay it wasn't?

You see, people like you, outside of this country, have this misconception that we are a representative democracy. We were, but we are not, now. The states' governments typically DO represent the people, but the Federal government stopped doing that sometime in the 1950s. You blame the WHOLE COUNTRY for the acts of the few. It's a sad thing that I just said that, considering we're supposed to be a nation of one of many. We're not, we're being horribly represented as a people by the media, Congress, and our President. And on that note, for those who want to say I'm just a "Bush hater", I'm not. He's got a damned hard job, has made some horrible decisions, and should have been removed from office before he ever went into it, but since I don't know him personally, I can only go on the knowledge that he's got a tough-as-hell job, and some really piss-poor advisers (not to mention the coke habit long ago).

Anyway, bashing Americans for this idiot's actions is the same as blaming, say, all Irish for the IRA's actions. Or blaming every Chinese citizens for the actions of a few Party members. Or blaming all Russians for the actions of Stalin. Or blaming all Germans for the actions of the Nazi Party and government. You are no better than this "culture" you claim we all have here.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you grew up in a country that has a history of ultra-racism against other Asians, performing biological and chemical test against Chinese and Koreans, taking sex slaves from around Asia, and then electing government officials that deny that it even occurred and want to remove all references from textbooks. A country that denies basic rights to foreigners brought over against their will, treated like second-class citizens and weren't given citizenship because they weren't Japanese by blood. A country that was embroiled in controversy over whether to name a daughter as the "Empress" because how dare a female take a position of power. The wife of the current emperor has to walk 5 steps behind him, even though she was an intellgent and accomplished diplomat. Let's not forget about the students who commit suicide daily because of the undue pressures put on them.

If you don't like how it is, I suggest you go back to your country. The US is the most free country in the world, and with those liberties unfortunately come with consequences but in the end it's always better to be free.

Why you have to point fingers?

[Anonymous Coward]

You racist!

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[0kComputer]

No gun law would have stopped that guy from coming on campus and doing what he did.

You don't think that banning fully automatic weapons might have made it a bit more difficult to pull off. I don't think 33 kills would be possible with a hunting rifle. Maybe our administration should have tried to renew the Brady Bill when they had the chance.

Re:USA Citizens! A Warning from a God's servant!

[Anonymous Coward]

Or doom yourselves!

Duke Nukem off, wanker, before I come round and shit on your face.

More Guns?

[FrostedWheat]

I'm shocked by the number of people on here calling for more guns in schools. That's horrible!

If you feel it necessary to carry a lethal weapon in order to feel safe, something is very very wrong.

Re:More Guns?

[Russ Nelson]

Sigh. Your comment is rather heartless. Do you think the shooter would have killed more than one or two people if the people around him were armed? Of course not! I speculate (but not very much) that you are in favor of the VT gun ban. Okay, so by your support of it, you contributed to the deaths of these dozens of people.

Yeah, in a perfect world nobody would want to kill so many. I'll settle for a less perfect world in which nobody is *able* to kill so many.

Re:More Guns?

[Goffee71]

To support this poster. Imagine a scene where someone who is armed walks around a corner and sees the gunman killing a victim, draws their weapon and starts firing, just as someone else comes round the corner and sees him/her firing. If this person pulls a gun and joins in - firing at either target, you have three shooters. At which point security/cops/swat burst in to the room - who do they kill? Now explain to me why guns are good again and how they make you safe?

Re:More Guns?

[a16]

Do you think the shooter would have killed more than one or two people if the people around him were armed? Of course not! The point is, in any country with sensible gun control (I'm speaking from the UK here) - crazy people don't get guns. Yes, we have minimal gun crime, and we sometimes complain about it "getting out of control" (which is normally the odd shooting between idiot gangs every few months, nationally.

Put it this way, if I have a bad year next year, and I decide I want to blow up everyone I hate, I would not know how to get a gun. I am 90% certain that there are 0 guns within a mile or me. Do you know how safe that makes me feel? I don't think any American can truly understand this, which is demonstrated by how obsessive you get about needing to have a gun under your pillow at all times.

Okay, so by your support of it, you contributed to the deaths of these dozens of people. Don't be pathetic. Somebody opposing guns is guilty because someone managed to get a gun and commit mass murder?? Only in America could the solution to a rising amount of people being able to get guns and kill people in moments of madness be to give more people guns.

Re:More Guns?

[roman_mir]

If you feel it necessary to carry a lethal weapon in order to feel safe, something is very very wrong. - Yes, something IS very very wrong. The fact that you are basically one who is on your side. I do carry a weapon on me always (I live in Canada not the US.)

Re:More Guns?

[analog_line]

If you feel it necessary to carry a lethal weapon in order to feel safe, something is very very wrong.

No shit, Dick Tracy.

What was your first clue?

Re:More Guns?

[Goffee71]

So you are suggesting that in a moment of wild violence and terror, everyone is a perfect shot at medium range? All you see in the heat of the moment are mistakes and narrow-field judgement calls. If everyone is armed that is magnified massively. Also, there is always a percentage of students in any campus who are depressed, bear grudges, are suicidal and anti-social - so you want to arm them too?

Re:More Guns?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not very tall or strong. I need a lethal weapon to feel safe because the average unarmed man IS a lethal weapon already, at least against me.

Re:More Guns?

[gmcraff]

We're calling for school campuses to stop being one of the last places in the country where someone determined to cause mayhem is guaranteed to find a completely defenseless population of targets.

If administrators, teachers and students over 21, provided they are not federally prohibited persons (refer to section 12 of the link), could have guns for the defense of themselves and those under their authority, the mayhem-seekers would go where the target population is easier, like a federal building. The possibility that one out of twenty students could be legally packing, and he can't tell which one, is what will deter him/her.

I don't need a lethal weapon to feel safe. I need the lethal weapon for that one in a ten thousand situation when nothing but a lethal weapon is suitable. I know CPR is case someone has a heart attack and the EMTs are ten minutes away. I know first aid in case someone cuts themselves badly and the EMTs are still ten minutes away. I know how to use a fire extinguisher because the firemen are STILL ten minutes away. Why in the name off all that is reasonable must I wait fifteen to thirty minutes for armed men (i.e. police) to show up, assuming that they're not too busy, to deal with the maniac that is interested in causing me potentially lethal harm? Why should your daughter have to wait even five minutes for the cops while a 220-lb rapist does what his superior strength will allow? Everyone is their own first responder. If you can't comprehend that, please make sure that you only have a heart attack, catch on fire, or get beaten with a stick in the presence of a government servant of the correct type.

Re:More Guns?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your welcome to meet a deranged man with nothing but your fists, but I welcome to the firearm that sits on my waist day in day out.

I won't be a victim.

Re:More Guns?

[hsmith]

YOu are silly to think the police are under any obligation to protect you.

Re:More Guns?

[Qbertino]

A prime element in US society is insecurity. I believe that even in Germany, had we as much guns as the citizens in the US, there'd be still far fever shootings.

Some people compare this shooting to the death-toll with Bagdad.
Curiously enough, I consider general 'arabian' society and the US society somewhat simular in certain aspects. Both are over-the-top prudish, both have a large amount of people indulging in hardcore porn (the former and the latter are definitely corelated), both have a tradition of generally strict pursuit of monotheistic confessions, etc...
The swiss have many guns too, but while being somewhat conservative they are still extraordinarily liberal and cosmopolitan. They live in a society that believes in stability, relyability and safety and they are well educated. I can't say that about germany in general anymore. In many ways germany is going the way of the US, which scares me, a former US citizen, a little.
The US, very much as many middle eastern muslim societies, are somewhat paranoid and uptight about certain basic social issues (sex, social interaction, peer-groups, code and/or sense of honor, etc.). I believe these ingredients to basically be the same ones that led to the Erfurt School shooting by Robert Steinhäuser.
I believe that these aspects are key to wether a society is violent or not. I also consider a society that considers nudity and profanity a fellony but yet has no problem with their kids consuming the most brutal and violent of modern media somewhat psychotic and shizoid. There's no wondering that stuff like this happens.

The US in general needs to chill out a little and get a grip on how to improve a modern society. It's not that difficult. Make the NRA an official gourverment organisation, have anybody wanting to carry a weapon make a gun licence and make it as intense as the german drivers licence. Quit voting for blockheads and blowing trillions of dollars on weapons and tax cuts for the super-rich. Improve public schooling and education, medical care and the social welfare minimum. Keep the religious fanatics in check and out of the general education loop and reorganise the media and the media laws. Publicly fund independant media, as it is done in Germany ... errrm, well ok, not exactly as it is done in Germany, but you get my point. Then in two decades, when the murdoc and fanatics factions have been pushed back into the marginal portions they came from, the US citizens will be a little smarter, a little more emotionally independant, a little more secure and these problems will start to go away. No matter if they have a few guns in the closet at home or not.

My 2 cents.

Re:More Guns?

[mschuyler]

Thanks for the psychological profile. Now let's talk about violence in Europe. We'll start with 8 million dead Jews at the hands of Germany in a wholesale slaughter including women and children. And, No, I'm not just blaming Germans. When Germany invaded Poland the local townspeople asked if it would be okay if they went and killed the Jews now that Germany was in control. It's not just a German problem. Then there's 10 million dead Russians at the hands of the "revolution" for "worker's rights." Then let's talk about ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Eastern Europe when the majority of Europe stood around and wrung their hands and suggested maybe they could get the Americans to come on over and take care of this little problem. In the last thousand years the history of Europe is one of near constant bloodshed of one EU member attacking another, killing civilians, and destroying property. It's not exactly an enviable record and makes the total dead in America a pittance in comparison. The passage of years does not erase the fact that the soil of Europe is soaked in the blood of innocents. BS on this "only in America" crap. You are not superior; in fact, you've had a lot more practice.

Re:More Guns?

[Russ Nelson]

everyone is a perfect shot at medium range?

No. You're neglecting the effect of armed victims on the perpetrator. In case your imagination is limited in that regard, imagine how many people would hunt if the right to keep and arm bears was exercised. And of course, I mean the right to arm all wildlife, not just bears.

Re:More Guns?

[Russ Nelson]

I am 90% certain that there are 0 guns within a mile or me.

I am 99% certain that you are wrong. The 1% is there in case there are no other people within a mile of you.

Do you know how safe that makes me feel?

Nearly all of my neighbors own guns. Do you know how safe that makes me feel?

Somebody opposing guns is guilty because someone managed to get a gun and commit mass murder??

No. Somebody opposing guns is guilty because somebody ELSE didn't have a gun to stop the murderer.

Re:More Guns?

[Paulrothrock]

There's this idea out there that there are thousands maniacs with guns and huge men waiting to rape your daughters. This is simply not true. Your daughter is a lot more likely to be raped by the guy she goes to the prom with than some strange man in a dark alley. Your son is a lot more likely to be shot with your gun than by some maniac.

People you know are more likely to commit violent crime against you than some stranger. And even the chances of that are less than 25% as likely as getting in a car accident or dying from a fall. First aid is prudent. Carrying a deadly weapon is not.

Re:More Guns?

[muellerr1]

The possibility that one out of twenty students could be legally packing, and he can't tell which one, is what will deter him/her.

I don't buy this line of reasoning. These sorts of attacks are undertaken by mentally unstable people who are in no condition to think rationally. They are often committing suicide anyway, so what do they care if anyone else is carrying a gun? It's possible that the one out of twenty students could have mitigated this tragedy by bringing it to a close much sooner, however it is just as likely that one out of twenty gun-carrying students will flip out and go on a shooting spree with their handy and legal gun. Just because you're licensed to carry a gun does not make you mentally stable forever.

Re:More Guns?

[gmcraff]

You have convinced me that you should not carry a lethal weapon. I will not try to convince you otherwise.

You have not convinced me, nor swayed me in any way, that your choice should have any bearing on any one else's choices in how to exercise their fundamental human right of self defense.

Re:More Guns?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I'm shocked by the number of people on here calling for more guns in schools. That's horrible!

That's the thing about emotionally based opinions... everyone has one. Allow me to present some other equally well argued and thought out opinions I've heard lately, "women are allowed to wear pants... that's horrible!" "Black men are allowed to have relations with white women... that's horrible" "the government can tax you and spend it on treating some guy's drug problem... that's horrible!"

If you feel it necessary to carry a lethal weapon in order to feel safe, something is very very wrong.

Interestingly I did carry a gun to feel safe for several years, and I did not think it was horrible at all. There were a lot of bears in those woods and I needed to get through about a quarter of a mile of them, often at night, to get to my car. Now if you're concerned about your safety from other humans and you feel the need to carry a gun to feel safe, either you're insecure, which is common enough, or the levels of violence are unacceptably high, which they are in many parts of the US (I lived just outside Detroit for a while too). Personally, however, I don't see gun ownership or people carrying them to be a problem at all, although I do find violence to be a problem. I think the US needs to take steps to reduce violence through legal reform of our country, but at the same time I don't think it likely that will stop a mentally disturbed person from going on a killing spree with a gun or bombs or poison gas. I fully support the right of students who have taken the training courses needed to get a permit, to carry concealed pistols and I think this tragedy could have been largely mitigated if not for the stupid university rules and the laws that let them enforce those rules.

Re:More Guns?

[gmcraff]

You seem to be employing a form of primitive animist belief: that an inanimate object will someone affect your future behavior.

It is NOT just as likely that a gun-carrying student will flip out as use a gun in their own defense. Good estimates are that there are about 2 million legitimate defensive uses of firearms per year, most of which do not involve the weapon being fired. If your assertion was even 10% correct, there would be 200,000 illegitimate homicide shootings per year. In fact, in 2005, the number unjustifiably killed by firearms was 14,860, most of which was committed by those already barred from firearm ownership. If we assume that every one of those was a otherwise peaceable person that "flipped", you would be about 0.7% to 1.8% right, at best.

It is significantly likely that a criminal person, who may not legally possess a gun, but has come into possession of one, will "flip out", i.e. commit a crime, as soon as use it in their own defense.

As to your argument that "just because you're licensed to carry a gun does not make you mentally stable forever" is interesting, and it says more about you than it does anyone else. Do you think this of other people because you are concerned that if you had that kind of capability in your hands, you would be likely to flip out? Do you think everyone else has a inner seething cauldron of rage because you, in fact, have an internal rage? Psychologists call this projection.

Lastly, the people committing this kind of crime are rational, although they are rational in an abominable way. Having decided that he must kill someone, and being unwilling to face the death penalty in Virginia, the killer was instantly freed of all possible consequences of his actions by intending a suicide to follow his murder. And if you're going to do one, why not get all the people that pissed him off? Where should you do it? Somewhere his victims must go, be corralled in one place, and they cannot possess the means to stop him. The university is the perfect, rational place to commit an abomination, as would any victim disarmament zone, otherwise laughingly known as a gun free-zone.

In short, your facts are weak, your arguments unsupportable, you espouse a primitive belief system, and the policies you support make the problem worse. Bring a better game. And I agree, you should not possess weapons, but your choices should have no bearing on anyone else.

Re:More Guns?

[muellerr1]

Nice troll. Ad hominem attacks coupled with deliberate misunderstanding, and your only evidence is a web site with an obvious bias. At least when I pull statistics out of my ass, I don't pretend that they're not made up.

My assertion was that out of a given number of people, a certain percentage of them will flip out. If you make guns more available in general, the percentage of people flipping out who also have access to guns goes up. I never suggested that guns make people flip out, merely that ownership of a gun in no way guarantees your mental stability. You are a case in point.

Get that chip off your shoulder or you might flip out and shoot somebody.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[Achromatic1978]

How many fewer people in that classroom would have died if one of the students in the room was carrying?

Fantastic assumption, which of course has little basis in reality.

Let's see, where to start:

1. Assumption that those who choose to carry are trained and competent in their use, not complete yahoos who think that they're Dirty Harry because they get drunk and shoot beer bottles.
2. Assumption that they correctly identify shooter, not another of the posse comitatus.
3. Assumption that shooter isn't aggravated by this, and, being well armed, continues further his reign of terror.
4. Assumption that more people aren't caught in crossfire.
5. Assumption that police don't incorrectly identify person as shooter and shoot-to-kill them.

Fuck it. Far better to blame it on the gun control nuts, huh?

You're as bad as Charlton Heston, turning up at the site of gun massacres, getting his mob around him and shouting, meaninglessly, "OUT OF MY COLD DEAD HANDS", and pretending you're making a logical point.

charlton heston

[Anonymous Coward]

how long till he turns up?

Gun Free Zone

[Anonymous Coward]

Law abiding people at the school were not free to carry arms, thus the shooter was allowed many hours to wander with impunity. It could happen to you, if you also live somewhere that "protects" you in such a way you are not free to defend yourself but have to rely on government help. Good luck with that.

Update: some doors did have chains

[daveschroeder]

So, right after I posted this, VT confirmed that "some" of the doors DID have chains. So, my above post is incorrect. I still don't see how it would be possible to chain all of the avenues of escape, but that was apparently not an issue here since VT said the shootings occurred on the second floor of the building.

Re:Update: some doors did have chains

[cheater512]

If he chained the common doors then people trying to get out would always get them first before looking for other exits.

Re:Update: some doors did have chains

[Nosferatu Alucard]

Almost every building on campus has underground passages. However, the 2nd floor of Norris Hall has double wide, wooden doors with handles that can be held with chains. I've never run across to the attached building to see how they are connected, but the ones I've used are easily 'locked' with chains. The door of Norris is also VERY big and heavy, made of solid wood about 10ft high, it actually requires a bit of strength just to open, so if that was chained from the inside, it would be almost impossible for a single person to open that door.

frustrating...

[Anonymous Coward]

I know two students at Virginia Tech. (Both of them were unharmed, thankfully.) I found it very frustrating reading the news reports that will readily tell you numbers of people suspected killed, but not their names. I know, it's "out of respect." And I appreciate the notion that you want to treat the topic of people's deaths as gingerly as possible.

But, on the other hand, not giving out the information means that all the folks like me trying to find out if their loved ones are ok have to suffer until we can hear from them. Is it more devastating for someone to hear about the death of a loved one through the media than through more personal means? I don't know, it's going to be devastating either way. Isn't only mentioning the numbers but not the names the very definition of dehumanization?

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[Achromatic1978]

this is a very sad situation, nothing to joke about or to try and push your own agenda with

But yet, a couple of sentences earlier, you say...

yes, we do. if he would have been in a public place, a citizen that was bearing arms could have shot him after he killed only a couple of people, not 31+.

So what you really mean is that it's nothing to push an agenda about, unless it's your agenda, right?

Who's to say that said citizen would even hit the shooter? Or would he hit an innocent? Or would he be shot himself?

Warren Ellis - Shoot

[ZorbaTHut]

Warren Ellis did an issue of Hellblazer about school shootings (which DC then didn't publish). You can find the pages available here. I highly, highly recommend reading it - I feel it has serious insight into at least one aspect of why these things happen.

The scan is a bit blurry, and the server is having some trouble right now (404's - just hit refresh and it'll fix itself). If anyone can mirror it on a better server it would be appreciated.

Re:Gun Laws

[psykocrime]

Are they looking any better to you guys in the US yet? Seriously, this needn't have happened.

If by "gun laws" you mean the laws, regulations and statutes that create Defenseless Victim Zones like
Virginia Tech, then no, they're not looking any better.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[fiannaFailMan]

Michael Moore's 'Bowling for Columbine' documentary looked into this and didn't actually blame the ready availability of guns in the US for the high level of gun crime. He showed examples of other countries where lots of people carry guns, such as Canada and Switzerland, countries that don't have such a culture of violence. He claims that a culture of fear is what drives Americans to arm themselves to the teeth in such big numbers, and you end up with the ludicrous situation where you can go into a shop on just about any high street and buy an automatic assault weapon, something that is not needed for self defence or hunting or any of the other uses that gun advocates frequently come up with.

There seems to be a cultivation of fear, where violent crime seems to get a disproportionate amount of coverage on the news that's way beyond the actual importance of it. So there was an armed robbery at the gas station earlier this morning. Do we really need a live outside broadcast from the scene of the crime at 7pm where all the activity has long finished?

On the radio this morning someone made a very good point about people in their neighbourhood driving their children the short distance to school for fear of abduction, even though the number of abductions in that area in the last ten years is zero. TV shows talk about an 'epidemic' of road rage, an epidemic being five reported incidents in the country in the last year. Remember the SARS outbreak? About five people in Asia died from it and it was reported as a 'worldwide pandemic.'

I don't know if gun control is the complete solution to the problem, it runs much deeper than that, but it has to be part of it. There's no way any random person should be able to walk in off the street and buy an AK47.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[carlivar]

I really think it is inappropriate to turn this into a political question so soon, but since you ask, I will give a very simple response.

First, firearms are not banned in this country because the founders of our country believed that everyone should have a reasonable right to defend themselves.

Second, take a look at Japan. Don't you think there are some fundamental differences in Japanese society and culture versus the U.S.? Are swords banned in Japan? I think a sword could do plenty of damage. Are cars legal in Japan? Cars kill infinitely more people than guns every single day.

Murder has nothing to do with the tools used. It is a society problem.

My simple opinion.

I express my deepest sympathies to all those involved at Virginia Tech today.

Time to listen to Michael Moore

[mandelbr0t]

Everyone ignores him for being a crackpot, but he probably documented almost every part of what leads to a tragedy like this. Maybe American leaders should stop discounting the "left-wing radicals" and realize that no society is worth having a headline like this. Let alone more than once.

Re:Time to listen to Michael Moore

[Anonymous Coward]

If Michael Moore didn't actually insult the audience he is trying to persuade, he might have a chance. Gun control would make sense if it kept guns out of the hands of lunatics and in the hands of stable people.

In a country like the USA, there is no way gun control could be implemented. We can't stop drugs or illegal immigrants. What makes you think we could stop guns? The best thing to do is license them (I know, tough sell) to good law-abiding people and punish anyone who uses or possesses one without a license.

Re:Time to listen to Michael Moore

[Stonent1]

It worked so well when the Germans did it. (Did I just go there? Oh yes I did)

Re:Time to listen to Michael Moore

[feed_me_cereal]

You haven't watched bowling for columbine, have you? From the wikipedia article:

Moore argues that high gun ownership is not responsible for violence in America, and instead that there must be something about the structure of American society, the American psyche or the media that makes the nation uniquely prone to high rates of murder and shootings. In support of his claims, Moore argues that Canadian gun ownership levels are comparable to those of the U.S.

What I thought was most interesting about the movie was that he doesn't seem to offer any real advice as to how to solve this problem; just some insight into why we have it. Sort of the opposite of this amateur debate everyone seems to be having on this story about a massacre that happened only hours earlier today...

Re:Gun Laws

[BeansBaxter]

Your are so right. I wish the students and teachers had been packing. The shooter might not have gotten so many. It is time to remove gun restrictions and gain back our constitutional rights. Funny that free speech is given more weight than the right to bare arms despite being equal rights.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Tsu-na-mi]

Take away the guns, and you will simply see more deaths by stabbing. Guns are not the problem. They are simply the most effective of many tools available.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[hansamurai]

Ah yes, the "American way". Where tragedies like this occur on a weekly basis.

YEAH MAN

[rantingkitten]

Guns make people safer! That's why America, with the highest guns per capita of any first-world nation, is the safest nation on Earth, right alongside such sterling examples of crime-free zones like Costa Rica and Colombia.

Get a goddamned grip. The US has more guns -- and more gun deaths -- than any other developed nation.

Clearly the solution to today's situation would have been for everyone to have guns, then people could have started firing recklessly into the fray and that would have been really fucking great!

Re:YEAH MAN

[Omnifarious]

I believe the percentage of people who own a gun is much, much higher in Switzerland (approaching 100%). The country also happens to be one of the most peaceful on Earth. I don't think you can draw a more meaningful correlation between rates of gun ownership and gun violence than you can between media violence and real violence.

Re:YEAH MAN

[Yunzil]

Get a goddamned grip. The US has more guns -- and more gun deaths -- than any other developed nation.

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

Re:YEAH MAN

[Temporal]

Some Googling finds that 100% of Swiss males in a certain age range are required to join the military and are required to keep their military-issued assault rifle at home. Switzerland also has very strict gun control laws. Several of the top search results seem to be refuting the idea that Switzerland is a good example for the pro-gun argument.

Re:YEAH MAN

[rantingkitten]

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

Of course it implies it. What it does not do is prove it. But I'm sure it's just a random coincidence this time, eh? Probably the real cause is Doom, or Marilyn Manson, or something.

Re:YEAH MAN

[NeutronCowboy]

And where do people in Switzerland keep their guns (btw, it's not 100% of the total population, merely a large % of the male population aged 19-49)? At home. Locked up. No one carries in public. You can draw conclusions from people carrying weapons in public, and it ain't pretty.

Re:YEAH MAN

[samwichse]

I think you meant "America! Fuck yeah!"

Re:YEAH MAN

[bogjobber]

Clearly the solution to today's situation would have been for everyone to have guns, then people could have started firing recklessly into the fray and that would have been really fucking great!

Clearly the way to counter stupid statements is by exaggeration and hyperbole! Well done. You have truly shown your superior intellect, sir.

Re:YEAH MAN

[Jorgandar]

Guns make people safer! That's why America, with the highest guns per capita of any first-world nation, is the safest nation on Earth, right alongside such sterling examples of crime-free zones like Costa Rica and Colombia. Classic confusion with causation and correlation. You have provided no arguement so far. Maybe people in safer nations feel less need to carry a gun and therefore dont? Maybe a nation must be safe first for people to put away their guns - not the other way around. Just tossing out ideas..

Re:University of Texas Tower

[grgcombs]

nonsense. If anyone on this board should know about the events around August 1, 1966, it's me. Students didn't have weapons and weren't firing back at Whitman. He was up there for an hour and a half, taking his time.

Woo Hoo tu finally looses another school record

[Anonymous Coward]

Held for 41 years...

Marcus Vick?

[qqaz]

Don't tell me they let him back on campus again...

Re:Gaming, no

[vertinox]

Did the gun sprout legs and arms and go beserk??

No, but out of curiosity I wonder what kind of weapon and or training the person had. This is the highest body count any mass murder has had on a rampage in the states.

The only higher World Wide (at least so far) was the Port Arthur Massacre with 35 deaths who used an AR-10 rifle.

I'm not pro or anti gun, but you simply can't go on a mass murdering spree like this with a knife or a bow and arrow.

video games

[ryen]

I wonder what kind of video games he played.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have them."

Stop being so US-centric

[Anonymous Coward]

These links took about 10 seconds of searching to find. I'm sure I could find more if I spent longer searching.

Germany

Canada

The Netherlands

Why do idiots always try to blame the US, like we're the only ones that have problems? I don't care if you get off on the self-hatred bullshit, just leave my country out of it.

Re:Stop being so US-centric

[init100]

just leave my country out of it.

Your country tries to dominate many aspects of life on this planet, so you'll just have to suck up to the fact that people tend to criticize your country a lot.

Maybe your country could try to leave other coutries alone, and it might face less criticism about things that itself considers internal matters?

Re:Stop being so US-centric

[heinousjay]

We can face the criticism. Hell, I welcome the criticism. I look at it this way, no one cares about unseating #2.

It's post like that one that started this subthread that get irksome: outright lies.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I regret to inform you that what the logic you are using is potentially faulty.

  First, the UK citizen who killed those 17 kids had all sorts of complaints sworn against him, primarily ones concerning paedophilia. Last time I checked, in the US that's a felony, which means you're no longer allowed to legally carry a gun. Oddly enough, your police didn't do much of anything about these complaints at all.

  Second, you project the emotional impact of the crime itself on all gun owners, not just the crazy guy who did it, and not towards the police who should've disarmed the guy long before this happened.

    As stated previously, in the US if you are convicted of a felony, you lose your right to bear arms, whereas if you were in the UK, you don't have the right to bear arms at all, just because your legislators failed to have the wisdom to know you don't punish everyone for the idiocy of the few.

  Oh, hey, how's that knife-ban coming along? I'm sure you already knew that now guns were banned, they're considering banning knives because there's still too much violence and you peasants^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hpeople can't be trusted. Think of the children.

Funny ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny that there are almost 30 to 40 people killed in Iraq due to road side bombings and to the reaction of the US army there... but never ever ... these kinds of news reach the top slot in Slashdot....

Another reason not to visit ./ regularly.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[ferespo]

Look how you've been modded. Now it's 3.

Another poster got a 4 right away saying that the cause of this horrible situation was that the government didn't allow people to carry guns openly.

Maybe the people in USA actually likes guns and feel entitled to carry them.

Flamebait?

[thegnu]

Flamebait? So young people ARE allowed to express aggression and exhuberance? Because I haven't noticed.

The last part was one of these, I think:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy

Or it was one of these (2b):
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conundrum

And it makes people feel like one of these:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrite

Gun-toting liberal students

[jesterzog]

You're playing with hypotheticals here. It is certainly conceivable that, if a large number of VT students were all carrying concealed weapons that, when the shooting broke out, someone would have shot the nutcase. On the other hand it is conceivable that, if a large number of VT students were all carrying concealed weapons, there may have been a number of accidental or mistaken shootings at the same time.

For myself, I'm just concerned at the thought that large numbers of students at a college might actually choose to carry concealed weapons even if they were allowed to. I honestly can't imagine doing that at home. I've never been at risk of being shot in a shooting spree or any other situation. Why would I want the inconvenience of carrying a gun with me, let alone figuring out how to use it, on the off-chance that this might happen? If that were the culture of students at such a place and if people felt they somehow needed to carry guns everywhere, I'd rather take my chances elsewhere.

To put my views in context though, I'm not from the USA. I live in New Zealand, where it's necessary to have a firearms licence to own a gun (for as much as that doesn't stop everyone), so maybe my perspective is a little skewed.

Re:Gun-toting liberal students

[drinkypoo]

I've never been at risk of being shot in a shooting spree or any other situation.

Uh, how would you know?

How do you know that you haven't been around literally dozens of people just about ready to snap, carrying illegal weapons (or carrying weapons illegally?)

Of course you don't know that. So your statement is nonsense.

To put my views in context though, I'm not from the USA. I live in New Zealand, where it's necessary to have a firearms licence to own a gun (for as much as that doesn't stop everyone), so maybe my perspective is a little skewed.

The difference is that people in pretty much every nation except for a very limited few are used to being disarmed. In many nations it was actually illegal to own a sword at various points in history. People got used to being disarmed and kept in check then and they're still prepared for it now.

The US is a nation built upon the gun, sometimes positively and sometimes negatively. It was certainly used to greatly horrible affect against the indigenous peoples of both North and South America (not to mention central.) You're simply not going to take that out of culture overnight.

And I might add that events like THIS one do nothing to help the situation.

Of course, it does help to prove the pro-gun point. The police are not there to protect you. Period. Sometimes they protect a single individual or a small group thereof, but only to achieve a tactical goal. Once you have done your duty (testified, acted as bait, what have you) then you go back to a faceless minion. They will no longer provide you one-to-one protection - they can't afford to! There aren't enough cops, and that's just how it's going to be.

The police are part of a system of punishment which is meant to dissuade people from committing crimes. I'm pretty sure it helps, but regardless of the degree to which it has any effect, it simply cannot stop all crime.

The police can't protect you. And you are legally prohibited from protecting yourself.

Re:Gun-toting liberal students

[karmatic]

I live in the USA, and here in Wyoming, anyone can buy a gun at a gun show, with no waiting period, no ID, no police requirements, and pay in cash.

There are a number of vehicles with guns in them in the parking lot, and a number of guns in lockers here at the dormotories. It's an open carry state (only need a permit to conceal), and I regularly see people walking around with guns, including into stores.

You know what? Those people might be able to shoot me, but on the other hand, they might knife me, hit me with a club, or any of a number of other things. I'm not going to live in fear. If anything, it's comforting to know that if someone is attacking me, there's a better chance of someone coming to my aid. I also know that criminals will think twice - the person they are thinking of mugging may very well kill them.

I have been mugged twice (both times in California, where the laws are very much anti-gun). The first guy had a knife. I had a bigger one, and he ran.

The second mugger had no weapon, and when I didn't have enough money for him, decided to attack me. I put him in the hospital.

While it's true that neither of the attackers had a gun, a knife can kill you just as dead (with a lot more pain involved). The Police (which have no obligation to the individual) show up afterwards to take reports, and clean up the mess. If I cannot protect myself, others cannot protect me, and the police won't - what's to stop those who do me harm. If I (or those around me) are armed, violent crime can be deterred, or at the very least the offenders can be removed from the gene pool.

As a final example, my sister was violently raped, and still bears emotional scars from it. She was not able to physically resist his assault. The rapist was never caught, and may very well have been a serial rapist from the area.

Had she had a gun, she would most likely have emotional scars of an entirely different nature, and the later victims would have not happened. Given the crimes this man did, I wouldn't be particularly sorry for him.

Re:Gun-toting liberal students

[jesterzog]

Well I'm sorry to hear you live in such a violent society, and I feel fortunate that I don't.

I honestly don't know if any kind of weapon control is the way to solve this kind of problem, and for you it sounds like it probably isn't. But the concept of expecting people to have to defend themselves like that and (more importantly) having people have to enact their rights as often as you seem to imply, is something I really have trouble comprehending. It's not a society I'd ever want to live in.

Re:Gun-toting liberal students

[despik]

Right, because the Germans are such a peace-loving nation.

Re:Gun-toting liberal students

[Anonymous Coward]

Compared to Americans, we are - our homicide rate is 1/4 of that of the U.S. (Granted, since Americans have by far the most violent industrial society, that doesn't really say all that much about Germany).

Re:Gun-toting liberal students

[karmatic]

As for being a "violent society" - there is truth to that statement; however, it's more complicated than just access to guns. There are a number of socioeconomic factors that affect violence and crime.

Taking guns away from people doesn't make them less violent, but it does make it harder for them to defend themselves. An elderly woman is not likely to be able to defend herself against a younger male attacker with brute strength. Give her a gun, and she has a fairly decent chance.

As for "expecting" people to defend themselves - who else is going to? The government cannot be always present; police show up after the crime is reported. At that point, it's already happened. If you defend yourself, you avoid being a victim in the first place.

Also, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution is intended to provide the people the ability to resist their government, with force if necessary. Disarming the populace allows for much greater levels of tyranny, as the people have no way to fight back.

In England (where they reported robberies with knives had risen by 72% last year), they have strict gun control laws, and have increased the penalty for "carrying a knife in public without good reason" to a maximum of 4 years.

You say you don't want to live in a society where people have to enforce their rights. Would you rather be in a society where the criminals are free to prey on whomever they want, knowing that their victim will be unable to fight back? I wouldn't want to live in a society where the government is free to do whatever they want without consequence, and it's not safe to roam the streets at night, lest someone decide to mug/rape you. Besides, most of the uses of guns in the US don't actually result in firing - most of the time, when the attacker finds out the victim has a gun, he runs.

As for the "as often as I seem to imply" part - my comments should not be taken to mean that the whole United States is full of thugs, waiting to pounce at every opportunity (Congress Excepted). Rather, there are certain areas around certain towns where one does so at your own peril. In both cases, I was in a place, at a time I should not have been. A little more caution on my part would have avoided the incident. Nonetheless, I had the ethical (and legal) right to defend myself against an agressor, and do not feel sorry for having done so.

With the second attack, I called the police. It took them 2 hours to show up, and all they did was file a report. Someone else finally reported the guy stumbling around town bleeding, and only then did they actually do anything. If nobody dies, and they would have to do any actual police work, they aren't going to bother. This isn't unusual for major cities - my Aunt called the police once in Chicago, and informed them someone was being raped out on her street. Dispatch said "yeah, and what do you expect us to do about it?". So I ask - what is a person in that circumstance to do?

equalization

[Russ Nelson]

Because anything can be a weapon. Surely someone from Japan would understanding that a ban on guns just causes other weapons to become more important. Why do you think the Samurai class continued to have power into the 20th century? Because they were behind the ban on guns. Their choice of weapon required their level of training, so it was not available to the general public. A gun makes everyone equally powerful, so you can't have Samurai pushing people around. (of course, the Samurai ethics, just like the knight's code of honor, served to prevent the worst abuses.)

Re:equalization

[Nakanai_de]

Dude, you clearly have no reasonable understanding of Japanese history. The Samurai class ceased to have any meaningful power long before the Meiji restoration of 1868. All the power was in the hands of the merchants- they had money, which gave them power, whereas the Samurai saw money as a contamination, but neglected to realize that if you eschew money, you won't actually be able to do anything. In fact, during the Meiji reforms, the possession of swords was made illegal, for the precise purpose of further disenfranchising the Samurai.

And while it's true that anything can be a weapon, and the principle weapon of murder in modern Japan is the knife, the murder rate in Japan is significantly lower than it is in the United States. As another poster commented, culture has a lot to do with it, but the inability to acquire firearms probably contributes as well.

Re:equalization

[pario]

Why do you think the Samurai class continued to have power into the 20th century?

You assume that the samurai class continued to rule the nation after the Meiji restoration because they possessed swords, which is not really correct. Only a small fraction of the samurai class was able to stay in power. In fact, the merchant class became powerful towards the end of the Edo period, which is one of the reasons why the Tokugawa Shogunate was overthrown. Moreover, the possession of swords was also banned in 1876, soon after the Meiji restoration in 1868. Only those in the military forces and the police were allowed to carry swords afterwards.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[nelsonal]

It's very complicated. There are generally several reasons: Primarily, because 220 years ago, a group of dudes got together and decided they didn't like their governemnt any longer. They were big enough fans of what they'd done, that they sought to permanantly preserve that option for future generations. Essentially, the second law they passed for the nation was the government cannot restrict gun ownership. Also, most people in the US are or their ancestors were self selected for individualistic traits (you had to leave family, home etc) to come in exchange for land (and later job opportunities). Many Americans find the societal structure of Japanese culture to be much too restrictive (although they also comment on the clean and safe cities there when enjoying short visits). Finally, as the frontier was settled, in many of the places, people were spread very widely (much of the land in the Midwest and West is arid and huge amounts of it were required to grow enough food to support a family). Because of limited transportation, settlers relied on themselves and possibly their neighbors for protection.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Morinaga]

The crime and murder rate have always been low in Japan. I'd submit this is a social/cultural phenomena, rather than a gun control one.

Japan isn't immune from shootings and is in fact in the middle of some shooting/gang issues at the moment. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/200 7/02/09/2003348298 As the gangs in Tokyo have proven, just because it's illegal to have firearms doesn't mean they aren't there.

I'm Going to Hell for This Joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, the RIAA is REALLY cracking down on file swapping in higher ed.

Re:I'm Going to Hell for This Joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I'll join you....

I reckon the guy got frustrated with Vista....

Two examples

[doug141]

The Charlotte Observer, Charlotte, NC, 11/18/98
      A number of unsolved burglaries and a subsequent string of sexual assaults near the University of North Carolina's Charlotte campus had female residents there fearing for their safety. It was that heightened sense of awareness, and an armed citizen, that helped prevent yet another attack. Twenty-six-year-old Adrian Rodricka Cathey entered a woman's apartment early one morning and assaulted her with a knife. This time, however, the intended victim fought back, retrieving a firearm and shooting her assailant. Cathey, who had a record of arrests on charges of rape and attempted murder, was later found dead in a parking lot.
====
Seattle Post Intelligencer, Seattle, WA
      Samuel S. Cameron, associate principal of the Garfield High School in Garfield, Wash., spotted a youth who had caused a disturbance on the campus. When Cameron asked the youth to leave, the latter pulled what appeared to be a gun. Grabbing his own pistol, Cameron fired into the ground, causing the troublemaker to flee.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[BESTouff]

Yeah, existing laws - making it illegal to walk on campus with a gun and shoot 30+ people - really did a lot of good, no? What makes you think passing more laws is going to help?

This one is easy: just look at countries where people don't walk with guns, you'll see no such dramatic event.

Re:Gun Laws

[tthomas48]

There is no right to bare arms. Although one could say that because the constitution does not explicitly say anything about bare arms that we have the right.

Personally, I wouldn't attend a university with the right to have firearms in the classroom. But I suppose there's a market for it.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[Sciros]

I'm sure everyone will feel much safer once you have a gun strapped to your belt 24/7.

There ARE places for people like you -- the armed forces. I would think highly of you if you were to join one. No student is doing anyone a favor walking around with a handgun on a university campus.

Misleading - MIGHT be two shooters

[SpeedyDX]

I just watched the press conference and the officer addressing the press said that they had no reason to believe that the incidents are linked. There might only be one shooter, or there might have been two. They are not discounting either possibility at the moment.

Also, I think the other person (I didn't catch who he was since I tuned in a few minutes late, but I assume he was a faculty member of some sort) mentioned that they closed the residence right after the first incident. The reason why they didn't close the rest of the campus was that according to the information they had, the shooter had left campus and might have even been going out of state.

Most of the rest of the press conference was the typical "I don't know"/"I can't release that information right now" rhetoric. I think this leads some credence to the possibility that there might be two shooters, since they wouldn't want to tell the other suspect what information they have. This is pure speculation, though.

How he got away with it

[CdBee]

1) Live in a society that allows anyone to obtain lethal weapons of war.... 2) ???? 3) MASS SLAUGHTER!!

As a European I don't believe civilised people or society need guns except in the hands of the armed forces or those with enough of an interest in hunting to justify taking a firearms safety course. The constant stream of avoidable deaths in the USA constantly reaffirms my belief

Re:How he got away with it

[XO]

Of course, had there been any armed people within the areas that he went nuts in, he would've had a much lower bodycount, as his would've been amongst the first few.

People should be able to defend themself from their assailants, and if their assailants have guns, then you can't expect them to defend themselves with knives.

Re:How he got away with it

[CdBee]

You are in college, you hear screams and shots.

You draw your firearm and run towards the commotion. Elsewhere in the building, other brave or foolish types are also running to render assistance, carrying firearms. You all meet at the same point. You're all armed. One of you is the original shooter.

The law of averages says you'll kill more of the other saviours before you get the perpetrator. The experience in Iraq alone should prove that introducing more weapons to an unstable situation is somewhat counterproductive.

Re:How he got away with it

[XO]

You're sitting in the room where someone has just fired a gun, and missed, injured, or killed someone in the room with you (or missed or injured yourself). You have a gun. What do you do?

Re:How he got away with it

[geminidomino]

Weep, blubber, and plead for your life, all the while hoping an American is around with the balls to take your gun and save your ass?

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Abcd1234]

Because there is no way to prevent crazy nuts like this guy from VT from getting guns. And some people want to be able to defend themselves when these nuts show up and start shooting.

Oh, I agree. I mean, it's not like the US has seen far far more of these sorts of killings than any other nation. And you know why? Because of the high level of gun ownership, of course. It is these very weapons that have prevented these sorts of things from happening time and again.

Right?

Spring Break?

[antdude]

Did Spring Break just end for this place? I wonder if the shooter got grumpy over something during the time off.

curious...

[AlgorithMan]

which game will be blamed this time?

Re:curious...

[qqaz]

Madden, hopefully.

More examples, and a searchable archive

[doug141]

Here's a goodie:
Associated Press, 07/21/06
    State: TN
    Chris Cope said it was "like something in a serial killer movie," at a Memphis, Tenn., shopping center where he manages a financial services office. According to police, a store employee began stabbing co-workers after a work dispute. The attacker had already stabbed eight people and was chasing a ninth when Cope ran to his truck to retrieve his 9 mm pistol. "[The suspect] just kept saying, 'I'm insane. I wish I was never born,' and all that stuff," Cope said. But apparently the crazed man valued his life more than he let on. "When he turned around and saw my pistol, he threw the knife away, put his hands up and got on the ground," Cope said. "He saw my gun and that was pretty much it."
====

Find your own with this searchable archive:
http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[mhall119]

How many fewer people in that classroom would have died if one of the students in the room was carrying?

One of them was, unfortunately he was the shooter, so now your theory requires that at least 2 people in the room are carrying guns.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[OldeTimeGeek]

And when you or someone like you shoots an innocent by mistake, will the victim be somewhat less dead because he wasn't shot by the "bad guy"?

I mean no insult to you. I'm not completely against handgun ownership, IFF the owner gets proper training and has regular practice on a firing range. But that isn't what'll happen. If laws are loosened, people whose only previous experience with handguns was watching them on TV will run out and buy them, assuming that they don't require any training to use. And people will die. Sure, there may only be 5 or 10, rather than 30, but now you're going to have the grieving families along with the grieving inexperienced gun owner that shot one of them.

I would be more than happy to vote for loosening of gun ownership restrictions if it could be proved to me that the new gun owners were willing to take responsibility for both their weapon and themselves - at least more than most people currently show for their motor vehicles

As someone who has been shot at by mistake (the idiot was shooting at a beer can on the water and the ricochet landed about six inches from me), and who's father stopped deer hunting because he was tired of getting shot at (while wearing an International orange vest, BTW) it'll take some strong arguments...

Re:USA Citizens! A Warning from a God's servant!

[k_187]

You're funny.

I can't believe no one has said it

[sshore]

Sounds like somebody has a case of the Mondays!

Re:I can't believe no one has said it

[0kComputer]

here you stupid twat

Re:I can't believe no one has said it

[Anonymous Coward]

tasteless

Re:I can't believe no one has said it

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps he was fired last Friday. Studies have statistically shown there's less chance of an incident if you do it at the end of the week.

Re:I can't believe no one has said it

[Elenthalion]

Dude, come on. Mode parent down.

Re:I can't believe no one has said it

[sshore]

Doh. I browsed down to 1, thinking someone would have modded it up. Guess not.

Re:I can't believe no one has said it

[mindaktiviti]

Score: -1, Tasteless

related myspace entry?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=us er.viewprofile&friendid=171473490

note the blog post titled "time to blow it all"

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[rantingkitten]

It's simple: if we didn't have guns, the King of England could come back here any time and start pushing us around again.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[m0rtadelo]

I must admit that I share the opinion of pario. I don't even live in the States. So when looking from an outer point of view, I can't either understand the so-called right to defend oneself. I thought the duty to defend us from external risks was an issue concerning the Authorities, by means of Police or even the Army.

What I can assure is that everewhere in the world is full of insane people. But the pain they might cause to other people is proportional to the power of destruction associated with the availability of weapons. Of course you can slaughter with a knife, but far less than with a gun and even far less than with a semi-automatic firearm.

But it is difficult to change people's mind. Should you feel you have the right and the need to own a firearm, maybe you should have one.

Regards

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[Red Flayer]

Something like this actually makes me MORE determined than ever to fight for my 2nd Amendment rights. You can do whatever the fuck you want if some nut with a gun shows up and starts trying to kill you, but I want to be able to defend myself.

I agree with you to a certain extent, but keep in mind that the 2nd amendment is not about protecting oneself from the murderous individual, but rather about protecting oneself from the murderous state. We should never let personal protection from individuals eclipse the intent of the 2nd amendment, otherwise the 2nd amendment loses its meaning.

It doesn't really matter

[WrongMonkey]

You can't prevent randomness. No two incidents ever seem to have the same motivation. Last week we had a murder/suicide happen on the UW campus over a relationship; this week there's a much worse case in Virginia; Charles Whitman was found to have a brain tumor that may have been affecting his decisions. Is there any "root cause"? Does it have anything to do with "ugliness in the world"? These things are very sad, but they're just outliers on the curve of human behavior. On a fundamental level there's nothing we can do to prevent a few random people from snapping.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[jdunn14]

Well, for one thing it is cultural to some degree. I grew up in the south east (north central FL) and was around guns fairly regularly. I'm comfortable with them. Shoot, going out to a range with a friend and a box of 22 rounds can be a nice way to pass an afternoon. They do make it easier for one person to kill another, and especially for something like this to happen, but banning them doesn't mean the crazies won't find another way. No reason this couldn't have been a suicide bomber because you can't ban all the combinations of chemicals that can be made into such devices.

Another thing to remember is that guns have a great equalizing effect. Sure, the thug could pull a gun and kill you, but you have the ability to do the same. In this country even someones grandmother could be carrying a handgun in the big purse. She might even know how to use it. Firearms do put power in the hands of weaker people that they wouldn't have otherwise. Take a big guy who discovers he can get what he wants through force, now give the victim a firearm, big dude is less dangerous.

And let's go to the last/best argument. The cat is out of the bag. Guns are scattered through our country now. If you banned them it would have little if any effect in the short or medium term. Well, the black market value would probably go up, and law abiding citizens would be more unarmed, but neither of those is good. They've been such a part of our culture for so long that removing them now just isn't a viable option. Shoot, I know a number of law abiding citizens that just wouldn't give them up, let alone criminals.

Personally, I have very little problem with concealed carry laws. One day I may carry a gun myself. Unlikely, but I don't have a feeling of disgust about it. That said, I think people should have some very good training, regular re-examinations, psychological testing, etc. before they are allowed to carry.

Amen

[imsabbel]

Those people disturb me as much, if not even more, than dickheads like jack thompson.

Right to bare arms

[celardore]

We don't have the right to bare arms here in the UK per se, but I just do it anyway. Too hot for long sleeves.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Anonymous Coward]

You come from Japan? Tell me, how much safer did the peasantry feel when only samurai were allowed to carry swords?

Re:slashdot?

[polar red]

also in the news : http://www.icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx

Re:Gun Laws

[Cpt_Kirks]

Last year, a bill that would have allowed concealed carry on the Virginia Tech Campus was killed off in committee.

If that bill had passed, there is a chance this could have been curtailed.

Strangely enough, the killer did not seem to mind breaking the law in this regard.

If guns were banned in America tomorrow, do you HONESTLY think guns will just "go away"? Tens of thousands of illegal aliens cross the border monthly. Tons of illegal drugs enter the country regularly. Laws are in place banning both of those. All restrictive gun laws do is create a safe environment for violent criminals.

But, why do I bother? You can look up both sides of the issue and make your own mind up. But, please do look at BOTH sides of the issue. Contrary to what you might hear otherwise, there really are two sides.

Students and Weapons:

[Anonymous Coward]

Students have enough problems with getting to class on time and making terrible decisions with the largest deadliest weapons at their disposal: motor vehicles.

It doesn't take too much imagination to envision the mayhem with them carrying firearms and making decisions about shooting them.

Re:Students and Weapons:

[crymeph0]

It doesn't take too much imagination to envision the mayhem with them carrying firearms and making decisions about shooting them.

It takes more imagination than you think, because there's nothing stopping them from carrying guns on campus right now (besides words on a paper, aka laws), and yet by and large they don't, today's tragedy notwithstanding. You're confusing giving someone who is responsible enough to get a Concealed Weapons Permit the permission to carry a weapon on campus with forcing every Joe college student to do so.

Re:Students and Weapons:

[guaigean]

College age students make decisions all the time about the proper use of firearms. Ever seen the average age of a U.S. soldier? It's 19 years old. They handle them responsibly, because they are trained to do so. It's not guns that are the problem. It's a lack of training and awareness, mixed with a "think of the children" paranoia.

Re:Gun Laws

[antifoidulus]

right to bare arms despite being equal rights.

Yeah, those damn shirt police always making sure we are wearing long sleeves. When will the madness end? If I want to show off my elbow, it is my choice damnit!

Re:University of Texas Tower

[Control Group]

I agree with everything else you said, but not this:

As soon as you invent a fucking magic wand, though, feel free to wave it and banish all guns and the ability to create them. That would truly be a better world.

Eliminating all guns would just make the world even more of a might-makes-right sort of place. The way it stands now, the difference between the winner and the loser is the willingness to pull the trigger. Without guns, the difference between the winner and the loser is the willingness to swing the fist/club/mace/sword, and the physical strength and skill to effectively swing it. The difference is, some people are weaker than others (for example, on average, women) and can't significantly change that fact. Willingness to pull the trigger can be learned.

The problem people have with guns is that guns make it easy (compared to other weapons in history) to kill people. But that means that everyone has the ability to kill someone. This sounds terrible, but the alternative is that only some people have the ability to kill someone - and that's a power imbalance that has historically led to very unjust societies.

I see how people drive, no guns for them.

[Snowtide]

First, there are no words that are enough to describe what happened or comfort those left behind.
I know many of us on /. would quickly trade our own lives for even one person killed today to still be alive.
It is bitter beyond desription that this happened.

Second, many have posted that more guns are the solution to situations like this, maybe but I ask you consider one thing.
Look at how people drive, are sure you want these people to have guns?
I say this as a gun owner who is against general conceal and carry for that very reason. I don't trust most people to remember that every bullet goes somewhere and can go a long distance with enough kinetic energy to hurt or kill.
Years ago, my shooting instructor ordered us to pace off through downtown Denver the approximate range of a 9mm pistol round fired on a level path. He told us to watch the distance we had covered for five minutes and see how many people passed through it. A profound lesson in thinking ahead about where every bullet might go. This was not a lesson to teach paralysis but forethought and awareness.
Most people spend a lot more time watching TV and movies than they do training with a pistol, which one influences the average person more?
Yes, the right person with the right weapon might have stopped this today, I wish they had, but how many other incidents will happen if weapons become more available?
Most gun owners on /. would agree with me that every minute you carry a weapon is a responsibility, how many people do you know you would trust that responsibility to?

And for the people who complained about security theater vs. real security. I quite agree.

Why can't these cowardly bastards just shoot themselves first?

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[mgabrys_sf]

re:"The US is the most free country in the world, and with those liberties unfortunately come with consequences but in the end it's always better to be free."

Which is also why we average a war every 20 years - or more. Democracy works and is perfect! And if that doesn't work - we've got nukes. So there!

Re:slashdot?

[N3WBI3]

Hmm VT is a technical school, and they shot up the engineering building..

Re:Gaming, no

[heinousjay]

I suppose bombings don't count as murder.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[markttu]

There is a simple question to your seemingly simple question; In Japan did criminals possess firearms? The answer, of course, is yes.

With that said, what makes you think that passing a law to take any object away from criminals will actually result in the criminals not possessing that object?

I think its safe to assume that the majority of the population is mostly law abiding and possesses the same basic moral beliefs (don't murder, don't rape, don't steal, etc). So if we assume that the majority of the population has the same moral beliefs then isn't it also safe to assume that in general if you give a gun to the average citizen he might use it to stop another person from violating those same basic moral beliefs?

If you stop playing politics and look at the change in violent crime rates vs concealed carry laws you'll find that most of the time the violent crime rate goes down when citizens are given the right to carry concealed firearms and the rate goes up when that right is taken away.

As to the thousands affected by this; my thoughts and prayers are with you all.

Transcript from VT afternoon press conference

[daveschroeder]

This is the unedited transcript of the VT afternoon press conference at about 4:45 PM ET. Next press conference will be at 7:30 PM ET:

- I am vice president for university relations. We will begin this with a short statement by the president. All of the individuals will be available for comment. The president will identify him in his opening comments. We will stay here as long as you need us to. Afterwards, i will be available for comment. Obviously, there are an awful lot of you and there is one of me. I would recommend that we try to get as much as we can accomplish in this press briefing today.

- Thank you. Just a few minutes ago , i spoke with president bush and he conveyed his concern and condolences for everyone in washington and offered all of the help that they could possibly provide. I' ve also spoken with the governor who was coming back from tokyo. He has declared a state of emergency which allows us to access significant oth er assets at that will be required to do with this tragedy. With me today is the secretary for public service for the commonwealth of virginia, john marshall, and the superintendent for the virginia state police. Also is the mayor of b lacksburg, the chief of the blacksburg police department and the chief of the virginia tech police. I want to repeat my horror and disbelief and profound sorrow at the events of today. People from around the world have expressed their shock and their sorrow. I am really at a loss for words to explain or understand the carnage that has visited our campus. I know no other way to speak about this than to tell you what we now. It is now confirmed that we have at 31 deaths from the norris hall , including the gunman. 15 Other victims are being treated at hospitals. There are two confirmed deaths from the shooting in the dormitory, in addition to those at norris hall. We' ve not confirmed the activity of the gun man because he carried no at the dedication. We are in the process of attempting a dedication identification. We are in the proces s of notifying next of kin. This will take some time. We will not release any names unti l we are positive of this edification. We anticipate being able to release a list sometime tomorrow. We' re asking our students to contact their parents and let them know their status. Our investigation continues into whether there is a connection between the first and second incidents. That has not been decided. We know that the parents will want to embrace their children. We are not suggesting that you come to campus, however, if pa rents feel that it must come to campus, we are locating counselors at the end of virginia tech to be available. As you can imagine, security, investigation, operational, and counseling resources are very taxed at this moment. However, we are getting assistance from the state police, the fbi, the atf, local jurisdictions, and the red cross. We understand the desire and the compelling need to get information on the part of families, stu dents, and loved ones. Unfortunately, this is all of the information that we can verify at this point in time. We are posting information o n our web site as we learned it. I communication systems are taxed . We are posting information on the web site for the state police. I think we are ready to take questions.

- Why not shut down campus after the first shooting rather g -- shooting?

- The information that we have less to make the decision that it was an isolated event to that building and the decision was not made to cancel class' s at that time.

- Can you say why the students were not notified for tw o hours?

- They were notified that there was a shooting. You have to remember that of the 26,000 is that we have, only about 9000 are on campus. When the class start at 9:00 A.M., Thou sands of people are in transit. The question is, where do you keep them when it is most safe? We concluded that the incident at the dormitory was domestic in question. This other events occurred two hours later.

- The first e-mail did not arrive

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

I admit that my knowledge of Japan is limited, but my understanding is that Japan has a far higher level of community. So there's less skepticism, perhaps, about whether or not the authorities will be able to take care of crime. Indeed, I'm made to understand that the police convict something like 99% of the people they charge with crimes. The skeptic in me says that that means some innocent people end up in jail because they looked a little to guilty or crossed the wrong people, but be that as it may, the public at large is more likely to believe themselves safe, as you do.

Thus, the reason for wanting a gun is so that one might have someone they trust looking out for their safety; that is, that they'd protect themselves with their own two hands (and the gun). As you've observed, you no longer feel safe. And that feeling of insecurity is just one of the reasons one would want a gun--people use them for various other legal purposes, too. For example, hunting and target practice and these things are ingrained into our culture such that people aren't very eager to give up their guns. Add to that a gun lobby made up both of people who rely on their guns for safety or entertainment and of those who make and sell guns, and you'll find that it's quite hard to ban any sort of gun at all. Yes, there are people who even own (and shoot) cannons.

Of course, my perspective may be off. I have never owned a gun and I don't particularly want one--I much prefer swords. I've never visited Japan (although I have managed to learn a small amount of Japanese), either. So take this speculation with a large grain of salt.

Matt desu.
Yoroshiku onegai shimasu.

Re:Gun Laws

[someone1234]

Ah yeah, nothing is safer than dozens of people shooting in every direction.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[photomonkey]

So let me answer your question with another question (and I don't mean this to be snarky or rude):

If the general population of Japan is prohibited from carrying firearms, then why do the police have them?

I bet the police carry weapons because those they attempt to prevent from committing crimes, or capture following the commission of a crime, likely, even if not all the time, have guns.

I'll go one step further. In Japan you can only be assured that the LAW ABIDING folks aren't carrying guns. Thereby, you enjoy the illusion of safety.

Now here's my return question for you: why should I, as an American, GIVE UP my right to keep and bear arms, having never used one in a crime, having never committed a felony, and having taken all the necessary steps to purchase and register the guns and obtain a concealed carry permit? By the way, in my state it is perfectly legal to walk down the street with a loaded firearm (of any legal model/style) so long as it is in the plain view of others. A permit and training (as a prerequisite for the permit) is required to carry the weapon out of the view of others.

Although as the years go by it becomes less common, I still see people with pocket-cannons tucked into holsters under their arms or in their belts at the grocery store, convenience store and even some restaurants. I am not afraid of it, nor have I ever been afraid of it. I am a firm subscriber to the theory that people kill people and the weapon involved only depends on how messy the scene is.

And finally, here is a reason why MANY rural areas allow open carry. It has little to do with shooting badguys at high noon and riding off into the sunset. If you work around animals, especially if you ride horses, it is a great idea to carry a handgun. If the horse throws you, and you become entangled in the stirrup and get dragged, you have two options: 1) shoot the horse or 2) die. Have you ever seen a rabid coyote? That's a good reason for a gun too. Also, sometimes when an animal is giving birth, there are complications from the pregnancy requiring the animal to be destroyed. We're not all veterinarians, so when the calf goes breech and the doc ain't around (put that way for effect), the mom usually gets one in the back of the head.

For the record, there is also a great difference in law between OWNING firearms and CARRYING firearms (for reasons other than transport).

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[Stormshadow]

Been there, done that for the last 7 years. I refuse to be a sheep waiting for the slaughter. At least when the military puts you in harms way, they give you some means defend yourself.

Re:He's a Gook if he's shooting at you.

[shotgunsaint]

MOD PARENT UP! If I could have decided between insightful and funny, I would have.

Re:Gun Laws

[kpainter]

There is no right to bare arms. You are right, there is no right to bare arms. Even thought I wear short sleeves everyday it isn't a right. If we were talking about the right to bear arms, the second amendment states that I do have a right.

Exactly right.

[lattyware]

Because all other countries in the world without the right to have guns have terrible gun crime.

Re:Exactly right.

[Cpt_Kirks]

You mean like the UK?

You sure seem to have a lot of gun crime for a "gun free society".

Not compared to the US, but then, we don't claim to be gun free.

Re:Exactly right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because all other countries in the world without the right to have guns have terrible gun crime.

Here's a thought. All other countries in the world without the right to have guns aren't the US.

Re:Exactly right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm..I pretty sure we don't claim to be 'gun free', sure we have strict gun laws, but that's no claim to be gun-free. We also have laws against shoplifting, speeding and murder, but those things still happen...

Re:Exactly right.

[Anonymous Coward]

While gun crime is on the rise in the UK. It is mostly found within the major city's and nothing compared to what the USA has or has had in the past.

What strict gun laws tend to do is stop major shootings like what we are reading about now.

A nut will find it harder to get hold of a gun, legally or illegally. while in a country where most house holds have 1 or more guns a nut may be able to get hold of one legally or illegally much easier.

In the UK it's normally a sub culture of criminals involved in using guns(hand guns mainly) and it appears to be isolated in London and Manchester.

Northern Ireland also has/had its problems with guns but that has mainly been 'organized chaos'

If guns was a normal thing in the UK I think we would see a lot more gun related violence then what we are seeing now.

Re:Exactly right.

[Bertie]

What's happening in London and Manchester is no different in essence to what was happening in Northern Ireland. You've got people with illegally-held weapons using them against "their own". By which I don't mean a colour of skin, or a religion, or anything like that, just other people operating in the same circles as they are. Generally speaking, with a few very unfortunate exceptions, if you're not involved, it doesn't affect you (directly - the knock-on effects of having people running around killing each other are plain to see). And just like Northern Ireland, it's nowhere near as big as the problem as the media make it seem to people who are isolated from it (I grew up in a pretty rough part of Belfast, by the way, and am still on nodding terms with some seriously nasty people even now, so I know what I'm talking about)

Now, the American pro-gun lobby often use the argument that if guns are criminalised, only criminals will have them. Which is probably true. But as I just said, they'll mostly only use them against people like themselves. I don't think there's a significantly higher number of potential mass murderers in the US than there are in the UK, yet incidents like this one today are far more common in America. The only reason I can see for this is that when somebody comes completely unhinged, it's easier to reach for a gun and commit an atrocity there. Here in the UK, I couldn't do it if I wanted to. Getting access to a gun would be an absolute pain in the backside, and I speak as someone who has a friend who sells rifles for a living.

It's the ease of access to guns, and the ease with which you can pile up dead bodies once you have one, that makes incidents like this more common. I don't see how anybody could argue otherwise. On the other hand, I don't see what you can do about it now, either. The genie's out of the bottle. You're never going to take those guns back off people. It's part of the culture. We, on the other hand, never had them in the first place, and I think that even if we suddenly had gun laws like America's tomorrow, we wouldn't be going out and buying them either.

All this is a long-winded way of saying "I agree">

Re:Exactly right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Living in london I'm not knowledgeable of either sub culture in Manchester and N Ireland, only really what the media feed me. I thought things was more along the lines of political violence and not 'normal' violence. Thanks for the insight, I would of been pretty ignorant to that even though it seems pretty obvious.

You are correct about people going out and buying guns for the sake of it if there was a change in the current UK laws. But I'm sure after a few generations guns would become much more common place.

If you look at Canada and America in terms of gun laws as far as I'm aware they are just as relaxed. But America 'pushes' guns on to people in terms of culture. In America guns are your right In Canada guns are just guns.

I think you are correct that Americans would not give them up right away but after a few generations it will probably be forgotten but most people.

Re:Exactly right.

[frodo527]

In the aftermath of today's horrifying tragedy at Virginia Tech, as if on cue, the gun banners are saying that we need more gun control.

BALONEY. GUN CONTROL IS LARGELY RESPONSIBLE FOR TODAY'S TRAGEDY.

Gun control created the environment in which a killer could run rampant without fear of being stopped.

As long as man is a social animal there will be bad members of society. Criminals, whether they are cold blooded killers, crazed psychotics, or terrorists, do not obey the law. VA Tech was a "gun-free zone" according to school policy. It should be obvious by now that "gun-free zone" = "target-rich environment." The school's policy is tantamount to unilateral victim disarmament. How many times in the past has that stopped predators? In 1915 Armenia? In Nazi Germany? In the killing fields of Cambodia? Today in Darfur? In numerous school shootings here in the US?

VA Tech has about 25,000 students. Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that concealed carry was legal on campus but only 1% of the student body took advantage of the ability to be legally armed. There would have been 250 persons on campus who could have responsed to the gunman's attack.

Years ago, Israel was plagued with school shootings perpetrated by Palestinian terrorists. Those shootings stopped when the Israelis started arming school staff with Uzis and M1 Carbines. No longer juicy pickings, the Pali terrorists moved onto easier targets.

In the US, the majority of college students are legally adults. They should be encouraged to take responsibility for themselves, not hindered in doing so. Society should view someone willing to equip himself with a gun and training for defense in the same way it looks at someone who keeps a fire extinguisher in his kitchen. Carry a gun for self-defense doesn't make someone a vigilante or cop wannabe, just like having fire extinguishers at home doesn't make someone a fireman wannabe.

Ironically, last year there was an effort in the Virginia legislature to lift the ban on legal CCW at VA's universities, but sadly it died in committee. At the time, a VA Tech spokesman was quoted:

"I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

As usual, reflexive, irrational fear of weapons based on "feelings" ultimately resulted in dozens of dead and wounded innocents.

It's time to bury the pernicious myth that disarming good people can save them from evil. It's time to get rid of gun control before it claims more lives.

Re:Exactly right.

[AncientPC]

Murders per capita (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap- crime-murders-per-capita)
US: 0.0428020 / 1000
UK: 0.0140633 / 1000
dif 0.0287387 / 1000

Murders with firearms per capita (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir _percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita)
US: 0.02792710 / 1000
UK: 0.00102579 / 1000
dif 0.02690131 / 1000

There's a 6% reduction between UK and US in terms of murders with firearms per capita compared to murders per capita. I'm not sure how much of an impact firearms alone have on violent crimes. I believe it may be more than just firearms, perhaps cultural influences, that results in the much higher violent crimes rate in America.

Re:Exactly right.

[Anonymous Coward]

"But as I just said, they'll mostly only use them against people like themselves" -- "mostly" is the key word here. I would tend to agree with that statement; however, even if the statement is true, there are still thousands of documented cases each year in America where the other side of "mostly" holds true.

The other side of "mostly" reared it's ugly head in this case at Va. Tech. The one thought to ponder, however, is that if another student or faculty had had a gun... could that person of shot the perpetrator and saved, perhaps, dozens of lives?

Whatever the case, we're wasting our time discussing this because this is obviously all some kind of sick joke. Guns are illegal on Va. Tech's campus... this could never have happened.

Re:Exactly right.

[Bertie]

Gangsterism dressed up as political violence is what it was, for the most part. I'd say the ones who genuinely believed they were fighting for a cause were outnumbered ten to one, on both sides, by those caught up in the "glamour" of it, or who simply fell in with the wrong people and got swept along with it. I know some fundamentally decent people, people I'd still probably consider friends, who didn't exactly go picking up guns and shooting people, but who were stupid enough to get involved in the fringes without really understanding what they were getting involved in. I'm sure many a Slashdotter from cities with a significant gang culture could say exactly the same about people they know. They weren't doing it because they believed in it, they were doing it because they thought it was cool.

'Cos that's all it was, when you stand back and look at it: gangs. Forget about the religion or the politics, it's one set of people having a go at another set, and you can dress it up however you like, but really, there wasn't any more sense to it than that.

Re:Exactly right.

[benspionage]

Excellent post, calm and objective - we need more of that.

I think the common ground, where both pro-gun and anti-gun people can meet, is that it should be made as difficult as possible for someone like Cho to get a gun in the future. And I do believe that there would be pragmatic, sensible ways of doing this, of ipmroving the current system.

Not being intimately familiar with the process of buying a gun - I live in Australia where even the idea of that, for non-hunting purposes, seems bizarre - I can't provide excellent suggestions, but there has to be something: mandatory gun training, psychological assesment, references, interviews - something!

Re:Exactly right.

[lattyware]

That is besides the point.
Yes, we have some Gun crime, but due to our laws, a hell of a lot less than the USA. Hence banning guns is the right way to reduce gun crime.
I am a perfectionist, I don't believe in guns, cigarettes, the death penalty, etc... But it's proven that giving everyone guns increases gun crime, giving everyone cigarettes decreases life expectancy, and the death penalty is ineffective (after it's abolition in the UK, Murder rates actually went down. Most murders are done on the spur of the moment, and no deterrent works then.) - So why are these things still allowed (all three in the USA, one in the UK)? Because people fight for things that are ridiculous - and thanks to democracy, if everyone is stupid enough to want guns, they are going to give you guns. (Note I'm not calling everyone in the USA stupid, I'm simply making a point that I believe the right to own firearms is stupid.)

Re:Gun Laws

[BeansBaxter]

I'd suggest firing a gun as part of the looking at both sides. Might as well know what your against.

More than originally thought

[TadDavis]

The shooting was worse than originally thought: 33 were killed and many more injured.

This will probably be modded down harshly but

[MCTFB]

This reminds me of a shooting at a rock and roll venue in my hometown a few years ago and reading on one of the forums about a guy who allegedly was there and remarked that if you could conceal and carry (this is Ohio) in a liquor establishment, then the shooter would of been lucky to kill only one person because this person (the poster on the forum), could of drawn his weapon and taken out the madman.

Having armed guards or police at every entrance to a college campus is pointless, but if some of the professors or other faculty (perhaps even some of the students within reasonable parameters) were at least allowed to have weapons on campus, then crazy gun toting madmen will be put down before they can do too much harm.

Of course the gun control fanatics will say we need to ban all guns, but then what do you do against someone who walks into an undefended campus and starts throwing homemade pipe bombs everywhere?

The reason the United States doesn't live in fear 24/7, like in some places of the world is that we have good guys with guns protecting us from the bad guys with guns who want to harm us for any number of reasons (not to start any flame wars on U.S. foreign policy, but by good, I mean the people who protect this country from invasion).

Nobody yet knows what the motive of the shooter happened to be, but realistically, terrorist cells could kill a whole lot of people by just going to a highly populated area with strict gun control laws and only a handful of armed law enforcement officers and kill a hell of a lot of people before the authorities could respond.

I mean, who needs bombs to kill people when the only people fighting you don't even have knives to protect themselves.

Re:This will probably be modded down harshly but

[kalirion]

This reminds me of a shooting at a rock and roll venue in my hometown a few years ago and reading on one of the forums about a guy who allegedly was there and remarked that if you could conceal and carry (this is Ohio) in a liquor establishment, then the shooter would of been lucky to kill only one person because this person (the poster on the forum), could of drawn his weapon and taken out the madman.

Imagine a bar-room brawl. Not imagine each of the brawlers is carrying a gun. Get the picture?

Re:This will probably be modded down harshly but

[lelitsch]

Normally, I would point out that the murder rates and the number of idiots gunning down entire classrooms are much lower than in the US in any other developed country. But since even the most right wing, conservative, god fearing school in the country disagrees with you, I think I can spare the effort.

Re:This will probably be modded down harshly but

[Guppy06]

"if you could conceal and carry (this is Ohio) in a liquor establishment, then the shooter would of been lucky to kill only one person because this person (the poster on the forum), could of drawn his weapon and taken out the madman."

What the fuck?!

I'm fairly pro-gun, but no! You do not allow firearms and liquor to mix! Perhaps there would have been one gun owner there sober enough to get a clean shot, but that isn't worth having to deal with the any number of gun-carrying drunks throughout the state.

I'd sooner wish to see drunk driving legalized than what you are proposing.

Re:This will probably be modded down harshly but

[MindspanConsultants]

The reason the United States doesn't live in fear 24/7, like in some places of the world is that we have good guys with guns protecting us from the bad guys with guns who want to harm us for any number of reasons (not to start any flame wars on U.S. foreign policy, but by good, I mean the people who protect this country from invasion).

Since when did the United States not live in fear 24/7? I frankly can't remember a day since September 11, 2001.

Re:This will probably be modded down harshly but

[rhizome]

The reason the United States doesn't live in fear 24/7...is that we have good guys with guns protecting us from the bad guys with guns who want to harm us...

This is a myth.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[J.R. Random]

Every time a news of shooting breaks out, I always wonder why the possession of firearms is not banned entirely in this country.

Well, first of all there's that pesky 2nd amendment. The people who signed off on it weren't interested in duck hunting, they'd just won their independence from Great Britain because they had guns. They saw firearm ownership as a bulwark against tyranny. Many Americans still think that way. If that seems foreign to you, you probably trust your government, an attitude that would seem peculiar to many Americans.

Washington D.C. has some of the country's strictest gun control laws, yet that city is pretty much a free fire zone. There's nothing like telling criminals that their victims don't have guns to encourage crime.

When people live in a country like Japan where it's almost impossible to get a gun, they resort to other means of destruction, like home made nerve gas. Every time news of a poisoning breaks out, I wonder why chemicals aren't banned entirely in this country.

Japs even cut the balls off their martial arts.

[HornWumpus]

Having reduced their population to subjects (like a citizen but unarmed) hasn't resulted in a nut job free society.

Instead their nut cases use poison gas to kill many. Good thing they have been incompetent to date.

BTW murder rates in the US outside the inner cities are the same as Canada's.

Re:University of Texas Tower

[zippthorne]

It doesn't have to have that kind of range. And you don't have to hit anyone to pin them down. In fact, if you do hit them, you've advanced from mere pinning down, to neutralizing threat.

All they had to do was be a threat, making him keep his head down. A handgun does not have the accuracy to hit a person at that distance unless you're really lucky, or a trained marksman with extensive modifications, but it certainly has the range if all you need is for the bullets to travel the distance.

I'm going to quote the wiki, despite the obvious reservations:

Once Whitman began facing return gunfire from the authorities, he used the waterspouts on each side of the tower as turrets, which allowed him to continue shooting while largely protected from the gunfire below, which had grown to include civilians who had brought out their personal firearms to assist police.

So it seems that, although the civilians' actions may not have been the sole reason, gunfire from the ground did cause him to take a more defensive posture, with it's intendant limitations on potential targets.

There is something uniquely American

[arcite]

about these tragedies. Speaking as a Canadian, these things happen up here as well from time to time. However, it just seems they happen more often in the States more than anywhere else.

Re:There is something uniquely American

[Anonymous Coward]

of course events like this will be less frequent in a country with 10% the population of america.

Re:There is something uniquely American

[Tragek]

I'm sorry, I know it's tempting to think that, but by saying that you disrespect what happened at both Dawson College and École Polytechnique, and even Taber.

These tragedies are not uniquely American, no more than rape and murder are.

Re:There is something uniquely American

[arminw]

....However, it just seems they happen more often in the States more than anywhere else........

Except in Iraq. A car bomb a few days ago wiped out about twice as many people. Here it happens occasionally, there almost every day. We are already used to reports like this from there, but as still a bit shocked when something like that happens closer to home.

Re:There is something uniquely American

[dewke]

Perhaps these things happen more often in the states because we have about 10 times the population of Canada?

Re:There is something uniquely American

[Nefarious Wheel]

of course events like this will be less frequent in a country with 10% the population of america

True, it's all in the numbers, isn't it? I mean if you say 1 person in 10 million is an armed, homicidal maniac, that gives us 1 or 2 in Australia, and what -- 20-30 in the US? The next pin the marble hits is density of population - available targets. One such person might kill two people in the outback, or 30 in a university.

What's done is done, infinite sadness. I have nothing constructive to say, except -- communication does help. Quote from Princess Di : "the way to dismantle a personality is to isolate it". And others in this post, who say "someone talked to me and pulled me back from the brink".

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[The_Quinn]

I am native of Japan, and where I grew up nobody but cops were allowed to carry guns.

I do admire how the Japanese culture is generally respectful of law enforcement, and how non-violence is broadly accepted in the culture.

However, Japanese live under the thumb of the government, who have broad search and seizure capabilities. There are many in the U.S.A. who believe that the ability of the public to arm itself is a means of securing our freedoms from within and from without. So - for example - there will be no 'Emperor Hirohito' who takes power over the U.S.A using legal and extralegal means (such as happened in Japan leading up to WWII). We also believe in limited government power, whereas the Japanese are willing to accept the broad authority of law enforcement to do basically whatever it wishes - which seems ok, until another HiroHito comes along and attaches a leash to that collared neck.

Right. Another reason to ban firearms.

[gd23ka]

But here are a bunch of reasons why we should keep them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_prot ests_of_1989
http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/
http://www.greenleft.org.au/1998/313/21534
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story /0,6903,1136440,00.html (Gas chamber horror in North Korea camps) ... ...
Of course I could go on and on and on and cite every massacre and mass murder on the planet but that's what happens in the end to people who are not armed.

Re:Right. Another reason to ban firearms.

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely agree with you. Had professor or students got the gun, they would have killed the shooter immediately and there wouldn't have been so many casualities. You are dead on. (I hope sarcasm is clear).

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[ivan256]

You're right. A hypothetical question is an assumption. How could I have been so stupid?

Drop me a line when you're done debating your imaginary opponent.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Anonymous Coward]

Banning guns will not make them go away. Laws merely influence reality, they do not create it.

The use of alcohol is illegal while operating a motor vehicle, and yet people still do it. Entire classes of drugs are completely banned with enormously disproportionate punishments for possession and use, but people still possess and use them.

There are already laws against shooting people, but people get shot all the time.

There are almost as many guns than people in this country. They're not going to magically disappear just because a bunch of idiots in the Capitol put words on paper. Of the ones that are turned in or confiscated, a greatly disproportionate number of them will be those held by law-abiding citizens whose gun ownership is a net gain to society.

If you want to get rid of guns then that's fine, but you need to approach it from a realistic perspective. If eliminating guns is your goal then you need to come up with a workable plan. "Ban all guns" is not a workable plan, and so advocating it just shows you as someone who has not thought the problem through, and prefers to write laws rather than solve problems.

The government can't even take people's drugs away, even from pot-heads who are mostly harmless and nonviolent, what makes you think that the government would be capable of taking guns away from actual criminals who would use them to do harm to others?

Gun Control is NOT the Answer

[Evil W1zard]

Opposite to you Switzerland is a country full of guns and avid gun users and also has very little gun crime. What it comes down to is that we already have an adequate amount of gun laws. What you don't want to do is take away guns from the people who use them in a legal fashion each and every day for home protection, sport and etc... In the US it is EXTREMELY easy to get illegal guns and criminals do this each and everyday. In fact many times those carrying guns legally are often instrumental in stopping crimes from occuring.

The fact is that we have a fairly sizable and fairly unstable nation and 1 out of every XX normal people can basically go stark crazy. Its unfortunate, but it happens. Not much has been released yet other than this was a student (according to a Vir. Rep Forbes) and that the student was male and turned the gun on himself. I have a feeling its going to be another very disturbed white male (maybe even an ROTC student) and this will quickly get turned into a media fiesta attacking everything from video games to music to guns themselves and that is unfortunate.

Re:Gun Control is NOT the Answer

[Anonymous Coward]

" In fact many times those carrying guns legally are often instrumental in stopping crimes from occuring."

Prove this statement. Is it statistically significant or just a few anecdotes?

"Opposite to you Switzerland is a country full of guns and avid gun users and also has very little gun crime."

It is also a country without a violent culture unlike ours. The guns are there for national defense (by law) due to their small size and are kept locked up. They don't have the gun worshipping that we have here.

"In the US it is EXTREMELY easy to get illegal guns and criminals do this each and everyday."

Yip, and the gun manufacturers fight tooth and nail against any attempt to control them. You also have each state setting seperate gun laws making it impossible for a state to control its borders. Remember, a criminal is a law abiding citizen until they break the law.

"The fact is that we have a fairly sizable and fairly unstable nation and 1 out of every XX normal people can basically go stark crazy."

That is the reason I'm glad we don't have the NHGA, "National Hand Grenade Association". Don't take hand grenades away from responsible hand grenade owners!

Re:Gun Control is NOT the Answer

[Evil W1zard]

There was an older DoJ study done showing some statistics speaking to use of guns for self defense purposes. The problem with these studies as noted by the individual doing them is that a large amount of people wont admit to using a gun for self defense because they werent supposed to be carrying the gun where the crime took place. But the stats are still pretty interesting, but old. I haven't been able to find any govt. sponsored current studies unfortunately, but I would not be surprised if similar results were found:

Self-defense with firearms 38 percent of the victims defending themselves with a firearm attacked the offender and the others threatened the offender with the weapon. A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm suffered an injury compared to almost half of those who defended themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.
Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects of crimes including victim and offender characteristics, crime circumstances and offender intent contribute to the victims injury outcomes. About three-fourths of the victims who used firearms for
self defense did so during a crime of violence

Re:Gun Laws

[insomnyuk]

And to think, they had recently ensured no CCW holders could carry their weapons on campus: "Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[lanceleader]

If I remember correctly German around the WWII aria citizens were not allowed to own guns. If they were allowed to own guns the German Government would have had a harder time making Germany a dictatorship. So, in my opinion the reason the U.S. citizens has guns is to protect ourselves against government. It is the reason the founding fathers put the ability to bare arms in the constitution. To protect ourselves from a Monarchy type government.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Every time a news of shooting breaks out, I always wonder why the possession of firearms is not banned entirely in this country.

Well there are several reasons, but basically it boils down to the fact that not banning guns saves more lives and stops more violent crime than banning them. That is, if you actually look at the numbers as an outside observer. Also, the US has a cultural bias towards personal responsibility and freedom which, while slowly eroding, does manifest in people often requiring a strong argument to restrict personal freedoms rather than grant them.

I live in New Jersey now, and I really miss a sense of security I used to have back home. Back there I never worried about getting killed and such, whereas I feel physically threatened where I live now since there have been a number of incidents of armed robberies on campus at Rutgers and in my neighborhood.

Great. Now logically, take a look at the statistical evidence with regard to violent crime and tell me, if there were a law passed banning gun ownership in the US, do you think the violent crimes would go up or down? If you think it would go down, I'd really like to see your math, because I've never, ever seen anyone provide any real numbers to support that. Remember I said "violent crime" not shootings. We can agree that we want to stop murder and violent crime, not murder and violent crime committed with an arbitrary device, right?

Seriously, it makes a huge difference when I have to take into consideration the possibility of the possession of firearms when some strangers attacked me.

Interestingly, the fact that violent criminals have to take into account the possibility of firearms possession when considering attacking you i a lot more likely to protect you than the other way around. If I'm 6' 6" and outweigh you by 50 pounds and I'm an experienced boxer and accustomed to fighting, well I can be pretty sure I can walk up to you and beat the snot out of you either to rob you or for some other reason. If you're smaller than average (like most women) or maybe an old person, well I can be even more sure. The possibility that you or that woman or old person has a gun, changes the calculation a whole lot.

Could anybody enlighten me as to why people want to carry guns at all?

Being from Japan and now living in New Jersey, I can forgive your ignorance. I was given my first firearm to use hunting for food. You know meat comes from animals, right? I bought my first handgun when I lived in a place where I had to walk a quarter of a mile through woods with a whole lot of bears in them, in order to get to my car. There are still a lot of places where a firearm is an important survival tool. Whether you have too shoot a coyote that is killing your livestock or shoot a cougar that attacks your child, a ban on firearms in all of the US would make many traditional places unlivable. It would also most probably lead to a net increase in violent crime and murder. The question then is, why should we ban guns? This shooter was not obeying the law, so what makes you think he would not have purchased an illegal gun? If he was unable, what makes you think he would not have built bombs from household materials? There was a gun ban in place at VA Tech. Did it stop him? Did it enable him to kill a lot more people since none of them were armed?

Wrong problem solving algorithm and place

[rzei]

While I sympatise the families and friends of those who were just killed by this random lunatic I cannot stop being stunned why do people do this (in USA)?

Here, in Finland we have I guess enough guns ... If I really wanted to get one, I probably could get one in 24 hrs or faster, as would everyone.

It is just that here, when people face problems big as this shooter must had faced people tend to start by killing themselves and from there moving on to killing other people. This of course results in less collateral damage.

Another things I cannot connect are "university" and "people shooting each other". Ok people are shooting at each other in places with poor education and so on, dealing with drugs perhaps, but I don't understand how and why are guns related to school.

At least here you go to school to learn things, perhaps you have your own world domination plan but you want to know "stuff" before you can own the world. You don't got to school to settle your personal problems.

Re:Wrong problem solving algorithm and place

[frank_adrian314159]

It is just that here, when people face problems big as this shooter must had faced people tend to start by killing themselves and from there moving on to killing other people.

Yes. The Finns are blessed with one of the highest suicide rates on the planet. I am glad you can see the bright side of it. Many people would become depressed at the news, and attempt... Hey, is this some sort of feedback loop or something?

Re:Wrong problem solving algorithm and place

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know anything about Finland. I can speak about my experiences in high school in the USA.

People are racist. Almost every week I was called a "chink", "chingwah", "ching chong", etc.. Those were the nicer comments. This from everyone from blacks to whites to Hispanics. Almost every month someone would come up to me and slap me in the back of the head, spit on my head, steal my books. I was kicked in the hallways, had urine poured on me, had my work stolen and handed in by others as their own. The teachers didn't do a thing.

I was in honors classes and worked my ass off to do well. All the time I watched teachers turn the other way when their A students would cheat. Someone tried to cheat off my paper and *I* was written up. I've *never* cheated in my life but was written up anyway. The f*ckin football player threatened to kill me unless I let him cheat.

The only thing I pride myself on is that I had enormous amounts of self control. I endured it. I took it. And it ended. And luckily, college was a lot nicer to me. I met some interesting people, got laid finally, and realized that the nightmare was over. I realized that not everyone was evil, but just pushed into certain behaviours because it was cool to do so.

But two decades later, I still think about high school. I remember the rage I felt when some stupid kid, as small as I was, would punch me and I couldn't do a thing because he had his ten friends behind him. (And yeah, I fought back a few times and got beat down for it).

Truthfully, I don't know what I would have done if weapons were accessible to me. There are times when I shudder to think of what I would have done. I certainly had the rage.

The funny thing is that I own firearms now. But the thought of using them for defense has never crossed my mind. It's odd, but I feel an enormous amount of *peace* when I'm on the range. I don't know if it's the breathing or the self-imposed calm that you need when shooting, but it's almost a zen experience. There is ABSOLUTELY no rage when I shoot, just a perfect calm.

I think he can do the stats: check NZ history

[fantomas]

>>I've never been at risk of being shot in a shooting spree or any other situation.
>Uh, how would you know?

I think the grandparent poster is doing some basic statistical reckoning. How many school massacres have there been in NZ compared to the USA?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shootings

Re:I think he can do the stats: check NZ history

[jesterzog]

Thanks for the comment, but to be fair, NZ only has about the same population as a small US state and it's geographically isolated, so it's not really realistic to compare on those grounds. We do have our own problems here too, and they're mostly around things like irresponsible drinking and family violence and probably a few other things, but that's a social problem more than anything.

What I have difficulty with is the concept of expecting the world to be a safer place, simply because everyone has guns and can defend themselves. I don't know if guns should be restricted or not. They're restricted here, but they're popular for hunting and can be seen frequently when hiking around the back-country, and people can still get them on the black market if they really want them. We've had the occasional gun-waving depressed lunetic, too. But if I were in a place where I needed to have an accessible weapon in day-to-day life to feel safe, I'd be asking a lot of questions about why, because it would seem as if there are much deeper problems. Encouraging a culture where it's okay to kill people to stop them killing other people is probably going sidestep the issue much more than fix it.

Re:I think he can do the stats: check NZ history

[drinkypoo]

But if I were in a place where I needed to have an accessible weapon in day-to-day life to feel safe, I'd be asking a lot of questions about why, because it would seem as if there are much deeper problems. Encouraging a culture where it's okay to kill people to stop them killing other people is probably going sidestep the issue much more than fix it.

Actually, I think it's most likely to permit societies of like-minded folks to protect one another.

If your concern is with random wackos, when one wacko props up there are likely to be an assortment of non-wackos who would prefer not to die.

Thus over time the random wackos who grow up and instill their wacko values to their children (whether they are nature, nurture, or both) will be weeded out.

Of course there are also those people who pop due to social, economic, or other kinds of pressure, and I agree those are serious issues we can not afford to just cover up and forget about. But I think that a two-pronged approach is the solution. Don't just permit viewpoint, feel like we need) so many guns.

Re:I think he can do the stats: check NZ history

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I think the grandparent poster is doing some basic statistical reckoning. How many school massacres have there been in NZ compared to the USA?

I'm all for some basic statistical reckoning. Two points are not enough to make up a data set, however. Take a look at gun control laws, ownership rates, violent crime, and murder statistics around the world. Notice the strong correlation? Gee, nobody else does either because there isn't one. The rate of violent crimes in general, and mass murders like the one described in particular does not actually correlate with gun ownership or laws to any discernible degree, well technically there is a negative correlation just slightly within the realm of statistical significance. Lott studied mass murders like this in particular and did find that concealed pistol permits was the only factor that reduced the number of people killed in these attacks, but his methodology was questionable and no one else I know of has managed to put together enough numbers to draw any significant conclusions.

Being as we're all supposedly intelligent people here, I'd ask why anyone would think that because the US and NZ have different rates of gun ownership and different rates of mass murders, why anyone would assume one was a causative factor for the other, especially when htere are so many other differences between the US and NZ that do tend to correlate very strongly with this sort of thing.

Re:Gun Laws

[polar red]

yeah, everybody having guns would have solved this ...

Oh Please...

[NorbrookC]

He got away with it *both* times because the law emasculates the citizen from carrying a weapon at all times.

Ah, I see. In your scenario, once said gunman started in, the others would have immediately whipped out their own weapons and shot him dead, thus saving the day.

Nice fantasy. Unfortunately, reality is a far different thing. When bullets start actually flying, there is mass confusion. Great, everyone has weapons? OK, who's the bad guy? Can you identify them? Can you accurately shoot while being shot at? Can you keep your head when everyone is screaming, running around, there's a mass of people milling around or rushing by you? There is a BIG difference between that situation and whatever you can do on a nice target range or out hunting. It's something the military has known for years. Just look at the figures over the years - in some conflicts over a million rounds have been expended to kill one enemy, and up to a third of soldiers never fired their weapons in the middle of a firefight. I guarantee you every one of them had training, but in the real situation, some froze, and just about everyone's accuracy went to hell.

What would more likely have happened is a mass crossfire from panicked shooters, with a much higher death toll, and a series of murder trials after the fact.

Re:Oh Please...

[kick6]

you and everyone else in this thread are making some MASSIVE assumptions. Assumptions that are completely wrong.

Assumption #1: Everyone would be armed.

horseshit. Many many many people would still choose not to carry even if they were allowed. So this clusterfuck of crossfire scenario is very far-fetched.

Assumption #2: If you make it harder to get guns, this couldn't happen.

Horseshit. Unless you exhaustively round up EVERY SINGLE FIREARM in the United States, there will still be guns. So what you manage to accomplish is not to take the guns out of a criminal's hands (because lets be honest, criminals don't follow laws hence the reason they're criminals), but take the guns out of everyone BUT the criminals hands. Which room of people would you rather shoot up? A room full of priests or a room full of police? The obvious answer is the priests because you can make a decent assumption that no one is going to shoot back. So stricter gun control empowers criminals.

Assumption #3: everyone would run around wetting themselves. People do this because.....thats all they can do. A few select individuals would have the good sense to reach for the firearm. All it takes is one.

My take on gun control: make the punishments for violent crimes much more severe, and make it easier for law abiding citizens to carry (I'm all for background checks, citizenship checks, credit checks, etc).Just so we're clear, I don't own a single firearm.

Re:Oh Please...

[Darlantan]

Please, cite one source where this has happened.

Re:Oh Please...

[NorbrookC]

I made no such assumptions in my post. As to "everyone running around wetting themselves", you don't need everyone, just a significant portion - which is exactly what would happen.

Even if only a few people were armed, it still wouldn't change the situation. You have a very confusing situation, you have to rapidly identify who the "bad" one is - and if several people pull out weapons, that choice difficulty factor just went up, and you have to shoot accurately.

I have actually been put through situations like that. It's amazing how often people who can score perfectly on ranges can suddenly miss a point-blank shot when chaos erupts, or who will do exactly the wrong thing at the wrong time.

My own personal opinion on gun control is that you should know what you're doing, and how to use a gun before you own one. However, the idea that "if only everyone was allowed to carry guns, this would never have happened." is pure crap.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[Stormshadow]

You say this like people are advocating a bake sale-type giveaway of firearms to any Tom, Dick, and Harry who wants one. That isn't what most of us gun-owners want. For the most part, we want legislators to stop being idiots who try to ban anything and everything just to get more votes.

    In order to get a concealed weapons permit, you have to take a class, whose length varies by state, but for the most part they are 6-8 hours long. This usually includes the legalities of what you're going to do (Concealed carry), what to do and when to do it, and definately what the hell not to do because nobody wants to get the crap sued out of them because they did something stupid. Additionally, some states mandate that you have to have a minimum proficiency with your chosen weapon to get the CCW license. In all honesty, the most likely person to run out and grab a gun thinking they don't need any training at all are going to be the same people crying about trying to ban them. I mean, seriously, how many gun owners do you know that call magazines "clips"? Or say that a .50cal can knock down planes and satellites? Or how a simple semi-automatic black colored rifle is an "Assault Rifle" ? Look up the definition of assault rifle while you're at it; you'll note that the main points that make a rifle an assault rifle are cosmetic features that do not effect the cosmetics of the gun in question. That's why most gun owners sigh when people scream 'OMG assault rifle" ... I mean, how would you like it if someone wanted to ban your PC because it had a shiny black case, more *and* bigger fans on it, evilly killed small innocent animals by consuming more power than the normal PC, and could accept more than one hard drive?

  Open your eyes, see past the FUD. Be responsible for your own safety; the government is *not* your friend and has no obligation to protect you. And yes, I can provide links to back up every claim I've laid down here, would you like me to?

Re:Gun Laws

[Mockylock]

You can't conceal a shotgun or Rifle which I'm sure is what he was using. Banning a concealed weapon wouldn't have changed the outcome of this in any way.

Besides, most of the weapons that are used in shootings aren't legally kept anyway. Concealed weapons permits are carried by people who go through federal applications and classes. So, again, Having concealed weapons on a school isn't really harming anyone. I doubt many people with concealed weapons permits have ever gone on shooting sprees. Simply because concealed weapons only pertains to handguns, which is not the killing weapon of killing spree choice.

In all honesty, I have more guns than I can count at the moment. I use them for sport and such, but I still feel that guns should be much harder to attain. I feel that the way to control all of this is taking high profile tests and background checks to even be able to own or carry one. And, if you're caught without one of these licenses and are carrying ANY type of gun, regardless if it's a concealed hand weapon... you should be thrown in jail. THIS will stop much of the violence ahead of time.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[alyflex]

Before you all start crying out for your rights to carry guns to protect yourself, try taking a step back and think about it. What if guns were to be legalised on campus all over US, how many shooting accidents would that bring each year? How many fist-fights/missunderstandings would end with a person drawing a gun and start blasting away in "selfdefence"? I believe that people have a right to defend themselves, but do you really believe that arms will solve violence and murder? Hell if you all ran around with guns, and I still wouldnt have a hard time doing that now would I? - I would just have to arm myself even more, maybe wear a west and a fullautomatic weapon. Or even easier - and more concieveable, explosives. What happended in Virginia Tech is horrible, but it cant be changed now. The only thing that can be done now, is trying to learn from this experience however horribly it might be.

Re:Gun Laws

[BeansBaxter]

Wow never knew a bad typo could make a post so popular. Someone could get addicted to this. Please mod my post down. The comments are becoming un-bare-able.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[MeanderingMind]

I can't speak for all school shootings, but the shooters in the Columbine Massacre were not of age to buy arms. They certainly didn't get guns while sane and then lose it later.

Worst case scenario

[jchenx]

Thanks for the correction - and you're right. We still are figuring this out and should, in this case, actually assume the worst.

Definitely. The best case scenario is that this was a VT student that cracked due to pressure (exams perhaps?), and unfortunately took it out on his classmates and faculty. In that scenario, the case is closed and students/faculty can feel safe.

Worse case scenario is that there is more than one shooter, and that this is something different ...

I'm still confused that if the dorm and classroom shootings were done by the same person, how he managed to get from one side of campus to another so easily. Having lived in AJ, I can tell you that it takes a while to hoof it over to Norris (which I've done many times as a student). Doing so with a bag of guns, ammo, and a bulletproof vest though?

Re:Worst case scenario

[Badgerman]

It sounds like he wasn't as encumbered as originally thought, changing the equation a bit.

Also, and again I have not been ON the campus but have been on several campuses and similar buildings, I wonder if maintenance tunnels, underground connectors, etc. could have played a role. Hell, on my old job I used to cut through maintenance tunnels to avoid people bothering me when I was on my way to meetings.

Still, all speculation at this point, we must remember.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[gb]

Actually, there were other 'gunman gone mad' massacres in the UK Hungerford springs to mind. The point is, that since both Dunblane and Hungerford there has not been a multiple public shooting incident in the UK of this type. There have been lots of other gun crimes including several drive by shootings in which one or two people have been shot, many cities have a significant problem of gang culture associated with gun carrying. But, there has not been a multiple public shooting in over 10 years. Now, the UK's population is smaller than that of the US, but it is still 1/5 size so 10 years without this sort of incident is a lower rate...

How to you inform students of emergency?

[peter303]

One of the complaints I heard is the first notification was a email two hours later. Students are fairly notorious for being "off the broadcast grid" rarely watching TV or radio. Is email sufficent? If you get 5%-10% immediate penetration, can you count on word-of-mouth for the rest? Many students will stil asleep at 8AM when the shootings started. what about soemthing more intrusive like txting to every known cell. I fear some of the intrusive channels would co-opted for some non-emergency message, then instantly lose their credibility.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[Achromatic1978]

Re-read your "hypothetical question", and see if you can spot the assumption. I'll highlight it, for your benefit:

How many fewer people in that classroom would have died if one of the students in the room was carrying?

Your assumption is that the number of dead would only decrease as a result of other students carrying.

Re:Gun Laws

[Grant_Watson]

yeah, everybody having guns would have solved this ...

It certainly would have ended it much more quickly.

Mod parent up..

[twitchingbug]

Wow. That would be seriously chaotic. Armed innocents shooting armed innocents. Not to mention the utter confusion for law enforcement...

Jack Thompson seizes the day

[Elkboy]

Jack Thompson has already blamed this on video games. What a fucking vulture.

Re:Gaming, no

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm not pro or anti gun, but you simply can't go on a mass murdering spree like this with a knife or a bow and arrow."

So many sarcastic responses to choose from:

No, you're right. Fertilizer and solvents make those looks like toys.

or

Tell that to Rambo.

or

Tell that to Ted Bundy.

or

Tell that to Robin Hood

or

No, you're right. It would have taken longer to kill that many people with those weapons.

The weapons used were supposedly 2 handguns. 9mm and .22 caliber. You could bitch about high capacity magazines but then you would have to consider the fact that if he killed 32 and wounded another 30, then he already reloaded at least 4 times not counting shots that missed their mark. Would making him reload an extra time or two have made much of a difference? I doubt it. People adapt to circumstances and he would probably have just brought another gun in that case. The guarunteed resulting problems hi capacity bans cause to law enforcement, the military, and law abiding gun owners are not worth the speculatory "What if's" of panic induced legislation. All those bans do is create artificial shortages and drive up prices making gun ownership a privledge of the wealthy. It would also make burglary shockingly more profitable as stolen magazines became worth their weight in gold. You want to play political engineer? Take the subject seriously and think through ALL potential impacts and do cost benifit analysises before putting your weight behind a cause. Otherwise, you're just a tool for someone else's ulterio motive.

Installing a breathalizer in every car would save 100 fold more lives so don't give me the "at all costs" BS.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[Anonymous Coward]

"I would be more than happy to vote for loosening of gun ownership restrictions if it could be proved to me that the new gun owners were willing to take responsibility for both their weapon and themselves - at least more than most people currently show for their motor vehicles"

Why "more"? I doubt that more people would be killed by accidental shootings than are killed in motor vehicle accidents, so to say that people need to take "more" care when they cause fewer deaths is to have a double standard, which is unfair.

Re:University of Texas Tower

[RexRhino]

Yes, if all Americans had access to automatic weapons, it would be a violent hellhole like Switzerland...

Oh, wait:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1566715.st m

Gun Control is "Slightly" Different...

[mutube]

Don't worry. There will be a whole host of people who will blame this on just about everything you can imagine. Some of the likely targets will be: * Computer games * Music of some sort * Lack of gun control * Religion * Lack of religion * Educational system * Lack of mental-health counseling * If the person turns out to be an engineering student, expect blame to fall on H1B visas for providing too much competition for local engineers * If the person turns out to be foreign, I can imagine a whole slew of others to blame In short, blame everything/everybody except the person who did the deed. Personal responsibility is not even a concept in America any more.

Quite. Except the lack of gun control makes it far easier to cause a large amount of damage. A computer-gaming Marilyn Manson obsessed repressed Islamic fundamentalist, inconsistently educated mentalist engineer with an Arabic look about him, does a lot less damage when armed with a toothpick.

Re:Gun Control is "Slightly" Different...

[ScentCone]

does a lot less damage when armed with a toothpick

Except, we see examples in the middle east, every day (where you can buy fully automatic AK47s like hot dogs on the street corner) where some disillusioned wack job kills just as many people using materials that half-decent engineering student at Va. Tech would also be able to put together. Hell, you could open the one door to your average classroom, throw three $1.00 molotov cocktails in, chain the door, walk down the hall and do it one or two more times, and ALSO kill and horribly wound dozens or people. None of this happens without the person doing it.

Re:Gun Control is "Slightly" Different...

[RobertLTux]

even if the surrounding area had a PERFECT method of removing guns this is a Technical University so all you would need is

1 visit the machine shop to make your shells/guns
2 visit the chemical lab to make some gun powder
3 revisit the machine shop to load your shells
4 Go Nuts
5 Profit!! (in HELL)

folks all they need to do QuadPlus UNGOOD is right there on campus (Nuke lab anyone??)

Re:Gun Control is "Slightly" Different...

[Shihar]

Quite. Except the lack of gun control makes it far easier to cause a large amount of damage. A computer-gaming Marilyn Manson obsessed repressed Islamic fundamentalist, inconsistently educated mentalist engineer with an Arabic look about him, does a lot less damage when armed with a toothpick.

He also does a lot less damage when a red neck armed with a pistol is sitting next to him.

Gun control isn't the issue. There are other nations in this world far more armed to the teeth then Americans (Canadians and Swedes come to mind) that have much reduced levels of gun death. We should be able to be both armed to the teeth and able avoid blood baths. The problem is deeper then guns, and it sure as hell won't be solved by attempting the utterly futile (and certainly likely to be lethal) act of trying to take away the guns from Americans.

Re:Gun Control is "Slightly" Different...

[ReTay]

Quite. Except the lack of gun control makes it far easier to cause a large amount of damage

Wrong in places that gun controls true believers have won they see skyrocketing crime.
Ask England, it is the people that are determined to commit the crimes not what ever they use to commit them. Note that criminals by definition do not follow the laws can you explain how yet another gun law is going to keep them from doing it? When they are what? ...11k+ gun laws on the books that haven't stopped them?
If a gun is not handy they use a bat or explosives or they drive their SUBs into crowds.

Again England is a nice example, they have banned guns and now feel the need to ban knives to protect people. That is right it is not a joke they really want to ban knives.
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/8021
That's right they want to ban knives. Something that you can make with a grinder and a few minutes. Because they will protect people by banning them.
And even though the evil guns are gone their crime rate is still going up.

How about taking just a little responsibility here people?

Re:Gun Control is "Slightly" Different...

[Idbar]

I do agree, the gun control in the US is really relaxed. You find stores selling this kind of supplies like car dealers, all around the place. This should be centralized to important cities in the states, and be severely controlled. The more the thinks spread the harder to contempt. Thus, if you want to maintain a good control, don't let the weapons leave important supplies centers to small wooden houses over a highway.

Hunters should be aware that THIS is an important matter and stop whining about there freedom of getting weapons at the corner shop. That's the most dangerous policy I think the US have locally and I hope it's soon to be modified. No wonder you can even find rifles on e-bay. But if you can buy the parts online, I don't think is complicated (and in fact emotionally challenging for a psycho), to get the parts and build the weapon.

Re:Gun Control is "Slightly" Different...

[Anonymous Coward]

+3 insigthful? Swedes armed to the teeth more than americans..? Jesus, mods, get of that cheap crack.

Re:Gun Control is "Slightly" Different...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except VTech had a "gun-free zone" policy.

Re:Gun Control is "Slightly" Different...

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, you posted a link to a scope for a .22 rifle. The scope can do nothing with out the gun. Nice try, no donut.

Re:Gun Control is "Slightly" Different...

[mutube]

Wrong in places that gun controls true believers have won they see skyrocketing crime.

This is nonsense. Point me to a recent enforcement of gun control that has resulted in increase crime. Note: Iraq does not count (for various, I hope, obvious reasons).

Ask England, it is the people that are determined to commit the crimes not what ever they use to commit them. Note that criminals by definition do not follow the laws can you explain how yet another gun law is going to keep them from doing it? When they are what? ...11k+ gun laws on the books that haven't stopped them?
If a gun is not handy they use a bat or explosives or they drive their SUBs into crowds.

I am from England, although presently living in Scotland.

As I replied to an earlier poster the point is not that removing guns makes it impossible for nutters to cause harm, but rather that it makes it harder for them to do so. Of course it would be possible to cause (less) harm with a bat or an SUV, just as it's always been possible to cause harm with clenched fists.

Quoting the number of gun laws does nothing to prove or disprove your argument without reference to the content or enforcement of those laws. There is no law banning hand gun ownership in the United States, since that's what we're discussing it's slightly pointless to reference law.

Again England is a nice example, they have banned guns and now feel the need to ban knives to protect people. That is right it is not a joke they really want to ban knives.

Actually they want to ban carrying of knives in public (with various exclusions), check your sources.

Something that you can make with a grinder and a few minutes. Because they will protect people by banning them.

Requires intelligence, planning & preparation. Excludes impulsive crimes / crimes of passion, reducing deaths.

The application and wording of the particular law has it's flaws and I'd be happy to discuss that with you outside an attempt to back up a separate, largely unrelated, argument.

And even though the evil guns are gone their crime rate is still going up.

Care to provide statistics? I will. Crime is actually falling in the UK. Violent crime was also much higher in the 1990s than present day.

Current concern over knives is due to increased fatalities related to knife crime than crime in general.

How about taking just a little responsibility here people?

Means, motive, opportunity.

We're discussing the 3rd.

Re:Gun Control is "Slightly" Different...

[theonetruekeebler]

A computer-gaming Marilyn Manson obsessed repressed Islamic fundamentalist, inconsistently educated mentalist engineer with an Arabic look about him, does a lot less damage when armed with a toothpick. ...but slightly more when armed with a lorry full of ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel.

It's too late to install working gun control in the United States. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle. There are over a quarter of a billion private firearms in the U.S., and sending out a polite letter saying "Please hand in your guns by the close of business on Thursday" simply won't work -- it certainly won't work on the sorts who have dishonest reasons for owning them.

It was already a crime to carry a weapon onto the VaTech campus. That did not keep a baddie from bringing guns on campus -- though doubtless it deterred many honest people from doing so.

For an interesting story, look to 1991 in Killeen, Texas. A survivor of that massacre tells the story of deciding to leave her handgun locked in her car's glove box instead of taking it into the restaurant, because of laws against guns in public places. Someone who chose not to obey that law drove his truck through the window and killed 23 people, wounded 20 more, then killed himself.

Nobody decides to shoot up a school then suddenly says to himself, "Curses! It's against the law to have a firearm on that campus! All my plans, ruined! I was willing to break forty-eight laws, but that forty-ninth, man, that really did the trick." An extra law, particularly one as delusional as after-the-fact gun control, did not change the minds of the shooter in Killeen, Texas, or the one in Blacksburg, Virginia, or the ones in Littleton, Colorado, or the one in Conyers, Georgia. It won't stop the next one, either.

Still and all, we're talking about a mere thirty three people out of the nine thousand who will be murdered by guns in the United States this year. Nobody would care except they all happened at once.

Re:Gun Control is "Slightly" Different...

[Grishnakh]

He meant Swiss, not Swedes. The Swiss are heavily armed with fully-automatic assault rifles in most homes.

Re:Gun Control is "Slightly" Different...

[Guppy06]

"A computer-gaming Marilyn Manson obsessed repressed Islamic fundamentalist, inconsistently educated mentalist engineer with an Arabic look about him, does a lot less damage when armed with a toothpick."

Don't be so fast to discount the toothpick. It's amazing what one could do with a box cutter, or with a rental truck and some fertilizer.

Even if such a thing were feasible, what would you do if it were possible to ensure that nobody with anything remotely resembling murderous intent could get near a firearm? Declare the problem solved and walk away, at least until you have to react to a new object you hadn't considered as a weapon before, or some new tactic is used to circumvent your safeguards?

When is it time to start dealing with murderous desires to being with, and the society that willfully lets it fester until people end up dead? We'd accomplish a lot more if we focused less on potential weapons and more on this "somebody else's problem" attitude that we all have.

Re:Gun Control is "Slightly" Different...

[NeutronCowboy]

Since this has been brought up several times, the Swiss assault rifle in the closet is not what gun-proponents are advocating in the US. They are advocating that everyone in the US be allowed to carry a gun on their person, regardless of where they go. What you have in Switzerland is a militia with home access to military equipment, but where no one is allowed to carry them out in the open, unless on official business. Meaning, you can't take your rifle to the mall just because.

And Sweden? I've been to Sweden, and no on packs heat there. Where the hell did this idea come from?

Re:Gun Control is "Slightly" Different...

[Idbar]

I have absolutely no clue about weapons at all. I'm not arguing that. If you know a bit more, probably is easier to get something more than a scope.

Re:Gun Control is "Slightly" Different...

[breem42]

He also does a lot less damage when a red neck armed with a pistol is sitting next to him.

Total BS. Someone with a gun just offers an unbalanced person the opportunity to grab it from them. That's why cops mostly keep theirs in the the holster, under a strap.

There are other nations in this world far more armed to the teeth then Americans (Canadians and Swedes come to mind) that have much reduced levels of gun death.

In Canada, yes there are lots of guns. But people don't go down the street packing. There are more people who hunt -- either for a living or sport. I think that if you could compare the number of hand guns per capita, you would find that Canada comes out way lower than the US.

The problem is deeper then guns, and it sure as hell won't be solved by attempting the utterly futile (and certainly likely to be lethal) act of trying to take away the guns from Americans.

Guns are strictly regulated in Canada.

However I do agree that the problem does go very deep. I think it also relates to the need some people have to carry a gun. Your post displays it clearly. If lots of people carry guns, you think that no one will mess with you, because they fear you have one. I fail to see the connection. In fact I see the opposite -- guns cause fear, fear causes violence. The "bad guy" will fear you to have a gun and therefore make sure they have one and shoot you first.

Tony

Re:Gun Control is "Slightly" Different...

[Shemmie]

With the greatest respect considering the current situation, one thing the UK doesn't seem to see a lot of, that we're sadly seeing a lot on our TV over here happening in the US, is a maniac walking into a school, college, or Uni, and shooting a lot of people...

Re:Gun Control is "Slightly" Different...

[ReTay]

This is nonsense. Point me to a recent enforcement of gun control that has resulted in increase crime. Note: Iraq does not count (for various, I hope, obvious reasons).

I did notice the reference to ENGLAND? I again referred to it in the latter part of my post. What gun laws has England enacted recently? Since they banned firearms their crime rates have jumped significantly.

I am from England, although presently living in Scotland.

Irrelevant and besides the point.

As I replied to an earlier poster the point is not that removing guns makes it impossible for >nutters to cause harm, but rather that it makes it harder for them to do so. Of course it would be >possible to cause (less) harm with a bat or an SUV,

BWahahahaha Ummmm NO in fact MDs that have to deal with the victims have stated that it is easier to treat people that have been shot then beaten with bats. And you are saying that a truck hitting someone would harm them less then a gunshot?
You need to read up on a guy named Newton he wrote some laws on physics.....

just as it's always been possible to cause harm with clenched fists.

You are making my point for me.

Quoting the number of gun laws does nothing to prove or disprove your argument without reference to the content or enforcement of those laws.

Yes it does, if someone is willing to kill why would they worry about buying a black market handgun? It is not logical to assume that someone that is bent on murder would say 'Boy I can't shoot up a school because it is not legal to but a gun', now is it? THAT IS THE POINT criminals tend to break laws. How are more laws going to do anything?

Actually they want to ban carrying of knives in public (with various exclusions), check your sources.

I did, now if you want to get lippy we can, or we can keep it civil. I will leave that up to you.
They have actually in my site put forward proposals to ban "combat knives". And the point you are attempting to dance around is that the bans don't work. If they did the violence would go away like the gun ban happy people have been promising for years now. What happened?
What is next after knives? It does not and never will work.

Requires intelligence, planning & preparation. Excludes impulsive crimes / crimes of passion, reducing deaths.
The application and wording of the particular law has it's flaws and I'd be happy to discuss that with you outside an attempt to back up a separate, largely unrelated, argument.

Completely relevant, the people promised that it would bring safety and a reduction in violent crime and it has not. In fact it has done the opposite. I could not care less about the application or the wording as I don't have to live under it. My point is simple people were promised safety if they were willing to give up "just a little freedom". They got and deserved neither.

Care to provide statistics? I will. Crime is actually falling in the UK. Violent crime was also much higher in the 1990s than present day.

Ok you are on. Lets look at your source and how it shoots that in the foot

The public's reporting of crime varies considerably by type of offence. Thefts of vehicles are most likely to be reported (94%), followed by burglaries in which something was stolen (81%). Reporting rates are relatively low for crimes such as common assault, theft from the person and vandalism (35%, 33% and 31% in 2005/06).

So your own sources state that the crimes in question are not being reported in shocking numbers.
so the actual numbers are roughly three times higher they their own numbers.
That leads me on to my next point
According to

Re:Gun Control is "Slightly" Different...

[ReTay]

With the greatest respect considering the current situation, one thing the UK doesn't seem to see a lot of, that we're sadly seeing a lot on our TV over here happening in the US, is a maniac walking into a school, college, or Uni, and shooting a lot of people...

One incident one day.
Hardly compelling numbers.

In fact you are more likely to be killed by a doctor then a gun in the US.
"accidental deaths caused by doctors and hospitals in America reached 120,000 per year. Meanwhile, gun deaths have dropped 35 percent. In fact, accidental gun deaths dropped to 1,500 last year.
Think about it. "
Source CDC
Also see the above reply about OVERALL crime rates between our two nations.
You are safer in the US.

With all due respect.

Re:Gun Control is "Slightly" Different...

[Dun Malg]

+3 insigthful? Swedes armed to the teeth more than americans..? Jesus, mods, get of that cheap crack. He means Switzerland. A common, if idiotic, error. Let's hear it for geography education in the US!

Re:Gun Control is "Slightly" Different...

[dreamlax]

So what if the US is safer, that certainly doesn't make it safe.

Re:Gun Control is "Slightly" Different...

[Dun Malg]

I do agree, the gun control in the US is really relaxed. You find stores selling this kind of supplies like car dealers, all around the place. This should be centralized to important cities in the states, and be severely controlled. The more the thinks spread the harder to contempt. Thus, if you want to maintain a good control, don't let the weapons leave important supplies centers to small wooden houses over a highway. Your English is atrocious, but I think I understand what you're suggesting. It won't work. There are already 200 million + guns in private hands in the US. Controlling the sale of them now is not going to make the ones already sold go away. Furthermore, you talk a lot about "control", but never say what you mean by that. So say we follow your plan and guns are only available for purchase at special federal gun stores, like the way they sell booze in Canada. How does this stop a guy like this from flipping out a year after he bought his pistols?

Hunters should be aware that THIS is an important matter and stop whining about there freedom of getting weapons at the corner shop. Such a quaint European notion of firearm ownership. Despite the asinine policy of the BATF and it's "legitimate sporting purposes" nonsense, the right to bear arms in the US has never been about sport or hunting. It's always been about the ultimate power of self direction remaining in the hands of the people. Oh sure, you can argue all day about how an armed populace has no chance against the US Army (as an Army veteran, I can say that most of the Army would not be on the government's side at that point) but that is entirely irrelevant. Rights do not go away simply because the exercise thereof might be a lost cause.

That's the most dangerous policy I think the US have locally and I hope it's soon to be modified. No wonder you can even find rifles on e-bay. eBay hasn't allowed the auction of firearms since early 1999, genius. And even when they did, the transfer of ownership had to be made through a federally licensed firearms dealer local to the buyer, with all the same paperwork and checking involved in just buying a firearm "at the corner shop". You argue from complete ignorance.

Re:Gun Control is "Slightly" Different...

[couchslug]

"A computer-gaming Marilyn Manson obsessed repressed Islamic fundamentalist, inconsistently educated mentalist engineer with an Arabic look about him, does a lot less damage when armed with a toothpick."

If he's an engineer we might be lucky he choose the "shooting" option instead of the "jack a propane truck and have an FAE day" alternative. If one thinks about it, the amount of destruction you can (easily) cause in modern countries with found resources exceeds by far what one armed man can do solo.

Re:Gun Control is "Slightly" Different...

[ReTay]

I will error on the side of the least risk.
You are of course free to do as you wish.
And judging the demographics people tend to agree with me. The flight from crime prone areas to less crime prone areas speaks worlds.

You do understand that to live is to risk right?
The world will never be "SAFE" for everyone. No country is absolutely safe and it is unreasonable to expect one to be.

Re:Gun Control is "Slightly" Different...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I have absolutely no clue at all."

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Gun Control is "Slightly" Different...

[Anonymous Coward]

He also does a lot less damage when a red neck armed with a pistol is sitting next to him.

Stab the red neck in the eye with the toothpick, steal the gun, then go on a shooting rampage.

Much worse than if the red neck had only been armed with a tooth-pick.

Re:Gun Control is "Slightly" Different...

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, would not feel safe with the knowledge that someone who doesn't know the difference between "then" and "than" was carrying a gun.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Astro Dr Dave]

So when looking from an outer point of view, I can't either understand the so-called right to defend oneself. I thought the duty to defend us from external risks was an issue concerning the Authorities, by means of Police or even the Army.
The authorities (including police) have no duty to protect anyone; this is long-established law. Note that in this event, as with the Columbine shootings, the violence ended when the shooters killed themselves; the police did not kill or otherwise stop the shooters.

The right to self-defense derives from the fundamental right to life.

Re:Gun Laws

[the_mad_postar]

You can't conceal a shotgun or Rifle which I'm sure is what he was using.

False, the shooter was using 2 hand guns.

Banning a concealed weapon wouldn't have changed the outcome of this in any way.

False, ANY law abiding citizen with a CCL shoots this motherfucker before he kills 31.

Go look at the crime rates for any state with a Concealed Carry Law - the crime rate plummets for all violent crimes except rape - which just means that more women need to carry guns.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[fooDfighter]

Cars also kill "infinitely" more Americans every year than terrorists and WMDs, yet your country is still in Iraq for some reason.

The car comparison is flawed at best.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[CKW]

The *only* reason making guns illegal would not work is because there's already so many in circulation.

Forcing everyone to carry a big 5 lb lump of steel throughout their lives to "ensure their safety" from what's probably a 1 in 20,000 lifetime event is utterly idiotic - especially considering that in places like Canada and Europe the likelyhood of being shot dead is already LESS THAN your rate of gun-crime.

It's so interesting to see everyone all year long decrying the "1984" orwell state appearing in the UK, but as soon as something like this happens you have dozens of people in the forums calling for everyone in the country to be armed and for a hundred HD cameras to be placed throughout every single campus and 100 people to watch all these HD cameras - just to catch that one guy every 30 years who kills 30 people.

All this while drinking while driving is a minor first offence and 40% of everyone doesn't fasten their seatbelts.

God damned morons, all of you.

Well it's official, two semi-auto pistols...

[MSFanBoi2]

Thats what he used... a 9mm Pistol and a 22 cal pistol...

Re:Gun Laws

[russ1337]

The right to bear arms like this: http://www.bustedtees.com/shirt/secondamendment/

Can the pro-gun lobbyists PLEASE SHUT UP

[jchenx]

I do not, however, hold VA Tech entirely blameless because they are the ones who instituted a ban on students possessing firearms on campus, thereby ensuring that the only person with a firearm was the person planning on breaking the rules anyway. I think their policy is moronic and is one of the reasons why this shooting claimed so many lives compared to incidences elsewhere where a few random students were able to fire back and mitigate the situation.

Can the pro-gun lobbyists PLEASE SHUT UP?

There will be a time and a place to discuss the theoreticals of "would doing X have helped?" scenarios. Every anti-something lobbyist is going to try to find something to hinge this on, from video games to guns (or lack thereof).

Good god, this incident only happened a few hours ago. People (like myself) are still shocked, grieving, mourning for the loss of our fellow classmates, faculty, etc. To hear people, like yourself, using this incident to lobby their particular beliefs, is just sickening.

Re:Can the pro-gun lobbyists PLEASE SHUT UP

[Peter La Casse]

Can the pro-gun lobbyists PLEASE SHUT UP?

Why single out the pro-gun lobbyists when partisans of every bent are jumping at the chance to use this terrible incident to sling mud at guns, gun laws, other laws, the United States, other countries, politicians, VT administrators, lawyers, video games, the war in Iraq, and anything else that they can think of? I agree that it's sickening. These people will stop at nothing to impose their political and social views on the rest of us.

Re:Can the pro-gun lobbyists PLEASE SHUT UP

[paitre]

Truthfully, we'd be pleased as punch to shut up if the same would occur from the other side.

Keep Jack Thompson and Mrs. Brady on a fucking leash, and let everyone grieve for a week or two and allow the police the time they need to put this whole mess together.

But no, these fucktards can't leave well enough alone, and there must be a voice in dissent of their opinions.

Re:Can the pro-gun lobbyists PLEASE SHUT UP

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Can the pro-gun lobbyists PLEASE SHUT UP?

Yeah, because obviously I'm a lobbyist. It's called "freedom of speech" and no I won't stop expressing my opinions.

There will be a time and a place to discuss the theoreticals of "would doing X have helped?" scenarios.

If you don't want to discuss the issues surrounding this incident the solution is really, really easy. Stop reading a discussion board about it.

Good god, this incident only happened a few hours ago. People (like myself) are still shocked, grieving, mourning for the loss of our fellow classmates, faculty, etc. To hear people, like yourself, using this incident to lobby their particular beliefs, is just sickening.

I'm replying to a comment someone made about this topic. What, do you think this entire discussion should be "gee I feel bad" repeated over and over again. If you're not ready to discuss the issue, turn off your computer and go to the park, or simply close this Web page, or even just don't open this particular discussion thread.

Re:Can the pro-gun lobbyists PLEASE SHUT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

I wanted to make sure you got at least one supportive reply to your comment. Regardless of where you stand on various political issues, and I have my own opinions as well, this is not the time. Thank you for calling him on that.

A creative person could easily blame a whole raft of policies, social environments and timings for this tragedy. Once again, anything that subtle should wait a while.

After 9/11 we waited weeks before anyone even felt like laughing at comedy. Why wouldn't we wait at least a few days before blaming, well, whatever it is we feel we need to blame.

Re:Can the pro-gun lobbyists PLEASE SHUT UP

[jchenx]

Yeah, because obviously I'm a lobbyist. It's called "freedom of speech" and no I won't stop expressing my opinions.

Don't confuse me with someone who doesn't believe in freedom of speech. I firmly believe in the right of anyone to act like an asshole and say the cruelest of things. But of course, I also have the right to tell that person to "shut up".

I'm replying to a comment someone made about this topic. What, do you think this entire discussion should be "gee I feel bad" repeated over and over again. If you're not ready to discuss the issue, turn off your computer and go to the park, or simply close this Web page, or even just don't open this particular discussion thread.

We all grieve and cope in different ways. I, like many other alumni, did so by posting and reading online. In a way, we want to show our support by making others aware, and trying to prevent this from turning into a blame game, or a "let's trivialize the situation by turning this into a gun debate!" issue.

IMHO, it's as disgusting as what Jack Thompson tried to do. Just a few hours after the massacre, he was already on news channels advocating his anti-video game rhetoric, even though there was no indication at all that the shooter even played games. Most Slashdotters agree that was just tasteless. Personally, I see the gun debate as the same thing.

Of course, you are free to disagree and post all you want. I just wanted to provide my own 2 cents. And also, in a way, provide tips. If you see a fellow VT alumni, do NOT go and strike up a conversation, "Say, you know, if VT allowed guns, this wouldn't have happened you know."

Re:Can the pro-gun lobbyists PLEASE SHUT UP

[deacon]

Well here is what Bradford B. Wiles, a graduate student at Virginia Tech. had to say about it. He was actually there, so his perspective might be relevant.

On Aug. 21 at about 9:20 a.m., my graduate-level class was evacuated from the Squires Student Center. We were interrupted in class and not informed of anything other than the following words: "You need to get out of the building."

Upon exiting the classroom, we were met at the doors leading outside by two armor-clad policemen with fully automatic weapons, plus their side arms. Once outside, there were several more officers with either fully automatic rifles and pump shotguns, and policemen running down the street, pistols drawn.

It was at this time that I realized that I had no viable means of protecting myself.

Please realize that I am licensed to carry a concealed handgun in the commonwealth of Virginia, and do so on a regular basis. However, because I am a Virginia Tech student, I am prohibited from carrying at school because of Virginia Tech's student policy, which makes possession of a handgun an expellable offense, but not a prosecutable crime.

I had entrusted my safety, and the safety of others to the police. In light of this, there are a few things I wish to point out.

First, I never want to have my safety fully in the hands of anyone else, including the police.

Second, I considered bringing my gun with me to campus, but did not due to the obvious risk of losing my graduate career, which is ridiculous because had I been shot and killed, there would have been no graduate career for me anyway.

Third, and most important, I am trained and able to carry a concealed handgun almost anywhere in Virginia and other states that have reciprocity with Virginia, but cannot carry where I spend more time than anywhere else because, somehow, I become a threat to others when I cross from the town of Blacksburg onto Virginia Tech's campus.

Of all of the emotions and thoughts that were running through my head that morning, the most overwhelming one was of helplessness.

That feeling of helplessness has been difficult to reconcile because I knew I would have been safer with a proper means to defend myself.

I would also like to point out that when I mentioned to a professor that I would feel safer with my gun, this is what she said to me, "I would feel safer if you had your gun."

The policy that forbids students who are legally licensed to carry in Virginia needs to be changed.

I am qualified and capable of carrying a concealed handgun and urge you to work with me to allow my most basic right of self-defense, and eliminate my entrusting my safety and the safety of my classmates to the government.

This incident makes it clear that it is time that Virginia Tech and the commonwealth of Virginia let me take responsibility for my safety.

link:
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/80 510

Re:Can the pro-gun lobbyists PLEASE SHUT UP

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Don't confuse me with someone who doesn't believe in freedom of speech. I firmly believe in the right of anyone to act like an asshole and say the cruelest of things. But of course, I also have the right to tell that person to "shut up".

I'm glad you're a free speech supporter. I suppose what I most object to about your free speech is the fact that you insist on referring to people who express opinions that you don't seem to like as "lobbyists." That is both insulting and inaccurate, unless you consider every person in the US to be a lobbyist if they express a political opinion.

We all grieve and cope in different ways.

True, but I'm not particularly grieving here or emotionally involved in the situation. I'm simply responding to other people who are emotionally involved and whose method of coping is to try to solve the problem by reacting illogically and latching on to whatever easy answer they can conceive of, even if looking at it logically or rationally shows that the so called solution would actually make things worse. You and others can grieve and cope all you want, but when part of the coping process is a call for legal changes that likely will result in more violence and suffering, that is where I step in and refute those irrational pleas in the hope that I can help stop suffering in the future.

IMHO, it's as disgusting as what Jack Thompson tried to do.

Thompson is a political hack trying to use the issue to pressure politicians.

Personally, I see the gun debate as the same thing.

And this is where we strongly differ. If someone who was concerned about the incident commented that perhaps video games are the problem and we should ban them, as part of said coping process, you see that and see people responding to that comment as the same thing as what Mr. Thompson is doing. I see it as a discussion that helps people work through the issue and come up with ways to potentially prevent similar things in the future.

Draw the line where you want

[pizzach]

Thank you. You pretty much echoed my thoughts. I wrote an essay a few years ago for a scholarship to go on exchange to Japan. The topic was restricted to the problems of guns. This was because the scholarship was given by a family that had their son die when on exchange to America. The boy was shot when going to a party because he knocked on the door of the wrong house. If you go and ask people who have strict gun control in their country about their thoughts on guns, more often then not they talk about how much more dangerous other countries appear to be because they have guns. They don't rue not being able to hunt or show off their great new gun rack. In the end, guns were just one step towards nuclear weapons. You can make same arguments at different levels for knives, swords, guns, bombs etc. It's all the same. Draw your line where you want, but I know where I'll be drawing mine.

Re:Draw the line where you want

[Evil W1zard]

Japan has very strict gun-laws, but does that stop Japanese gangs in the major and smaller cities from using guns? Also an interesting side note is that while gun related deaths in Japan are notably less than the US its suicide rate is double that of the US...

Fact is that crime in general (not just gun crime) is pretty rampant throughout America and I for one would feel a lot less secure if you took away the ability for me to protect my home if someone were to break in or carry a weapon if I had all the pre-requisite training to do so. (I am 100% for mandatory training for people who want to carry a weapon and I also don't believe fully automatic weapons are a necessity for the general populace.) But I do believe handguns, rifles, shotguns and the like are not overboard.

All that being said this is pretty much sidebar back and forth to what is a very unfortunate event that was caused by a very, very sick individual.

Re:Draw the line where you want

[Xybot]

..and by the same token, when a Japanese student gets stressed and goes postal, he can't simply go get his gun and shoot a bunch of innocent people.

Re:Draw the line where you want

[Evil W1zard]

I dont care if you disagree with me because you have the coolest sig on /. that I have seen so far lol!

Seeking Chinese Nationalist For Majority Radio

[Baldrson]

Seeking Chinese Nationalist For Majority Radio Guest Spot

The Nanjing Anti-African riots leading to Tiananmen Square may, themselves, have been a precursor to today's massacre at Virginia Tech University reportedly committed by an Asian student (although verification is not yet in). If so, it is important to discuss the raciosexual (yes I made up that word and it deserves reification) dynamics of campus life, particularly how it impacts the education of young men not equipped to deal with a sexual ecology that would never appear in nature. If this is taken to mean I harbor sympathies for young men who might go on murderous rampages against those of another race that are fucking their women on campus--the answer is, "Yes". If this is further taken to mean that I hold innocent young men, living among foreigners in another country, who go on such rampages--the answer is, "No".

It is on this basis that I would like to interview a Chinese nationalist with first-hand knowledge of the situation facing young men in Nanjing so we can discuss how to prevent such torture of young men trying to receive an education--and potentially prevent catastrophic wars between our great nations resulting from vicious policies of multiculturalism.

Posted by James Bowery on Monday, April 16, 2007 at 06:56 PM in
Comments (9) | Tell-a-Friend

Bra-VO!

[NIckGorton]

I was waiting to listen to Jon Stewart or perhaps Keith Olbermann to find out which fucknut had said the most offensive thing about this in the first 24 hours. But I find it within hours on slashdot.

If you were not posting as an anonymous coward I would suggest that for every single minority student was killed in that shooting, I should be able to fill a 2 liter bottle with piss and make you drink it.

If there was a single Asian student among the dead, I should be able to shit on a plate and force you to eat it.

Re:Bra-VO!

[heinousjay]

Interesting attitude. My father used to scare me with stories about people like you existing, but finding out you are all real is a lot more terrifying.

Re:Bra-VO!

[NIckGorton]

Yes, Jay. We exist. We stand up to bigots who refer to people as 'gooks', 'niggers', 'faggots', 'spics' etc.

In fact, we aren't always nice about it either. Some of us call ignorant racist fuckwits (like the aforementioned one) exactly as we see them.

Re:Bra-VO!

[heinousjay]

Oh, I didn't mean that part. I have no particular love for racism either.

I meant the part where you would torture people who don't share your attitude of tolerance. Sorry you misunderstood.

Re:Bra-VO!

[NIckGorton]

Oh my goodness, aren't we pure. Never have a wicked thought, eh? I suspect you can't see race either, do you? Or perhaps its that you don't have to see the lives destroyed by discrimination and prejudice like this? Live in a nice secluded upper-middle-class neighborhood and the only people of color you see are ones who are essentially from the same SES as you, do we?

Nope. I don't buy the PollyAnna crap dude. And having been a victim of such violence... though largely now as a witness to other's suffering, I can tell you it royally torques my nads.

Fuck him.

Re:Bra-VO!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my goodness, aren't we pure. Never have a wicked thought, eh? I suspect you can't see race either, do you? Or perhaps its that you don't have to see the lives destroyed by discrimination and prejudice like this? Live in a nice secluded upper-middle-class neighborhood and the only people of color you see are ones who are essentially from the same SES as you, do we?

Nope. I don't buy the PollyAnna crap dude. And having been a victim of such violence... though largely now as a witness to other's suffering, I can tell you it royally torques my nads.

...so the application of excrement to another human being solves what exactly??

Re:Bra-VO!

[Baldrson]

I'm not sure what makes you think the ratio should be 1 to 33 of Asian to non-Asian victims let alone why anyone "should" eat your shit if a single Asian was killed, but there is this for you to contend with: BLACKSBURG, United States, April 16 (Xinhua)--No Chinese students have been found among the dozens of victims in Monday's shooting rampage on the campus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), in the eastern U.S. state of Virginia. Ray Wang, a board member of the Association of Chinese Students and Scholars (ACSS) at Virginia Tech, told Xinhua that he was not at the scene of the shootings, but he had contacted quite a number of Chinese students and had so far got no word that Chinese students were injured or killed in the incident. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-04/17/conte nt_5986983.htm

Guns are bad! So only badguys should get them!

[novafluxx]

Yes, no one should have a gun. That way when the bad guys get their hands one one, we are all totally defenseless and can do nothing but line up like cattle and be slaughtered. I like the sound of that!! Not.

Re:Guns are bad! So only badguys should get them!

[Lexical_Scope]

Yes, no one should have a gun. That way when the bad guys get their hands one one, we are all totally defenseless and can do nothing but line up like cattle and be slaughtered. I like the sound of that!! Not. Right, I think we need to make an important distinction here. The person who shot the people at VTech was almost certainly NOT a criminal OR a 'bad guy'. I'd imagine it's far more likely that he was just a person with a bad combination of mental instability and personal circumstances. He made a (very) bad choice and used the tools at his disposal to achieve an end. Now the "end" in question doesn't have to be a logical goal or anything because the guy is clearly disturbed and not thinking straight.

Careeer criminals will get hold of guns, but in general career criminals have very little interest in shooting random people. It's not good for business. In a society like the UK where only criminals and Policemen have guns, you are extremely unlikely to be shot unless you are a criminal, involved in drugs or a police officer. A percentage of the population of any society will always have mental problems, impulse and anger control issues and poor judgement. In a society where people can legally own and carry guns, some of those guns will be in the hands of those unstable people. Until that person blows up and starts shooting people, they can be hard to spot.

I know that a ban on gun ownership would never happen in the US. Even if it could be proved beyond doubt (as it has been to many people) that MORE guns = MORE shootings, there would still never be a ban. What about increasing the requirements for legal ownership and forcing owners to carry permits on their person at all times? For example, offer all school-leavers 2 years of National Service with the Armed Forces. If someone has at least 2 years military service (which includes at least basic weapons training and also a great deal of psyche profiling and the like) then they can pass a simple test to be given a gun permit. If someone does NOT have 2 years service, they would need to pass a strenuous (and I mean that...psyche profiling, aptitude tests, theory and anything else people brighter than me can come up with) training program of at least one year before being granted a permit.

Permits should be renewed every 2 years minimum, with eyesight tests and apititude tests as a bare minimum for renewal.

What do people think?

Re:Gun Laws

[Cpt_Kirks]

I agree.

I think everyone should take a course on safe gun handling and basic shooting.

It takes a lot of fear of the unknown out of the equation.

A lot of anti-gun types may come to realise they are just tools. Nothing scary or magical, just tools.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Kotukunui]

On the radio this morning someone made a very good point about people in their neighbourhood driving their children the short distance to school for fear of abduction, even though the number of abductions in that area in the last ten years is zero. The lack of abductions just reinforces the parent's behaviour. "See, it is working. By driving our kids 200yards to school we have successfully prevented all abductions."

I live in New Zealand. I have made it a practice to hang elephant scaring devices in my back yard to prevent my family being trampled by runaway pachyderms. My kids are safe and no-one has ever reported seeing an elephant in my neighbourhood. Those elephant scarers I made are really effective....

P.S. Would you like to buy one? Only US$5000. Guaranteed to prevent elephant attacks (Guarantee void in Africa, Asia and within 10 kilometres of any zoo, circus or safari park)

Violence or Offensive Language, priorities?

[Anonymous Coward]

Makes you wonder... when a week ago we were so fucking concerned with a radio host who made questionable comments about a team of basketball players, when we should be worrying about security in our schools.

where is the fucking priority people. offensive language or 32 innocent deaths?

Re:Gun Laws

[Mockylock]

Great point with the CCL crime rates and stopping the spree.

Only in America

[Anonymous Coward]

Only in America

Re:Gun Laws

[MightyMait]

You can't conceal a shotgun or Rifle which I'm sure is what he was using. Banning a concealed weapon wouldn't have changed the outcome of this in any way.

News reports I saw said it was a pair of 9mm handguns.

I doubt many people with concealed weapons permits have ever gone on shooting sprees. Simply because concealed weapons only pertains to handguns, which is not the killing weapon of killing spree choice. Hmmmm...no doubt I could find many examples if I took the time to look. From memory, there as a DA's investigator in California last year who murdered his family and then killed himself. No doubt his weapon was all licensed and such. Overall, though, I have to agree that, being impractical to completely ban guns in the U.S. (and growing more attached to the Second Ammendment (though I own no firearms myself), we ought to learn from the Swiss approach and ensure that everyone gets proper training on the handling and use of guns (at a young age) we could avoid some innocent bystander deaths from gun violence as well as children accidentally shooting themselves or others.

Re:Gun Laws

[LurkerXXX]

FYI, the reports I heard on TV said it was all done with a handgun. I have no idea if those reports are accurate, but that's what was on the TV here.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[fizzyabbo]

There have been a number of replies on here regarding guns as an "equalizer", enabling smaller people to fend off larger attackers, and as a deterrent more than anything. It's off topic, but how would these people reconcile this argument with nuclear weapons proliferation around the world? Should we not then extend the same rights to countries large and small to arm themselves in defense of agression and foreign hegemony? By the same logic, we should all feel much more comfortable that more countries have in their possession the ability to entirely obliterate another.

Call me Canadian, but that just doesn't sit well with me. Not to mention the quaint notion of a people overthrowing a monarchy. That just ain't happening nowadays. Even with the number of citizens unhappy with George W. Bush, his abysmal approval ratings (not to mention his disdain for the Constitution), and the number of armed Americans, I doubt King Dubya is worried about the second American revolution.

lies of the nra

[circletimessquare]

Let us demolish the propaganda of the NRA:

1. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Guns are technology designed to kill people. Broad aspects of technology- chemistry, physics, etc., is indeed completely neutral. However, when a technology is shaped by human will into a specific use, it is NOT neutral anymore. You can kill people with many things, a car for instance. However, a car is designed for transportation. What is a gun DESIGNED for? What is its INTENT? What else can it do? Open locks? Start fires? It's INTENT matters.

2. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

If you make something difficult to get, it is difficult to get, period. There will always be committed assholes who get guns and kill people, forever. The idea is to prevent the casual asshole from getting guns. It makes a fucking difference!

Like, I was over in England. You ever been to England, anyone, been to England? No one has handguns in England, not even the cops. True or false? True. Now-in England last year, they had fourteen deaths from handguns. FFFFFourteen. Now-the United States, and I think you know how we feel about handguns-woooo, I'm getting a warm tingly feeling just saying the fucking word, to be honest with you. I swear to you, I am hard. Twenty-three thousand deaths from handguns. Now let's go through those numbers again, because they're a little baffling at first glance. England, where no one has guns, fffffffourteen deaths. United States, and I think you know how we feel about guns-woooo, I'm getting a stiffy-twenty-three thousand deaths from handguns. But there's no connection, and you'd be a fool and a Communist to make one. There's no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun and not shooting someone. There have been studies made and there is no connection at all there. Yes. That's absolute proof. You know, fourteen deaths from handguns. Probably American tourists, too.
(Angry tourist voice) You call this a sandwich? BANG! BANG! You don't boil pizza! BANG! BANG!
(Scared English voice) That's the way we eat here, that's the way we eat here! BANG!
(Tourist voice) This food sucks! BANG!

Bill Hicks

3. We need guns to protect us from an abusive, fascist government.

It seems to me that the gun is the implement used to terrorize conventional civilian society for fascist means, all over the world. The guns sprinkled about society are just as much the tool of fascist elements as heroic militia. In other words, the notion of a protective independent militia is complete bullshit. At the very least, it's a wash of gun-toting elements supporting the fascist government and survivalists waging a holy war for the rememberance of Waco TX. But I think, if anything, more guns equals more will-to-power assholes able to exert power in the end.

4. You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

That option seems more and more appealing every day. Unfortunately, it is the ones with the guns making the rest of us cold and dead. Go ahead and disagree with me, gun assholes. After all, you can always just shoot me, right?

Outlaw guns. The USA is seriously screwed up. This isn't the Wild West anymore. Everyone toting a gun does NOT mean more justice. IT MEANS MORE SENSELESS DEATHS, PERIOD!

If you give a kindergarten classroom a bunch of daggers, SOMEONE TENDS TO GET STABBED. If you take away the daggers, LESS GET STABBED. AMAZING FUCKING CONCEPT RIGHT?! I know, I'm really coming from some wacky crazy alien world with that concept, right?!

The propagandized amongst us hold us all hostage, and kill our children and our parents and our husbands and wives and friends FOR THE LOVE OF THEIR HOLY WEAPON.

OUTLAW GUNS.

NOW.

BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS YOU WHO THINK GUNS HAVE ANY PLACE IN CIVIL SOCIETY.

IT. HAS. NONE.

Re:lies of the nra

[qqaz]

If you make something difficult to get, it is difficult to get, period. There will always be committed assholes who get guns and kill people, forever. The idea is to prevent the casual asshole from getting guns. It makes a fucking difference!

Guns aren't going to magically disappear if we outlaw them. I'd consider anyone who goes out and gets a gun with the intent of killing people to be pretty committed. You admit that they will get guns and kill people forever. So, its ok for bad guys to continue getting guns illegally and killing people, but its not ok for normal people to get guns and *not* kill people? That makes no sense to me.

Re:lies of the nra

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, buddy, given your tone and emotion, I really don't think you should have a gun.

Completely agree, also keep in mind the context

[jchenx]

As an alumnus of the university, I agree that it's silly to blame the school, especially at this point. It's really easy to play "Monday morning quarterback" after the fact.

Blacksburg is a very safe environment. The police really don't deal much with major crimes, aside from your normal array of drunken college students gone bad. Actual deaths are extremely rare. When the shooting occurred earlier in the year, regarding an escaped inmate who stumbled onto campus, that was surreal and shocking. But the leap to this ... is just insane.

I can't imagine the police and campus security were really prepared for this, since nothing of this magnitude remotely enters our minds.

Re:Completely agree, also keep in mind the context

[daveschroeder]

I agree, and I don't think any police agency is typically prepared for something of this scale at once, given this is the worst single shooting incident in US history.

In an open and free society, if someone really wants to go on a rampage, there's not a lot that can stop them.

Re:Completely agree, also keep in mind the context

[jchenx]

In an open and free society, if someone really wants to go on a rampage, there's not a lot that can stop them.

Exactly. Sure, if there were metal detectors situated in every dorm and class building, as well as security cameras everywhere, and mandatory check-in locations, that might have prevented the situation. But that's not a place I want to live nor study in.

Re:Completely agree, also keep in mind the context

[PeeAitchPee]

Sure, if there were metal detectors situated in every dorm and class building, as well as security cameras everywhere, and mandatory check-in locations, that might have prevented the situation.

Don't count on it.

Re:Completely agree, also keep in mind the context

[gg3po]

if there were metal detectors situated in every dorm and class building, as well as security cameras everywhere, and mandatory check-in locations, that might have prevented the situation.

How exactly would a metal detector stop someone like this? He could have just as easily shot his way through the detection area. Detecting that he had a gun was not an issue. The fact that he had it out firing it already made that apparent. Somehow I doubt this guy would have stopped shooting long enough for anyone to wand him.

I know Americans hate to be reminded of this

[Kaitnieks]

But in the distant Europe there are no shootings like this and guns are forbidden to be carried around without special permits. So no matter what logic is used by "we need more guns" activists by commenters here, it's a fact that to avoid incidents like this you need to ban guns, not allow them.

Re:I know Americans hate to be reminded of this

[dabooda]

I personally don't like the idea of citizens being allowed to have guns so easily or to be allowed to carry them around ...

BUT

When talking about The U.S.A., I think it's at a point where you can't go back to no guns. The guns laws in The U.K. and Australia work great but probably would be a disaster if they were to be introduced in America.

Re:I know Americans hate to be reminded of this

[Xerotope]

Except you're wrong.

Here's a list of school shootings from the past ten years, Europe and the States included :http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1953425.s tm

In most states you do need a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Re:I know Americans hate to be reminded of this

[Somnus]

It's important to have weapons for the people to retain their power from government tyranny and to defend their homes.

It's important that people who wield weapons are qualified, trained, lawful and mentally stable.

AFAICT, the only country that's figured it out is Switzerland, and their militia system appears to be compatible with the US 2nd amendment.

Others have pointed out that Canada is armed to the teeth, and they have a fraction of the violent crime of the US. This can be explained by a few sociological factors, like lower population density, better education, and so on. I think the essential issue is that narcissism is rewarded in the US than in other societies -- the bar for "snapping" is much lower.

Re:I know Americans hate to be reminded of this

[Hawthorne01]

Hmmn, so Germany and France aren't in Europe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Steinhäuser
(Note that he was stopped by a teacher brave enough to not be a victim)

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Durn

And that was with 30 seconds of Google-ing. I'm sure 5 minutes worth would dig up pages of results.

Take care getting off that high horse of yours.

Re:I know Americans hate to be reminded of this

[FridayBob]

Hear, hear! Sure, criminals will always find ways to obtain firearms (true for Europe), but if strict gun laws would be able to prevent even a small percentage of all the homicidal psychopaths out there from getting their hands on a gun, then just think of the number of lives that would be saved every year in a country like the US.

Also, yes -- people kill people -- but seeing as psychopaths will always be among us, it makes sense for society to make it harder for them to kill when they do. Europe has it's share of murders too, but it's just so much harder to kill more than a few people at a time when armed with only a knife or a baseball bat.

Re:I know Americans hate to be reminded of this

[Anonymous Coward]

The guns laws in The U.K. and Australia work great

For values of "work great" approaching "doubling the rate of pre-ban carnage," that is.

Re:I know Americans hate to be reminded of this

[Anonymous Coward]

School killings are very atypical so we should not use them to measure of whether or not gun control works. A typical murder can happen as result of heated arguments between people that know each other beforehand. Such a murder does not involve a lot of planning, so it makes a difference whether or not the murderer owns a weapon. These are the murders that we can avoid by imposing gun control.

Anyway, here is a longer list of school killings for the lazy surfers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_massacre#Notab le_school_shootings

Re:I know Americans hate to be reminded of this

[greppling]

Hmmn, so Germany and France aren't in Europe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Steinhäuser

I think Robert Steinhäuser is a bad example for your point. Steinhäuser was a member of a shooting club ("Sportschuetze") and thus pretty much exempt to the otherwise quite restrictive gun control laws in Germany.

Interesting

[brkello]

Jack Thompson uses this to promote his anti-video game agenda and we are all disgusted (and rightly so). Yet we find it acceptable for people on here to push their Second Ammendment agenda. Not making any judgement on whether they are right or wrong (if someone was carrying a weapon they might have been able to stop this guy vs. if everyone was carrying weapons would gun crimes in the classroom go up thus increasing the total number of gun deaths on campus). Can't we just give our agenda pushing a break for day and just feel bad for these kids and their families? Can't we just worry how the politicians (all of them) are going to over react to this and try to push stupid laws just so they feel like they are doing something? This is another sad day we have to live through. Wake up, pull your head out of your asses, and see if there is someone around you that is showing signs that they are mentally distraught. Who knows, if one person would have helped this guy out we might still be complaining about the Imus thing.

Re:Interesting

[KoldKompress]

Maybe because a GUN was used to kill the people, and not a sharpened counter-strike CD? Guns are more relevant than games in a mass-shooting.

Must be hoax according to VACOP

[Anonymous Coward]

VT has a no gun rule. And

Virginia Tech also has the backing of the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police. In a policy position paper dated April 1, association executive director Dana Schrad wrote that the presence of guns on college campuses "adds a dangerous element to an environment in which alcohol is a compounding factor." Students should not have to be concerned about guns on campus, Schrad wrote.

She helped the victims a lot. Like sitting ducks they were.

Mandatory "Counseling"?

[dlevitan]

Perhaps universities should implement mandatory counseling for high pressure students. At the university I graduated from (top engineering Ivy), the engineers have some of the hardest majors on campus. Although I majored in physics, I was exposed to a lot of this as well. At one point I remember waiting to talk to a professor while he was talking to a student who did nothing but play video games and code. The student had no friends or interests. And this isn't uncommon from what I've seen. I was on the edge of this sort of behavior myself. It's not surprising that these kinds of people, who are completely removed from society, could easily crack. I've seen enough problems like that.

I once joked with one person I know that maybe everyone should be assigned a counselor when they first start at a university such as this. Normally I'd say the professors/teachers should notice this, and while that may work in a high school, I know how little most professors care about their students. I know it wouldn't go over well, but maybe mandatory counseling is something that's necessary. Granted, it won't catch everything, but maybe requiring a 15 minute long meeting with a counselor every few months could stop people from going over the edge and either killing themselves or going on a rampage like this. Especially for the people in stressful majors. Even though counselors at universities often aren't the best, I'm sure its not too hard to figure out someone needs extra help. Who knows, maybe it won't do anything. But on the other hand, maybe doing this will save 30 people, and that's worth it.

Re:Mandatory "Counseling"?

[coren2000]

Mod parent up.

Re:Mandatory "Counseling"?

[Anonymous Coward]

We used to have that here in the UK. I was one of those taking the student counseling as a junior lecturer and PhD student. We called it "pastoral care". At the time I was hardly out of graduate college myself, I was about 25 years old and completely unqualified in any field like psychiatry or
anything formal. Point is, you don't need to be. The students just open up to you if they feel able because you are their official point of contact for sounding off. Anything suspicious, regular absentees, anything out of the ordinary or worrying and you report it to ahigher figure. Most of the time I heard nothing but "yeah everything is fine", the rest were angry complaints about campus policy or resources. Once or twice I heard sob stories about problems and I referred them to the medical center (the real qualified counselers who could do something). Once a young lady turned on the waterworks, but she was just trying it on and hoping to get sympathetic treatment for having been a lazy cow all term.

But because of nanny state red tape, hysteria and authoratarian insecurity I hear we don't have that any more. This simple and sensible measure of having undergrads mentored by junior researchers and older postgrad students is abolished because the university can't allow the risk of non-qualified counselers. Blame the lawyers and politicians as usual. Everything is governed by fear these days, we are nations of snivelling cowards unable to move because we fear our own shadows.

Not that I think a student about to snap and take out his classmates with a rifle would have confided in me. All the same, it's one more sensible and human level of care. And as I said in another post, it's an absence of care in society that causes this crap in the first place.

Re:Mandatory "Counseling"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe being singled out as a threat will make them hate society even more and finally push them over the edge?

Re:Mandatory "Counseling"?

[Aciel]

Virginia Tech is not really a high-pressure campus. Anyway, forcing people into counseling when they're really busy tends to make them more stressed out, not less...

Re:Mandatory "Counseling"?

[Guppy06]

"Perhaps universities should implement mandatory counseling for high pressure students."

That would just leave the mental health workers too burdened with conducting these mandatory sessions to deal with those seeking help on their own volition.

Rather, we should be focused on the stigma attached to mental health issues.

That depends on who has all the guns

[MCTFB]

Gun control worked out pretty well for the Jews in Germany in the 30's and 40's didn't it?

Israelis don't seem to have a problem giving hitched rides to soldiers packing machine guns and grenades on their way home.

You shouldn't fear people with guns, you should fear not having a gun when crazy people want to kill you.

Re:That depends on who has all the guns

[raehl]

You shouldn't fear people with guns, you should fear not having a gun when crazy people want to kill you.

Actually, I fear crazy people who can just walk into K-Mart and arm themselves.

You can look at this situation and say that the problem is that none of the other students had guns.

But you can just as easily look at this situation and conclude that the problem is that the nutjob DID have a gun.

So your solution is 'Give everyone a gun!'. My solution is 'Don't give crazy people guns.'

Your way the crazy guy only manages to kill 3 or 4 people before someone else shoots him. My way, nobody gets shot.

Re:That depends on who has all the guns

[Anonymous Coward]

Had to bring up the Nazis eh?

Re:That depends on who has all the guns

[sinclair44]

First and most importantly, how do you stop him from illegally obtaining a gun? As another poster pointed out, we still have large amounts of drugs in the country, which is just as illegal as you want to make this guy having a gun. (Did he even legally obtain the ones he used in this case anyways?)

Secondly, how do you determine who a "crazy person" is, and how to you stop that definition from becoming politically "malleable"? Are you crazy because you are justifiably upset at your child getting killed by a drunk driver, even if you don't (currently) intend to kill anyone? Are you crazy because you hate George Bush, even if you don't (currently) intend to kill him? Are you crazy because you exercise your right to free speech regarding guns, as you just did in your post?

Re:That depends on who has all the guns

[raehl]

I didn't say I would differentiate between crazy people and not crazy people. Maybe nobody gets to walk into KMart and buy a gun.

Drugs and guns arn't the same thing. Drugs are a consumable, and they're addictive. They exist because it's profitable to illegally bring them into the country.

The problem with legal gun ownership is that both law-abiding citizens and criminals have guns, so you can't tell who is who. But when guns are illegal, only the criminals have guns, so it's easier to pick them out BEFORE they commit a crime.

Re:That depends on who has all the guns

[mrchaotica]

Actually, I fear crazy people who can just walk into K-Mart and arm themselves.

What are you, stupid? The "crazy people" will be able to arm themselves anyway, because they won't care about breaking the law. In reality, there are two choices: either everybody has guns, or only the criminals will have guns. Keeping the guns away from the criminals is not possible.

Re:That depends on who has all the guns

[raehl]

or only the criminals will have guns.

Good, then we'll know exactly which people we need to arrest to stop gun crime.

Re:That depends on who has all the guns

[compro01]

My solution is 'Don't give crazy people guns.'

and how are you determining who is crazy? and more importantly, how are you determining that those who aren't crazy will remain as such?

Re:That depends on who has all the guns

[masdog]

Your way doesn't work. How do you determine who is bat-shiat crazy, who is sane, and who is about to pop and kill their wife and her lover when he plans on catching them in bed in two nights? You can't.

Besides, your way only makes it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns for self-defense or recreation. If someone wants to shoot up a crowd badly enough, there are plenty of illegal, and legal, ways to purchase a firearm that gets around sanity checks and waiting periods. No one ever said the gun used in a crime had to be legally purchased.

Re:That depends on who has all the guns

[raehl]

and how are you determining who is crazy?

It's like running for President. If you want to run for President, you're not qualified to be president.

If you want a gun, you're crazy.

Re:That depends on who has all the guns

[masdog]

Do you have any clue about the gun laws in the United States? You can't just walk into K-mart and buy a gun. There are such things as background checks. It keeps people with felonies on their records from purchasing a firearm. These checks are now instant - as in the gun store calls the FBI, some info is run through a computer, and they tell you immediately whether this person is allowed to purchase a firearm.

Then there is this other little thing called a waiting period. Depending on your state and the type of firearm you're buying, you have to wait so many days before you can come back to the store to collect your new purchase. In Wisconsin, there is a 48-hour waiting period after purchasing a handgun.

Now, if I am a criminal, I'm going to avoid the K-marts, Wal-marts, and sporting good or gun stores for precisely those two reasons. Why buy legally and leave a paper-trail when I can just spend a little more to buy a gun that had its serial number scratched off. Or if I am really desperate, I can steal one.

Re:That depends on who has all the guns

[electrosoccertux]

You shouldn't fear people with guns, you should fear not having a gun when crazy people want to kill you.

Actually, I fear crazy people who can just walk into K-Mart and arm themselves.

You can look at this situation and say that the problem is that none of the other students had guns.

But you can just as easily look at this situation and conclude that the problem is that the nutjob DID have a gun.

So your solution is 'Give everyone a gun!'. My solution is 'Don't give crazy people guns.'

Your way the crazy guy only manages to kill 3 or 4 people before someone else shoots him. My way, nobody gets shot. And your way, nobody is free. Seriously, how do you believe this shit? Who is going to decide who is crazy and who isn't? The government? Whoa, no vested interests there. Then anybody not happy with the government will be labelled "crazy".

Why oh why do we have to keep reminding you idiots about the price of freedom? Your great great etc. grandfathers gave up their lives for rights that you want to toss right back at the government. FOOL.

Re:That depends on who has all the guns

[myth24601]

"Actually, I fear crazy people who can just walk into K-Mart and arm themselves."

I don't think many K-Marts even carry handguns which is what this person used. I won't reiterate what else it takes to buy a gun in the USA since that has been covered here already.

Re:That depends on who has all the guns

[p0tat03]

See, your idea works if you can prevent every crazy person from getting a gun. If *nobody* has a gun, everything is great, we all live in harmony, all that other crap. Since obviously that is impossible, as these crazies tend to get their guns illegally, my (or rather the other poster's) idea is the only one of the two that will work.

QED?

Our way the crazy guy only manages to kill 3 or 4 people (if that!) before someone else shoots him. Your way, every victim doesn't have a gun, and the only people who will have guns are the crazies who are, well, crazy enough to go through the trouble to get one illegally!

Re:That depends on who has all the guns

[soft_guy]

My way, nobody gets shot. Yeah, that worked real well today. You know that it is against the law to take a gun onto the VaTech campus, right? Therefore, the shooting didn't happen because the law deterred the criminal from bringing the gun to campus to shoot people. Your solution doesn't work. It just disarms honest people so that criminals have an easier time.

Re:That depends on who has all the guns

[MMaestro]

So your solution is 'Give everyone a gun!'. My solution is 'Don't give crazy people guns.'

Your way the crazy guy only manages to kill 3 or 4 people before someone else shoots him. My way, nobody gets shot.

Ok, thats fine with me as long as I'm the one who gets to decide who's crazy. That said, I think you're crazy and everyone else is sane, now where do I pick up my new gun?

Seriously, this scenario has been played out to death by philosophers all throughout history. Should the military be the only ones who get guns? Well who controls the military? A few, rich, ultra-elite minority put into power through a rigged election process created by the same people you're putting into power. Oh yeah, that sounds really safe /sarcasm.

"Responsible/Sane" adults? Now you're going up against human nature. Good luck there, call me when you figure out how to remove rage, anger, jealousy and other emotions from humans.

No one? Oh great, now we'd spend all our guy arguing time on the security concerns of knife owners. Then we can argue until we're down to who's allowed own rocks and pointy sticks.

And maybe, just maybe we should start arguing over who's allowed to use their hands, feet and head in fear of them using them for lethal hand-to-hand combat moves.

Re:That depends on who has all the guns

[raehl]

Now, if I am a criminal, I'm going to avoid the K-marts, Wal-marts, and sporting good or gun stores for precisely those two reasons. Why buy legally and leave a paper-trail when I can just spend a little more to buy a gun that had its serial number scratched off. Or if I am really desperate, I can steal one.

Where, exactly, do you think illegal guns come from?And where are you going to steal one from?

Oh, right, the guy who bought his at K-Mart.

Why don't people understand that the VAST MAJORITY of illegal gun purchases are only possible because of a LEGAL gun purchase? You can't break into someone's house and steal a gun if they didn't have a gun in the first place. You can't get a gun with a serial number scratched off if someone didn't buy that gun in the first place. IF you have FEWER LEGAL GUNS, you NECESSARILY ALSO have fewer ILLEGAL guns. The supply of illegal guns doesn't stay the same when the supply of legal guns is reduced.

What I really hate most about this is you've gotten me to arguing the reasons guns should be illegal. I don't think guns should be illegal. But the arguments you gun nuts come up with are just so logically flawed it drives me up the wall.

"Gun control is pointless because criminals will just get guns illegally." GET THEM FROM WHERE? When you can't get guns legally, you've eliminated 99% of the supply for illegal guns. You're left with stealing shipments headed out of the country or smuggling them into the country.

No, you can't take all guns away from all criminals. But you can take away a lot of guns from a lot of criminals, and you can do it in a way that amounts to inconvenience for the rest of us.

Re:That depends on who has all the guns

[mgabrys_sf]

I dunno. I'm seeing a considerable number of EU member nations that have "freedoms" but have fought fewer wars and have less crime and shootings in the last 200 years. Perhaps their govt knows something we refuse to address. Oh - wait - sorry - U-S-A! U-S-A! GOD BLESS AMERICA!

In the meantime I think Wall Mart has a sale on Kevlar. It's what's in fashion this spring!

Re:That depends on who has all the guns

[loxosceles]

So your solution is 'Give everyone a gun!'. My solution is 'Don't give crazy people guns.'

And my solution to the drug problem is 'don't give addicts drugs.'

Nobody's giving crazy people guns. They find guns themselves. If they couldn't find them legally, there's no particular reason, other than wishful thinking, to believe that they wouldn't find them illegally. If you live in a major city, try this exercise: go to the inner city and ask people on the street where to buy a gun.

In addition to the impossibility of eliminating enough guns to dry up the black market, there's the minor problem that laws against readily-produced, concealable items like drugs and guns are fundamentally unenforceable, and encourage -- even require -- erosion of the right against unreasonable search and seizure. Certainly even you can appreciate that right?

Re:That depends on who has all the guns

[masdog]

Where, exactly, do you think illegal guns come from?

Well...off the top of my head, I can think of several sources. Besides for legal gun purchases, guns can come from many sources. They can be stolen from the manufacturers before they even get to the stores (and don't think that fewer legal guns available for sale will mean fewer guns made...the military and police forces still need firearms), or they can "disappear" from military and police armories. They can be imported from other countries. They can be made in small machine shops.

Why don't people understand that the VAST MAJORITY of illegal gun purchases are only possible because of a LEGAL gun purchase?

Actually...you don't know that. We don't know where a lot of illegal guns come from right now, but I believe many come from overseas. The former Soviet Union's Cold War Arsenal has ended up in many countries, as has the products of Chinese manufacturers like NorInCo. Now...many of these guns are already illegal long before they are imported into the United States, and laws that restrict or cut down the number of legal guns won't effect this supply.

Re:That depends on who has all the guns

[Anonymous Coward]

Q: How do we know what countries have weapons of mass destruction?

A: Unless they publicly state it with a demonstration or proclamation, we don't know for sure, even with thorough inspections of their laboratories, factories, and government buildings.

How do you plan to ID those who have guns illegally? By and large, we will not know they have them until they use them.

Sure, the majority of guns came from legal purchases in the first place. However, the number of firearms in this country means that even if you make all future gun sales illegal, the supply of guns will far exceed the needs of criminals who are willing to steal anyway in order to achieve their desired goals.

Drugs are a consumable, so the supply is not in perpetual increase like with firearms. Drugs may be illegal to possess or sell, but that hasn't made it any easier to ID those who have them. There are a lot of busts every year for large transports of them into the country, but how often do we catch anyone with drugs except during the transport or sale of them? Not a lot, and that's with even less potential repercussion than what you see with guns. The more painful the consequences of an illegal act, the more careful the criminals will be.

If everyone (and by this, I mean all non-felons above the age of 18) owned and carried a gun, what do you suppose the murder rate would be? It's hard to know for sure, but Israel is the closest example of this (though the murder rate tends to be higher because of politically- and religiously-motivated bombings, so it's not the most clear-cut example).

Re:That depends on who has all the guns

[paenguin]

Great. When you have figured out a law that will keep a criminal from acting, let us know.

I think, by definition, a criminal doesn't obey laws. That seems to be the real problem.

Now, add to that an estimated half a billion guns in the US.

Tell me how you are going to get them back and what kind of bloodbath that will involve. How many people do you think will die during that gun sweep?

You really need to work on your comprehension skills.

Re:That depends on who has all the guns

[catprog]

The problem is how do you stop the crazy guy from getting a gun?

Re:That depends on who has all the guns

[Cpt_Kirks]

I think people who play paintball are crazy. Hell, they actually pretend to kill each other.

Sick, man...

Re:That depends on who has all the guns

[Cpt_Kirks]

K-Mart doesn't carry ANY guns. Wal-Mart doesn't carry handguns.

Pretty much only Gun Stores should carry guns, IMHO. It takes a certain level of expertise to properly fill out 4473's bound books and all the other paperwork that goes into selling guns (I have looked into gettiny my FFL, but don't really want to deal the the BS).

Re:That depends on who has all the guns

[raehl]

We play an extremely technically advanced game of tag.

Re:That depends on who has all the guns

[jdevivre]

First and most importantly, how do you stop him from illegally obtaining a gun? Isn't that a different problem? Remove guns. Prosecute offenders. Deal with exceptions -- deal with the new, much smaller problem. If you anticipate a market with a scale similar to that of drugs growing, then that society is deeply, deeply troubled.

Re:That depends on who has all the guns

[cylcyl]

If it were illegal, it would be prohibitively expensive. Also, the seller, dealing with merchandise that can be turned on himself, will screen the buyer carefully so that he would not be ratted out or shot at. So, the chances of a nutjob getting a gun is dramatically lower. Nothing beats the screening of the paranoid arms dealer.

Also, ammo would also be correspondingly scarce (remember the paranoid arms dealer? He'd be miserly about ammo too). This guy would not have had over 100 rounds to kill 30+ and wound 30+ more.

What ends up happening, when guns are illegal, is that only criminals would have it as a "tool of the trade" and tend to, more than not, use it on each other more than they would on non-criminals. As opposed to now, where gun deaths caused by "non-criminals" are much more frequent

Re:That depends on who has all the guns

[Cpt_Kirks]

Kinda like playing tag with rocks.

Re:That depends on who has all the guns

[Anonymous Coward]

Secondly, how do you determine who a "crazy person" is

Ask a shrink to diagnose him. In Illinois, you have to have a valid Firearms Owner Identification Card to own a firearm, and you can't get one if you're deemed insane by a competent shrink, or if you are a felon.

Re:That depends on who has all the guns

[Anonymous Coward]

First and most importantly, how do you stop him from illegally obtaining a gun?

You don't. But because you make the probability of owning a gun much harder, it is not readily seen as a path to choose. In math: probability_of(dying to gun | guns are available) > probability_of(dying to gun | guns are not available). In the real world it would be something like: "you piss me off, gun is available, I can 'solve' my problem through a gun" but if the gun option wasn't immediately available it'd be more like "you piss me off, I need a way to solve my problem, gun is a potential solution, but I have no gun, I have to figure out how to obtain a gun, etc." If they follow through with their malicious thought process, they might still follow the same path, but it will take much longer and much more preparation. Buying that amount of time alone and because it would be a crime to own a firearm at least gives the police and detectives a chance to catch him in the first crime (obtaining a gun) than in the second crime (murder).

As another poster pointed out, we still have large amounts of drugs in the country, which is just as illegal as you want to make this guy having a gun. (Did he even legally obtain the ones he used in this case anyways?)

First, drugs are different from guns. The purpose of drugs is to provide pleasure while the purpose of guns can vary from "tool to kill" or a "hobby/interest." Secondly he probably did legally obtain the guns: "One law enforcement official said Cho's backpack contained a receipt for a March purchase of a Glock 9 mm pistol. Cho held a green card, meaning he was a legal, permanent resident. That meant he was eligible to buy a handgun unless he had been convicted of a felony." Source. Other articles also claim similar or more convincing evidence (like interviewing the person that sold him the gun).

Secondly, how do you determine who a "crazy person" is, and how to you stop that definition from becoming politically "malleable"?

You bring up a good point: it's hard to identify crazy people. So I ask the following question, given that it's hard or impossible to identify crazy people, what sounds like a better solution: allow everyone to have a gun so that they can defend themselves in the event a crazy person murders someone or remove guns (as much as possible) from the picture so that it is much harder for crazy people to obtain guns?

In the former, you can't shoot the crazy person until he actually commits the crime so it is likely he will at least kill or injure one person. In the latter you open up the possibility of catching him in the process of trying to obtain a gun or flat out denying him that option.

Finally someone is bound to bring up the counter-argument that if a criminal wants to obtain a gun, he will get it. But I say this: the only time we label someone a criminal is when they commit a crime, therefore, why do we always ignore the fact that if guns were illegal that the criminal would have to commit 2 crimes (the first to obtain the gun) to kill someone? Right now, any non-criminal can get a gun and it isn't until they use it maliciously that we find out about their intentions. While we cannot assume that with guns illegal that every person trying to illegally obtain a gun is doing so to commit murder, we can identify them as criminal prior to them even getting to that second stage (whatever it may be).

Re:That depends on who has all the guns

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you are so naive. Your "solution"? If someone wants a gun, no laws are going to stop them from obtaining one. Why do you think they call them CRIMINALS? Face the fact that you can NOT stop the "crazies" from getting guns. It's not possible.

Since it's impossible, you need to figure out a "solution" that will actually work.

You need to learn to defend yourself and stop relying on the government to protect you. They'll only end up carting your sorry ass to the morgue.

Re:Gun Laws

[Loplin]

>You can't conceal a shotgun or Rifle which I'm sure is what he was using.

I was under the impression that he had 2 9mm's.

>I doubt many people with concealed weapons permits have ever gone on shooting sprees.

I think statistics agree with you.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't just walk in off the street and buy an "automatic assault weapon" in any shop. Fully automatic firearms have been illegal in the US for a long time.

The closest you can get are semiautomatic versions of similar looking rifles, which _are_ used for competition shooting, hunting, and other utility and sporting purposes.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Anonymous Coward]

Firearms do put power in the hands of weaker people that they wouldn't have otherwise. Take a big guy who discovers he can get what he wants through force, now give the victim a firearm, big dude is less dangerous.

Big dude is just as dangerous as before - and now the little dude is also dangerous.

Used to be you could judge the animals around you by how dangerous they looked. Want to play the domination game? Threatening demeanour and some definition to a few key muscles, and you're set. Now these aren't so valuable as indicators, which means that everyone around you could be a potential threat. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing depends on your perspective - I guess it may be better for the species, worse for the individual's sanity. Either way, I'd prefer to carry a personal shield (Dune-style) than a gun.

The solution is ... more guns?

[partycrasher]

As a foreigner I am pretty amazed that many of you Americans advocate MORE guns as the solution.

Re:The solution is ... more guns?

[feed_me_cereal]

as a foreigner you probably don't realize how widespread the black market is in a country the size of the US, either. There is no simple solution to stopping crimes like this, but how does allowing people to protect themselves seem so strange to you? The guns didn't magically kill people by themselves, some asshole was wielding them. Assuming you're not a crazy asshole, having a gun might not hurt, eh? Most americans feel that it is your right to be able to defend yourself with a force equal to what you're threatened with.

Re:Gun Laws

[john82]

Your grammar lesson notwithstanding, the intent of the Second Amendment is open to interpretation.

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.

In particular, be careful about using the old standby of "what the Founding Fathers meant was...". There is considerable debate that the "right to bear arms" of the Constitution refers to maintaining a properly trained militia. Whether "State" refers to the whole of the colonies, or individual states, I don't know. But in that same school of thought, it does not refer to owning/using arms for the purposes of hunting or self-defense.

From real experience: I shot someone!

[EmbeddedJanitor]

I used to live in a gun carrying society. I carried a gun on occasions and even once shot a person in a civilian environment. Maybe, just maybe, I know a little bit more about it than rabid pro-gunners.

In some of the towns I lived in at least 30% of males on the street were carrying. Luckily almost all of those had been through military training and knew a few things about guns, target assesment, risk mitigation etc. Go into the kmart equivalent and the guy helping folk select a tie had a 357 on his hip. Quite a few people got shot by mistake.

In USA there's the problem that so few people with firearms have real firearm training. I am not that opposed to *very* well trained people carrying weapons, but am suggesting that the idea that it should be a citizen's right is broken.

Re:From real experience: I shot someone!

[destrowolffe]

Just touching a gun doesn't cause insanity, and applying for a CCW permit and carrying a concealed weapons does not turn a person into Rambo. Most civilians, whether they have a weapon or not, do not run to the scene of a shooting to try and get their shots in too. Moreover, there is absolutely no reason that allowing CCW holders to carry on-campus should be equated with the school holding an all campus rally giving away guns to everyone who has a student ID card.

For the record, I fully support the military, the defense budget, and guns; however, it's been my experience that those with "military training" are more aggressive and more prone towards violence, guns or not, then an average person. Everyone I know who joined the military became far more aggressive, looking for fights sometimes, than they ever were before. So a town full of ex-military carrying guns doesn't sound as safe to me, but who am I. I've been lucky and never had to shoot a person, so what do I know...

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[photomonkey]

And I as a journalist have a hard time wrapping my head around it. Indeed, mass-violence predates videogames and even mass-media.

Recently, the hype surrounding the business favorite pair of double-d's (death and destruction) has gone up monumentally, it would seem.

Most news outlets have restrictions on publishing news about suicides that don't involve anyone else. This is so, because mass dissemination of information on suicides has been clinically linked to an increase in suicides in the community. Likely, if this guy had offed himself in his dorm/apartment/car, it never would have been seen or heard. Now, looking at a story about some nutjob taking 32 people with him, it can't be avoided.

This guy has made a name for himself that will be remembered for a long time. Since he wanted to die anyway (presumably), this was an easy way to do it. It's much harder to become famous by inventing a longer lasting lightbulb, or by taking pictures (trust me) than it is by doing something really 'out there'. In this guy's head, fame and infamy are the same thing.

I wonder how we should be treating mass tragedy in the news? Part of me wants to let it go entirely. Certainly not ostrich syndrome-style, but as a means of not making it glamorous and copy-cat worthy.

I think if all news outlets in general tried harder to present the full perspective on life, not just DD sensationalism, we'd all be in a better place.

But maybe I'm wrong. What do I know?

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Anonymous Coward]

"...so-called right to defend oneself. I thought the duty to defend us from external risks was an issue concerning the Authorities, by means of Police or even the Army."

Two *minor* problems there. First, who protects us from the authorities. The proponents of the Second Amendment had fought in the Revolutionary War and knew that at some point in the future the citizens of the U.S.A might need to do it again. This still holds true today, although it is of course more difficult considering the advanced technologies the (hypothetically bad) authorities have. Armed citizens probably couldn't fight the Armed Forces on a one-to-one basis, but it would be *easy* for them to destroy the bases, the supply depots and the support structures that the armed forces require in order to operate their advanced technology.

The second *minor* problem is that a defining quality of being an "American" (even amongst us so called whiny-welfare-liberals) is self sufficiency. You cannot assume that someone else will do something for you. This is of practical use in many areas; I have an uncle who lives 5+ hours from anyone else in the forests of Montana, so he has to provide his own power and water... and his own defense. My parents are also an example of this, as they built their own house. Both of them studied the rules and planning guidelines and as a result they have a 30 year old house that would still be legal and up to code to build today... it'd even be considered an energy efficient home if built today.

So in summery the reasoning behind the right to self defense is the question "If you do not defend yourself, who will?"

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[Subbynet]

In reply to your Gandhi quote!

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty." -- Adolf Hitler (H.R. Trevor-Roper, Hitler's Table Talks 1941-1944)

Remind you of any country? Say Iraq?

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[gknoy]

Sure, the thug could pull a gun and kill you, but you have the ability to do the same. In this country even someones grandmother could be carrying a handgun in the big purse. She might even know how to use it. Firearms do put power in the hands of weaker people that they wouldn't have otherwise. Take a big guy who discovers he can get what he wants through force, now give the victim a firearm, big dude is less dangerous.

Predators go after WEAK PREY. Most criminals who might threaten others with violence tend to prefer targets that offer less risk to them. This is why people rob banks and not police stations, and mug old ladies more than bodybuilders, etc.

Anyone that has seen "Reservoir Dogs" will understand that even an unskilled person with a weapon can be a serious threat to a criminal's welfare. If people know that they have a 1 in 5 chance that the person they're accosting will be armed, and can either wound or kill them, rational criminals will either ratchet up the level of force (kill first, then steal), or will be more careful about their targets. Irrational criminals (such as anyone IMO nuts enough to go on a killing spree) will likely be undeterred by this (though they may take different precautions).

The thing is, an armed populace ensures that people KNOW that others can hold them responsible for actions (in an ultimate sense). As a potential victim, whether you're armed makes little difference in the attacker's actions (since they don't know you are armed), whereas YOUR personal chances are greatly improved by being armed (and competent w/ the weapon).

From an informal game theory perspective, the attacker will face the least risk by assuming all victims will be armed. Victims will face less risk by BEING armed, in that they have a chance to neutralize or deter an attacker (whether solely or by numbers).

You might have the occasional cluster-bomb of death when a room full of panicked people pull guns and no one knows who to shoot ... but I am optimistic that this would be rare, as most humans seem able to quickly assess who is a potential co-victim with them.

Re:slashdot?

[Megane]

Did they count the rounds fired with some form of java program? Whats the relevance here?

From what I've heard, they counted them with Wolf Blitzer.

Re:Gun Laws

[Mockylock]

DAMNIT, I wish I wasn't at work and actually checked the news more frequently. The rifle/shotgun error is killing me! ;)
Sorry bout the mistake folks!

Fixed

[Khyber]

You are a sick, sick man Jacko. Human filth. The only person worse than you in this situation is the shooter, but at least he had the decency to kill himself.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[heinousjay]

The flaw is that you saw it as a comparison, which wasn't the intended use. Basically, people will die. Sometimes at the hands of other people. The tool is not the problem, the people are. That was the point.

Re:Gun Laws

[jedidiah]

Sure it would. The body count would only be in the single digits, or the whole shenanigan would have been completely deterred to begin with.

Re:Gun Laws

[Anonymous Coward]

"You are right, there is no right to bare arms."

Sure there is - The Tenth Amendment states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_th e_United_States_Constitution

Since there's nothing in the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights delegating the right to bare arms to the Federal Government, it is thus reserved to the States, or to the people. So, unless there's a law in your particular state about bare arms, one can reasonably conclude that this is a right reserved to the people :)

On a more serious note: This is a terrible thing, as I'm sure everyone here agrees. I am shocked, saddened and dismayed.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[PPH]

Banning fully automatic weapons? There's no evidence that this involved a full auto weapon.

Furthermore, fully automatic weapons tend to be a rather poor choice for this sort of massacre. They are difficult to control and practically impossible to aim at any significant range. They make lots of noise and get people running for cover.

We all want a gun when we're threatened...

[mutube]

That relies on 2 things: 1) that there is a distinction between good guys and bad guys, and 2) that good guys are good shots. For the first, many (to that point) honest citizens commit "heat of the moment" crimes, which would certainly be made worse with the presence of guns. The second creates problems when well meaning laypeople start playing hero and injure bystanders.

This is very good point. In a situation like this I would prefer (despite never having fired a gun) to have one - simply to improve my chances of surviving. However, I would not want anyone else to have one - because this acts in the opposite way. When people call for wider availability of guns I can only imagine they mean themselves and not me a poor shot, poorly trained, random element. I am also sure they don't think of themselves in that way.

Police and other public personnel who are armed wear identifying clothing to indicate they are there for the protection of the general population, and they do this for a reason.

Re:We all want a gun when we're threatened...

[Xybot]

Actually I'd prefer that the person threatening me didn't have a gun

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[onkelonkel]

The idea of the equalizer is ingrained in the American psyche, and is best summed up by this quote from the days of the old west. - "God made all men. Samuel Colt made all men equal."

I don't consider myself...

[DimGeo]

... a f-ed-up animal, but sympathies to the families of those who died so tragically :(

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[javabsp]

About five people in Asia died from it and it was reported as a 'worldwide pandemic.'

More like 774 people dying worldwide in 8096 cases. I have no idea where you get your number from.

Democracy - One Shot/Student - T/C Contender

[pg--az]

I actually own a copy of the solution to this problem. The Thompson/Center Contender makes a distinctive "Clack" when the action is closed, thus it is easy to imagine a professor or indeed a few students in a classroom carrying these in belt-holsters fashioned such that the open breech faces forward, similar to the friendly way in which break-open shotguns are carried around at a trap/skeet range. Your neighbors would be at least alerted when you lock the action. The downside is making the boyfriend-kills-girlfriend type of thing easier, say from 95 to 99 percent probable, once the guy makes his mind up. The upside of course is that the single-shot design allows open deterrence of mass-killings, without facilitating them. Suicide-bombing - in Southern Arizona at least the answer is easily feasible since there is no need for bulky winter clothes. Merely, a dress-code of skin-tight clothing such as Danskins. The Arab clothing style, beneath which one can conceal a large explosive belt, probably leaving room for an assault rifle, has no future, at least not once you come in out of the sun. Leaving only the design of the locker-area for depositing such clothing, when entering a public building.

Beyond spam...

[Anonymous Coward]

"But we don't. We learn to control our anger, to seek non-violent solutions."

I send out spam. How about the rest of you?

BTW the number killed is now 32.

Consume...

[Anonymous Coward]

Much of what we see and hear is some sort of advertising. Lots of emotions (including fear) drive purchases (of different types). Advertising is designed to get emotional responses from us.

What about everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thousands of other people have died today needlessly, what about them? Because it won't make the news they don't count? Out of sight out of mind? Don't get me wrong, its a shame, but its a drop in the bucket. Now people will waste money on flowers instead of donating it to people who could use those little comforts like food, shelter, medicine, etc.

Unfortunately I'm not at all surprised.

Why not elsewhere?

[commandobear]

What I'm wondering about is why school massacres seem to be such an American phenomenon. I just looked up previous school massacres on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shootings), and a little down the page there's a little list of school massacres (I don't know how comprehensive this is), in which most of the incidents happened in the USA or Canada. The school shootings taking place in other parts of the world seem to have more of a political context (Middle East, Chechenya, etc.) than the ones happening in America. So, why does this happen so much more in the US than other parts of the world? I would think the gun laws of the USA are a a big part of it, but the answer probably is much more multifaceted than that.

They are the last ones on the scene

[flyingrobots]

How is it possible for law enforcement to prevent a crime? Most of the crimes that are responded to by the police have already been comitted. Most of them are there for the investigation. I think the question should be: What do we do as a society to prevent or stop a crime at its outset? Is there a way we can take more responsibility in this regard? How do we realistically make everything safe?

Kevin

Re:They are the last ones on the scene

[endianx]

What do we do as a society to prevent or stop a crime at its outset? Less gun control, not more. (And in this case, I am referring to university policy, not government law.) I know many people will disagree with this, but evidence supports the claim that areas with armed citizens experience less crime.

Re:They are the last ones on the scene

[flyingrobots]

Do you really think there is only one solution? There is a post here about the Japanese culture. It is interesting that they don't seem to have the same problems as we do, and I have a hard time believing that gun control is what did it.

I understand the desire (maybe even need) to allow people to protect themselves, but that seems to be only one piece of the puzzle.

What else do we do?

Re:They are the last ones on the scene

[endianx]

No you are correct. There are other ways. I suppose the ultimate goal is to convince people that they shouldn't commit these crimes in the first place. But I have no idea how to do that, while still maintaining the freedom and diversity we enjoy in this country.

As an old math team buddy told me...

[raehl]

...Asians are people, and Orientals are rugs.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[MaXMC]

Mod parent up!

If only 0.001% of suicidal people grab a gun...

[atomic777]

you'd have a rampage every year. In the US 30,000 people took their own lives in 2001 . The UT clock tower shooter in 1966 was later shown to be suffering from a brain tumor. The United States is an affluent but high-pressure society. Not everyone will be able to take the pressures, especially if they are genetically predisposed to depression or other psychological problems. A small percentage will turn violent.

These people need to be diagnosed early and treated proactively; taking guns out of people hands will not make a difference. If this shooter was intent on killing, he'd have brought a machete to school if a gun wasn't readily available.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[OldeTimeGeek]

I will submit that it is difficult to get a concealed license permit. But that is based on current laws and I was basing my post upon changes upon those laws. Please notice that I said "loosening". Please also note that everyone who carries a concealed weapon is not necessarily legally entitled to do so.

You are talking about people who have demonstrated that the correct understanding of guns and the laws surrounding their use. I was not.

Given my experience, I can only assume that the same bunch of merry idiots that have to take driver's safety classes to get a driver's license (where still required), get one and then proceed to demonstrate their skills by weaving in and out of traffic like they're driving through pylons are going to be the same folks who will be walking down to the local gun shop and will walk out with no further understanding than which ammunition to buy. Which they will promptly forget while getting into the car.

As I said, I have no problem with people having guns, so long as they understand how to use them. I'm afraid that that world doesn't exist. Why is it that people who have the slightest objections to universal gun ownership are accused of subscribing to FUD? I wouldn't give a gun to a three-year-old. I would never trust one in the hands of someone untrained. Is this a problem?

As to the Assault Rifle bill, by the time it had gotten to the final form, it was so specific to be absolutely meaningless. The sponsors knew this. They wanted to pass something symbolic and they knew that only way it would get passed the Republicans, the NRA and the President was to make it look good but mean nothing. I would have preferred that they have dropped the bill. And said why. Unfortunately, that Congress only exists on the same planet that people are willing to take account of their actions. The one that's Far, Far Away...

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[ivan256]

For you to have any point whatsoever, you would similarly have to make the counter assumption to every line of your ticklist. The trouble is that your counter assumptions are only valid if you make a whole series of assumptions as to what I think a "pro-gun" world would look like. The further issue with that is that in making all of those assumptions (probably before reading any farther in my comment than past that one line) you completely missed my entire point and instead compared me to Charlton Heston.

Perhaps you think we should live in a police state. I'm betting, however, that you don't. If that's the case, you should actually finish reading my initial comment, take back some of the words you put in my mouth, consider the relative likelihood that the "assumption" I made in my hypothetical question to its opposite given sane levels of access control. There is nothing wrong with logical assumptions. Even given the worst case scenario, it would be hard to imagine a case where a few additional guns in the room would have resulted in more people dying.

One last thing to think about, and I'm not making any assumptions as to what your answer will be: If you were in that room, and this killer was shooting at you, would you have rather have had a gun and the training required to use it correctly, or not? Would you have preferred somebody in the room had a firearm and training to use it correctly, or would you have preferred to sit there and take your chances that you wouldn't get hit as the shooter reloaded and continued firing over and over?

I don't necessarily buy into the axiom that there are no atheists in a foxhole, but I'd bet money that there are very, very few.

Re:Gaming, no

[Anonymous Coward]

Two weeks ago, my doctor said I'd been on antidepressants long enough, it was ok to come off them now. He said I might feel a little more anxious than normal for about a week. Well after a few days off them, I was pretty damned irritable. Something annoyed me to tears one evening, and I went for a walk to cool off.

As luck would have it a carful of punk kids chose that night to go around throwing eggs at strangers. The first egg bounced off without breaking. My mood soured further, I shook my head and walked on. A couple of minutes later another egg went sailing over my head. Now I was majorly pissed off, stood there swearing loud enough to wake people in the next suburb. Damned if I was going to let them get away with it again.

On their third sortie, I saw them coming. Headlights off, slowing down enough to be able to aim their next egg. I rushed the oncoming car, making them swerve and their third egg miss as well. By this stage, if I had been carrying a gun, they'd be dead. They were close enough and moving slow enough to be impossible to miss, even for someone who's only fired less than 100 rounds at paper targets in his life.

Next day I went back to the doc and got a prescription for more meds. I'm glad I wasn't carrying a gun.

Why bad behavior happens to good people?

[drgonzo59]

The standard question is "Why do bad things happen to good people"?. Well, usually those "bad things" are caused by other people who did something "bad" to other people. (This of course excludes natural calamities). However, as one of the grandparent posts pointed it, "good people" and "bad people" are not that different. The same "hero" who saves a little child from a burning building might not be that different than thief who robs a bank. That would certainly be very hard for us to digest and we just take the mental shortcut and apply the stereotypical labels of "hero" and "vilain".

In reality there is no clear and permanent classification of people into "good" and "bad". The "good" person from yesterday might be a "bad" person today because of the circumstances they were put in. The "good cop, doing his job at work, might go home and beat his wife", and so on. Our society, our legal system though wants to make that binary classification because it is less painful for us to admit that we could also do "bad" thing once in a while and we surely like to think of ourselves as "good people".

  A lot of the criminals when asked why they commited the crime would answer "I don't know why I did it." Notice I am not advocating that we should not punish the offenders or that individuals should not be responsible for their actions (those damn genes made me do it!), but rather that we shouldn't hastily judge and categorize people with permanent overgeneralized labels such as "he is evil" and "I am good". In case of a habitual offender or were a clear pattern of bad behavior occurs perhaps such labels are valid, however there are moments and circumstances were even the sanest and "best" of us can do pretty bad things.

Re:Why bad behavior happens to good people?

[DerekLyons]

The standard question is "Why do bad things happen to good people"?.

I've never been fond of this question - as it implies that (somehow) bad things simply aren't supposed to happen.

Re:Why bad behavior happens to good people?

[TheoMurpse]

our legal system though wants to make that binary classification

Horseshit. The criminal justice system in the US is predicated on so much more than "good" and "bad" -- for example, there are four levels of mens rea with which to judge behavior -- purposefully, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently. Beyond that, we have gradations of punishment -- around three degrees of felonies, and many classes of misdemeanors.

The courts have struggled for centuries with levels of culpability, so don't go around belittling those struggles by declaring unilaterally that they want to sort people into "good" and "bad" categories.

Read up on "battered wife syndrome" and Regina v. Dudley & Stevens, 14 Q.B.D. 273 (1884) for two examples of the struggles.

Re:Why bad behavior happens to good people?

[drgonzo59]

Horseshit. US is predicated on so much more than "good" and "bad"

Llamashit. I want to see you find the same nice job with a fellony conviction and without it. The employer won't bother asking you what happened, was it a mistake, what were the circumstances, no, you have a label of a "bad" person for the rest of your life attached to your face. Good luck.

The bottom line is as soon as someone was _ever_ convicted of a fellony or was in prison for any ammount of time that person is a "bad" person in the eyes of our society. The judicial system is also, surprise, part of our society. The law also works in on a binary system. For example, the day before your 21st birthday you break the law if you drink, a day after you are fine. What? Did you mature during that 24 hours and now you are a responsible adult? With most laws out there you either break the law or you don't. Yes, how much punishment you get depends of the judges' and prosecutors' mood that day. But it doesn't matter, all it takes is for a person to sit in the defendant's seat in court and they are a "bad" person sometimes even regardless of the outcome of the trial.

The courts have struggled for centuries with levels of culpability, so don't go around belittling those struggles by declaring unilaterally that they want to sort people into "good" and "bad" categories.

Well, they obviously failed, so I think I'll continue belittling them, if that's alright with you...

Re:Why bad behavior happens to good people?

[masterhibb]

I want to see you find the same nice job with a fellony conviction and without it. The employer won't bother asking you what happened, was it a mistake, what were the circumstances, no, you have a label of a "bad" person for the rest of your life attached to your face.

I fail to see how this is the fault of the legal system. The employer in question is the one denying you the job by judging you without allowing you to put up a defense. By definition, the courts gave you a chance to defend yourself.

The rest of your complaint seems to take issue with the fact that the legal system uses clearly defined criteria for determining when the law has been broken. Personally, I find knowing what the law is helps me avoid breaking it. Pity more laws aren't as clear-cut as your MIP example.

Economics?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just an abstract, so it's hard for me to draw any conclusions without being able to see the data itself.

Does that study draw its conclusions from actual murder rates & then-current laws, or does it suppose that invisible market forces would compel a rational mass-murderer to prefer to shoot the defenseless so they could kill more people before killing themselves?

I'd like to know because I don't subscribe to that journal.

Re:Economics?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can download the full paper from SSRN. Scroll down the page, the download links are at the bottom.

Re:Economics?

[FleaPlus]

That's just an abstract, so it's hard for me to draw any conclusions without being able to see the data itself. ...
I'd like to know because I don't subscribe to that journal.

I could be mistaken, but I don't think the document download links require a subscription. Try the links right under where it says "electronic paper collection."

Does that study draw its conclusions from actual murder rates & then-current laws, or does it suppose that invisible market forces would compel a rational mass-murderer to prefer to shoot the defenseless so they could kill more people before killing themselves?

It does the former, analyzing the statistics of murder rates and computing regressions based on whether or not an area had concealed weapon laws.

Re:Economics?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

That's just an abstract, so it's hard for me to draw any conclusions without being able to see the data itself.

Don't bother downloading it. Lott's methodology was awful and he has been generally discredited. There have been quite a few studies of the same topic since then, however that have more or less come to the same conclusions with regard to violent crime statistics in general, and robberies and assault in particular. For public mass shooting incidents, however, the number of data points makes it hard to come to a scientifically recognized conclusion. Ignore Lott, but do look into the real studies that happen to back up some of his conclusions.

Re:Gun Laws

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that to get a concealed carry permit in most states (like my native Washington State) you have to take a class that teaches you not to do stupid things like "shoot randomly"? My last experience with guns was in the Boy Scouts over a decade ago and even *I* still remember that you're supposed to check what's behind you target BEFORE shooting, regardless of the situation.

Actually, It Depends On Who Has The Sense

[EgoWumpus]

Bringing Nazi Germany into the argument means you lose. Israelis all carry firearms because all Israelis are trained army personnel, and they are surrounded by countries who want to destroy them. That being said, while Israeli gun crime may be lower per person than the United States, I can guarantee their death-by-suicide-bomber is far higher. Different situations call for different responses. You absolutely should fear people with guns. You only have a gun if you have the expectation of using lethal force or the threat of lethal force in order to get your way. Either way, you're working directly against any notion of civilization, domestic tranquility and individual rights. Saying that having a gun to fight other people with guns is like saying that being lawless is a perfectly acceptable response to people who are breaking the law.

Re:Actually, It Depends On Who Has The Sense

[timothy]

"Israelis all carry firearms because all Israelis are trained army personnel, and they are surrounded by countries who want to destroy them."

The 2d part's true, but the first part's not.

Israeli gun laws are actually stricter than the conventional wisdom (among Americans, at least) would have it: JPFO has an informative page up about it. See http://www.jpfo.org/israel-firearms.htm

(The laws were much less restrictive until 1992.)

timothy

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[RexRhino]

Because guns are legal, and as long as there are guns, bad people will get ahold of them. How do you plan to get rid of guns? Have you ever heard of the "War on Drugs"? Suspending civil liberties, creating the largest prison population in history of any country, supporting right-wing maniacs in Latin America hasn't put a dent on the U.S. illegal drug trade... how far are you willing to go for guns?

50% are below average

[Anonymous Coward]

Fact is 50% are below average ;-)

The problem is the lower 50% (at minimum) will use a few stupid characteristics to falsely identify future threats.

MOST people are not trained experts and should not attempt to identify such threats. The experts are not so great either... Black males commit all crime, Latinos are illegal aliens attacking our way of life, and white men go psycho or are serial killers (well that one has some truth to it.) I hear this guy is Asian-- wonder how that will change their stereotype. Fear Asian college students?

Be afraid! Fear your neighbor and report anything odd that they do to Homeland Security. Arm yourself and increase the odds of disaster so we can scare more people. (Remember even if students shot back, it would be just as big on the news fear machine.)

Perhaps there should be long term Bureaucratic BS to getting a gun (except that will drive normal people crazy.)

What we should study is how many are on mind altering drugs (remember columbine.)

Hell, I knew a man on anti-depressants who (due to cost) didn't take them all the time. Each time off the things he was a different person; (depressed, duh) vindictive, combative and anti-social. I could tell just by looking as he walked up if he didn't take it. On the drugs he was on the 'too friendly' side of 'normal'. Thats a serious question you will NOT see raised in a media influenced by advertising...

GTA needs to advertise more if they don't want to be the scapegoat.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[ivan256]

I can be pedantic too.

A person walking into a room in the middle of class with a gun is clearly not a student in that classroom.

Balls.

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't been following this story closely, but is there any evidence that this guy was a criminal before he went on this killing spree?

Oh, and "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is complete balls. Law enforcement will also have guns. And, crucially, people who would have become outlaws if they had had easy access to guns at the wrong time, at the wrong place wouldn't have guns.

So fuck you.

Re:Balls.

[Deagol]

Oh, and "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is complete balls. Law enforcement will also have guns.

The police can not be around every potential victim at all time. To the contrary, every potential victim *can* carry an item that could level the playing field, at all times (if it were legal, of course -- but it's often not).

Re:Gun Laws

[Staplerh]

Or, more likely, you'd have more numerous single-casaulty shooting incidents as more weapons would result in possibly more ivolent flareups.

Thats the RIGHT question, and the answer is YES

[Mr 44]

In Pearl, Miss., in October 1997, Vice Principal Joel Myrick responded quickly to the sound of shots. Luke Woodham had slit his mother's throat before carrying a .30-30 deer rifle to school that day. Woodham fatally shot two students as Mr. Myrick dashed to his truck -- parked more than a quarter-mile away as required by law -- to recover and load his own Colt .45. He then captured and disarmed Woodham, holding a gun to his head for more than four minutes while waiting for police to arrive, thus almost certainly saving lives.

Two Semi-Automatic Pistols were used

[jsrjsr]

"Semi-automatic" just means it's ready to fire another shot as soon as you release the trigger. In other words, it goes bang each time the trigger is pulled with no other action required (at least, until you need to reload).

My hunting rifle -- goes bang each time I pull the trigger (a semi-automatic).

My hunting shotgun -- goes bang each time I pull the trigger (a semi-automatic).

My brother's hunting shotgun -- goes bang each time he pumps it after pulling (and holding the trigger) the first time (a older Model 12 Winchester operating as designed).

And just to really confuse things -- my revolver goes bang each time I pull the trigger (double-action revolver).

And I've seen my father shoot a pump shotgun accurately faster than I can shoot a semi-automatic shotgun. He's just really well practiced at it.

It's nowhere near as easy to buy fully automatic firearms as you think it is. Check into it at the ATF web site.

Victum Disarmament Zone

[blackbear]

We've been fighting this sick policy for more than two years in the VA legislature. VCDL (vcdl.org, and yes I'm a member) has lobbied to have bills introduced in the last two legislative sessions to force colleges and universities to allow students with CHPs to carry on campus. Both times the bills were defeated in commitee.

The sad fact is that it's not illegal for a CHP holder to carry concealed on the VA Tech campus, but if you are a student, and you are caught doing so, you will likely be expelled. Therefore no one wants to take the risk.

A few years ago, a lawfully armed citizen stopped a gunman on another campus. This didn't have to end this way. It's another example of dial 911 and die.

ns_darkness@hotmail.com

[Anonymous Coward]

ns_darkness@hotmail.com

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[Anonymous Coward]

You actually wave your second amendment right when you join the military. Especially if you live on base. Firearms are locked in the armory (yes personal firearms as well) and you're not allowed to carry a weapon unless going to and from the range and those must be locked in the trunk.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[drinkypoo]

Forcing everyone to carry a big 5 lb lump of steel throughout their lives to "ensure their safety" from what's probably a 1 in 20,000 lifetime event is utterly idiotic

It's a good thing that I don't intend to force anyone, then.

Perhaps you argue that we are doing this by not banning guns. But that would be stupid, because it would be willful ignorance of the fact that you cannot eliminate all guns; banning guns would be a futile, symbolic gesture towards peace. Peace would respond with a one-fingered gesture whose import would be readily understood in this country and several others.

It's so interesting to see everyone all year long decrying the "1984" orwell state appearing in the UK, but as soon as something like this happens you have dozens of people in the forums calling for everyone in the country to be armed and for a hundred HD cameras to be placed throughout every single campus

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I have yet to see any single comment that combines a cry for either everyone in the country to be armed, or for ubiquitous video surveillance.

On the other hand, I can't help but think that they probably should have enough video surveillance on campus to be able to track a fucking shooter. But I'd rather have the right to protect myself - which is to say, the right to bear arms - than to be under constant surveillance that won't help me anyway if I'm in the same room with the shooter, but might save the guy three rooms down, who is far enough away to where the cops might actually arrive before the shooter gets there.

All this while drinking while driving is a minor first offence and 40% of everyone doesn't fasten their seatbelts.

I agree that a DWI needs to carry a more severe penalty. But then again, we also need a more functional public transportation system. For which we need a more concentrated population. I'm not sure what the solution is, but preventing people from driving is harmful to the economy.

We already know that banning alcohol doesn't work, but lots of people still try to ban guns, so lots of people still think in terms of prohibition in general.

People not wearing seatbelts, well, that's a self-correcting problem on a long enough timescale. I think we should only make seatbelts mandatory for minors (so that some twisted fuck parents can't tell their children that they are safer without them and should therefore not wear them, which is not borne out by statistics.)

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[Viking Coder]

I'll vote for the candidate who promises to grant me the right to carry a concealed firearm anywhere I wish, across all states of the nation, because that individual understands the second amendment. (Emphasis added.)

Wrong. If you want to vote for that candidate, I strongly suggest you seek psychiatric help.

Minimally, you should not be allowed to carry a concealed firearm in the following places:

1. On an airplane
2. When touring the White House, or probably any other federal building
3. When visiting someone in prison or in a mental ward
4. When in a business or residence that doesn't want you to have a firearm there
5. At a town-hall meeting with the President

There are probably others. If you want to argue with any of these points, feel free to prove that you're an idiot. If you accept these points, then you accept that there are limits on your rights, and now we're just debating where those limits should be drawn.

Since that line is somewhat unclear, I propose that a national militia is not the same thing as a college campus that just lost the NCAA Final Four, and that a well-regulated militia is not the same thing as a rioting campus, and that a rioting campus is made more dangerous by the presence of any guns (see Kent State).

Second, that candidate can't grant you any rights, as anyone who understands any of the Constitution knows.

Citation please.

[warrax_666]

Please cite your source for that claim of civilians helping to supress Whitman's fire. WP's Whitman article doesn't mention anything of the sort, and if you actually have a citation, it should be corrected.

Re:Gun Laws

[sexyrexy]

Yes, because the presence of a gun is what causes violence. Logically, if more people have guns, there will be more flare-ups.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[the_brobdingnagian]

I don't think the solution is to outlaw guns for two reasons:
It does not help. People who really want to can get guns even if it's illegal.
People have the right to carry a firearm. While I personally don't want to own a gun and don't see a reason for most people to own one, I agree with the fact that most people should have the right to own one (or more). Just don't make it too easy to buy a gun. Let everyone who wants to own a gun get a license for it. Sort of like a drivers license. So the people who have a gun have at least a basic understanding of how to handle a gun.

The most difficult to change is the mindset of people. Where I live (In Holland) there is only a relatively small group of people with a gun. I have spoken once with someone who owns a gun. Although this person is very friendly, I got an uncomfortable feeling while talking about why she had a gun. In my mind a gun is a device created for the sole purpose of killing people (or animals) and I don't understand why you would even want to own such a device. I get the impression people in the United States are (in general) too comfortable with owning and handling guns. It's much easier to take a gun when you are comfortable with it, especially when you cant think clearly and want to go on a killing spree. My sympathies to all people involved in this terrible event.

Yes, but guns are easy..

[mutube]

I am not arguing that it's only possible to kill people with guns, rather that it's easier. Molotov cocktails require knowledge and preparation, instantly excluding the stupid & the impulsive (two very large groups of killers).

If your reference to the Middle East is to the roadside bombs then that is a case of different task, different tool. A roadside bomb is a device with which you can kill without putting yourself in danger, an AK47 is not.

Re:Yes, but guns are easy..

[Anonymous Coward]

Gun control allowed this happen. Had the students and teachers who allowed under state law to CCW not been prevented by law, someone could of shot this fucker.

Re:Yes, but guns are easy..

[ScentCone]

Molotov cocktails require knowledge and preparation

Molotov cocktails require: an empty bottle, some gasoline, a rag, and a match. Preparation: a couple of minutes. Knowledge: having watched TV once or twice. Having guns, with a fair supply of ammunition, and the apparent understanding how to use them effectively requires (in this society), a LOT more trouble and practice than torching a room full of people.

If your reference to the Middle East is to the roadside bombs then that is a case of different task, different tool. A roadside bomb is a device with which you can kill without putting yourself in danger, an AK47 is not.

My point is that even where you CAN easily get the same (well, worse) weapons than the VT guy used, many people still choose to strap on simple explosives laden with $10 of nails from the hardware store, and kill a couple dozen people all the time. Road side bombs are a special case... I'm talking about someone with a death wish, like the guy that did this mess in Virgina, and like the people who take out markets and restraurants in the middle east. An engineering student with as much deliberation as this guy exhibited, might actually have killed MORE people if he'd put his mind to do and didn't have his head full of cinematic, glamorous shooting spree imagery.

Re:Yes, but guns are easy..

[mutube]

My point is that even where you CAN easily get the same (well, worse) weapons than the VT guy used, many people still choose to strap on simple explosives laden with $10 of nails from the hardware store, and kill a couple dozen people all the time. Road side bombs are a special case... I'm talking about someone with a death wish, like the guy that did this mess in Virgina, and like the people who take out markets and restraurants in the middle east. An engineering student with as much deliberation as this guy exhibited, might actually have killed MORE people if he'd put his mind to do and didn't have his head full of cinematic, glamorous shooting spree imagery.

If somebody wants to kill or harm they can do it in any number of ways. The argument however is the effectiveness of the various methods and the requirement for preparation associated with each. The method of creating a Molotov cocktail may be obvious to you (who knows what you get up to at the weekend) but for a lot of people it isn't. It requires investigation.

It is also likely to either go wrong or be less effective than imagined. I doubt (without any evidence I admit) that a bottle full of petrol would do widely fatal damage to a room full of people (assuming a room is bigger than a cupboard). A gun is a pre-packaged, guaranteed, method of inflicting deadly injuries.

Finally, you are making an assumption that this gun was acquired for the purposes of committing the crime. The problem with open-availability of guns is that they can find their way into anyone's possession. Perhaps the shooter owned this gun, perhaps not - but all he required was access to it.

Re:Yes, but guns are easy..

[Moridin42]

A gun is a pre-packaged, guaranteed, method of inflicting deadly injuries.

You, apparently, haven't done much shooting. Especially with a pistol. You may know that the bang switch makes the gun fire. However, pulling the trigger doesn't mean the bullet goes where you want it to go. Trigger control, breath control, sight picture, grip, stance.. all of these contribute to aim. They are not all obvious. You'd be surprised at how far off target a pistol round can get just by slapping the trigger, even over very short ranges.

Re:Yes, but guns are easy..

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with open-availability of guns is that they can find their way into anyone's possession.

No, let me re-phrase that for you: The problem with the *existence* of guns is that they can find their way into anyone's hands. And, to be blunt, they will always exist. Almost any person who is strongly motivated to possess a firearm will eventually possess a firearm, no matter what controls are in place. Period.

While I believe that *completely* eliminating guns from existence would cut gun related crimes, I realize that it is impossible to *completely* eliminate guns. It's impractical, unrealistic, and encroaches on the lives of those who are able and willing to be responsible gun owners.

I challenge anyone here: What possible gun control would not allow a single moderately intelligent psycho to eventually obtain a gun? It's a complex question, I think. Much more complicated than politicians and media will (or can) admit. Plus this probably isn't the best forum or day for *objective* discussion.

My guess on who was the perpetrator ...

[Anonymous Coward]

An engineering student that did not study for his quiz. He issued bomb threats to cancel the quiz, and after
he found out that that the quiz took place anyway he went ballistic ...

Re:My guess on who was the perpetrator ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Early reports say the guy was Asian
This supports your hypothesis ...

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[roystgnr]

I am native of Japan, and where I grew up nobody but cops were allowed to carry guns.

Banning guns for anyone but authorities has two problems:

First, criminals tend to ignore the bans. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the USA, and even if all the law-abiding people decided to repeal the Second Amendment to the US Constitution and ban them, we'd never manage to confiscate them all. It would still be as easy to buy illegal guns as it is to buy illegal drugs today, and in an environment free of law-abiding gun carriers (like the VT campus was today) it would be even easier to do a lot of damage with them.

Second, sometimes the authorities are the ones who should be banned from carrying guns. Taking our two countries for an example: less than a century ago the authorities in Japan were raping and pillaging their neighboring nations, while the authorities in the USA were putting innocent Japanese into concentration camps. Historically, the danger of evil governments with guns has outweighed the danger of evil citizens with guns (with a death count in the millions instead of the thousands), and one belief of gun rights advocates (as well as the reasoning behind the Second Amendment) is that it is harder for a government to do evil to an armed population.

Also, many Americans possess a philosophy that considers individual liberty to be a good in it's own right, and not just a means toward an end. That's one reason why the USA doesn't ban swimming or private automobiles, for example, despite the thousands of deaths caused by the former and tens of thousands of deaths caused by the latter here each year. (The other reason is that we worry less about deaths which don't make headlines. We didn't see a Slashdot story on the dozens of Americans who died yesterday in car crashes, and we won't see one on the dozens dying today.)

Doesn't matter.

[raehl]

Guns are just tools. The trick is to have 0 people who want to shoot others. Then it doesn't matter how many bullets they have.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[rantingkitten]

2nd Amendment: The right to protect your 1st amendment rights by any means necessary.

So, what are the gun owners waiting for?

Frankly this is just a stupid argument. The little popguns available to the civilian populace isn't going to do a damn thing against the military force of the US. And for all the talk-talk on this point the gun owners spout, I've yet to see anyone take it and do anything with it. What I do see is a bunch of random loons shooting each other.

Move to a different county if you don't like it.

I would if I could.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[nbritton]

The little popguns available to the civilian populace isn't going to do a damn thing against the military force of the US.

Do you really think the US military would fight it's civilians? haha. umm lets see...

26,403,703 veterans versus 2,685,713 active duty and reserve? No contest, the military would be completely subjugated in a matter of days. You also failed to realize that most military personal will refuse orders to kill family, friends, and neighbors. It's more conceivable that the military would turn on the government or refuse to take sides if we had a mass revolution.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[rantingkitten]

Do you really think the US military would fight it's civilians? haha. umm lets see... 26,403,703 veterans versus 2,685,713 active duty and reserve? No contest, the military would be completely subjugated in a matter of days. You also failed to realize that most military personal will refuse orders to kill family, friends, and neighbors.

No, I realize it, and was in fact counting on such a response. So let me get this straight. You're trying to tell me we need guns to fight a tyrannical government, which draws its power over us from a military that would refuse to shoot at us. Okay.

Sorry, I'm lost. Why do we need guns, again?

Re:Doesn't matter.

[FlyingGuy]

Hmmmm popguns you say?

Haven't used the internet much have you. The military uses an M-16. That fires a 5.56mm round, 55 grains, give or take. Most hunting rifles have twice the range and twice the stopping power and twice the accuracy. The military uses a 9mm round as a side arm. Most people who own handguns fire a 9mm or better, more then likely a .40 or a .45 caliber handgun with the same magazine capacity. The military uses the .308 as a sniper rifle. Most hunting rifles are just as accurate and come in larger calibers.

You think the Iraq gorilla fighters are resourcefull? Let me tell ya somthing pal, you haven't seen anything yet. Try going up agains a 10 million very well educated ( by comparison ) Americans, who know how to make explosives, who own guns, who know where the ammunition is to be had, who have secure communication lines, who are very mobile and the US Army doesn't stand a chance.

On top of all that, the US Army is US, the very same people who blog, write on /., go to football games, see their rights trampled on, get screwed when they give up parts of their bodies and come home to 2nd class care. You really think these are the same people who will turn the weapons against their fellow citizens? Think again.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[nbritton]

Sorry, I'm lost. Why do we need guns, again?

Because a pro gun nut may come along an shoot you for wanting to take away his freedom to bear arms.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[rantingkitten]

Then if the military isn't going to turn their guns on us, I guess we don't need guns to fight them, hm? By the way I wasn't thinking of guns versus guns. Your hunting rifle versus a couple Apache helicopters or an M1 battle tank or, hell, a missile launched from a submarine sitting on a coast 400 miles away. Lots of luck with that.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Grishnakh]

That's pretty much impossible, short of genetically engineering the human race to remove tendencies towards violence. The movies "Serenity" dealt with an attempt at this, and it turned out a disaster.

There's always going to be crazy, murderous people. Innocent people are going to be killed by them. The only way to mitigate this is to reduce the damage they can do by allowing people to protect themselves by being armed.

It works the same way with countries: check out what happened when the brilliant Neville Chamberlain pushed his "appeasement" plan to prevent war with Germany.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[nbritton]

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power." -- Noah Webster.

High capacity clips??

[i_like_spam]

More food for thought...

When I told my wife of the incident a few hours ago, her initial reaction was "I didn't know that handguns had that many bullets."

There is now speculation that the gunman had high capacity ammo clips. High capacity clips just recently became legal when the former Republically-controlled Congress allowed the assault gun ban to expire.

Re:High capacity clips??

[maxume]

High capacity pre ban clips were available throughout the ban, they just couldn't be manufactured and sold new. I'm not real interested in further firearms restrictions, but the people that are face a real chicken and egg problem with regards to the rather massive 'installed base'.

Circus animals

[thegnu]

That link makes no suggestion of the elephant going crazy because it was humiliated.

Right-o. However, it happens pretty regularly with elephants in circuses (that they kill or maim people), considering how small the circus elephant population is. And I don't know if you've ever looked into the historic treatment of what are normally proud animals that end up in a circus. I was providing the link to link it to circus elephants, and I was being lazy.

an article that demonstrates typical attitudes towards animals in circus settings
Note the picture with subtitle: Spikes used by a circus to control elephants. The tassels conceal the spikes in the ring

That's pure speculation on your part. I don't even know if they can experience that emotion

Right again. There is merely repeated empirical evidence that shows the sequence of abuse of a sentient being (dog, cat, baby, lemur, bird, lion, koala, etc) leading to acting out. Most animals I relate to on a day to day basis don't act out except as some sort of emotional response. Thus, I conclude that if you abuse an elephant, pack it in a cage, and force it to walk along silently as hairless monkeys climb all over it, then it kills the hairless monkey, it's feeling something.

We don't have any proof that emotions even really exist. Considering the fact that we're colonies of bacteria and single-celled organisms, I highly doubt that we can even feel. I do anyway.

though I think dogs will do that. They will turn their face away as if embarassed if you talk to them in a disappointed tone, e.g. "Why did you do that?"
This is hardly any more proof than anything I said. And it extends to humans, as I belabor above.

Democrat AC quick to spout Anti-Repub propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

"Instapundit" - not credible

"arguably one of the..." - yes, very arguably

Re:Gun Laws

[chemisus]

Your are so right. I wish the students and teachers had been packing. The shooter might not have gotten as many kills as the ones caused by students or teachers, who most likely would not aim very well, or would panic and start shooting innocent people thinking they are the shooters.

There, fixed it for you.

New Fight Song?

[Anonymous Coward]

My vote is for Nancy Sinatra's "Bang Bang"

Gaming-The pepper mill.

[Anonymous Coward]

"My guess would be stress. I've seen grown men cry over single assignments, several of them, over the years here @ VT. The engineering kids are pushed really hard, and many of them don't deal with it very well. 60 hours a week of real work are pretty normal, with classes that everage 27-50%, which are only curved at the end (and nobody knows the curve till then). Try that for 4 years while growing up... Many engineering students I know end up having fairly empty shells of personalities, as their entire lives so far have circled around work and thinly veiled attempts at having a life on the side."

I want the audiance to view the above in the context of the typical "go to college" advice dispensed every time we have an "Ask Slashdot". Throw in the high cost of school in general for good measure. Takes the shine off, doesn't it?

Heh.

[warrax_666]

It's getting late, but I'll just correct myself... from the WP article:

Once Whitman began facing return gunfire from the authorities, he used the waterspouts on each side of the tower as turrets, which allowed him to continue shooting while largely protected from the gunfire below, which had grown to include civilians who had brought out their personal firearms to assist police.

So it does mention it... however, you did put a very different spin on it.

Re:Heh.

[ptbarnett]

So it does mention it... however, you did put a very different spin on it.

No, the GP was correct. He said that Whitman could not shoot as freely as before.

I've been to the top of the UT tower. The "waterspouts" are narrow openings in the concrete wall that is effectively the railing around the outside of the observation deck. Each of them is inches wide AND inches deep, forming an effective concealment. But, unlike a real turret, they don't move. That restricted Whitman's field of view and reduced his potential targets.

Re:Gun Laws

[senatorpjt]

Why would the government need to give permission to itself to have guns?

Broadcasting from VT

[holden94122]

This morning's shooting was tragic. And it took everyone around the country by surprise. Despite the media coverage, some of us are very anxious to know what the campus is going through and what the city of Blacksburg is going through. My name is Kyle Cai, and I currently represent a small company that does real time internet broadcast. I'm wondering if anyone in the university or the city would like to do a around the clock broadcast of what's going on on the campus, so the rest of us in other parts of the world would get a better idea, please contact me. We can supply the equipment and software. Students are welcome to set up cameras and perhaps conduct interviews of those who lived through the horrible events this morning. Please feel free to contact me at peili_cai@yahoo.com or by phone at 408-480-3630. Thank you. God Bless.

Re:Why possess box cutters in Japan?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satomi_Mitarai

Legal?

[attemptedgoalie]

So the guy who was shooting people had to reload less frequently? I think the clip is the least of the worries.

There's oops, you have an illegal piece of hardware, and there's you've just shot one or more people. I think if somebody decided they were killing people today, the clip didn't make them a worse person.

Oh no. Does this mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

the return of John Katz?

Nooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:Gun Laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Very true. They are just tools, and in general not very dangerous compared to some of the other tools we use daily like chainsaws, table saws, etc. Indeed, my entire family and I have used all sorts of potentially dangerous tools (and a few guns) for over a decade, and the only injuries we have sustained are from the simplest of them: I once barely cut my shin with an ax (user error), my father lightly cut his hand with a machete (user error again), and so far as I know my mother has never injured herself with any of the tools (chainsaw included).

Chilling

[kilo_foxtrot84]

When I looked earlier in the day, it was one dead, one injured. "That's sad," I told myself. Just before my midterm this afternoon, the professor was asking people if anybody'd heard about what had happened. I was shocked that the death toll was now 22. Looking here, I see it rose even higher. Wow. Just... wow. I'm trying to conceive of such a thing happening at my school. It makes me physically tense up. Here, people are debating the merits of concealed-carry at colleges and universities. I didn't even *know* some schools allowed non-campus-safety weapons on campus. Just... wow.

Don't. Do. That.

[Z0mb1eman]

There are many things that make me sick about this story, and others like it (the fact that there are "others like it" is one of the things that make me sick).

Please, DO NOT add to it with talks of "worst" or not worst, of "top three", and of "body counts". This ISN'T a game. There is no high score. There's no achievement or rank involved.

This kind of talk always bothers me. I guess it's natural to try to categorize and make sense of it - but it even bothers me for natural events like earthquakes or floods. The difference is, natural events don't care one way or another.

I guess we'll never know the shooter's motivation. But is it that far-fetched to assume that the immense amount of attention previous shootings got played at least SOME role in his mind? That the temptation of immortal infamy made him choose THIS way to go, rather than another?

And now we put him in a "top 3"?

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[nbritton]

Why are people allowed to possess guns in the US?

Because are county was founded on this right...

1. Freedom of speech.
2. Right to bear arms.

Move to a different country if you don't like it.

Re:Gun Laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Your grammar lesson notwithstanding Er; spelling lesson. The grammar was fine.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[drinkypoo]

Minimally, you should not be allowed to carry a concealed firearm in the following places: 1. On an airplane

If the passengers on a flight where people are hijacking it with box cutters are armed, they're a lot less likely to be cowed.

Of course, it's pretty dangerous just to fire a gun on an airplane. So I could go either way on this one.

2. When touring the White House, or probably any other federal building

You know, the only reason for a restriction like that is if you have a reason to fear the public.

I figure this is the reason California overturned their law which explicitly protected your right to carry firearms on public property, which included schools and courthouses.

3. When visiting someone in prison or in a mental ward

Fine with me. Check your guns at the door.

4. When in a business or residence that doesn't want you to have a firearm there

Depends on the business. If it's a utility, or a place where you shop for things you need, then you should be permitted by law to be armed. Anything else should be up to the proprietor. Any business funded in whole or in part (any part) by the state should be required to allow you to carry.

5. At a town-hall meeting with the President

See #2. But I can understand why you'd want a restriction like this.

Re:Gun Laws

[larkost]

No, but having a gun on you if you happen to "flare up" strongly increases the chance that you will use it. If you don't have a weapon you can hurt someone by punching and kicking, but the chances are that you will not kill them. When you bring a gun into the situation, the chances that someone is going to get killed greatly increase.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[night_flyer]

I dont plan to get rid of them, becasue as long as there are evil people, they will find a way to kill other people Columbine is a great example, in a way, we should be thankfull they went on a shooting spree, becasue if those propane bombs had been better tended to there would have been a lot more death...

Re:Gaming, no

[blackbear]

No, but out of curiosity I wonder what kind of weapon and or training the person had. This is the highest body count any mass murder has had on a rampage in the states.

In all seriousness, all that's required for a high body count is a lot of people in one place and no one shooting back. No training required.

He can take his time. They're afraid to run because he might shoot them. They're afraid to attack him because he might shoot them. They've all been told to just cooperate, give him what he wants, and he'll go on the the next person. As long as he doesn't shoot me then everything's ok, right?

If you know what someone wants, you can reason with them. But what if they're insane?

To everyone who reads this: Are you mentally prepared to sacrifice yourself to protect those around you? Are you willing to protect the largely peaceful society that you live in with your own life? If not, then you don't love your life enough to keep it. Someone will try to take it from you, and you won't try to stop them.

Another good argument for skipping class...

[Crazy Taco]

I guess this is another good reason not to go to class. Something like this would never have affected me because I never went to a class before noon when I was in college. And I tended to never go to a class at any time of the day if it was online, which quite a few were. Perhaps this is another good reason to expand online offerings: it cuts down on the number of potential victims in one spot.

The folly of Michael Moore

[Dobeln]

Short on time, so short comment:

Michael Moore goes wrong in a number of areas with his "culture of fear" model of US gun crime. Highlights follow:

- First, while many nations (including my own, i.e. Sweden) have plenty of legal guns (hunting is a huge movement here and tens of thousands of reservists have FN-FAL assault rifles at home), those are usually of models not well suited to crime, are registered, and required to be stored in a safe fashion. The same goes for, say, Canada (his chosen comparison).

- General US gun deaths are extremely concentrated to certain demographic groups (Read: black & latino bangers in inner-cities.). For instance, a little more than half of all US killers are black, despite making up a bit more than a tenth of the population. (I.e see the bureau of justice statistics: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm) The gross murder rate for US lily-white suburbia is much closer to Europe than stats would let on, despite spillover from the inner city wars.

- In short, the main general problem with regards to guns in the US are not trigger happy rednecks in Arkansas or scared soccer moms killing people by mistake. The "culture of fear" theory just comes up short when confronted by reality.

- Gun accessibility, however, is probably important. The banger wars are hardly helped by the plentiful and easy access to guns. It is unrealistic at this point, however, to see how even a total gun ban could yield short-term results in this department. Bangers would hang on to their illegal guns no matter what laws are passed, and only a long battle of attrition could bring major crime-drop windfalls. In the meantime, the law-abiding population would be stripped of percieved and real protection, and political pressures to ease gun access would mount.

- Making things even more complicated, the main benificiaries of a gun ban would in the end be white city liberals, while the hunting 'n guns culture of the rednecks would pay a big chunk of the price. The political problems are obvious.

- Finally (lots more to be said, but I have to go to bed... ;) ) - while gun control can probably not help US gun crime stats in a major way in anything approaching the short-ish run, gun access is incredibly important to events such as the Virginia Tech massacre. Kids snap all over the world over lots of silly (and not-so-silly) things - but those that have access to semi-automatic weapons when they snap are many, many times more dangerous. In the larger scheme of things, however, massacres make up a tiny proportion of murders, although they are much more spectacular (and hence garner more media attention, feeding future massacres, etc.) than the average drug hit.

That it for today. Goodnight!

Re:The folly of Michael Moore

[Kattspya]

Tiny tiny nitpick: FN FNC not FN FAL.

Re:The folly of Michael Moore

[Dobeln]

I was even more wrong - I was thinking of the good ol' AK-4, which is the H&K G3, not the FN-FAL. (Unless Hemvärnet have gotten AK-5 recently?)

Re:The folly of Michael Moore

[Kattspya]

You're right. Hemvärnet doesn't have the AK5 yet I should've picked up on that.

guns in class is crazy

[razpones]

My deepest condolences to the relatives of the victims and a speedy recovery to the wounded. About the issue of guns in school, sorry but if everyone bring their gun to class, and manage to kill the guy killing people, how is the police to know who is the gunman, since the gunman could have killed someone with a gun as well, it's stupid to ask to have guns in school. People are there to learn, not defend themselves, leave that to the security dept. Obviously there has to be a rethinking of how security is handled and a way to know what kind of weapons are being carried in bags or in pockets. I'm all for gun banning. Of course now all eyes are going to be on the news of this incident (with the 24/7 morbid showing of the photos, videos, testimonies, etc...) and probably make the Att. General's appearance before a Senate a back page news.

Re:guns in class is crazy

[peektwice]

So while we're waiting for the police to show up, we should politely ask the gunman not to shoot us right? TFA stated that the shooting started possibly two hours earlier in the dorms. If that's true, then where was the police response? Why was the entire campus not on lockdown? Protect and serve... yeah right...

Re:guns in class is crazy

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

About the issue of guns in school, sorry but if everyone bring their gun to class, and manage to kill the guy killing people, how is the police to know who is the gunman, since the gunman could have killed someone with a gun as well, it's stupid to ask to have guns in school.

If someone starts shooting and I shoot them dead, the first thing I do after making sure they still can't shoot me, is put my gun away. Then, I call the police and tell them what happened. They show up and ballistic evidence, eyewitnesses, etc. can prove who shot whom.

People are there to learn, not defend themselves, leave that to the security dept.

Neither campus security nor the police (if these are separate) has the capability of defending you. Nor, is it their responsibility. The police have no legal obligation to respond and stop crimes even when they have been notified of the crimes and told you they will respond. This was very dramatically demonstrated in the landmark case where several women were held prisoner and repeatedly raped and beaten and the police never came despite having been notified and telling the caller they would come. One of the women even managed to get access to the phone to call the police again, but still they did not bother to show up. The police don't have the manpower to defend you and if you expect them to do so, you're an idiot.

I was talking to a guy whose brother was on a SWAT team, just the other day. He mentioned that they specifically arrive at violent confrontations with their lights on, and then wait 10 minutes before entering the scene of a violent confrontation to allow the criminals time to leave, as a matter of policy. They do this to reduce the chances of injury to any responding officers. Their job is to hunt down and capture the criminals for punishment, not to defend you. Ask any cop if it is his job to protect you or if you should protect yourself. Also, take a look at the statistics on 911 responses. I think they arrive in time to actually stop a crime from happening less than 10% of the time.

Obviously there has to be a rethinking of how security is handled and a way to know what kind of weapons are being carried in bags or in pockets. I'm all for gun banning.

Guns were already banned there. Worked real well huh? For some reason the mass murderer did not obey the law, who would have thought that could happen? Laws apply only to the law abiding and passing them restricts only the law abiding. We cannot and should not turn the US into a police state. Gun bans, statistically, increase violent crime and murder. Proposing them as a solution is the worst kind of emotional crap. People search for some easy, simple answer that they can believe will solve the problem and so they can feel safe, so they support gun bans under the blind assumption that maybe it will help when it only hurts. I expect as much from the average citizen who has never taken a logic course and does not apply the scientific method to their own life, but I hoped for better on a forum full of supposed nerds.

Re:Gun Laws

[Hijacked Public]

Almost certainly the 2 handgun this is speculative information and the police will end up finding some long guns he discarded. Killing or wounding more than 50 people with 2 handguns would be an extraordinary feat, and the ammo management he would have to practice to keep from being rushed is outside the realm of possibility.

But who knows, maybe his victims just sat there and waited for help.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[drinkypoo]

In my mind a gun is a device created for the sole purpose of killing people (or animals) and I don't understand why you would even want to own such a device.

Yes, that is entirely correct. I would use it to kill animals and eat them. I would use it to kill people to prevent myself or someone else who should not be killed from being killed.

In fact I own three guns. I have two rifles and one shotgun. I got them recently from my father and all of them have been used to hunt for food, and never purely for sport. In fact when he moved to this area he was poor but armed, and he hunted to feed himself.

It's much easier to take a gun when you are comfortable with it, especially when you cant think clearly and want to go on a killing spree.

We have a serious problem with sensationalism in this country. A lot of people are watching movies and deciding they need to own a gun because it's cool. It's real, and it happens. These are the people you're talking about. Some of us are rational individuals. We want to own a gun for reasons which have nothing to do with cool. I don't have pictures of me posing with my guns, for example. I'm not talking about a picture of a guy with a gun. I'm talking about a picture with a guy who obviously thinks he's cool because he thinks he looks like a badass with a gun.

Lots of people buy pissed off cars for the same reason and then can't drive them and often get themselves into trouble. Even I have a pretty lousy driving record, although it's gotten much much better since I grew up a little. Right now I have a 1.8 liter car with 110 horsepower, I still drive fast (although at about the same speed as the last non-gutless car I owned) and I'm still passing people with bigger motors on the twisty roads because I can drive :P

There's basically no way to solve this problem other than to love thy neighbor and do what you can to raise your children with a sense of respect. Unfortunately most people were raised on fear. My father is one of them and while I do care about him, that is definitely how he tried to control me. It's probably therefore for the best that my parents divorced when I was five, and he wasn't around to make me into a mini-him. Too bad I'm not having kids. But then, I can make a contribution in other ways. Ranting on slashdot, oddly enough, is one of them. In the time I've been here (a fair while) I've learned a lot, changed my opinion on some things, and changed some others' opinions...

I can't believe this logic?

[MCTFB]

Of course "friendly fire" is a potential in a crowded room, but if a gunman enters a room and starts shooting, the odds are there are few people around him. The innocent people are clustered together in another area of a room. That is why suicide bombers do their best to conceal their intent until they are in the middle of a room packed with people so that they can inflict maximum casualties.

In this circumstance, the guy likely was going room to room and opening fire at near point blank range. Even if a few "friendly fire" incidents occurred, the body count would likely be a hell of a lot less than 32.

Unless the guy was using a silencer and people were too scared to even scream, people in the vicinity would have been alerted that something was up and that they either arm themselves, run, or do what most people do in those situations and freeze like a deer in the headlights.

There is nothing you can do about a determined killer who you cannot identify beforehand is going to go off and start killing innnocent people. All you can do at that point when the killer makes themself known is to kill or if possible arrest them. Police cannot always be the first responders to situations like this, so sometimes you need a hero or two to at least pin the killer down so his movements are limited from killing more innocent people.

Of course, if someone comes in decked with military grade body armor like these two bank robbers in LA had about 10 years ago, then all people can do is run until the authorities come in with heavier firepower, but this is an edge case and most of the time these kinds of incidents can be dealt with by ordinary citizens, provided they are prepared to deal with the situation.

This just in; games have no effect.

[Anonymous Coward]

"How the hell does Jacko correlate the skill of properly aiming and discharging a firearm with moving a thumbstick and pressing a button on a control-pad? There is no link there! "

Oh, I wouldn't say that.

Re:This just in; games have no effect.

[Apocalypse111]

Neither of those articles show any such link - they just show that video games improve hand-eye coordination and awareness. The hand-eye coordination helps a surgeon, but its an enhancement on the surgical skills he already possesses. Similarly, a lunatic shooter can be assisted by the side-benefits of video gaming, but he still would need to practice to become a good shot.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[6Yankee]

I'm sorry, I can't think of a way to phrase this question without sounding like I doubt it:

Have you?

Would you mind posting a comment about it (or one of them, if - as is quite possible, depending on your line of work - it's happened more than once)? Some real, hard experience from someone who's been there would be a little bit of sanity in a post that's otherwise gone to the dogs. And, I'd be really interested to hear about it.

too busy bathing in nazi gold

[Anonymous Coward]

oh the good old days, neutrality and wealth

are you serious?

[rucs_hack]

The solution to school shootings is *more* guns in the classrooms?

That kind of escalation strategy is what kept the cold war going for so many decades, have you learned nothing?

Holy crap! I was thinking of sending my son to the states to uni, but if that's the kind of response you come up with for this tragedy then I'll be rethinking that.

Re:are you serious?

[fyngyrz]

The solution to school shootings is *more* guns in the classrooms?

Hey, I have an idea for you. Take all the guns away from your armed forces. After all, isn't it HORRIFYING to think that the solution to people shooting at you might be to SHOOT BACK?

That kind of escalation strategy is what kept the cold war going for so many decades, have you learned nothing?

That kind of escalation (a) kept the Soviets from ever attacking us and (b) won the cold war and destroyed them without firing a shot. So your point was... oh, I'm sorry, you didn't have a point.

When you leave, please pick up your frontal lobes at the hat check stand. Thanks for posting.

Re:are you serious?

[644bd346996]

This cat has been let out of the bag, and the second amendment prevents the government from putting it back in the bag. As things stand now, even in redneck areas of Virginia owning and carrying a gun is frequently looked upon as somewhat barbaric. While I don't want to live in a world with guns waving all over and bullets flying every week, I do think that fewer gun restrictions are the way to go. We certainly can't go much further towards restricting weapons.

To look at things from the large scale, if most people own guns, then those who are liable to murder with them will probably be identified sooner, rather than waiting until they snap and go on a rampage. If somebody unstable owns a handgun and carries it, odds are that they will use it in a threatening and arrogant manner before they use it to kill a person. That will leave us with the opportunity to arrest or commit them before they can do harm on the scale of what happened today.

Also, don't make educational decisions for your son on the basis of this kind of issue. If he is ready for college, than American society will not have too much of a negative influence on him. Odds are very good that he won't be involved in a school shooting. You should be basing your/his decision on how good the education will be, and how good the academic community of a university is at open-minded critical thinking.

Re:are you serious?

[binford2k]

what makes you think that anyone *won* the cold war?

Re:are you serious?

[compro01]

That kind of escalation strategy is what kept the cold war going for so many decades, have you learned nothing?

without either side launching a single nuke at the other, which is the GP's point.

Re:are you serious?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

The human race was not annihilated.

Re:are you serious?

[fyngyrz]

what makes you think that anyone *won* the cold war?

You mean, besides the fact that the Soviet Union's naval assets rusted to trash at the piers? You mean, besides the fact that the Soviet Union no longer is pointing thousands of nuclear-tipped missiles at us? You mean, besides the fact that Russia is now struggling to rise above communism? You mean, besides the fact that the individual nations that used to be Soviet controlled regions are now pursuing their own destinies, sans control from Moscow? You mean, besides the fact that we not only retained a fair amount of the weapons systems we developed, we also benefitted directly from the technologies that underlie them? You mean besides the fact that our country is still here and relative to the Soviets, thriving? Gee, I guess I just don't know. What was I thinking?

Quote from Monty Python:

Reg:
All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?
Xerxes:
Brought peace!
Reg:
What!? Oh... Peace, yes... shut up!

Re:are you serious?

[vtscott]

First, let me say that I am a student at Virginia Tech, and this has been a trying day for everyone here in Blacksburg. I can't imagine what it was like for my fellow Hokies who were in Norris Hall. That said, I had to reply to this...

The solution to school shootings is *more* guns in the classrooms?

Currently at Virginia Tech, there are NO guns in classrooms (unless someone is carrying one on campus illegally like the shooter today). Banning guns on campus did nothing to avert this tragedy. It did prevent law abiding students from carrying protection and possibly stopping this guy partway through his rampage. It's very possible the same outcome would have occurred if guns were allowed on campus. However, banning guns won't prevent criminals from using them.

Re:are you serious?

[loxosceles]

No analogy is perfect, so try this one: There's a global moratorium on nuclear weapons, but a few Asian countries keep launching nuclear ICMBs at western cities. You want the West to avoid building nukes, because gosh someone might get hurt!

Criminals and unstable lunatics will never agree to get rid of their guns, and a war on guns (or any other small, easily-produced items) would be just as ineffective as the war on drugs. Some drugs are interdicted. Some guns would be. But, ultimately, not enough to keep them out of the hands of criminals.

Re:are you serious?

[WheelDweller]

Yep, it's true. A gun, by itself doesn't kill. Like a cresent wrench or a drill press, it requires a person to use it for good or ill. It's a liberal fantasy that "wherever guns are, people die", and now there's a lot of solid proof: Australia decided to remove all the guns. Crime shot up, causing more misery. (See Google)

Despite thousands of bloggers and the legacy media, it's just not true. And armed society is a polite society.

Bowling for Columbine was an interesting use of this mantra; these people deal with guns as commonplace. They also build strategic nukes. [Your own insecurites were to fill in the blank, "So they will kill us all".] Best propoganda I've seen in years, but an ugly mug to take to the Oscars, etc. :)

Re:are you serious?

[bh_doc]

Hey, I have an idea for you. Take all the guns away from your armed forces.

You know, if you did that, you guys might have a bit more cash left over for, I dunno, education, healthcare...

That kind of escalation (a) kept the Soviets from ever attacking us and (b) won the cold war and destroyed them without firing a shot.

To attribute the collapse of the Soviet Union, as you seems to be doing, to just the external pressure due to the arms race is a gross over-simplification of history.

Re:are you serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

That kind of escalation strategy is what kept the cold war going for so many decades, have you learned nothing?

Wait, who won again?

And how did they win?

Right. . .

Re:are you serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Banning guns most certainly will prevent things like this. Organized criminals and existing criminals may have guns, but your random nut that walks in on his ex girlfriend doing his 'best' friend and then decides to shoot them and kill dozens of other people before himself isn't going to have a gun or bullets at that time. Then weeks later when he finally figures out where to get one hopefully some safety net has caught him or he has come to some senses.

Every time you convince yourself of something you know is not true, every time you have an irrational argument, every time you 'hate those damn [republicans/democrats]', every time you egg somebody's car or are rude to the delivery guy or flaunt your wealth or act ignorant, or support rap music or imus, or do any of these things you contribute to stuff like this happening.

Re:are you serious?

[rucs_hack]

well no actually if you read your history you will discover that most of the time Russia was massivelly behind the US, and the escalation was driven by US paranioa.

Kennedy won his election on that kind of paranioa, and was most shocked to discover that in fact the vast military forces he'd been talking about didn't exist.

Oh yes, and there was the Rumsfeld classic 'their submarines can't be seen so it must be amazing stealth, lets build more subs', based on the fact that American detection systems couldn't find any Russian subs.

Oh yes, and it was actually the US who refused to assist in restoring a government to afganistan when the Russians realised they had screwed up and needed to get out. They asked for help withdrawing, and the US refused to help out. We all know what a great idea that was.

Ok, it wasn't all the US, the Russians did dumb stuff too, but you have to realise the US did it's share, and don't forget, a lot of people became very rich because of the cold war, very rich indeed.

Ok it weasn't just

Re:are you serious?

[rh2600]

"Australia decided to remove all the guns. Crime shot up, causing more misery. (See Google)"

As someone who lives in that part of the world (Australasia), and in a country where our regular police are not even armed, this statement was news to me and I googled it...

I got a bunch of results from American sites with clear pro-gun agendas.. and I also found this one...with an anti-gun agenda.. from my country, which I'm sure you will regard is full of pinko-pussies (apart from all the hobbits) ;)

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm

Some of those stats are quite amazing and tend to balance the debate the restricting guns leads to "misery"

"There was a decrease of almost 30% in the number of homicides by firearms from 1997 to 1998."

-- Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 1999. Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, Oct 1999

This report shows that as gun ownership has been progressively restricted since 1915, Australia's firearm homicide rate per 100,000 population has declined to almost half its 85-year average.

and it goes on...

In Canada, where new gun laws were introduced in 1991 and 1995, the number of gun deaths has reached a 30-year low.

Two years ago in the United Kingdom, civilian handguns were banned, bought back from their owners and destroyed. In the year following the law change, Scotland recorded a 17% drop in all firearm-related offences. The British Home Office reports that in the nine months following the handgun ban, firearm-related offences in England and Wales dropped by 13%.

A British citizen is still 50 times less likely to be a victim of gun homicide than an American.

Which leads me to an interesting point - I actually agree with you that gun laws would do little in the USA to curb the problem of guns and violence. The reason for 50x chance of being a gun victim there is because of deep intrinsic culture of guns and violence in states that permeates the national psyche. Guns are commonplace, everywhere, easy to get, and not something that people typically regard with a fear or abhorrence. Your response and perspective on gun laws is both the cause and effect of the national psyche, just like my abhorrence of any guns is ingrained in, and also the cause and effect of NZ's national psyche. The reason that that crackpot decided to grab a gun and go on a shooting rampage as opposed to do something else (probably equally foolish and damaging) is that he was also a product of the national psyche - albeit a warped one...

In NZ we also have had a few gun massacres where several people die due to a crackpot... generally here, because of a small population, and distance, we believe it is possible to control the sale and distribution of guns. We believe that making guns more commonplace only increases then likelyhood that they would fall into the wrong hands. I understand that this scenario would not be feasible in the US, because of the huge number of firearms, and the ease at which guns can be illegally brought into the country.

But try and picture a US without guns... I mean just for a second picture it. Image that some police officers are armed, and that is it. Imagine that homeland security, was just that, about securing your homeland, and doing their best to restrict the importation and sale of guns. Imagine if guns weren't a dime a dozen, and easy to acquire, and there wasn't a huge amount already in circulation. Imagine if getting hold of a gun was nigh on impossible, no matter how illegally you try. If that vision could be a reality would you want it? I hope so. And I hope you see why people from other countries with their country's own unique perspective on things look at the philosophy that *increasing* gun ownership, and thus further ingraining guns into the US psyche as the wrong way to head...

Re:are you serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nation's aren't living creatures in any real tangible way, and thus don't have homogeneous "national psyche," especially when talking of a nation as culturally diverse as the United States. That said...

But try and picture a US without guns... I mean just for a second picture it. Image that some police officers are armed, and that is it. Imagine that homeland security, was just that, about securing your homeland, and doing their best to restrict the importation and sale of guns. Imagine if guns weren't a dime a dozen, and easy to acquire, and there wasn't a huge amount already in circulation. Imagine if getting hold of a gun was nigh on impossible, no matter how illegally you try. If that vision could be a reality would you want it? I hope so. And I hope you see why people from other countries with their country's own unique perspective on things look at the philosophy that *increasing* gun ownership, and thus further ingraining guns into the US psyche as the wrong way to head...

Point 1: The US military has Guns. It needs Guns, as you no doubt would agree.
Point 2: Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. When Governments become destructive to these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.
Point 3: Power corrupts, power collects, and it isn't in human nature to give up power.
Point 4: The U.S. Government was expected to last about 200 years between revolutions, it's now a little over due and it's showing in a number of areas.
Point 5: Over throwing a government that has a military armed with guns will probably not work if we're using pepper spray and sharpened sticks... That is, when we finally do care enough to get off our lazy butts and throw out the house, senate, courts and president by force.

We threw out King George by force with our hunting rifles and any other tools we could poke stab or claw with. We were technically out matched, but we won. We got in a little fight among ourselves and manged to reconcile it fairly quickly (in the grand scheme of things). We solved it with very bloody armed combat. It wasn't the best solution to send brothers to shoot each other, but we managed to get it all straightened out. We stepped into and help save the day during WWI, and WWII. We stepped in when Iraq pushed passed it's borders into Iran, and helped sort the mess out. Granted, during the Cold War we may have picked a few fire fights that didn't go as planned, but we won the cold war (see other threads by other posters) by building arms until the enemy spent too much money playing catch up and went broke.

Personally, I think people should be glad we're so good comfortable with guns, as U.N. has routinely used the U.S. forces as the world's police force. And, I know that watching the U.S. media (all media, not just new media) makes them look like everyone's got a piece tucked down the back of our pants; but, most people from other countries who come here and have previously heard stories and seen our movies and TV are surprised to find that it's not anywhere near what they envisioned.

Re:are you serious?

[paving-slab]

We threw out King George by force with our hunting rifles and any other tools we could poke stab or claw with. We were technically out matched, but we won.

We threw out King George by force with our hunting rifles and any other tools we could poke stab or claw with, and the help of the French and Spanish armies and navies. - There, fixed it for you.

Re:are you serious?

[djh101010]

The solution to school shootings is *more* guns in the classrooms?
Absolutely. A gun in the hands of a good person has a net positive, or neutral at worst, effect on society. A gun in the hands of a bad person is always a negative for society.

That kind of escalation strategy is what kept the cold war going for so many decades, have you learned nothing?

I think yesterday showed that the only thing disarming good people accomplishes, is to make them safe targets to attack. I'm not sure that the safety of murderers is such a good thing to be accomplishing. The tragic part of all of this is that Virginia has concealed carry laws, but the University decided they didn't trust their students enough to potentially defend their own lives.

Re:are you serious?

[rucs_hack]

And yet a surprisingly large number of countries do not allow people to own and carry guns all the time, and have a tiny fraction of the gun deaths the US experiences.

You're all up in arms about the deaths in Iraq, but you're busily killing thousands more a year on your own ground.

Oh yes, and the 'Right to bear arms' doesn't actually mean 'the right to carry guns round all the time', it's about defending lonely homesteads, and preventing hostile governments from controlling the population.

People only feel they need guns because your country has more guns per capita than any other nation, and you sell sub machine guns in supermarkets...

Re:are you serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pardon me, but you're a fucking idiot. Do you know that most/all school shootings in the US are done so in "Gun free zones?" That means NO BODY has one. So how did the shootings happen again? Oh THAT's right, a criminal with no regard for the law (of no guns in that specific area) came in and started killing people.

Did anyone try to stop him? How exactly would they?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Gun Laws

[Short Circuit]

That's why we have things called background checks.

Even the NRA doesn't want to arm everybody.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Anonymous Coward]

Guns are not tools. They are lethal weapons with no other purpose than to kill.

UK is not crime free either

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather have a 0.01% chance of getting shot than a 75% change of getting my car vandalized by a bunch of drunks coming out of the pubs.

When I learned how much petty crime exists in England from coworkers from there, I have to say that I was shocked. In the US, its pretty much unheard of to have your car vandalized by drunks unless you live near a stadium. Ditto for break-ins. The thing that is extremely weird (from a US perspective) is that the people that do this sort of stuff are not criminals - they are everyday Joes that just had too much to drink.

Re:UK is not crime free either

[AK Marc]

Now imagine them with guns.

Re:University of Texas Tower

[drinkypoo]

Well, you're probably right. But I like to think that it would also have the effect of making people less impulsive about violence. The problem with guns is that they are point-and-click killing devices. No need to even get your hands dirty, beyond a little powder residue. Melee weapons are personal. Also, it's a lot harder to engage in murder of multiples of people without guns.

Re:At VT Duing Shooting

[Anonymous Coward]

perhaps, it's the most *real* experience of your life.

Why is this on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a tradgedy and all but I don't come to Slashdot for regular news. This will be in the news for weeks, so be sure to watch all the commercials and money being made off these young kids that have died, during the news broadcasts.

People die and get killed everyday. If you aren't famous, rich or if you live in the ghetto no one cares. The only reason they cover this is because of how many were killed. If any of those kids had died in a car accident it wouldn't of made national news.

Why are we fascinated with these events so much? So much injustice, death and suffering has happened in the world since the beginning of time. That being said, I do feel sorry for everyone involved in someway.

Good article about the tragedy

[bloggybloggerton]

My friend is a journalist for a small newspaper, he just posted a very good piece on his blog: http://vtechmemorial.blogspot.com/2007/04/weve-see n-this-before-lets-keep-eye-on.html

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[mbook]

Guns may be outlawed in Japan, but school violence continues. Didn't some lunatic stab 7 kids to death in a Japanese school a few years ago? Ahh, yes, here's the story: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2001-06/08/con tent_62607.htm Guns are outlawed in the UK too, but there was a triple shooting in a Birmingham pub a couple weeks ago: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_mi dlands/6559035.stm Sorry to say it, but there's no such thing as complete safety. Banning guns might make you *feel* safer, but it's just security theater.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[Dragonslicer]

For you to have any point whatsoever, you would similarly have to make the counter assumption to every line of your ticklist. The trouble is that your counter assumptions are only valid if you make a whole series of assumptions as to what I think a "pro-gun" world would look like.

I believe the point is that there's no way, short of being omniscient, what the death toll would have been if other people in the rooms were carrying guns. Maybe the shooter would have been taken out after he fired twice. Maybe 40 people would have been killed in the crossfire. The point is how pointless it is to assume what would have happened if the situation would have been different.

If you were in that room, and this killer was shooting at you, would you have rather have had a gun and the training required to use it correctly, or not?

Since I wouldn't be wearing body armor 24/7, I'd probably be dead. It wouldn't really matter what I would rather have had.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[heinousjay]

They are lethal weapons with no other purpose than to kill.

Your hyperbole notwithstanding, that doesn't contradict with calling them tools. Sorry if that word has too many positive connotations for you.

You forgot the most important cause of shootings..

[jasonhamilton]

Global warming.

Re:Gaming, no

[StarvingSE]

Gaming is not responsible for this. Guns are. If only there were MORE guns in the U.S. and everywhere... Then any time some crazed lunatic like this goes on a rampage, everyone can whip out their guns and kill the lunatic. We need more guns.

Yes, because a 100's of armed civilians trying to shoot down one crazed lunatic would make the situation LESS chaotic, not more. Honestly, whatever you're smoking to come up with that conclusion, I definitely want some.

Leave the shooting to the police, they're the trained professionals. The sad realization is that there needs to be armed police patrolling campuses because shit like this happens, even in rural areas. It's just the world we live in now unfortunately.

And before anyone starts yelling "2nd Amendment!" I'm not saying you don't have the right to own a gun. The second amendment does NOT state that you can carry your gun everywhere you want to. Please, buy the gun and leave it at home or hunting cottage. When it's at home its your problem. The minute you carry that gun into a public place it becomes my problem.

BITCH

[Anonymous Coward]

stfu nub

How sad or law enforcement is..

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone seen the news photos? Law enforcement standing vigiliant, posted up, all over the place, AFTER the crime happened. Why even show these law enforment people in the news. They are NOT hero's. They failed miserably. It took them 2 fucking hours to finnaly realize what was going on. By then 33 people were dead, including the shooter who killed himself. So lets mark down what law enforement did..

1. Nothing

2. Sat around looking 'cool' in their gear.

3. Nothing

When i turned on CNN they showed A 400lb officer was running down the road at about 3mph (This is NOT a joke). At this rate, hundreds could be dead by the time he got there. The crime was basically over and yet he is still running around like hes doing somthing for the better of the situation. I have some other thoughts as well.

Hey it took 33 dead, but have you people finnaly realized that law enforment is not here to "serve the people" ? They serve themselfs. Have you people now realized that law enforcement has taken all of your rights, habeus corpus, and everything, and yet when you need them the most they completely fail.. I take a strong note in our rights being eroded and what happened today. Police have forgot about saving people, and are more concerned with someone with a little bag of weed, or busting some kid who was sharing files. Fucking sick society we live in..

Re:How sad or law enforcement is..

[Anonymous Coward]

Point taken about the salad dodger of a cop. No wonder it those donut masters 2 hours to get to the scene of the crime!

Look my friends, this kind of thing is just the brain-wrong of a one-off man-mental. The only thing that can defend you is your own determination and capacity to utilise deadly force in these situations.

Nothing will de-encouragalize this kind of behavior. Nothing but superior firepower. Take care. And i really mean take care.

Re:How sad or law enforcement is..

[The Dobber]

Your stupidity is absolutely amazing.

To start with, you saw news photos of "some" law enforecement officers. Officers who were probably doing exactly what they were suppose to do, cordon off the area.

I have "other thoughts" as well.

Kindly go fuck yourself.

Re:How sad or law enforcement is..

[INT_QRK]

Ah, that's what I was trying to say, but there -- you said it with so much more eloquence...

VT Underground

[jchenx]

Also, and again I have not been ON the campus but have been on several campuses and similar buildings, I wonder if maintenance tunnels, underground connectors, etc. could have played a role. Hell, on my old job I used to cut through maintenance tunnels to avoid people bothering me when I was on my way to meetings.

Woah, that's a really good point. Actually, there are lots of underground tunnels on campus. There's even a website that talks about it here: http://www.vtunderground.com/

That said, I don't know if there are tunnels around AJ that are easily accessible. It might have also been easy to just pretend to be a panicking student with a backpack (certainly there were lots of those), and move around that way.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Anonymous Coward]

Because in this country we - historically - believe in certain inalienable rights of all men

That's really fucking condescending.

And to this day, US citizens generally understand that if the government ever becomes tyrannical and repressive, "we the people" have the right (and must have the means) to overthrow it.

No, you live in a democracy. That means that if the government ever becomes tyrannical, you have the responsibility to overthrow it, because they aren't a random group of people, they are people you collectively choose and fund. And it's becoming clearer every day that the majority of the people of the USA would choose to shirk that responsibility. Christ, your president lies to you, spies on you, breaks the law whenever he feels like it, tells everybody that he's not bound by the law and fires people who try to investigate, and not only do you not impeach him, you even fucking reelect him!

In any case, it doesn't matter. The point of overthrowing your government with rifles has long since passed. The second amendment was rendered obsolete decades ago.

Perfect world.

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine a world where nobody carried a gun or tried to hurt each other.

Yes, it's unrealistic, but why would we strive for anything less?

Re:Perfect world.

[heinousjay]

Since there's no possibility of success, it's wasted energy. That's my reason. It's nice to have a fantasy about where the human race could be, but in the meantime, I live in the now, where I may have to (and have had to) deal with people who wish me harm.

Finding out through Slashdot...

[dominique_cimafranca]

I found out about this story from Slashdot. Initial panic as my friend is studying in VT. No way to contact him. What to do but head over to his blog where, thankfully, he posted news that he was alright.

Random nuts vs professionals

[jmorris42]

> If the students were armed, as provided for by the 2nd amendment, someone could have dropped
> that guy early on and saved 30 or more people.

Normally I'd agree with that, I'm a paid up NRA member and all that. Not sure how much it would have helped in this incident though because this guy was good. Most shooters only bag a handful because they are losers, its WHY they end up as nutjobs running around with a gun shooting random people. One good guy with a concealed weapon could probably deal with a random idiot. Still wouldn't mind a law striking gun free zones out of any/all government controlled/funded places. All they do is paint big targets on the innocent.

But we are now about ten hours in and haven't heard a peep about the perp except one comment on fox news that he was 'Asian.' Now look at how effective this guy was compared to the usual. Starting to smell like a Religion of Peace job by someone with some jihad training instead of Sudden Jihad Syndrome or a random nutter stressing about finals or a failed relationship.

Other signs it isn't a random nut:

We aren't getting the profile of the perp wall to wall. No experts discussing why he went off.

Ms. Brady hasn't been given wall to wall coverage to spout her usual attempts to turn tragedy into political hay.

Re:Random nuts vs professionals

[fyngyrz]

It does sound like he was skilled and operating in an organized and effective manner. Still, no one can shoot thirty people at the same time, especially before they line up and become an organized set of targets. The moment the guy made his intentions known, either by firing or speaking, no matter how good he was, someone on the other side of the room would probably have time to drop him. Especially if they were good, which is exactly what I advocate. Guns aren't toys, and there is no such thing as too much practice.

Re:Random nuts vs professionals

[SpecTheIntro]

Starting to smell like a Religion of Peace job by someone with some jihad training instead of Sudden Jihad Syndrome or a random nutter stressing about finals or a failed relationship.

So suddenly any well-trained murderer is an Islamic jihadist?

Re:Random nuts vs professionals

[Anonymous Coward]

So suddenly any well-trained murderer is an Islamic jihadist?

Hint: if you are a member of a religion where whenever there is a well-trained murderer found he is automatically associated with your religion, you need a new religion.

Re:Random nuts vs professionals

[grassy_knoll]

I agree with you. It's not a matter of keeping score, but there's a reason soldiers the world over are armed with rifles instead of pistols; they're more effective.

This bodycount is unusually high. The Chicago Sun Times is saying the shooter could have been a chinese imigrant on a student visa. Perhaps he had some training... but military training doesn't fit, since infanty and SPECOPS training tends to focus on rifle use, and pistols where used here.

There's still a lot of questions to be answered here.

Re:Random nuts vs professionals

[iamhassi]

"Still wouldn't mind a law striking gun free zones out of any/all government controlled/funded places. All they do is paint big targets on the innocent."

Yep. I figure if a place doesn't have at least 2 armed guards at all times they shouldn't be able to post "No Guns Allowed". Even the local gym has a "no guns" sign. What good is allowing concealed guns law if all the business has to do print out a piece of paper that says "no guns" and put it in the window? Incredibly stupid.

We aren't getting the profile of the perp wall to wall. No experts discussing why he went off.

Does it really matter what he looked like and why? Some crazy is always going to have a bad day and kill people, shouldn't we focus on how to keep the people alive next time instead of trying to keep the crazes from being... um, crazy?

Re:Random nuts vs professionals

[cuby]

I live in southern Europe and I never looked a real pistol pointed at anyone in my life. In my humble standards only violent people and hunters own guns. If you don't want to hurt anyone you don't need the means.
I know that owning a gun is part of the American culture but so bullfighting is in ours... Tradition sucks. Bad habits need to be changed.
My Respects to the families affected by this tragedy.

Re:Random nuts vs professionals

[Anonymous Coward]

Hint: if you are a member of a religion where whenever there is a well-trained murderer found he is automatically associated with your religion, you need a new religion.

Riiiiiight - and racism is caused by black people.

Re:Random nuts vs professionals

[shanx24]

Guys, firstly this guy was a mentally disturbed child. It is clear from his parentage and background that life was tough for him, period. He was disenfranchised by the rich not because some sundry kids were being overly harsh with him, but because he had issues in his own family.

In addition to that, google for the rate of suicides in South Korea and Japan. Both are inexplicable economies where the social hierarchies are so suffocating that kids are forming suicide circles. Weird to say the least. This guy comes from the same lineage, having lived in abject poverty in the basement of a condominium complex in Seoul. Of course he was unhappy.

Thirdly, his best friend, an American, was the one who went on a shooting rampage just five years ago, at the police station in the SAME town. Not with a gun, but with an AK-47! Earlier this month, that friend's father was arrested by the Virginia police. Is this is a coincidence?

To all those who argue for no gun control by citing other countries, cultures are different. In the US, there is undeniably a "gangsta" culture that's considered cool by many kids who do not have an appropriate framework to put that in perspective because their parents are out getting divorced. Snoop Doggy Dog shows up at an MTV awards with women on a leash, and no one takes him to task (poor Imus, one is wont to say). Are you kidding me? Try something like that in Japan or China or India and you will be ridiculed to bits. Social civilities vary.

A school imposes a ban on Wikipedia because the bustling "scholarly" works (including definitions of semen and such) may not be conducive to the education of a child of any age, and it becomes a national debate about "Freedoms". Heck, what freedom does a child need when he doesn't have half a mind to choose for himself yet? Mind you, these kids and their parents are free to do whatever they want when the kid is back home in the evening.

People going after gun control will cite examples of other paraphernalia, such as knives, or gasoline and fire, and say "Should we ban those too just because one lunatic abuses them"? It's a fair point, but incomplete in thought. Knives, gasoline, and other such stuff have other social uses. Just like cars, which can also be used to kill. A gun on the other hand has no real use than to kill other beings, including animals.

Plus, there is a syllogism in the defence that "Oh if other kids had guns they could have defended themselves". BS. They wouldn't have had to, as there wouldn't have been any "shooter" (guns are unavailable, remember?).

Which brings me to the bigger point about gun control. No civilian needs an AK-47 for a legitimate purpose, but you can buy one online in the US for US$400. Why? Guns can and should be made much safer, with legally mandatory fitting of child-proof locks, among other things. A system of required registration for guns and gun-owners, as exists in most other rich countries, threatens no one but the criminal. Cooling-off periods, a much more open flow of intelligence, tighter rules on the trading of guns and a wider blacklist of those ineligible to buy them would all help.

As for what could have been done to prevent this particular psycho from running amok, how about having given him some 'treatment' for his mental
illness? Yes, we can go into endless discussions about how we do not get to decide what constitutes the aberration from the norm, but if society had him certified mentally sick in 2005 and a potential threat, I wonder why no one checked when he bought a gun (across from the university campus).

Re:Gun Laws

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but the presence of a gun is what turns violence from harmful to deadly.

Beyond posting...

[Anonymous Coward]

"And I'm guilty as everyone else... But sometimes I think to myself "Maybe I shouldn't cut off that guy in traffic like that, he might go and snap.""

Or insult that AC on slashdot. :)

Re:Gun Laws

[Feanturi]

Defenseless Victim Zones

Nice. So when all of my fellow students are packing guns, who defends me exactly? All the stressed-out/teen-angst-ridden/misfit/jock/random- psycho students around me? Yeah sign me up for classes... in some other country. Fortunately I'm already there.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[kEnder242]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SARS

Probable cases of SARS by country, 1 November 2002-31 July 2003.
Deaths     Fatality (%)
8096     774     9.6

(sorry if this is going a bit off topic)

A big thankyou to all students who are posting

[jd]

First, since it's rather hard to post when you're dead, it tells the rest of us that you're alive. Hey, Slashdot's a community like any other and yes we do care a lot.

Just checked with my SO - she's fortunately not at that college, she's elsewhere in Virginia... where they had a number of students stabbed to death recently. Yeesh, if those of us on the fringes are being massively impacted, I can only imagine what it's like for those in the middle of it.

Keep posting. And if you can't post, keep breathing. Whether you like it or not, you matter.

Re:Gun Laws

[knivesx11]

I would bet money that this person was not liscensed to carry a concealed weapon.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[the_brobdingnagian]

There's basically no way to solve this problem other than to love thy neighbor and do what you can to raise your children with a sense of respect.
I could not agree more!
I should clarify my statement about not understanding why anyone would want to own a gun. In Holland where I live, there are virtually no people who really hunt animals for food. Most of the hunting is done for "fun" or to "maintain the natural balance". Of course, hunting for your food is only natural. I have nothing against it (if done with care).

I only know two people who live in the United States and I have never been there. In my post I tried to make it clear that I was talking about the impression I get from the "general" population. I am fully aware that this impression is very biased by the media who only tell the spectacular stories which often involve guns.

Re:Gun Laws

[Anonymous Coward]

The constitution of any country has the position as the document of all legal primacy, so it ought to specifically or generally endow permissions that pertain to the usual and essential business of government. This includes the permission to form a standing army (i.e. something constitution drafters tend to only want the government to be allowed to do), or the permission to be elected president (i.e. something that people meeting certain requirements, such as nationality and age, should all be entitled to do). In this case, it's not the government that is granting the permisssion, but part of the same series of documents which define the structures of government, also recognises that the right to bear arms shouldn't be impinged upon.

That said, this was drafted when the United States of America was in its infancy. It's very unlikely that the provision meant that all U.S. citizens should be carrying a gun because somebody else could be carrying a gun nearby.

There seem to be a lot of comments on numerous websites reacting to today's tragedy in which posters seem disappointed that more people aren't sufficiently more afraid of more other people that they should carry concealed weapons at all times.

I struggle to comprehend how more guns could possibly do anything but make indiscriminate shootings by nutjobs more commonplace.

Re:Gun Laws

[attonitus]

Ah background checks. Yes, they clearly work really well.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Mad-cat]

I think it would be better to say that no person should *want* to be able to walk in off the street and buy an AK47.

Assault rifles are not self-defense or hunting weapons. They are assault weapons. They have a very specific purpose: killing and wounding large numbers of people at a very fast rate.

This doesn't mean they should be banned. Why should I, a police officer, be allowed to have weapons like that while you can't? America is supposed to be a government by, of and for the people: if the people's words aren't enough to effect change, they have to be able to back it up. Trust me, you do not want people like me dictating your lives.
What happens if the government stops taking no for an answer?

We need to eliminate the causes of violent behavior, not the tools for doing it. If the citizens are only allowed to have small arms, then the army and the police should be banned from using them too.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[grumbel]

### In Japan you can only be assured that the LAW ABIDING folks aren't carrying guns.

You forget that law abiding people not owning guns also makes it also a lot harder for the criminals to get them. You simply have less guns in circulation and that should really be the goal in the end.

I would actually go even further then to just forbid carrying of firearms, I would outlaw it to own them, produce them, train with them, sell them and everything else that would put them into the hands of people, criminals or not.

The last big school shooting we had over here in germany was commited by somebody who legally owned and trained with the weapons he used for the shooting, so even with our rather strict gun laws he still got all the weapons and training he needed, legally. Would gun ownership have been illegal for him the shooting simply wouldn't have happened the way it did.

Its really as simple as that: Weapons kill people. You can of course also kill people without a weapon, but it will be a heck of a lot harder to do so.

Concealed carry doesn't cause problems

[mrcaseyj]

>If morons carried guns everywhere, we'd have many more than 31 killed in spontaneous acts of stupidity every day.

That's a common sense view of the likely consequences of legal concealed carry. But it turns out that it just doesn't happen. In Vermont and Alaska, law abiding citizens can carry concealed weapons without even getting a permit. Vermont's murder rate is one of the lowest in the country. Alaska's is lower than average. In many states the law requires permits be given to law abiding citizens, usually after getting a little training. To spite hundreds of thousands of people carrying concealed, murder rates went DOWN when concealed carry was legalized (though some claim that it went down slightly more in states where concealed carry remained illegal). It's proven that you don't need to worry about idiots getting concealed carry permits and carrying guns. It's just not a problem. On the other hand it's unfair to people who want to defend themselves to deny them a carry permit for no good reason.

Also, statistics have shown that citizens are less likely to shoot the wrong person than the police are. Probably because they usually know the situation better and usually only shoot at someone who shoots at them first. Most of the time citizens don't even have to shoot in order to save lives. Just showing the gun scares off the criminals.

Bullets do not always mean death

[SuperKendall]

If the gunman had pulled his psycho bullshit in a crowded Virginia mall, the shooter's life may have ended a lot quicker, but that does not mean that fewer people would be dead. If someone started shooting back, there would have been more bullets flying around, and with more bullets flying around, there's a lot higher chance that people will get hit, especially if this is taking place in a mall with a lot of people.

This isn't a video game. In real life, bullets do not mean instant death. Random bullets may hit some people but I'll bet the chances of living from a stray round in that environment are a lot better than being lined up against a wall and shot point blank in the head.

Furthermore, for those that go get hit in an exchange like that, they have a lot higher chance of survival because paramedics can reach them sooner, if people in the middle of the situation know the shooter is down they can flag in the police in and tell them it is safe so the paramedics can come in right away without having to take the time to do a full sweep first.

Not to mention that it's a ridiculous assertion that "bullets would be flying everywhere", at most a handful of people at any time would have a weapon on them and also be trained in the proper use thereof. You forget that people who carry firearms legally are generally not batshit insane and therefore less likley to just spray lead everywhere.

I actually have a relative attending the school as a grad student. She is OK as it turns out but it makes me mad to think the school was just an open playground for a shooter like this with only law enforcement able to stop him.

Re:Bullets do not always mean death

[NIckGorton]

Maybe on TV.... but from my experience as an ER physician, I can tell you bullets may not mean certain death, but they are a damn sight more effective than blunt trauma or low velocity penetrating trauma.

But then death is only one of the horrible things that guns can do. Personally I think being a C3 quad would be worse than death. And I've seen many spinal cord injuries from guns but few from knives or fists. Go figure.

Though one thing that the gun nuts do say is absolutely correct: Guns don't kill people. Its the gaping holes in vital organs, exsanguinating hemorrhage, and ultimately cardiac arrest in the face of overwhelming shock produced by the bullets propelled by the guns that actually kills people. So we should address this problem at the real source: Physics!

Re:Bullets do not always mean death

[ScrewMaster]

She is OK as it turns out but it makes me mad to think the school was just an open playground for a shooter like this with only law enforcement able to stop him.

They did not stop him. He stopped himself, permanently, and the cops had no idea where he was even after he shot two people. Now, I'm not dinging the police here: believe me, I'm not. I have no reason to believe they mishandled the affair in any way and if they did, it will come out later. No, the cops can do only so much in cases like this, and they really have no way to prevent it from happening. All that they can do is try to limit the violence once it has begun, and then pick up the pieces afterwards.

In any event, you're absolutely correct: any unarmed population is a playground for a shooter. If a government chooses to remove firearms from the law-abiding population (regardless of whatever justifications, rationalizations or prevarications are made) it has made the decision to leave the physical defense of that population to law enforcement. That is a frightening state of affairs, for several reasons (not the least of which is the Second Amendment right to a defense against our own government.)

The reality of an unarmed populace is very different from what the (let's face it, largely duplicitous) gun control proponents will tell you. "We don't need guns," they say, "Let the police do their jobs." Sure ... and if you happen to find yourself at the wrong end of a gun barrel, odds are there won't be a cop around to take care of you. If all the attacker wants is your wallet or your car, you might get out of it alive. If he wants you dead ... you've had it. Doesn't hardly seem sporting, does it?

Personally, I don't own a gun. Haven't felt the need, and I'm not interested in sport shooting at this point. But I'll tell you this:, the time may come when I do need one, and if that happens I will have one, whether the guv'mint wants me to or not. My life is worth more to me than a stupid law, and no matter how hard we try to ban guns they'll always be available, for a price.

We all have the responsibility (and the right!) to defend ourselves and our loved ones from harm, which means we need to be at least as well-equipped as the bad guy. Heck, any honest cop will tell you flat out, he cannot be there to defend you. That's not his job, and even if that were his job, there aren't enough of him to go around.

Like most things of importance, if you want it done right you just have to do it yourself.

Re:Bullets do not always mean death

[jd_esguerra]

Not to mention that it's a ridiculous assertion that "bullets would be flying everywhere", at most a handful of people at any time would have a weapon on them and also be trained in the proper use thereof. You forget that people who carry firearms legally are generally not batshit insane and therefore less likley to just spray lead everywhere.

I was just at Virginia Tech late last month for their "Graduate Student Weekend." I also have a CCW, and recent/pretty good (tactical) pistol-craft and carbine training. My first thoughts, as a logical person, are that if *anyone* would have taken a shot at the shooter, his attention would have been drawn away from his unarmed targets. He would have had to focus on the person shooting at him, and would probably end up shooting back- unless he was shot down. So while there might be an exchange of gunfire between two shooters, it would probably have been pretty predicable (a line?). But, at this point, this is all worthless speculation on my part.

Secondly, I am not a gun nut. But I am an engineer. And my engineering sense tells me that guns are not going to go away. So, without waving the pro/anti gun flag, my suggestion to *everyone* is to take a gun (pistol) safety class, just to learn the basics of gun operation. Shoot a few rounds too. (Rent or borrow a pistol.) You would be surprised at how hard it is to "kill" a static paper target at more than a few meters-- especially with shaking hands and an adrenaline rush going. You will also be surprised at how loud guns are. The objective of such a class isn't necessarily to become a proficient shooter. Rather, it is to familiarize yourself with the limitations of a shooter, and the psychological effects of the noise/chaos of gunfire.

For those of you who are turned off *completely* by guns, and think that they are the root of all evil: Take a course anyway. Think of it like a continuation of the lectures for safe-sex or "stranger safely" or traffic safety that you had when you were younger. Awkward, unpleasant, but informative....

I don't want to sound preachy, but in this type of situation, nobody can protect you better than you can. In a shooting like this, the police will rarely be there in time, as it only takes a second to draw and shoot. The media are already consulting "experts" on what can be done to prevent this from happening again. And regardless of what the media "experts" say, I doubt that any amount of legislation or policy or emergency planning can ever practically shield you from becoming a victim of someone who is irrational. It doesn't happen often, but it obviously happens. Be alert.

Re:Bullets do not always mean death

[ScrewMaster]

Good advice all around, folks. Take that class.

Re:Bullets do not always mean death

[mink]

Except for law enforcement didnt stop him. They just surrounded the building while he continued his work. The only thing that stopped him was himself.

Doesn't matter.

[nbritton]

* 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.

* 2nd Amendment: The right to protect your 1st amendment rights by any means necessary.

Move to a different county if you don't like it.

And as a Russian buddy told me...

[masterzora]

Asians are inhabitants from anywhere in Asia, not just the Orient.

Collegiate Times

[GBC]

Thanks to whomever posted the the link to VT newspaper, Collegiate Times earlier.

One of the things I really like about the internet is being able to find out about important stories quickly (with regular updating) and also being able to get closer to the original material.

Full credit to the (student?) reporters updating that site. They are doing an excellent job in getting the news out despite the most trying of circumstances imaginable. I am sure they have an excellent future ahead of them in the media if they so choose.

Re:Collegiate Times

[StarvingSE]

I believe they were updating the website of their student newspaper while huddling under their desks for safety. Truly brave individuals and I commend them. (at least this was what was reported at cnn)

Because I updated a number?

[SuperKendall]

I really don't understand your problem here. I just thought it was sad the actual count was even higher. Are you rejoicing in that?

Pick a country comparable to America, not Iraq.

[NRAdude]

In Iraq, there is a bunch of foreigners occupying the land and they use double-speak and selective journalism to document their success.

Over in these united States of America, it's the same where employees from that city of Washington District of Columbia, known as US citizens aka Federal employees, are occupying various offices of trust in the several states and are not qualified because they unconciously divert property and disrespect the rights of a trustee at the original estate.

The difference between America and Iraq is that Americans are quietly subverted into complacently by the United States, while the people in Iraq all know from the beginning that they are being subverted. America is technically more advanced because slavery has become the acceptable instrument of freedom equally shackled to all arms and legs. At least in Iraq, the morality question is with God on one's justification to defend theirself from assault and batteries of false arrest and imprisonment; here in America, there are swarms of incompetant officers that consume more value than they are worth.

I would fit in well with Iraq, simply because the Order in of a theocracy is more sustainable than the spurious and manipulable potential in a debtor nation. It's good that the theocracy in the Americas has been dormant at the king's bench since around the Year of Our Lord 1794 and well rested to rule the Day again.

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

> For example, imagine that suddenly your dear and loving parents split apart violently. Your once placid and happy life is sundered apart. Instead of caring, your friends (if you're lucky enough have any) shrug it off. They might have gone through divorce and think it's much ado about nothing or perhaps they simply don't understand.

Dad killed mom, so yeah, I can understand how badly that sucks.

> Meanwhile life only gets worse. It isn't just that no one understands, no one wants to. No one makes the effort to connect and communicate, or not enough people do. You only get to watch as everyone around them appears happy and complacent. They're having fun, playing games, living normal lives and crying about silly things like how their boyfriend dumped them. Boohoo, your soul is only tearing itself apart and no one notices.

Practically no friends, even now, over a decade afterwards, as one might expect from a Slashdot AC. No, it's true--no one really notices. When people ask about your parents, they're remarkably thick when you say something like "What parents?" because, of course, everyone has parents ... So you can either explain the sordid tale, or go with the quick lie of "They're dead" because, hey, it sure feels that way. Of course, I say that and here I am confessing anonymously to a bunch of complete strangers...

> The wound festers, and before long you hate everyone and everything. They're is so happy like sheep, ignorant and uncaring about the injustices that go on around them. They don't fucking care, so long as they get to have their stupid, superficial relationships and screw each other while others suffer. They're more than willing to spend $15 a month on some remote child in Africa but to actually lift a finger themselves, too hard for the bastards.

No. They just don't know what it's like. It's not their fault. I could barely understand it myself, having gone through the pain. I sincerely hope they NEVER have to understand such a thing. It sucks. Believe me, I know.

> Demons all of them. They're talking about you behind your back. They're pointing you out, you're the weirdo. The anti-social ass who chased away all those fuckers who were your "friends". No one wants anything to do with you, or doesn't know you're unclean. You practically don't even exist in the feeble minds of these bitches. Some socially disfigured leper.

I always was the odd one out, so I guess that's one thing that didn't change much. But I just accepted that quietly. True, people seem a lot more distant now and the world looks a few shades darker. But how could they be expected to understand? I doubt I would, in their place.

> Is that how this happened? Probably not. However, it's surprising how quickly good people can go bad when there's no one willing or able to support them.

I wonder about that. I never let myself be satisfied with blaming others. Instead, I turned to my faith in God. He's the reason I would credit for my being able to hang on to humanity in dark times.

Re:Really?

[MeanderingMind]

I wonder about that. I never let myself be satisfied with blaming others. Instead, I turned to my faith in God. He's the reason I would credit for my being able to hang on to humanity in dark times.

Ditto. I'm not the person I detailed, and I can't claim to have gone through something quite so hellish, but I went through some tough times in school. If I didn't have supportive and strong parents, and God, I'd probably have gone nuts.

Some people go through hell and come out normal people. Some people come out scarred. Some people come out psychotic. Of the last group, some small subset takes it out on everyone else through violence.

I don't blame the school, its students, or anyone but the shooter for what happened, but it's possible the shooter did.

Murder vs. terrorism

[massysett]

Deaths at the hands of "terrorists" kill only a small number of our people each year. Many more die in non-"terrorist" incidents. Still more die in offensive wars that we start.

Our national priorities are seriously misaligned.

I am a VT student

[abshnasko]

It's really sad, all those people died for no reason. I think they could have been prevented however. We were all sent emails at 9:30 about an incident that happened at 7:15 AM... that seems a bit odd to me. Also as a precaution, the campus should have been locked down when the first shooting at WAJ occurred, but they ASSUMED he had left. If classes were cancelled, Norris wouldn't have been full of students for the gunman to kill. Virginia Tech is such a great school, both socially and academically. Its a shame that this will scar our reputation forever. High schoolers have been touring the school for the last couple weeks; its too bad that a lot of smart kids, I'm sure, have been turned off by this incident and will choose another university. Thanks you all for your support

Has it been know to happen with scores dead?

[SuperKendall]

Imagine everyone opening fire in self-defence and no one knowing who the gunman actually was (sounds like the US Army in Iraq today!). Where you've got a lot of people carrying guns, it's been known to happen.

Why not link us to a story where thirty people died because of this.

Someone shooting is, (a) shooting at someone they saw shoot someone else and now coming towards them menacingly with a gun, and (b) aiming for non-vital areas as the intent is more to stop than to kill. That is the difference, the killer is in fact aiming to kill while those with legal handguns will generally be aiming to wound and therefore mistakes may not be fatal. I'd rather have someone shoot me in the side or leg because they thought I was the shooter, than to have the shooter make sure I was dead because that was pretty much his whole plan.

A crowd of people with guns being attacked by one man is a self limiting problem and means far fewer fatalities than a crowd full of unarmed people lined up against a wall by one man.

People against guns act like every single person with a gun is exactly the same, crazy killer or well-trained mother of four.

I don't even own a gun myself, I just grew up around a lot of gun culture and know what responsible gun use is like.

Re:Has it been know to happen with scores dead?

[segedunum]

People against guns act like every single person with a gun is exactly the same, crazy killer or well-trained mother of four.

And yet, incidents like this happen far more regularly in America, and gun related deaths and crime in America is an absolute every day occurance. Go figure. The only difference here is the number of dead, which means other just go unreported in the national and international consciousness.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[Dzimas]

The Second Amendment was drafted in 1789 and much has changed in the world since then. To hold a section of the Bill of Rights above your head and declare that it should bestow a particular right upon a group of humans forever just because they happen to have been born in the middle third of North America is utterly illogical. There were no automatic or semi-automatic weapons in the 18th Century, and it was conceivable that a group of a few thousand armed and motivated farmers could sack the White House should the need arise. Those days are long gone, unless you're willing to ensure that private citizens also have the right to drive battle tanks and possess tactical nuclear weapons.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[revengebomber]

Every time a news of shooting breaks out, I always wonder why the possession of firearms is not banned entirely in this country. I am native of Japan, and where I grew up nobody but cops were allowed to carry guns. I live in New Jersey now, and I really miss a sense of security I used to have back home. You feel secure knowing that if a cop panics, you can't do shit?

Who you call "we"?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

What fucked up animals we are. I wish well to all affected by this.

There was an old joke that is apropos to your comment:

The Lone Ranger and Tonto are surrounded by hostile Indians and are about out of ammunition. Lone Ranger turns to Tonto and says "I guess we're done for." Tonto says "Who you call 'we', white man?"

Who are you calling "we"?

And while you're at it, who are you calling a "fucked up animal"?

Nature is red in tooth and claw. Some species of ducks reproduce by rape. Male cats (especially lions) will kill other males' kittens to bring the local females into heat sooner. Male animals of many species will fight to the death over females. Bobcats of either sex will kill other roughly-similar-sized predators in their territories (such as dogs, housecats, foxes, mountain lion cubs, ...).

You think this guy is "fucked up" because you think what he did is wrong. What that means is "what he did is wrong for your idea of what's right for people to do".

You think "we" are "fucked up" up because you generalize from HIM to all of US.

In fact, what he did was very rare for people to do. It apparently IS wrong for people. But HE was a particular PERSON who was "fucked up".

And perhaps YOU are also one of those who is "fucked up". (Though I doubt it: You must have some ideal that what he did was "wrong". Otherwise you wouldn't be revolted by his actions.)

But don't assume that the REST of humanity is "fucked up". The statistics indicate otherwise.

Re:I guess this makes me rather un-american

[vidarh]

As much as I think US gun culture clearly is unhealthy, blaming the shootings on access to guns just plain doesn't work. Countries like Norway or Switzerland also have huge number of guns available. For a long time tens of thousand of AG-3's were kept in private homes in Norway as part of military strategy, and this has been common practice in many other countries too.

There are a couple of marked differences though: First, few places have so easy access to small, concealable handguns. Secondly, few other places have a culture where carrying guns outside of a few well defined situations (such as hunting) is seen as worth the risk to many people.

In Norway, for example, while access to AG-3's used to be easy, it's not exactly a weapon you carry around with you in public... And secondly, few criminals are stupid enough to carry guns anyway, as they know that doing so will mean they'll face an armed response, whereas if they are clearly unarmed, they will at worst face unarmed police.

The same is pretty much the case in the UK, where death due to firearms is an even rarer occurence than in Norway. Few police officers are armed - armed response is carried out by special "firearms officers" that only get called out when there is a likelihood of facing armed criminals.

Add to that a system in many countries, including Norway, of massively increasing sentences if a crime is carried out with a weapon, and where sentences for carrying out economic crimes like robbery without a weapon are fairly short, and you have an environment where using a gun is rarely worth the risk.

The ease of access of military assault weapons in many European countries demonstrate clearly that you CAN let a populace be armed without a massive problem with gun violence.

The problem is how to get from the US situation where those guns are being brought out in public and used for crime, to a situation where criminals don't consider them worthwhile without putting police at massive risk - it's not like you can ask police officers to leave their guns as long as they face a massive risk of being met with guns.

Re:Gun Laws

[heinousjay]

Why wouldn't they aim very well? You can train for better aim, and anyone carrying a gun is likely to have done target shooting to work on just such skills. The problem here is that no one is allowed to carry them at all, so everyone was vulnerable, regardless of skill.

Your doomsday scenario of everyone packing, no one trained, and death everywhere is just plain unrealistic, and obviously agenda driven. This is typically not a good place for boogeymen to be used as the basis of an argument, because lots of us are smart here.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[grumbel]

### how far are you willing to go for guns?

Who actually wants/needs to own a gun? I can see plenty of reasons to own/consume drugs, but what the heck shall I do with a deadly firearm? When I want to shoot on a few cans and bottles or play some Paintball a non-deadly weapon will do the job perfectly fine. When I want to defend myself a non-deadly weapon, such as a Taser, should be good enough as well. So what areas are left there to actually own a real deadly weapon?

Drop it

[SuperKendall]

Consider: you are carrying a concealed weapon and you hear gunfire coming from the room down the hall (or maybe from the floor below). You draw your weapon, and the next thing you know someone carrying a gun walks into the room. Is it another student from elsewhere in the building responding to the gunfire, or the nutcase? Do you shoot them before they can shoot you? Now add plenty of screaming and panic, and multiply this scenario by the number of different panicked scared students all carrying firearms.

You tell them to drop it, and if they don't you shoot them. Even if you shoot them they are not necessarily dead.

And even if they shoot you, the thought they are being shot at too by random people might make them jumpy enough to stop then rather than later.

Re:Drop it

[Anonymous Coward]

If only they'd had a PS3 or some other Sony product; as you've claimed many times before, there's nothing that a Sony product can't do, right you fucking shill? Go burn in hell swine.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Anonymous Coward]

Never voted for a single one of them, and they take my money on threat of imprisonment. Unless I'm going to get some help overthrowing them, which I'm not because most Americans still think they are still, I'm just going to dig a little hole and try to hide as best I can. I'm not sure why that makes me a bad person. I have no obligation to throw my life away simply because other people are doing bad things. Other people are always doing bad things.

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[CodeBuster]

Could anybody enlighten me as to why people want to carry guns at all?

There are many reasons given by both sides of the gun control debate for why we should or should not be allowed to carry firearms or even weapons in general. However, in answer to your question the reasons for allowing people to carry guns generally fall into the following general categories:

1. The people have the right to overthrow the government, violently if neccessary, if the government becomes tyrannical. This is stated particularly succinctly in the US Declaration of Independence.

Those in favor of gun control generally respond that even if personal weapons were kept for this purpose it would be hopeless to attempt to overthrow a government equipped with a modern mechanized military using personal small arms. On the other hand, the insurgents and their supporters in Iraq have been a real thorn in the side for the United States, Iraq, and the other coalition forces so perhaps there is some validity to the argument. However, the argument is of mostly theoretical interest in democratic first world nations such as the United States.

2. Although government is tasked with an obligation to protect citizens collectively, government is not obligated to protect any given individual citizen without a special relationship established with that citizen prior to victimization, and thus citizens have a demonstrable need for personal protection. (In U.S. case law, courts have held that the police cannot be held civilly or criminally liable for failing to provide individual protection (Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A. 2d 1 (1981)).

This a big one and the reason that is most likely to be cited by those that support the carrying of guns. It is also important to remember that Japan is a very Homogeneous society (i.e. there are not many non-Japanese living and working in Japan compared to the Japanese) and therefore there are fewer tensions based upon different cultures, racial, or other factors which are more at work here in the United States. I tend to agree with this one since it is not reasonable to make somebody responsible for their own protection (i.e. we will try and be there for you, but if we cannot get there in time then tough and we are not liable) and then deny them the most expedient means of protecting themselves, which in most cases is a firearm of some sort.

3. Fewer guns in the hands of private people means more violent crime, as guns are The Great Equalizer, making victims more dangerous to criminals, and also because the criminals will, being criminals, flout the law and keep their guns, anyway.

This is a hot one here in the United States with studies and statistics on both sides. It is my personal opinion that fewer guns in the hands of private citizens probably does increase violent crime and especially crimes against women and other more vulnerable members of the society. There are alternatives, such as pepper spray and electric shocking devices (tazer), but these alternatives may not be as effective, especially against a determined attacker.

Re:Gun Laws

[StewedSquirrel]

No, "flare ups" happen all the time.

They result in someone being punched or struck with a blunt object. It happens thousands of times per month and the person generally does it in a blind rage.

If there were a gun within arms reach, rather than a table-leg or other unweildy blunt object, it would likely be used.

I think if everyone were required to carry a gun, the murder rate in the US would triple. Almost all of them would be "heat of passion" murders that would have resulted in a bloody nose, or broken hand, if a gun were not within arms reach.

Just my opinion.

Stew

Oh, be quiet.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then learn a form of self-defense, or carry a legal self-defense device. Where on Earth did you get the impression that it was your right to carry a gun everywhere you go?

Yes, if everyone was armed, it would make things a whole lot worse. Many, many, many more people would die every year, and you'd be a fool to argue with that. As the grandparent suggested, can you imagine what would happen if someone opened fire at a school, prompting more people to pull out their weapons, and suddenly nobody knows exactly who the original shooter was? Everyone would be so scared that they'd probably immediately shoot whoever aimed their weapon in his direction, or whoever fired off a shot for any reason. There would be chaos.

Guns are too powerful to be used safely for self defense. I realize it's difficult to stop a crazed shooter when nobody has an equal weapon, but I'm absolutely positive that of everyone was armed, the collateral damage in most cases would far exceed the rampage were it left unimpeded.

Minor disputes at a bar would result in someone dying, where now they just swing a few punches and sleep it off.

There would be chaos, without a doubt in the world, and that seems to be exactly what you want, all in the name of "self defense."

Re:Oh, be quiet.

[Dun Malg]

Where on Earth did you get the impression that it was your right to carry a gun everywhere you go? The US COnstitution?

Yes, if everyone was armed, it would make things a whole lot worse. Many, many, many more people would die every year, and you'd be a fool to argue with that. Ah yes, we must accept your arguments or be a fool. Astounding logic.

As the grandparent suggested, can you imagine what would happen if someone opened fire at a school, prompting more people to pull out their weapons, and suddenly nobody knows exactly who the original shooter was? Everyone would be so scared that they'd probably immediately shoot whoever aimed their weapon in his direction, or whoever fired off a shot for any reason. There would be chaos. A man bursts in the door and starts firing. Student A draws his weapon and fires back. Are you seriously suggesting that Students B, C, and D (also armed) wouldn't notice the man on a shooting rampage, and would start firing on Student A? You're an idiot.

Guns are too powerful to be used safely for self defense. And yet somehow they are, on a daily basis, without mayhem ensuing.

I realize it's difficult to stop a crazed shooter when nobody has an equal weapon, but I'm absolutely positive that of everyone was armed, the collateral damage in most cases would far exceed the rampage were it left unimpeded. Yeah, your self assurance of that conclusion, reached within the confines of your own mind using nothing but your own imagination , fed by a lifetime of unrealistic portrayal of gunfights in TV and movies, is nothing short of breathtaking. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You can't even show me a single crime committed by a civilian with a permit to carry a concealed weapon. By your reasoning, those people should be blowing their stack and shooting their neighbors all the time.

Minor disputes at a bar would result in someone dying, where now they just swing a few punches and sleep it off. A friend of mine's brother was killed at a bar by a guy who threw a punch at his head.

There would be chaos, without a doubt in the world, and that seems to be exactly what you want, all in the name of "self defense." I don't know anyone* who's been shot or has shot someone, and I know a number of people with concealed carry permits. Your view of reality is entirely made up. Come back when you have some hard facts to back your imagined ramblings.

* barring, of course, the 2 years I spent in afghanistan, but being in the Armyduring wartime this is to be expected.

Re:Gun Laws

[Viking Coder]

How much better of a background check can you have than being in the Ohio National Guard?

And yet those guys killed 4 students at Kent State.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[joe_n_bloe]

He claims that a culture of fear is what drives Americans to arm themselves to the teeth in such big numbers, and you end up with the ludicrous situation where you can go into a shop on just about any high street and buy an automatic assault weapon, something that is not needed for self defence or hunting or any of the other uses that gun advocates frequently come up with.

We don't actually have "high streets" in the US. :-P

You can't buy an automatic weapon in the US without a considerable amount of paperwork and money. What you can buy, however, is a semiautomatic weapon. In the vast majority of jurisdictions, you can buy and possess a long gun (rifle or shotgun) with little or no restriction. It generally makes no difference what the method of operation (semiauto, lever, bolt, pump, so on) or capacity of the long gun is. Pistols are more tightly controlled and what is legal depends on state and local laws. The magazine and "assault weapons" ban has sunsetted although some states (California in particular) still have laws regulating "assault weapons" (in other words, long arms that work just like other long arms, but look sinister).

What most people do with semiautomatic long guns is target shooting, either at ranges or outdoors in an isolated area. It's a fun, safe, and relatively inexpensive hobby. The same is generally true of pistols. Just as no one "needs" a car that goes 150mph, no one needs firearms for target shooting, but both are perfectly legal here, and I'm glad for it. Relatively few people are killed and injured in the US each year as a result of firearm accidents involving law-abiding citizens.

Meanwhile, gun crime is strictly outlawed and equally strictly punished in the United States. Nowadays, most violent criminals receive long mandatory sentences, particularly upon repeat offenses.

Re:Gun Laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at how guns find their way into the hands of those who aren't legally allowed to possess one. If you start taking away the firearms of the public, then the criminals are the ones in power. Today, the "state militia" failed to protect the people of Virginia, specifically at the VT campus.

As for the talk about arming everyone, that's just ridiculous. Even being a gun owner, there's no way that I'd even think of supporting a bill to allow pot-smoking, binge-drinking emotionally dysfunctional college kids to carry anything more dangerous than a Nerf bat. I attend a university in NC and I see fellow students acting more juvenile than high school kids.

I grew up around guns, I got my first, a BB gun when I was 8, a .22 when I was 12, a shotgun when I was 18, a pistol when I turned 21 and I have permission to borrow my father's and grandfather's guns whenever I want. Saying all that, I feel comfortable around guns...when I know who's carrying them. I don't go hunting or shooting with just anyone, heck, I don't go hunting with some of my friends because they aren't responsible with firearms. Truth is, I probably wouldn't attend a university that allowed firearms on campus. One thing I like about my campus is the police presence. You can't go 15 minutes without seeing a cop either on foot, bicycle or car. More funding is going to have to go to campus police and maybe security cameras.

Anyways, back to the point, my prayer go out to the families of the victims. I tried to imagine what they may be feeling, but honestly, I can't comprehend the sorrow of loosing a son or daughter.

So, explain Dunblane and Hungerford to us, smarty

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, making AK47's illegal prevented that whack job from wandering around Hungerford mowing people down...

You'd think that British gun control would have made both impossible.

Hmm, I wonder. In how many countries around the world is the sale of heroin legal?

psychological exam

[timothy]

Hi there!

I can't speak to the situation everywhere within the U.S. wrt mental soundness / psychological profiles, but there are sites (try packing.org) which can give a better overview of the process. Because this varies by state, the answer to many general questions about the CCW / CCP process is "it depends."

To legally purchase a handgun, though, you must at present go through a NICS check, which means your name and some other data are run through a national database, which basically gives you a thumbs-up or thumbs-down response (no gradations like "Can have a .22, but not a .308 ;)). The form you fill out in anticipation of purchase also requires you to attest that you have (among other things) never been committed to a mental institution, etc.

You're right that this is an issue frequently glossed over; not everyone feels that they'd be willing to kill another person under *any* circumstances, and being asked to consider that scenario rationally, over coffee, is different from actually making the decision when the chips are down. I'm glad that I've never been in that particular sort of danger. (On the other hand, the deterrent power of a gun need not involve anyone getting killed; while I was an undergraduate traveling to U. Texas, I once saw a brutal beating -- which certainly looked like it could have been fatal -- end suddenly when someone who saw the beating going on emerged from a nearby store and fired once in the air. The several attackers all fled, real quicklike, and the victim survived. Who knows how it might otherwise have ended?

I have a Pennsylvania CCW, but like Virginia Tech, my school (Temple Law) forbids carrying on school grounds. I wonder (not rhetorically) whether any of the students in that classroom were CCW holders who were unarmed for the same reason.

timothy

Asian/Oriental

[EccentricAnomaly]

Do you still call people Mongoloids too? It's the 21st century gramps, try call an Asian that to his face and don't be surprised if he busts out the chop-suey and puts your old white ass in the hospital. Ok.. so there are lots of different races from Asia. Indians, Mongolians, Siberians, Turks, Arabs, etc. The use to the term 'Asian' to refer to people frm the far east is irksome/offensive to some Indians. To my mind it would be like calling whites, 'Americans'.

It's like the mis-use of the term African-American. African-American is a cultural distinction. Not all blacks are African-American some are from the Caribean, some are Pacific Islanders, some are African. The term 'black' is offensive very few people... and very useful in describing race and society.

But what do you do about Asian/Oriental? You could try to be specific on country of origin... but Chinese isn't very good as there are many different races/ethnicities from China. If you're going to distinguish between Han Chinese and Korean, you might as well distinguish Tibetan too.

My vote is to simplify skin color just like eye/hair color: Whites, Blacks, Browns, Yellows, and Reds.

oh... and for those of you on this thread who think 'oriental' is as bad as the n-word... you have not seen/experienced real full-force dehumanising racism if you can honestly claim that. There are racist terms equavalent to the n-word, but 'oriental' isn't one of them.

Re:Asian/Oriental

[Anonymous Coward]

How about just not mentioning race at all since it has no bearing on the situation AT ALL.

It's not like they were putting out a description to help locate the guy!

Not eyewitness, but close.

[noemore]

I live in Blacksburg, so I feel I might have a slightly better idea of the time line of events than the national news, this is what happened to the best of my knowledge:

At some time before 7:15 am the Gunman (an as of yet unidentified young Asian male) entered West Ambler Johnson Hall, which is a Residence Hall and shot 2 people, one male and female, he then fled the scene.

At 7:15 am an RA made a 911 call to report this shooting, police and rescue arrived at the scene and Tech placed West AJ on lock down. The patients were transported to Montgomery Regional Hospital, where they both were pronounced dead.

The crime scene presented itself as a domestic, and thus the authorities did not feel it was necessary to cancel classes for the day.

(at some point in time, either while West AJ was locked down after the first shooting or after news of what happened at Norris spread, fear spread through west AJ and some people decided that the best way to exit the building was through the windows, this accounts for some of the wounded, but to the best of my knowledge none of the dead.)

Around 9:40 am the Gunman then proceeded to Norris Hall, a building which is part of the engineering dept, and has many class rooms. (this would be an excellent time to note that the police have not confirmed that the two incidence are related, we will probably have to wait for ballistics to determine that with any certainty) He used lengths of chain and locks to deny access or escape from Norris, then he proceeded to enter various class rooms and fire upon people with at least 2 pistols (for the detail oriented they were said to be 9mm's but this has not be confirmed or substantiated. One ear-witness claims the shots he heard sounded as if they were from a pistol in origin, he also reported that he heard "30-40" rounds fired.)

This second attack left 30 dead and 17-50+ wounded (the wounded tally varies from source to source, the most common numbers are 21 and 28, 17 is highly unlikely, this is a misunderstanding upon the newscasters part, 17 were transported to MRH but hospitals as far away as Roanoke received patients,. Also some patients were treated at the scene.)

Some were injured escaping Norris via the windows. The Gunman then proceeded to the basement and shot himself bringing the death toll to 33.This number may very climb, as multiple patients are in critical condition and as of 4:30 pm some were still in surgery. His corpse was discovered some time between 11:30 and 1pm.

This information was gathered from a variety of sources; from a rescue scanner, news reports, eyewitness accounts and hearsay. Thus this only reflects what happened to the best of my knowledge and is not definitive. When I first heard "31 black tags" come over the radio I was in disbelief, was sure that the fierce wind which was blowing at the time had distorted what I had heard, there was no way that was true. To my eternal sadness it is. History was made today, and being a part of it, however distant was quite an unpleasant feeling.

We should all pray for the dead and give blood to the living. The feeling of powerlessness which accompanies an event like this is palpable. It's seemingly random nature makes it feel as if a capricious evil has control of you. If you are in or near Blacksburg please go to the Red Cross Center at Kent Square, they will be accepting donations Tuesday-Thursday noon - six.

use "Celestial" instead

[Anonymous Coward]

Reasoning like that is why I use the term Celestial, as in "Wu the Celestial".

Most chilling thought

[Trailwalker]

Worst school shooting in US history

Until the next time

Re:Most chilling thought

[MerlynEmrys67]

The last one took 41 years to be topped... lets hope the next one takes another 4 decades

Re:Most chilling thought

[asninn]

"in history" always implies "until next time" - it's headlines like "worst school shooting ever" that make no sense and generally aren't true (since "ever" includes both the past and the future).

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[Anonymous Coward]

It does not matter.
Your right to any gun control in no way trumps my right to defend myself.
NOT even close.

Re:University of Texas Tower

[AK Marc]

Well, if you want to take that description as gospel, he was never "pinned down" whether by civilian fire or police. Also, it wasn't civilians that shot at him first, it was civilians that assisted the police. That implies the police were there first, and civilians came to the aid of the police. That is something that is also contrary to the "students had guns and made a difference" claim. The police were already there and shooting when they were assisted by late-arriving civilians. None of the ground fire stopped him at all. You sound more like someone that is interested in using it to prove your point, as opposed to actually looking at the situations and applying them for safety changes (if any).

Live by the gun, die by the gun, you idiots

[Oldav]

I cant believe the amount of fools who think more guns is better. We had a major shooting in Australia 10 years ago and we got rid of all automatic weapons, and most handguns. Since then there has been no further events of this nature. Criminals may still have illegal weapons, but it seems these sort of shootings are usually commited by people who are not career criminals, they are mentally disturbed, and have easy access to guns. These are individuals who in civlised society's would not have access to guns. The ludicrous suggestion that adding more guns would have made things better would be laughable if not for the fact it comes from apparently intelligent people. The US lives by the gun, and therefore a lot of you die by the gun. I have never in my life needed a gun, and I have never seen one used in public, thats a civilised situation, the sooner you start to get rid of your violent school bully attitude the sooner things like this will stop.

It's terrible, but...

[Julius X]

This event comes as a shock to anyone, especially those of us within the Virginia Tech community. It is terrible that this would ever happen, and a great loss of opportunity and life for those who were killed today - and for what? I'm sure many are wondering exactly that, including myself - and I hope that they will be able to decipher the motive of these horrible events.

However, and I cannot help but wonder this - the entire country will be mourning for these 31 individuals killed in cold blood today, and wonder about that last, obviously disturbed indivudual - but events of this magnitude are not rare. In fact, these types of incidents happen every single day in Iraq, yet instead of the constant news coverage and awareness that this story will be given, it is glossed over by our News Media by events such as the Imus story or who Anna Nicole's baby will go to....

This may serve as a wakeup call to many people - but it shouldn't be, really - if our News Media was doing as it's supposed to do, and actually telling us about the tragedies that face us every day - not to say they can't show the light side as well, but such things are not worthy of 95% of a 24hour news coverage - things like this, especially today, are.

proficiency exams

[timothy]

Some states, though, don't require anything at all in the way of proficiency testing. Pennsylvania, I was surprised to learn when I got my CCW, does not; Texas does. (I think this is one reason a PA permit doesn't get nearly as much reciprocal recognition.)

I don't think CCW permits should be required at all (a different issue entirely), but since they are in most states, I don't think a training requirement is an unreasonable aspect. At least "on paper" at 15 yards, say, and "well on target" at 7. I think this would also be a good way to remind people of their own abilities -- shooting at more distant targets than you're used to can be humbling. (For me, at least.)

timothy

Twit

[fm6]

You're an ignorant jerk. These are not rentacops. Like most big universities, VT has a regular police force manned by a fair number of sworn officers.

So, why didn't they prevent this tragedy? Well, this is a country where "bearing arms" is a sacred right. As long as millions of folks have their own private arsenals, you're going to have the odd nutcase staging a small massacre.

Please, spare me the usual second amendment stuff. I'm not interested in arguing over whether private guns protect from tyranny or not. I just know two things (1) Americans are in love with their fucking guns (2) as long as that's true, you're going to have the odd mass killing.

Guns do kill people.

Re:Twit

[paitre]

And you're a sanctimonious cock-sucking, gun-grabbing shithead.

1. Yes. we're in love with our guns. Suck it.
2. I agree.
3. No. Dumbasses using guns kill people. Get it fucking right.

Re:Twit

[fm6]

Since you're fond of waving a phallic symbol, I'd be careful with words like "suck".

Guns don't kill? What was that guy using yesterday, a bowie knife?

The Banality of Evil

[NIckGorton]

Absolutely correct and shown by numerous real world (Abu Ghraib) and even a couple of experimental situations like the Stanford Prison Experiment. Some of the 'animals' who perpetrated crimes against the other prisoners in the SPE were exactly the same kind of college kids who died today.

It is precisely what was described by Hannah Arendt in Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil

Its people who think they could never ever do that who are the most dangerous.

There needs to be a clarification here

[KKlaus]

And please hear me out before you think you know my view guns.

The argument about scared armed students accidently killing bystanders holds no water. The type of person who gets issued a CCW generally has a deep understanding of when to pull the trigger, and takes the responsibility of the power they hold quite seriously. They don't just open fire when they hear gunshots, and as has been mentioned previously, statistically they are better and safer shots than actual police.

This has nothing to do with whether or not a more heavily armed populace would kill more people over time due to random arguments/rages/etc than it would save in high profile incidents such as this, but the scenario where a bunch of CCWs simply open up when there is a gunman about and wind of killing more people than they save does not exist in reality (or at least not at even close to a statistically relevant level).

The British say Oriental

[ToastyKen]

Maybe the guy who said Oriental is British? In the UK, they still use "Oriental" to refer to East Asians, and it's not considered politically incorrect there. In fact, "Asian" there means "South Asian" (Bangladeshi/Indian/Pakistani/etc). I'm East Asian myself and was pretty surprised by the usage when I went to visit, but keep in mind that /. has international visitors before jumping to conclusions about politically incorrect usage.

Re:The British say Oriental

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, white English people who say "oriental" are in the minority. however, you'll find that UK based Asians actually tend to prefer the use of "Oriental" over "Asian", because (as one UK Chinese person told me once) "Asian" makes them think we're "mixing them up with Indians".

Re:I guess this makes me rather un-american

[4d4m]

I live in Alaska. Any time I go out into the woods (fishing, hiking, camping) I carry a loaded .44 magnum. I do not leave the car without it. I wear it until I am back at the car. I've only had to draw it once (and I have never had to fire it at wildlife.) The number of gun crimes are rising in Alaska, but it is not because of access to handguns (which you do not need a concealed weapon permit to carry, I might add.) There are plenty of rifle and shotgun related crimes (most often due to gangs or sheer stupidity - one instance involved a husband asking his wife to shoot a frying pan, which he held - and he ended up taking the ricocheted bullet. They were both drunk. Another fine instance was when the drunk husband held the rifle to his stomach, and asked his drunk wife to pull the trigger.) Furthermore, limiting access to handguns wouldn't solve a thing; gang members have access to handguns before they are able to purchase them legally, and gang members have access to fully automatic weapons that require a permit to have in the first place. The problem, one might say, is with idiots and degenerate gang members having them, but limiting access to the public won't affect either of those in the least.

The one person in the US happy about this...

[Rotten168]

Don Imus.

JK.

Re:The one person in the US happy about this...

[Anonymous Coward]

The second is Mike Nifong.

More importantly...

[raehl]

When you bring a gun into the situation, the chances that someone other than your intended target is going to get killed greatly increase.

That's the big problem with an armed populace. It works OK when everyone has a sword. It doesn't work so well when you're in a city, and bullets don't stop just after they pass whatever you were shooting at.

Re:More importantly...

[RespekMyAthorati]

It seems that what is needed is more armed cops, not more armed non-cops.
And, they don't need to be police-school graduates, with training in forensics,
traffic law and Miranda. If ordinary volunteer citizens could be armed and deputized
after a rigorous training program in "how to stop an armed crazy", then
this would definitely help.

Of course, the police unions would scream like hell.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[CodeBuster]

fully automatic firearms have been illegal in the US for a long time.

They are not strictly speaking *absolutely* illegal at a federal level, although some states have banned them, but rather any weapon that is capable of fully automatic fire that was not registered before 1982 (I think that was the cutoff but not exactly sure) is not legal to own. A current owner may transfer (i.e. sell) his gun to another provided that the all of the transfer taxes are paid, the paperwork is filled out properly, and the new owner can pass the background checks. The result is that the collective value of the remaining grandfathered weapons continues to increase such that it can cost thousands (and sometimes tens of thousands) of dollars to legally acquire one (assuming that you live in a state which has not banned them). This is effectively a ban for most Americans since the cost is prohibitive, but it is not technically the same as an outright ban.

Stress and engineering [ was Re:Gaming ]

[Anonymous Coward]

A graduate of Rutgers Engineering told me about another example of stress gone extreme.

Back in the early-to-mid 70s, an engineering student drove his car full speed up some steps and into the front of one of the engineering buildings. The steel doorframe stopped the car. Nobody was killed or injured.

When they asked why he did it, he said it was because he felt like it.

The grad who told me the story would not have done likewise but had a lot of sympathy/empathy for the kid who did it.

My heart goes out to the families and friends of all affected by today's tragedy.

Re:Not now! - was Re:Second Amendment Rights

[Dead_Smiley]

So, when is the correct time to discuss it? Two hours from now?

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Tragek]

at 5000$, market exclusively in america, and make it a money back guarantee.

Different argument...

[mutube]

Actually, the point was that putting "lack of gun-control" in the same collection of "causes" as access to violent video games or loud music is a little disingenuous. One is potentially lethal, while the others are not.

It's the gun one, btw.

Re:Gun Laws

[NeutronCowboy]

Got a link? The studies I saw show no correlation at all in crime rate drops. The best thing they can hope for is that those enactments coincide with other approaches, such as better police patrols. Seriously, this is retarded. There are nationwide experiments with tight gun control, and none of them have the gun-violence problem that the US has. Is the rest of the world really that much more peaceful?

Check your stats

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I was reading some info about crime stats and one interestign thing: Victims of crimes who possessed guns/weapons during the incident had a good chance ... of having their own weapon used against them.

Check your stats - and your sources.

Victims of crimes almost never have their own guns used against them.

The primary people who DO have their own guns used against them are police who carry their guns in a belt holster. Typically this happens when they're focussed on one crook and have to close with him (or on some other distraction) and a different crook grabs their gun from behind. (There is training on avoiding this, but most departments don't pay for it.) This is why uniformed officers (who open-carry) must disarm in courtrooms (to avoid hostage situations when a crook tries to get away) but plainclothesmen (who carry concealed) are encouraged to carry (so they can assist the bailiff if such a situation develops.

Such training is available to civilians, too. (In fact, I have taken it.) It's called "gun retention". It includes training in attempting to disarm your opponent - mainly to show how hard it is to actually do so, partly to teach you to identify the very few situations where it's even remotely possible AND improves your chances over hanging around and hoping you don't get killed, and what to do then. (Main one is when the bad guy has the gun poked into your spine from behind.)

According to FBI statistics, resisting an attempted crime with a gun is the ONLY way to reduce your probability of death or injury below quiet cooperation - and it cuts it by a bunch. Anything else (including trying to reason with the crook) raises the probability of injury to the victim. (Knives are particularly bad.)

Re:Check your stats

[tomhudson]

Here you go: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/Firearms.htm 1. Guns and homicide (literature review). We performed a review of the academic literature on the effects of gun availability on homicide rates. Major Findings: A broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide. In other words, owning a gun makes you more likely to be killed by a gun ... 2. Gun availability and state homicide rates, 1988-1997 Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period. Major findings: After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide. In other words, the more people "packing heat" in your state, the more likely you'll be shot to death 3. Gun availability and state homicide rates, 2001-2003 Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. Major Findings: States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide. A gun in the house means you're more likely to kill yourself or someone is more likely to kill you. Srolling down, we come to this: RECENT FIREARMS RESEARCH Harvard Injury Control Research Center 2001-2006 Firearms Research Archive 1990-1998 Firearms Research Archive 1998-2003 Firearms Research Archive 2004-2005 The Firearm Research Center: David Hemenway, Matthew Miller, Deborah Azrael, Beth Molnar, and Lisa Hepburn Funded by the Joyce Foundation (unpublished material is not to be cited w/o approval of authors) BOOK: Hemenway, David. "Private Guns and Public Health" Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2004. This book summarizes the literature on the relationship between guns and injuries and describes the public health approach to reducing firearm-related violence. More information at the University of Michigan Press website: http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=1 7530 ARTICLES: I GUNS AND DEATH A: HOMICIDE 1. Guns and homicide (literature review). We performed a review of the academic literature on the effects of gun availability on homicide rates. Major Findings: A broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide. Publication: Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. "Firearm Availability and Homicide: A Review of the Literature." Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40. 2. Gun availability and state homicide rates, 1988-1997 Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period. Major findings: After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide. Publi

Preliminary confirmation of sexual hypothesis

[Baldrson]

A Times Now report quotes a witness to the shootings:

"...The gunman appeared to be Asian and was looking for his girlfriend," the student said.

Define "doesn't work".

[roberthead]

Given that it is impossible to prevent people from owning guns, wouldn't it make more sense to educate and regulate than to try to ban, which doesn't work? Have you checked the homicide and incarceration rates in countries that ban handguns?

Re:Define "doesn't work".

[Grishnakh]

Last I checked, the crime rate in the UK is much higher than in the US, even though guns are illegal there. Worse, most of the crime there is against regular citizens, while much of the crime here in the US is between rival drug gangs (criminal-on-criminal violence). True, less of the crime in the UK involves a gun, but stabbings are extremely common there, to the point that legislators in the UK are talking about banning knives now. Pretty soon you won't be allowed to cut your food apart, and will have to just use your hands to tear it apart.

As for incarceration, that can mostly be explained by our stupid War on Drugs and War on Sex; most of the offenders are either sex offenders or drug offenders. While I certainly don't condone molesting children or anything like that, prisons full of people convicted of child porn possession just isn't as much of a concern to me as the high probability of being mugged if you are in the UK.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[timothy]

"Fully automatic firearms have been illegal in the US for a long time."

If you'd say "For practical purposes" first, I'd agree. And you're certainly right that you can't just "walk in and buy one" as the previous poster asserted.

However, fully automatic firearms are not illegal in the U.S. -- just very heavily restricted. (Some states do fully ban any private market in automatic weapons, and some don't even allow grandfathered ones -- this is one of the things that lead some gun-owners to call the lower-leftmost state of the continental U.S. The People's Republic of Kalifornia.)

For ordinary folk to own one, there's an expensive tax stamp, an extensive and invasive background check (Federal), and a small supply of (consquently very expensive) pre-1986 automatic weapons from which to choose. I've not heard of any sub-10,000-dollar full auto guns changing hands between civilians in a long time in the U.S. (though that's not a market I keep close tabs on).

Plenty of people do own them, though -- google "Knob Creek" for some interesting stuff on privately held machine guns. I have never fired one, but would like to eventually. At current ammo prices, I wouldn't shoot much, though. And the rules restricting full-auto guns doesn't apply to law enforcment; maybe that's why the Rock's ex-cop archenemies in "Walking Tall" got to shoot up the police station with them.

timothy

Well think of the good things that will result!

[Anonymous Coward]

perhaps t-shirt hell is going to bring back their "school shootings tour" t-shirt?

seriously though...

academia, an adversarial human construct caused someone to snap and they killed other humans...

big fucking deal.

most human constructs kill alot of people... automobiles, CO2...

school shootings are minimal...

at least the people who die are people who are all consensually involved in the stressors that broke the poor person that fell into the state where their only way out was through killing anything and everything they could see. Most academia is more inhuman than the shooter that guns them down.

I feel terrible for the shooter who was taken to that space by the institutions we force upon the human condition...

we built the system that made that person explode... we all deserve what is coming to us...

sorry... being human and in society means you accept the fact that you may be part of the sampling events. live wi...er..I mean die with it...

Re:Well think of the good things that will result!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's curious that being more than 6000 million people in the world, these kind of things doesn't seem to happen but in the US of A.

Re:Well think of the good things that will result!

[Anonymous Coward]

Only because you don't pay attention. Off the top of my head I can think of several that happened in England, Germany, and Canada, and a quick web search will show others happening in Japan, China, Yemen, and a few other places. Tragic events like this that happen in the US certainly get reported much more on US news sites, but thats pretty much to be expected. But really, your ignorance of other such tragic incidents taking place in other countries doesn't mean that they don't happen.

Here is a French news site that shows a few.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/module_chrono/0,11-0@2-3 210,32-812886@51-896961,0.html/

Re:Gun Laws

[destrowolffe]

First off, as far as the gun debate goes, this tragedy will further divide the masses. No matter what I write here people against guns will still be against guns. I feel it necessary to point out that only a small percent of the population takes the time and effort to obtain a CCW permit. The school allowing CCW holders to carry on-campus would not suddenly put guns in the hands of every drunken college student, contrary to the opinions outlined above. Doesn't work that way, sorry. However, the bigger issue here is not gun-control. The bigger issue is what is wrong with our society that makes a person want to kill innocents around them? The gun is simply a means to an end. Sure we can outlaw guns, but other means will be used. The string of school shootings over the past decade is a sign of a larger problem amongst the United States today. I don't have the answer as to why people are doing these things, but the "why" is what we need to understand, not the "how." The "how" is the easy part and can change to fit different circumstances. What makes the United States so different from the rest of the countries in the world that our kids want to go shoot up a school? I don't know the answer, but it is an important question that needs to be closely examined.

Please get educated about U.S. firearms laws

[Anonymous Coward]

The simple fact is there aren't "guns on the street." In order to purchase any firearm from a gun store in this country you must complete ATF Form 4473, present appropriate ID, and wait while you are run through NICS (National Instant Check System). You can't own a gun if you ever been convicted of a crime for which you could receive 1 year in prison (there are also various other restrictions). Even attempting to purchase or being in possession of a gun (if you're not kosher) will result in a lengthy prison term. Also, providing a person with a gun that you know has criminal intent or that you know is not legally able to own a gun is also a felony and will result in a lengthy prison term. All guns have serial numbers which are recorded by guns stores. This data eventually makes its way to the ATF so all firearms are traceable. Even if it's a private sell they are going to ultimately find who had that gun. This guy committed a multitude of felonies before he ever fired a single shot. Of course, he could care less since he didn't give a damn about his own life. The simple fact is that guns are highly regulated in the U.S. Please do some reading and educate yourself to this fact.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[fizzyabbo]

Because are county was founded on this right... I believe you also forgot right number 3:

3. Right to look like an illiterate boob on slashdot.

Re:Gun Laws

[wellingj]

I would bet money that some one who could have carried a gun legally would have shot the assailant legally.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[RexRhino]

Considering that there are more guns in America than people, I would say a lot of people want to own guns. If owning a gun was such an undesirable thing to do, then it would fade away from popularity, like snuff tobacco or accordians. The fact you feel there needs to be a coordinated effort to stop guns, means that you realize there are plenty of good reasons for wanting to own one.

Of course, the main reason for gun ownership (which has been lost in the discussion about gun control), is to avoid having a professional standing army. Switzerland is a good example of what the founding fathers intended when they created the second amendment. An armed people's militia, instead of a full time professional army, has kept Switzerland out of any real major warfare for generations and generations, as well as protected their democracy and made them very rich.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the concept:

We have the army to defend us from other governments.

We have the 2nd Amendment to defend us from our own.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[johnnliu]

Sorry I'm off topic.

Not disputing your point, but SARS was slightly different (for one, there were quite a few dead, and initially there was no immediate cure available a lot of the leading medical professionals died to the same disease they were trying to fight).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SARS

I heard from my relatives who were in the area - they say the most shocking thing was that human communication broke down. Nobody trusted anyone else. If you choked while drinking water and starts coughing everyone immediately assumed you had SARS and you'd get them killed. Nurses and doctors weren't allowed to leave the quarantine hospital (locked in for up to a month) to go home and see their own families, if they tried the police barricade would shoot them.

I guess the event brought out the selfishness in everyone. Everyone only wanted to take care of themselves, at the expense of everyone else.

If SARS had spread to America, I wonder if people would shoot their neighbours who coughed while visiting them.

jliu

man..

[Danzigism]

it's that good damn Doom computer game I've been hearing about.. spawning satan's children.. you kids need to quit it with your megabytes and your fancy typewriters and rap music..

Re:Actually...

[Gazzonyx]

that if you can't anonymously walk into a Wal-Mart with a wad of cash and walk out with a handgun and a box of ammo

Actually, I did exactly that 2 years ago. In Pennsylvania you can get a gun (I think it has to be during business hours while a sporting good manager is present) at any time with only a drivers license. I went in, a long haired 18 year old male, saw a gun I thought that I wanted and the transaction went *precisely like this*:
Manager: Do you have proof of age? Me: Here you go... Manager: Fill out this form (hands me 1 page form asking for name a address) Me: Here you go... Manager: We just have to call this in (dials in and does a quick check for warrants) ...5 minutes later... Manager: OK, we're all set, would you like to buy some ammunition today? Me: Actually...yeah. Manager takes my credit card and after paying, as per store policy, escorts me to the front of the store, once outside hands me my new gun and ammo

The entire process was 20 minutes, half hour, tops!
And there I was standing outside Wal*mart with my new gun and 1500 rounds. I think that Pennsylvania is one of the few states like this, however.

Re:I guess this makes me rather un-american

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always wondered how far one needs to take the right to bare arms.

Conventional wisdom says you should stop at the shoulders.

It's BEAR arms, you dope.

Deepest sympathy

[woodycat]

to those who lost loved ones and friends.I mourn the young lives cut short so tragically. No solution is available for the rogue human. We must all come together as one and comfort the living who have suffered a terrible loss. There is no point in discussing solutions to something that must be considered as surprisingly rare but inevitable. We are all good in the main and we need to accept that we are all one and feel for each other every instant of every day. True compassion in the modern society must be nurtured and embraced. Only by this will these events become more rare. In the broad picture the rogue human is a result of lack of compassion within the society.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[LoRdTAW]

Guess what, even if we banned fire arms entirely we would still have a gun problem. The numerous thousands of unlicensed guns on the black market alone numbers in the thousands. Ok enough of that. The thing is, this isn't a gun issue like a whole bunch of other posters are bickering about. This is a human issue. What happened in that young mans mind that he developed the will and intent to commit such a horrific act? Waking up in the mourning with his mind clearly made up to senselessly murder 30+ innocent people is not normal, even for a thug. I feel bad for the shooter, why did he snap? And if you are thinking "Why feel bad for him?" Well I don't think he intended this thing to happen. He was just a kid, maybe a student just trying to find his place in this rat race. Something in his life caused him to snap. His pain was so great that he felt the need to inflict it upon others. Now his parents have to bury their son and live with the fact that he gunned down 30+ others. No one should have to suffer so greatly. Sad day for all.

Man this really bothers me. So incredibly sad that I am holding back tears as I am typing. Those 30+ people were daughters, sons, friends, maybe even mothers and fathers. How many people are going to go to sleep tonight knowing their son or daughter was murdered? Dammit its so fucked up. These were just kids trying to better themselves and then they get cut down right in their prime for no reason. My heart goes out to all involved in this.

GTA needs to advertise more on the news

[bussdriver]

GTA needs to advertise more if they don't want to be the scapegoat.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Guppy06]

"I am native of Japan, and where I grew up nobody but cops were allowed to carry guns."

And everybody in Japan is perfectly safe from mass murder.

Sympathy and solidarity

[farkinga]

This event has profoundly saddened me, and I want to extend my deepest condolences to the students and families to survive this tragedy. I fully recognize that this is an opportune moment for waxing philosophical on the pros and cons of gun control, but I will refrain from sharing my personal opinion on the matter. Several years out of college by now, I still remember the intensity of attending an engineering school, and it saddens me that such noble intentions to achieve can become so depraved.

I've read speculation that the shooter was an engineering student, and I guess the most constructive item I can offer is this rambling:

When I was 18, I was certain I understood it all upon graduation from high school. Afterwards, I did some of the stupidest shit I've ever thought of.

When I was 21, I was certain I understood it all upon graduation from college. Still, I did the dumbest, most dangerous stuff in my life, even endangering people I love.

I'm currently 25, and I still have trouble remembering that I don't understand it all. I'll learn this one yet, but family members from two generations ago still look upon me as an infant.

So here it is: I'm ignorant for lack of experience, and unless you're a god, then so are you. If you're so sad that you will take your own life, then your frame is entirely skewed, but ultimately it's your choice to seek help. The right of self-determination will not prevent you from committing suicide, but be advised that unless your hardware is damaged (body failing, brain malfunctioning), then the solution is simply a matter of updating your mental software.

With that said, AT NO POINT DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE ANOTHER PERSON'S DESTINY. You are not the force of justice in this world, the taker of souls, or the vigilante crusader. You are not isolated on a genetic island. Following the chain enough generations back, and you find you are directly related to every other human on the planet. In my opinion, you probably shouldn't kill yourself, but YOU MUST NEVER KILL ANOTHER HUMAN (limited exceptions exist).

The VT case is not an exception. It is unacceptable. There is no justice in it. There is no society through murder. To the killer, I will pity you only insofar as your ignorance would prevent you from realizing your ability to control your situation and life. I've already thought that thought about the VT gunman, and it passed in an instant. What remains is a deep feeling of loss - the same emotion I feel for other heinous acts committed by our species against ourselves. My loss, your loss. This challenges my ability to maintain control of my own destiny, and I resent the killer for it - the same resentment I feel towards all killers.

This is pathetic, and I feel so sorry for the people directly affected. If there's anything that can correct the situation, it's playing properly to our astonishing intelligence by eliminating ignorance. I hardly know myself, and I've been consciously working at it for almost a decade. I want to know my "self" and I want to know "you." I want to transcend these pockets of isolated information that, through an incomplete gestalt, lead us to destroy intelligence. I want my consciousness to witness the entire planet, and then the entire universe, and THEN the whole rest of it.

So, to put it all another way, it's time to learn more, because my story is that of unfolding ignorance, where the territory stretches vastly beyond the horizon, and I still don't fully grasp the extent of what there is to be ignorant of.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[maxume]

Is the ideal society the one in which no one dies, or the one which functions with the least rules? There is virtue in the lives saved in a locked up tight society, but there isn't any virtue in the murders prevented.

Re:Gun Laws

[Sam Ritchie]

Yes, because that's how all mass shootings normally end. Seriously, who swallows this argument?

Re:Gun Laws

[Dun Malg]

If everyone had guns, or at least everyone thought everyone had guns I bet things like this would rarely happen. People would be less likely to go on shooting sprees if they thought everyone was packin'. Nice modding, you trolls. The above is not "flamebait", it's an observation of fact. You should see Kabul, Afghanistan. Everyone walks around with an AK-47, yet nobody gets shot. People are extremely polite.

Let's take everything at face value.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is an often quoted statistic - however, the study that statistic is based on doesn't actually say that.

What is says is that, if you die of a gunshot wound, you are x% likely to have had it be an accident, y% likely to have been a victim of a murder, and z% likely to be a criminal intruder who was shot by a homeowner.

In other words, the study looked at people who were killed by guns, automatically limiting the pool, and determined that a friend or family member was killed this many times, and an intruder was killed that many times. The 'friend or family member' numbers were greatly inflated by murders, because the definition of friend was basically 'did you know the guy'.

In reality, if you look at victim injury rates, if you are the victim of a crime, you are least likely to be injured if you defend yourself with a firearm. For example, if you are a woman, and victim of a violent crime, you are 2.5 times less likely to be injured if you resist with a gun than if you do not resist at all, and 4 times less likely to be injured than if you resist with any other weapon.

Let me repeat that, in order of least likelyhood of injury - Resist with a firearm, no resistance, resist with anything other than a firearm. Yet the anti-gun crowd takes as fact that it will be used against you.

Realistically, if you are the victim of a violent crime, and defend yourself with a gun, yes, it could be used against you. That does not mean it will.

There are enough firearms in the United States to arm every man, woman and child. If the '43 times more likely', or any of the other "facts" that anti-gun people state, were actually true - we'd all be dead. There's just too many guns out there for any of us to actually survive, if the 'guns make you kill people' crowd were right.

I mean, their case requires that they say "look at all these children being killed by guns", with the "children" being up to age 25 or so (so as to get all the gang murders in as 'kids killed by guns'). Are they being honest? No, they're not.

People do bad things. The rest of us ought to be prepared for people who do bad things - not blaming the implements that people sometimes use to do bad things (especially when people often use that implement to stop the people who are trying to do bad things).

School raids

[slashdot2]

LFG for School Raid!

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Anonymous Coward]

And to this day, US citizens generally understand that if the government ever becomes tyrannical and repressive, "we the people" have the right (and must have the means) to overthrow it

so hurry the fuck up then... oh wait, thats only your excuse. of course you guys who talk the talk fail to do anything when it happens (and has been happening for well over 5 years now)

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[goodtim]

You're absolutly right, I don't need an AK-47. But what right does the government have to tell me I can't buy one and carry it around on my own property? It's not that regulation of automatic weapons is bad, its that its a steep and slipperly slope. One that I am not willing to go down.

I live in New Hampshire who's state motto is "Live Free, or Die". And pretty much sums up how I feel about gun control. I would rather get gunned down in strip mall by some nut, then have to governtment tell me what I can and can't do.

Re:Gun Laws

[eugene ts wong]

Sure we can outlaw guns, but other means will be used.

Why would you say that? Do you mean that killing will be done through other means, or that people will obtain guns through other means?

I agree with you about the more fundemental problem. I'm sure that these types of killings happen in other countries quite a lot, but I almost get the impression that it happens way more in the US. Maybe it's blown out of proportion. Maybe the school system forces people to get along when they have no incentives to get along. Maybe the campaign for tolerance isn't working.

Twit again

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, Virginia Tech has rules against anyone other than the sworn officers bearing arms. No one, other than those sworn officers and the shooter, had arms. If someone had, perhaps that person have shot the shooter before more people died.

There would be mass killings even if firearms did not exist - unless you're proposing that we ban everything that it's possible to kill someone with, in which case we'll have to figure out how to live in a vacuum.

Practice the Shaolin Way

[J05H]

Train to act when needed, to have the peace of mind to destroy your aggressor and the medicine to help others around you. wu, ch'an, yi. War, Meditation, Medicine. Five and half years after 9/11 and Americans still line up to die? Our ancestors must be ashamed, we have become sheep.

These students today, I don't want to be harsh on the injured, but they should have been READY. Everybody should be ready for anything. If this means carrying a .357 under your arm, go for it. Carry a knife or Leatherman. Take CPR and trauma classes. Practice Kung Fu. Call your Representative. Everyone should know how to "safe" a hot gun. Do whatever it takes. Be Ready. It's your duty as Americans.

Fight back!

Josh

Re:Practice the Shaolin Way

[Anonymous Coward]

While I fully agree with what you say, but in the name of safety, those in charge make this kind of safety very hard indeed.

If one or more of the victims had been carrying concealed, chances are good that the loss of life would have been lower. Sadly, few people, even those who believe in concealed carry, would dare do so on campus.

When I was in college, I usually carried a pistol in an under-the-shirt holster. It was a big campus, and I was often there late at night, and often bicycled or commuted by bus. It was a safe place, just like I'm sure the VT campus is a safe place. But you just never know. If it happened to me, I was going to be ready (and yes, one of the reasons I was ready is because I was practicing karate. One of the things it taught me is you have little chance against even a person with a knife unless you're an expert, and none against a person with a gun, AKA "Ninja, sminja, you can't karate chop a bullet" - so I carried).

Now, an under-shirt holster isn't exactly a quick-draw setup, so it would be hard to defend yourself against a person with a gun except in a shooting situation like the one at VT, where the shooter would have little or no chance to see you draw and probably wouldn't know you were armed until you returned fire. And since you'd be going against a rifle in most cases like that, you'd have to make your first one or two shots count. Even going aginast a knife would be dodgey, although I practiced acting like I was getting my wallet from my breast pocket and instead reaching into my shirt and grabbing the gun from under my arm; I probably could have shot a knife-wielding opponent unless he was very close.

But, I wore under-the-shirt anyway because job one, even more than readiness, was concealment. I went to a large school in California, and it's almost impossible to get a CCW there, as any of you who live there know very well. I probably would have been both arrested and expelled if I'd been caught carrying, but you really couldn't tell by looking that I had a holster, not even if my jacket was off. If it was so hot that I needed to wear a light shirt, then I could always put it in my backpack instead.

Fortunately, I have not to this day had to use a firearm in self-defense, not even to threaten a would-be attacker into backing off, but like you say, be ready.

Posting as AC even though the statute of limitations has long run out on my illegal concealed carry and I no longer live in California anyway.

Re:Practice the Shaolin Way

[Quiet_Desperation]

During the Rodney King riots, I carried a Baretta 9mm in my backpack to work. Pull me from my car? No, don't think so. Buh-bye.

Re:Practice the Shaolin Way

[phaggood]

> Pull me from my car?

Being post 9/11, I'm not sure if you're refering to rioters or Homeland Security officers.

Again, people are ignoring the salient points

[GlobalGovernmentSurv]

I am sitting here listening to the media asking cops idiotic questions like 'why did it take two hours for you to shut down the school'. Whenever anything happens today someone has to be blamed. The media instead should be asking itself why it is unable to do any 'investigative' journalism. As soon as bullets started flying, the media should have been sending reporters into the school, rather then find the information second hand and dolled out in parcels. Or at the very least find a first hand witness. They don't even know who the shooter is. If the media truely want to ask the 'hard hitting' questions, they should be asking society why they don't allow the students and teachers to carry guns. I know some of the anti-gun pussies will say that I am crazy. Well they are right, I am crazy, and tonight I am going to barge into your house and shoot you and everyone else in your living room. If you don't have a gun you are going to die. I am the reason the government should outlaw guns. Funny thing is though, I'm still going to barge into your house and shoot you, unless you shoot me first. So the question is up to you; do you want to be a slave to the law, or do you want to take personal responsibility for not getting yourself shot. The question is up to you -Peace

Re:Again, people are ignoring the salient points

[TapeCutter]

"Whenever anything happens today someone has to be blamed."

Yes, it's unfortunate and a tad crass that you have choosen to point your finger at "anti-gun pussies".

Re:Again, people are ignoring the salient points

[Anonymous Coward]

You ARE crazy.

Your answer to random gun violence is MORE GUNS?

Is your answer to burning buildings more oxygen?

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Should I point out that the Columbine Massacres were done with guns obtained through legal channels? Or any number of gun crimes tend to involve guns purchased through said means?

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[heinousjay]

The citizens mostly unhappy with the President don't like guns. It's a bit of a conundrum. In any case, the problem with politics in this country is politics in general. We've advanced representational democracy to the next logical stage; we've gone from money talks to money rules everything. You'll all get here soon enough.

Besides, the dislike of Bush is at least 50% "he's a Republican." His specific actions, while sometimes onerously disgusting, are overall not entirely out of line with prior presidents, both liberal and conservative.

From experience - Banning Arms is NO GOOD

[unity100]

In turkey, only licensed people can BUY guns for having them in their homes, and to acquire a license for this is hard.

Acquiring a license for CARRYING a gun, is HELL.

as a result, gun ownership is at very low levels compared to usa.

but, as in all countries, criminals have no problems about acquiring any type of small arms. they cant acquire semi automatics, automatics only, as there is terrorism threat in turkey and state pays much attention to this. but, small arms and rifles can be acquired quite easily.

and EVEN if you have a gun to defend yourself, as once a police officer had put it, when he was investigating a burglary at my house "If you have a gun, and see a burglar, shoot it towards the ceiling, shoot it towards the ground, shoot it away from him. if he EVER gets harmed, injured, or heck, even dead, you will serve at least 2 years, while he will get out in 2 months. Its no use having a gun, only maybe if you can scare him by showing it to him, and then they are not scared these days".

so, in turkey, even if you can acquire a gun, you better shove it up in your arse than use it in your own defense.

and, as the exact opposite is being valid for criminals, criminals are getting much more bolder in turkey, there are even burglary cases when burglars sense that the owners of the house are actually awake in their beds, but just imitating to be asleep not to be harmed, they say "paps, ma, we know you are awake. but just lie there as you were asleep, so noone will get harmed". and they get away with this.

final word : never ever ban guns, or bar it from being used in self defense. criminals WILL be acquiring guns as they always did, the difference is that when you ban guns, you wont.

People are allowed to carry guns

[Anonymous Coward]

There are over one million CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) permit holders in the U.S. You don't hear many stories about them getting pissed off and blowing people away.

Re:Gaming, no

[CaffeineJedi]

I'm not pro or anti gun, but you simply can't go on a mass murdering spree like this with a knife or a bow and arrow.
But, sadly, a person can with common household products.

I as well am not trying to be controversial, I just hope we can all realize that hate is hate and that we should try to be mindful of all of the people involved, and all of the potential reasons for this tragedy as well. It's a terrible situation, but to say that this would or wouldn't have happened based upon just one factor (guns, video games, parents, self-esteem etc.) may not be the best thing we can do.

Again, I don't mean to be controversial. It just saddens me that in such a short time frame after a tragic event like this political factions are already taking advantage of it on the airwaves.

Umm, no.

[ColdWetDog]

You do realize that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution was placed there to prevent the Federal Government from taking weapons away from the State Governments and thus emasculate the states. The Second Amendment says nothing about allowing individual citizens to run around with firearms for whatever reason. That's left to the State governments. And if you think it's a generally good idea to have random yo-yo's armed at all times, I don't want to be anywhere near you and your friends.

It's not so easy to "drop some guy" by the average gun toting American. Especially if there were a room full of them pulling their guns out all at once in what must have been a truly horrific and stressful situation. That's what Policemen / Guards / SWAT team members train for extensively and still get it wrong on occasion.

Ah, it's so frustrating to hear news like this.

Yes it is.

All those people did not have to die. Learn to defend yourselves, and be willing to.

OK, Mr. Hopped up Gun Guy. You're going to carry a loaded weapon ALL of the time - in class, in the car, at the theatre, at Wal-Mart in the rather unlikely chance that you can be a hero and prevent $RandomPsychoticGunTotingManiac from wreaking havoc on the world? Fine by me IF you take the time to train with it, time to understand the pros and cons of opening fire in a crowded venue and are pretty well grounded in reality both at baseline and under stress. Unfortunately, there aren't many folks like that around.

I live in Alaska, and as a previous poster has pointed out, it's common to carry high powered weaponry around to prevent Being Eaten By Large Carnivores. After a couple of years dragging either a 12 gauge slug gun or a .462 Ruger Magnum around I've quit bothering with it all. The biggest dangers I see are the Mr. Hopped Up Gun Guys "protecting" everyone. I'll take my chances with the Bears thank you very much. Loaded firearms are really a pain in the ass to (safely) manage, you know.

Unfortunately, there is really no way to stop a determined fruitcake like this one short of gun detectors and guards at every entrance. Doable, but you have to ask yourself if it's worth it.

Re:Umm, no.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

The Second Amendment says nothing about allowing individual citizens to run around with firearms for whatever reason.

The supreme court disagrees with you.

Re:Umm, no.

[psykocrime]

You do realize that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution was placed there to prevent the Federal Government from taking weapons away from the State Governments and thus emasculate the states. The Second Amendment says nothing about allowing individual citizens to run around with firearms for whatever reason. That's left to the State governments.

Bullocks. The courts have heard this argument numerous times, including the recent case versus the city of Washington D.C., and they have concluded time and time again that the 2nd Amendment does, indeed, refer to an individual right to keep and bear arms. Additionally, the 14th Amendment extends the protections inherent in the Constitution, to protection against violation by State and Local government as well.

And if you think it's a generally good idea to have random yo-yo's armed at all times, I don't want to be anywhere near you and your friends.

And if your that uneducated, paranoid and idiotic, my friends and I don't want you anywhere near us.

Thank you (no sarcasm)

[duffel]

I find it amazing that even in the face of such horrible events, human nature is such that it can find humor.
Because this is the thing: Life isn't terrible. Yes, very bad things happen. People do horrible things. Always have, always will. This one is worse than many. But we cope, and continue, and manage to find beauty and companionship and humor despite it all, and that's amazing.

So, thank you for your humor. I think that it is a necessity in tragedy, a good grounding to prevent us from getting wrapped up in our mourning, or at least to prevent us from being swept away in wave after wave of media-induced panic - they tend to not report the good things, you have to use your own eyes for that.

Re:Thank you (no sarcasm)

[Quiet_Desperation]

I find it amazing that even in the face of such horrible events, human nature is such that it can find humor.

A guy walks into a bar with a loaded assault rifle...

Re:Gun Laws

[wellingj]

Not the way it is...but the way it should be.

As Matthew Good Would Say:

[AikonMGB]

As Matthew Good (also here) would say:

What if you could make it so that times weren't tough? So ever morning when the world woke up There'd only be weather on the news

My thoughts go out to to all those involved in this tragedy, their families, friends, and everyone else around the world that is shocked and apalled.

Aikon-

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[kaolin.z]

Why do people want to carry guns? Because they are selfish and arrogant. They are selfish because they only want to secure their own safety, and ignore the fact just as responsible people can get guns, irresponsible people can as well. They are selfish also because when people are free to get guns, the most vulnerable people are the ones without guns, but they don't care. They are also arrogant because they believe they never mess up. I believe the people who shoot each other later believed they would be responsible when they got the guns, but they couldn't. Things happens. Responsible people should not trust themselves so much to grant themselves the power to kill other people.

Dangerous, not armed Re:More than 20. . .

[J05H]

We need to be dangerous, not necessarily armed. Your environment is your greatest resource. Desks can be thrown, that wrench is heavy, etc. Seek cover, count to reload, attack. Fight back. A large group of people can easily overwhelm a single armed attacker. One person's action can solve the situation. "Knowing is half the battle."

Let's Recap The Gun Argument

[DanielMarkham]

I know this post is old, so there's little chance of people reading this, but somebody needs to recap the gun argument. It's gotten short-changed. First, for those who say "It's too early to use this tragedy for political purposes" I call bullshit. For any other political purpose -- violence in games, the Iraq war, boxers or briefs -- yes, you are correct. But all of us (and I speak as someone who lives close to VT) can put ourselves in those student's shoes. We can imagine being hunted down and killed while we wept, shaking against a wall. This emotional feeling, this empathy, is _exactly_ what is required to understand the gun argument. If we wait 'till later it will be too late. I don't own a gun. To me, they're a good way to hurt people accidentally. But I undertsand that the purpose of gun ownership is to empower the citizen. It's not crime control, it's not to prevent the evil overlord from conquering the world. Guns are about freedom and personal power, and they represent everything that is right with the United States. In this country we proudly give people the power to hurt themselves and others. We drive cars, we fly our own airplanes, we skydive, we smoke, we own guns, and we eat cheeseburgers. We give these freedoms freely, understanding that, yes, people are stupid and citizens will misuse them and some harm will occur. We do NOT weigh the deaths that would occur one way or another in some sort of better-than-you morality equation to take our freedoms away. The greater good is served by the productive chaos of people having greater personal powers. That's the theory of our government. Yes. If we had a prison society there would be less crime. But if we had a prison society our society would be about as useless as some of those old European countries that we left to begin with. We left them because -- they took away too many freedoms. How quickly people forget. The reason that today is exactly the right time to have this discussion is that just like you, I would want a gun if I were one of those kids. I might hurt somebody innocent. I might run like a frightened child (most likely). All sorts of bad things _might_ happen. But I know that if I were going to die, I would want the personal power to stop that from happening. Looking at our constitution and our wars for freedom, we should be absolutely ashamed that we would sit idly by with our thumbs stuck in our mouths while we take that power from folks and then say something to the effect of, "well, people are stupid, so we know we can't give them dangerous things. They'll just hurt each other." Such paternalistic balderdash! It's a load of tripe that can't pass the real test -- how the commenter would _really_ feel if they were in those kidss' shoes. That's why the gun argument, of all arguments, is the one that is most appropriate for today.

Re:Let's Recap The Gun Argument

[abb3w]

I know this post is old, so there's little chance of people reading this, but somebody needs to recap the gun argument.

No; it's been going on for decades, and your "recap" is no better than any other. Also, you're only recapping one side to boot; that I happen to agree with that side is irrelevant.

But all of us (and I speak as someone who lives close to VT) can put ourselves in those student's shoes. We can imagine being hunted down and killed while we wept, shaking against a wall. [...] But I undertsand that the purpose of gun ownership is to empower the citizen.

I can't imagine it, because I have a very different understanding of "empowerment". You've forgotten the lesson of Flight 93. Faced with this grade of psycho gunman, if I couldn't avoid him, I'd charge toward him. Yes, coming barehanded to a gunfight is dumb, but the choice of instrument is less important than the choice to act.

You want citizen empowerment? Teach them to stop cowering in fear.

Re:Let's Recap The Gun Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure "prison society" is the best phrase you could have chosen, given that the fraction of population in prison is exceptionally high in the US, compared to EU countries.

Nevertheless, as an European, I appreciate the fact that there is a country that takes another premise for society than ours. I am not convinced that your way is better in the long run, and your freedoms do seem to get diluted too often, but I wish you good luck. The world needs more variety in non-repressive systems of government and economy than we have right now.

Re:Let's Recap The Gun Argument

[DanielMarkham]

I meant to recap only one side. Sorry I was not clear about that. Also sorry about forgetting to check that stupid "Plain Old Text" box. I know what a paragraph is. Really.

I agree that the decision to act is more important than the tool. I would make the argument, however, that a nanny-state society that takes freedom away from citizens is one where citizens are less likely to take their own life into their own hands in situations like this.

Play back the same crime in a different sociological group, say a group of kids at West Point. Or a group of business people on an airline flight. Would the result have been the same? We'll never know, but my intuition is that it would not.

Re:Let's Recap The Gun Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

In this country we proudly give people the power to hurt themselves and others. We drive cars, we fly our own airplanes, we skydive, we smoke, we own guns, and we eat cheeseburgers. We give these freedoms freely, understanding that, yes, people are stupid and citizens will misuse them and some harm will occur.

Do we proudly allow people to use drugs, too?

Re:Let's Recap The Gun Argument

[abb3w]

I would make the argument, however, that a nanny-state society that takes freedom away from citizens is one where citizens are less likely to take their own life into their own hands in situations like this.

I believe your argument is erroneous, for you confuse correlation with causation. "Society" (like governments or "states") is an abstraction of an emergent phenomenon. It has no intrinsic reality of its own; it exists "only" as the cumulative beliefs and behaviors of the component people (with some incidental geophysical and climatological environmental contributions). While it's a useful conceptual approximation to think of it as a single coherent entity, you should bear in mind that it's "only a model."

"Freedom" is another ill-defined abstraction that can't really be "taken away" by society. Rather, society reacts in a punitive manner (through government sanction or social ostracization) when someone exercises that "freedom".

In the case of United States society and restriction on the Freedom to Bear Arms, ostracization doesn't seem your primary concern. Instead, action taken by the Government (which abstraction exists at local, state, and federal levels in legislative, executive, and judicial form) is the problem. Because the United States through means of the electoral process, the action of government approximates (imperfectly) the collective will of the constituent citizenry. That is to say, it regularly tries to take away guns because of a large component of the citizens that are too fearful of them, and doesn't want them widely available. When most individuals in society no longer believe that the real source of the danger is the possession of guns, they'll stop trying to ban them.

Play back the same crime in a different sociological group, say a group of kids at West Point [...]

Which all but epitomizes the implementation of my suggested solution to this. I reiterate my previous remark:

Teach them to stop cowering in fear.

Re:Let's Recap The Gun Argument

[Pojut]

"This Bud's for yoooou! Come on everyone, let's be hypprocritical bastards! It's ok to drink your drug! Hahaha! We meant those OTHER drugs...those UNTAXED drugs...those are the ones that are bad for you!" -Bill Hicks

"We have a healthcare system that will give you Viagra, but won't pay for glasses. So you can have a hard-on, but can't see where to put it." -Robin Williams

You don't understand what doesn't matter.

[raehl]

That some criminals will always have guns is a specious argument.

Let's examine:

Some criminals will always have guns. Therefore, there is no reason to control access to guns.

Some people will always get lung cancer. Therefore, there is no reason to curb smoking.

There's another side effect of limiting access to handguns to law enforcement and criminals.

When everyone is allowed to have a gun, the criminal is the guy who uses his gun to shoot somebody.

When only criminals have guns, the criminal is the guy with the gun.

Gun control allows you to identify and arrest criminals BEFORE they commit violent crime, because you have a chance to catch the criminal when they acquire the gun, instead of having to wait until the criminal starts shooting people.

Don't get me wrong, I think citizens should be allowed to have firearms. But I also think it's silly that we put less effort into controlling who has a firearm than we do who can fix plumbing. And I especially dislike it when gun-nuts and anti-gun nuts use bullshit arguments to attempt to blindly advance their cause. Making guns illegal for the populace to have at all isn't the answer. But complete unfettered access to firearms isn't the answer either.

Re:You don't understand what doesn't matter.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Some criminals will always have guns. Therefore, there is no reason to control access to guns.

Perfectly reasonable. Limiting gun access generally affects only those people who weren't criminals in the first place, so you only impact the honest people.

Gun control allows you to identify and arrest criminals BEFORE they commit violent crime, because you have a chance to catch the criminal when they acquire the gun, instead of having to wait until the criminal starts shooting people.

How were you planning to do that? Randomly search people and their houses?

But complete unfettered access to firearms isn't the answer either.

Who says access is unfettered? Just and try to get a rifle when you're a convicted felon.

Re:You don't understand what doesn't matter.

[raehl]

Limiting gun access generally affects only those people who weren't criminals in the first place, so you only impact the honest people.

What is your evidence for that statement?

If gun access is limited, how many honest people are affected?

To what degree are they affected? Count both would-be gun owners who are inconvenienced, and people who don't end up the victim of a gun crime.

How many criminals are affected?

To what degree are they affected?

I don't know the answers to those questions, but you don't either. And your statement seems to assume that gun restrictions will ONLY inconvenience honest people and have no effect on criminal's access to guns. That doesn't make much sense. It's a convenient argument, but it's unlikely to be a true one.

How were you planning to do that? Randomly search people and their houses?

The same way we enforce any other law - good police work, probable cause, search warrants. You figure out who sells guns illegally. You figure out who they sold them to. And then you go and arrest all those people. And you've arrested them before they went on to commit a violent crime - because you were able to arrest them on the basis of just getting the TOOLS to commit a violent crime.

Who says access is unfettered? Just and try to get a rifle when you're a convicted felon.

It's relatively unfettered. Getting a rifle when you're a felon is easy. You do it illegally, but since it's so easy to legally acquire a firearm and then 'lose' it, it's easy to get them illegally as well. If you make guns harder to get legally, then they also become harder to get illegally, as the dealer who is selling them illegally is going to start charging more to reflect the increased cost/risk of him being in that business.

Re:You don't understand what doesn't matter.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I grew up next door to DC, which has banned guns for decades. Oddly enough, the people you don't want to have guns have them. Honest people couldn't even carry mace.

Getting a rifle when you're a felon is easy. You do it illegally, but since it's so easy to legally acquire a firearm and then 'lose' it, it's easy to get them illegally as well.

So basically, if you can buy a gun illegaly, it's relatively unfettered? Meanwhile, honest people can't buy guns and the criminals can. What fun, what fun.

The same way we enforce any other law - good police work, probable cause, search warrants. You figure out who sells guns illegally. You figure out who they sold them to. And then you go and arrest all those people.

Yeah, you have a lot more confidence in the police than I do. Do you really think that these guys keep records of who was sold a gun? Besides, the cops in bad areas are busy enough keeping up with the actual crime - do they really have time to stake out suspected gun peddlers? Lots easier just to make the guns available to normal people - makes criminals a bit more cautious.

Re:You don't understand what doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

(AC cause i've moderated the hell out of this story already)

"Some people will always get lung cancer. Therefore, there is no reason to curb smoking."

Nevermind that that comparison doesn't make sense at all to begin with, the only Laws that exist to curb smoking are mostly either there to prevent minors from smoking, or prevent exposure to send hand smoke......the one that actually is, higher taxes, won't EVER actually curb smoking in those who are addicted (I'm one......)

Comparing addiction to nicotine to violent crime doesn't work........I'm sure there are people who are screwed up enough that it is like an addiction, but they aren't the ones shooting out a group of people in a school......those people are just generally unstable......they may never be identifiable easily, but the originator of this thread's point that they may be more so if everyone were armed is a good point.

Re:You don't understand what doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

The same way we enforce any other law - good police work, probable cause, search warrants. . . And you've arrested them before they went on to commit a violent crime - because you were able to arrest them on the basis of just getting the TOOLS to commit a violent crime.

Re:You don't understand what doesn't matter.

[djh101010]

That some criminals will always have guns is a specious argument.

Let's examine:

Some criminals will always have guns. Therefore, there is no reason to control access to guns.


Bzzzt, wrong. You just invented that argument; nobody but the anti-gunners has said this. Can you tell me specifically how, in this specific situation, having the students and staffed barred from having guns on campus even if they were legal CCW carriers, made them more safe.

Don't get me wrong, I think citizens should be allowed to have firearms. But I also think it's silly that we put less effort into controlling who has a firearm than we do who can fix plumbing.

Then it's clear that you, sorry, don't know what you're talking about.

And I especially dislike it when gun-nuts and anti-gun nuts use bullshit arguments to attempt to blindly advance their cause. Making guns illegal for the populace to have at all isn't the answer. But complete unfettered access to firearms isn't the answer either.

Nobody _HAS_ complete unfettered access to firearms. What the citizens of Virginia understand, and what you and the University leadership do not understand, is that good people with guns are an asset to society, and can then defend themselves and others from criminals. If only they hadn't forced all those victims, and all those around them, to be safe to attack.

Carefull of definitions...

[Firethorn]

I'd also be careful of the definition of 'child'. Also, I'd be concerned about the causes. For example, over half those deaths are suicides, yet Japan manages to have a suicide rate significantly higher than the USA, even without firearms.

The USA has always had a higher murder rate; and it's at it's highest in the areas where firearms are most restricted.

Personally, I tend to blame the drug war and welfare society we've bred in the inner cities.

Re:Gun Laws

[Ajehals]

I know what you mean, Iraq is the same, guns everywhere but never a shot fired.
Damn, I've got it - its not that guns should be more available, its that heavy weaponry should be more readily available, maybe throw in a few RPG's too. That'll make criminals think before they act.

Why not let people buy and use nuclear weapons?

[Otehake]

In the debate over whether the general population should be readily able to own and carry guns, one way of looking at it is to consider guns as just one option on a continuous scale of weaponry of increasing effect, from fists to sticks to knives to guns to grenades to tanks to bombs to nuclear weapons. The general idea as one moves up the scale is that a single person can injure/kill more and more people before they are subdued themselves. The question is where does a society consider acceptable to place a limit on the scale, above which people do not get access to those more powerful weapons.

One argument is that weapons (eg. guns) do not kill, people do. In that case, why do we not allow nuclear weapons to be sold at the local mall? If people are responsible with their nuclear weapons, no problem. But unfortunately and bluntly, the majority of humans are passionate people who can do things in the heat of moment. That is built into the genes, and won't be removed anytime in the next few millenia. If they use a nuclear weapon, is there any punishment big enough to suit killing 200,000 people? An ugly side effect of those who don't value their own life is that death is not a punishment.

If we consider the vast majority of humans to be animals that all have irrational and passionate moments (which is actually true), perhaps the general population should not have ready access to weaponry whose effect outweighs the seriousness of the situation. For instance, if a driver pulls over and attacks another driver for a careless lane change, it would be preferable that they can only attack with fists and a stick perhaps, rather than a gun. For when the situation has calmed down, the outcome of the scenario in one case is a lot worse than another, with all their cascading sub-effects like a lost father, husband, business and economic output.

The only problem is that people are not built physically equal, so intimidation of one human of another has historically occurred eg. bullies, gangs, mafia, especially in freer countries. A young woman is going to lose a stick or knife fight against a well-built bully, who wants to be paid his 'protection money'. Guns equal things up, as the bully knows he could be easily taken out by the young woman with a gun if she so chooses. So perhaps guns are a good thing.

The other horrible aspect of the modern world is that one of the largest threats to a democratic population is not being taken over by an 'bad' external country, but being taken over from within by 'bad' people who want power (or just people who want 'good' things, but their incompetence makes them 'bad'). They bluff and trick their way into power and then hold it by controlling information, changing laws and eliminating opposition. Examples are Germany in the 1930s and Zimbabwe today. The country turns to custard when it happens and the population suffers. The USA's founders recognised this massive threat and almost all of its base laws, including the constitution and others like 'habeas corpus', and ideas like free speech, are designed to prevent this from happening, or at least slow up the bad guys long enough to let the good guys fight back and kick them out. Thats why its so hard for the government to change the constitution.

To prevent this takeover, guns in the general population allow a final physical fightback against a horrible government. It works too, just look at Iraq today where the random population can take on the best equipped army in the world. So perhaps guns in the general population are a good thing, preventing the possibility of a ruthless government, but at the 'expense' of more random civilian deaths here and there.

However, what sort of worked for the USA for the centuries (and others) can always be looked at to see if society and technology has changed to allow change to the balance of what weaponry the population can generally have. With modern communications, government can be watched more carefully. The internet can be outstanding here. And perhaps

Re:Why not let people buy and use nuclear weapons?

[flyingrobots]

Your argument doesn't hold water for precisely the reason you stated. All it takes is one person with a nuke to kill 1 million people, it takes far more people with guns to kill/hurt that many.

You don't need a nuke to protect yourself from someone, but when your are huddled against a wall, waiting for someone to execute you, a gun would come in handy.

Re:Why not let people buy and use nuclear weapons?

[craznar]

You are arguing over volume...

A nuke - a million people
A bomb - a thousand people
A machine gun - a hundred people

The constitution protects your right to bear arms, where in the constitution does it say a million is too many, but a hundred is ok ?

My opinion is that the right to bear arms should be limited to 6 shots (or was it 2) as per the weaponry at the signing of the constitution.

Re:Why not let people buy and use nuclear weapons?

[Anonymous Coward]

People kill, not the weapons. while there are some sci-fi exceptions, weapons do not grow legs, walk over to and release a payload on their own ( pulling a trigger, pushing a button ). Weapon restrictions and tighter regulations is NOT the solution, making it mandatory to own a weapon and be on you're person at all times might change a few minds. Imagine how quickly armed bank robberies would decline. if 9 clerks and a room full customers were packing ! Odds are against you from the start. Touching on a comment someone made in this thread about " polite suicide and involving the innocent ". I agree, if you have already plained to kill yourself after taking the lives of others, just skip the innocent and go take yourself out, away from the rest of us. Your actions while breaking news now, will soon fade away and your name forgotten by the majority of us ( excluding of course the victims families ). If you're a sick-o with some god-complex issue and want to truly be remembered, take notes and follow in the path of fellow nut-job Charles Manson. Many may disagree, but this man is a genius, he knows exactly what he is doing when he plays the mad man, behind bars.........he's living the thrill and reaping the benefits of his life work. He craved attention, power and fame and guess what, we continue to fuel this rush, each and every time he is interviewed and parole hearings are televised....If he would have committed suicide before capture...would his name be as well known as it is today ?

----
Family, friends, co-workers, employers, classmates, next door neighbors, etc. of the victims...I'm in a complete state of awe..I can not in words express my ( thoughts and feelings ) at this time, to even began a sentence of comfort and support......I weep in shame that I can only " apologize for the flaws in mankind, and assure you...there's plenty of good still left in this sad world......I'm sorry.....!"
Sincerely,
Michael ( just another voice )

Re:Why not let people buy and use nuclear weapons?

[Vegeta99]

You actually can't own a machine gun without a permit.

Or fire it in public.

In fact, have fun finding one to buy, I don't think Wal-Mart carries any.

Re:Why not let people buy and use nuclear weapons?

[phaggood]

> t takes far more people with guns to kill/hurt that many.

Tho events in Rwanda, Serbia and Darfur clearly demonstrated you don't *really* need that many guns, anyway.

It's still offensive

[jchenx]

Young people die all the time, who had their whole life ahead of them. From a personal perspective, this is a great loss. Everyone who has had people close to him die knows and feels that. My post wasn't about the personal perspective, but about society and the government. If you want to look out for the best interests of the people, you have to get rid of the personal perspective, as it clouds judgement. My point was that from a sociological or safety viewpoint, 32 dead people in a single day due to gunshots is not exceptional. It is only seen that way because it is very rare that those 32 people died at the same place by the same killer. If you're a responsible government official, you'd only care about giving priority to saving the many instead of saving the few.

There is certainly a time and place to be logical. Yes, your reasoning makes sense. That said, responding to anyone who has a personal perspective on the situation (including myself, as an alumnus) that, "Oh, but in the grand scheme of things, this shooting isn't that exceptional. Look, people die all the time!" is offensive .

Please take a moment to think and feel before you post, please.

Re:Ban the second amendment!

[peektwice]

I was waiting for this kind of non-thinking attitude to surface, and I didn't have to wait long.

Sigh....

The firearms industry, throughout the world, is already one of the most highly regulated industries. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, not a privilege, and it comes with grave responsibilities. It is a right born unto every American citizen, save for those that have forsaken their right due to felony conviction, domestic abuse, drug use, or mental incapacity. Gun control laws have repeatedly shown themselves to be ineffective, and even worse, they allow oppression to go unchecked. If you think that the current political climate is oppressive, what with the Patriot act allowing for warrantless searches, the suspension of Habeas Corpus, "National Security Letters", etc., just wait until you've given up your right to fight back. Time and time again, states have passed concealed carry laws, and the lies from the anti-gun crowd have been shown to be just that... lies. At worst, there is no increase or decrease in crime (by people who don't care about gun laws), and at best, people have been freed to protect themselves when necessary, without having to fear prosecution.
Just this weekend, the NRA annual meetings occurred in St. Louis. Do you know how many people were shot?

That's right... zero. Anyone want to guess why? Because potentially everyone there was armed. Perhaps no one was armed, but at least criminals were kept guessing.

I'm quite sure that my retort to your ill-thought-out post will be met with visceral reactions from people who believe that the government knows best and is most capable of protecting me, but I'm not buying any of it. I have respectfully refrained from cursing at you and calling you names, because I believe that to be unproductive. My best allies in this argument are truth and history. History shows, that the best way to control a populace is first to disarm it. The only way the anti-gunners will be successful in disarming this populace will be to lie and spread FUD.

If you wish to waive your freedom in the interest of a little perceived security, you deserve neither. I, on the other hand, will protect my freedom and security by practicing ALL of my rights under the constitution, and would fight to the death to protect yours as well.

Perspective here people.

[Charcharodon]

The only tragedy is that people still get worked up over rare occurances. 32 people dead, sad but not a tragedy. This sort of thing happens what once every ten years?

In the US before the day is done 150 people will be dead and a few thousand wounded in car accidents. A person will be dead before I can even finish typing out this short comment. If you really gave a flying fuck about pointless deaths then you'd be out crying for tougher restictions on cars and how people operate them. Since I don't see the great "Cars are the devil" and "Hybrids Kill" going on to stop the daily auto massacre anytime soon I'll take that as a confirmation.

Anyone who think guns are the cause of death and crime are as much a part of the problem as the people out there doing horrible things with them.

Re:Gun Laws

[catwh0re]

There is a lot of pettish resistance in the USA to gun laws(which were really introduced to protect Americans in the times where civil war was abundant.) We can understand why USA citizens are against gun laws, humans as a whole are against change (it's a scary thing to us mortals.) There is this wide belief that removing guns will somehow make the community more susceptible to external gun attacks. (This is FUD, and extensively disproven in other countries.)

However the USA has fallen behind with the rest of the world with it's attitude to gun ownership. It's definitely behind with it's "fear" of tougher gun regulation.

Numerous other countries have introduced tougher gun laws(England, Australia, Canada, etc) and introduced programs that allow certain types of weaponry but not extreme items such as semi automatics, which aren't required to hunt deer for example.

The trend that has been observed in these countries is this:
Increasing gun related crimes leads criminals to seek more aggressive weapons to stay ahead of the curve.
The gun restrictions are introduced with programs to cash in guns for money or desirable items (such as the Guns for Guitars program.)
Criminals begin to brandish lesser weapons such as knives, because they are cheaper, easier to obtain, and the criminal realises that their target won't be packing a semi-automatic.
The strongest upside to this is that you can't massacre a crowd with a knife in the same way that you can a semi-automatic weapon.

What is observed here is instead of one-upmanship: where individuals are trying to get more sophisticated weapons so they stay on top of the arsenal game. There is an erosion of the basic level of arsenal held by the community, defense is still possible with simpler items, but the ability to do massive damage such as rampage shootings is reduced. The easy access to wilful weaponry is removed, making it difficult for a regular person to carry out large scale massacres. Yes, a massacre can still be co-ordinated, but it requires a great deal more work, often with elaborate criminal connections to obtain the weapons, this gives policing organisations time to prevent the act from happening(and a psychologically enraged person is not likely to complete these steps before calming down). This contrasts to a situation where excessive weaponry is freely commerced, where an enraged person has easy access to a high-end weapon, which allows them to quickly carry out a massacre.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[dbIII]

That makes sense. I'll vote for the candidate who promises to grant me the right to carry a concealed firearm anywhere I wish, across all states of the nation, because that individual understands the second amendment.

The United States has a great foundation myth of the ragtag band of civilians in the woods with substandard civilian weapons banding together and winning themselves a country (the now hated French have no role in the myth despite having a very major role). This story in my opinion is being used as an excuse for people to hide military sidearms in their jackets and just so they can feel strong. Your guns have not protected you from a ruler that has more authority than George III ever had, and your guns will not get rid of him, laws setting term limits will do that.

I really do not understand the obessession with the second amendment and with civilians carrying military weapons around even though I learned how to shoot a rifle at the age of seven.

Re:Don't. Do. That.

[Breakfast Pants]

Oh please DO NOT DO THAT. By showing outrage at someone mentioning that worse things have happened, you ARE making it so that the next guy who goes on a spree isn't dissuaded by the fact that he probably can't make it into the top 3; he/she won't be dissuaded because they will know that after they go through with it they will have a LIVELY audience in people like YOU, who will be OUTRAGED and PAY ATTENTION TO THEM and argue about anything they can.

Re:Gun Laws

[gregleimbeck]

If everyone had guns, or at least everyone thought everyone had guns I bet things like this would rarely happen. People would be less likely to go on shooting sprees if they thought everyone was packin'. Yeah, cause it sounds like the guy who did this before he turned the gun on himself was pretty scared of someone else killing him first.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[Hackie_Chan]

It is a truism that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

No shit, that's the purpose. Anyone found with a gun will get locked up.

Guns?

[MarcoG42]

I see a lot of talk about gun ownership and all that, but what about he 'ol "Guns don't kill people, people kill people?" If he hadn't had access to gun could he have not found some other way to kill? And, even if guns were illegal, could he not have obtained one? Drugs are illegal here (USA), but I could go out and get pretty much whatever I want in that respect. Hell, I could have a lot of it delivered. (I live in NYC) At any rate, I think the situation has little to do with gun laws, but more with the fact that this was a disturbed individual. Nothing, short of monitoring this person's thoughts, would have prevented this from happening.

Only thing worse than gun nuts? Gun control nuts.

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless of where you stand on gun control, it's at least worth asking why high school kids are taught about condoms and STDs -- and at my school there is even a swimming requirement -- and yet they are somehow allowed to graduate without ever knowing so much as how to turn the safety on and off on a gun. Even if students don't plan to be gun-owners themselves, if they should ever come across a gun, I think it would be a pertinent thing for them to know how to handle one safely, if only so far as to ensure that the safety is on.

Why are people so goddam paranoid about guns? I mean, conservative parents are so often chastised for not teaching their kids about sex, and they're accused of being unrealistic. And at the same time the liberal parents get away with pretending that guns don't exist. Gun training should be part of public education, as much as driver's ed. People say things like, we have licenses to drive, but what about guns? Ok, well, we have classes for driving, so let's get licenses and classes for guns. Deal?

The other stereotype you see about guns is that "some yokel" is going to accidentally shoot people by carrying guns. Here is a fact: most gun deaths occur in densely populated urban areas. That means "city folk". In other words, YOU are the ignorant bumpkins in this case, because you're the ones who haven't spent more than 5 minutes in learning how to handle a firearm. The "yokels" have been learning how to handle them since they were kids. I trust a redneck to handle a firearm a lot more than I trust, say, an IT manager. But again, that has to do with the lack of general education that is offered on guns. If schools made gun training required curriculum, these accidental shootings would be less of an issue.

What gun control has done is it's taken away both guns and education about guns away from the public. Yes, guns are dangerous when you aren't educated about them. And since people generally aren't educated about them, they are dangerous. So what's the root of the problem here?

Look at the circumstances surrounding this incident. The university banned guns on campus in the name of safety. The police claim that they had a "sufficient" presence on campus to protect students... so how did 33 of them die on their watch? Watch the cell phone videos that were taken as the incident was occurring. How much time passed between the first shots and the last shots fired by the gunman? What was the police response?

Their response was to wait for the gunman to shoot as many people as he wanted and then voluntarily kill himself. You would do well to remember one thing: police wear guns to protect themselves, NOT to protect you. Anybody who is willing to surrender their rights to defend themselves in the name of "public safety" are no better than the Bush admin convincing you that loss of civil liberty is necessary to guard against terrorists.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[AntiNazi]

Everyone with guns does not a police state make. And I must have missed the posts from the pro-gun crew suggesting cameras.

To all NRA members...

[zekt]

YOU have two problems.

1. You are paying your membership to a lobby group that is fattening the wallets of house memebers.
2. Your problem is getting worse not going away... and no matter how much fattening you do, eventually house members will not take money from your lobby group as it will be seen as detremental to affiliate yourself with them.

Get your butt into gear and make gun control changes necessary before secario 2 comes about - otherwise gun control will happen despite you, not because of you.

Otherwise there will be stickers saying "I shoot and I vote... so blame me".

Firearm Restriction Laws

[Moe1975]

I feel very sad after reading about this - and my thoughts are with the families and friends of those killed and injured.

How depressing.

What a waste.

What I want to add is that - from what I have personally seen - laws restricing firearms are not very helpful. I currently live in the Republic of Colombia, where not only are there very tight restrictions on civilian firearm ownership, there are very harsh penalties in place for violating those laws. Firearms are also ridiculously expensive, whether being legally sold by the Government or illegally by civilians.
Darn near everywhere you go down here (the movies, clubs, and on the road) you get patted down for guns, by private security, cops, or soldiers.

From what I have read about the topic, Colombia has had the dubious honor of having the highest murder rate in the world during many, many years.

Two of my cousins have been murdered, one was shot.
An acquaintance of mine was murdered - shot.
Granny's cleaning lady, her son, was murdered - shot.

I have personally seen the aftermath scenes of several shootings.

Have laws helped? Apparently not.

I agree with previous posters in that PEOPLE NEED TO BE NICE TO ONE ANOTHER - or at least civil.

People down here, for instance, are not nice - and the results are all over the local news, every single day.

What I aim to express with this post is that, from personal observation, laws do not make much difference - education and civil behavior make a difference.

MRH

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Grishnakh]

Um, ever thought about self-protection? I don't know about your area, but here in Arizona home invasions are becoming more common. If some group of thugs breaks down your door and attacks you, what are you going to do about it? Start crying? In my house, the thugs would be filled with buckshot very quickly. While this would be more dangerous if the thugs are armed (sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't), in a totally gun-free society, the thugs can easily have their way with simple baseball bats, just because there are more of them than you.

Check out England, where guns are illegal but street crime like muggings and stabbings are extremely commonplace. Here, they're fairly rare because any such thugs are likely to be shot, and aren't usually so desperate that they're willing to just shoot someone with no warning.

Re:slashdot?

[Overzeetop]

Yes, but that's a war (and a civil one, at that). You expect people to die in a war. You don't expect people at a major university to get shot up by some lunatic.

In fact you don't really expect some idiot to blow away two people in a dorm room, then travel half way across campus to a dorm without vehicle access, while the campus is crawling with cops, and go apeshit on a couple of classrooms full of students. I guess the fact that he decided to eat the last one himself is the only "yeah, it figures" moment of the whole thing.

Somebody trying to take over (or take back, depending on your POV) a country can be expected to shoot people at random and set up roadside bombs intended to kill people.

Well-regulated had a different meaning

[thisnicktaken]

This phrase did not mean regulation in the since of restriction; it was synonymous with proper function and order in the vernacular of the day.

Re:Well-regulated had a different meaning

[Anonymous Coward]

As in restricting arms-bearing activity to orderly, properly functioning, organized militia?

Re:Well-regulated had a different meaning

[BgJonson79]

Well, then, there's the rub: it's either made of civilians who can fight, or a state-run group. Clearly, this is intended for a group of civilians who can fight. Why? Because it says, "The right of the people..." States don't have rights, they have powers and responsibilities. People have rights. And the Constitution is there to guarantee them to individuals.

Or, does the 19th Amendment just grant/ give women the right to vote?

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Grishnakh]

The police have NO responsiblity to defend you. Their job is to secure the situation and arrest suspects. Where did you ever get such an idea?

If someone breaks into your house and attacks your family, how long do you think it will take for the police to arrive? What would you do in this situation? Ask the attacker to please stop and wait until the police arrive?

As for slaughter with knives, you've apparently never heard of something called a "bomb". The people of Iraq (and Timothy McVeigh) have shown that these devices are quite simple to build with commonly-available materials, can cause far more deaths than a handgun, and can even keep the world's most powerful military from accomplishing its objectives.

It's a bullshit study

[daninaustin]

and has been thoroughly debunked. I think the study you are talking about is the one done by Kellerman and he said that you were 41 times more likely to be a victim or some bullshit like that. I'm not sure where he studied statistics but he really ought to try and get his money back...

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand the knee-jerk reaction to guns on planes but you must at least see our frustration with this. Doing it your way, we had two planes flown into the tallest most populated buildings in the largest city in the country and on the same day, another plane into the very headquarters of our national military defense. How the hell worse could it get!? You had your turn at this, now we're ready to do things our way for awhile. I propose guns on planes for licensed citizens but restricted to "plane safe" ammo like what the air marshals use. Just like now, a certain amount of restricted arms/ammo will make it through, but at least the passengers have a fighting chance and we're still equally safe from someone firing a round through the hull and de-pressurizing the cabin.

Re:Gun Laws

[myth24601]

He killed himself because he knew the gun totin cops were coming.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Grishnakh]

No, you live in a democracy.

How ignorant.

We live in a republic, not a democracy. Go back to grade school and get a real education.

You don't need a gun to fight back

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>I want to be able to defend myself

I want to live in a world where people's first reaction is compassion for the victims, for those who died quickly, for those who are crippled, and for those who had loved ones torn away for even less reason than death usually offers (Jeff MacNelly cartoon: "You may as well get used to it, Skyler. Life isn't fair. (new frame)But then death doesn't have a very good track record either").

Here's something from police training that too few people know. Being shot does not cause you to fly across the room and turn into a rag doll. It means you have a hole in your body that requires first aid within minutes and surgery within hours. Even a fatal wound may leave you a few seconds of consciousness. Meantime you and the other hundred people in the area can pile on the gunman. Police training materials are full of horror stories about criminals who continued lethal attacks on police after being shot repeatedly. Good guys can do the same.

If the guy's on a killing spree then you have nothing to lose, except that maybe you'll got shot a few seconds earlier.

If, god forbid, anyone here is in a situation like that one, turn off every safety catch in your mind and go for the gun hand. Go berserk. Optionally shout "There's a hundred of us and one of him!" first.

You may raise your chance of getting killed. Slightly. So what?

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[The Fourth]

As an Australian where gun control is in effect a gun -being fired- makes the state, possibly national news. THAT is what happens when you have gun control its not exactly mysterious guys.

"And to this day, US citizens generally understand that if the government ever becomes tyrannical and repressive, "we the people" have the right (and must have the means) to overthrow it."

I seriously doubt that mate. A random armed rabble will not overthrow your government by force. You have invented the most powerful Military on the planet. Each time I see something like this happen over there it just reinforces the fact that we have made the correct decision. I don't in the slightest fear my government to the point that I'm willing to support the decay of my community in order to support what someone a few hundred years ago called 'inalienable rights'. It probably sounded like a good idea at the time given recent events that had occurred, but today it's a burden that costs you. You and your families safety.

The argument that 'bad guys have gun' is fairly ineffective too, because from what I observe over here, if they have them, they don't use them as anything but a threat. In fact, right here in Sydney I have ONLY ever seen guns holstered on the belts of police and security guards. In fact, the though that someone might be carrying a gun doesn't even occur to me any more.

Its unfortunate, but I suspect that the only way Americans will ever view the preservation of their society as more important that the ineffectual feeling of safety that arises from owning a weapon is when they start becoming too afraid to travel their own streets. Even then I doubt it. Before you shoot me down in flames, ask yourself why this always happens in the US. Why is this even news over there? From memory it seems to have every single year, or at least seems that way. Without gun control you will just have to get used to it.

Personally I loved playing soldiers when I was a kid. I lived on a military base and got to use the ranges all the time. I grew out of it though and am glad that our government listen to the people and not the lobbyists. Now we have a homicide by gun rate of 0.3073 per 100,000 vs. the US with 3.6000 according to <URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence>.

Apple to Apples you Americans die more than 10 times more often than us from guns. We however lack your 'inalienable rights' to bear arms.

certainly

[r00t]

I think you meant that as a joke, but it is 100% correct.

The shooter would have died in a matter of moments. He could have shot only a few people before being shot himself. He would not have been able to reload.

As for the rest of the time, you might be surprised just how orderly and polite people are when they know that weapons are everywhere. Fights simply don't get started.

all i can say...

[EngMedic]

Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat eis.

It's all i can say that feels appropriate. This one hit close to home.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[timothy]

Hi there, pario.

- Guns exist; they're not (theoretically) hard to make: see http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/ for one guy's detailed description (PDF) of how to construct a 9mm semi-automatic pistol.

- People willing to kill others (or threaten to kill others) in order to rob, intimidate or rape them are probably not interested in legal niceties.

- As someone else has mentioned, in the American tradition, liberty is itself a desired end, not only a means to other aspects of happiness. Governments the world over tend toward tyranny (though some have survived pretty peacefully for a long time with very little in the way of an armed citizenry -- goes to show how complex the world can be), and discouraging -- or at least delaying -- the slide into tyranny is why the Second Amendment exists.

Are you by chance in Camden? If you'd like to go shooting in a safe, friendly environment and perhaps get a different perspective on why people are adamant about maintaining their right to self defense against both small time (mugger) criminals and big league (government) criminals, let me know by email (timothylord gmail com) -- after finals are over, several of my fellow law students and I are likely to revisit a shooting range in Philadelphia; you must pay for a training session, but I'll buy you a box of ammunition :)

Cheers,

timothy

SHOOTER IDENTIFIED AS wchiang@vt.edu?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have heard reports that the shooter's livejournal page is here.

From the profile:
Birthdate: 1984-02-22

NBC5 quotes a Chicago Sun-Times columnist Michael Sneed as saying the shooter was a 24 year old male student on a student visa from China.

Plus the livejournal I point to above is all about guns, killing, shooting, depression, etc... so it is a pretty decent first guess as to who the shooter might me?

Re:Gun Laws

[WhiplashII]

Trust me, this kind of thing happens WAY more in: Iraq, Afganistan, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Russia, etc.

You do not get their news, you only get yours. It doesn't seem to happen as much in Europe, though. My guess is that it is a cultural thing - which is too bad for Europe, since their culture is rapidly changing right now.

So downrate me.

[Disharmony2012]

We cannot hide our underlying social flaws forever. Incidents like this get mass media attention, because of the victim to shooter ratio(Who wouldn't tune in to hear about a good 'ol school shooting?). Do you know how many else died today due to murder? This is not an isolated problem of "one madman" who was "psychologicaly unstable". There are reasons, people are like this! Killers are not born, they are made. We cannot simply say "oh well gosh golly jee, time to tighten security, pass more gun restrictions, blah blah."

Sometimes I ask, are we on the brink of social collapse? Are things really getting better, or are we just becoming a police state? (The police used to watch over the people, now they're watching the people.)

So where do we go from here? Become more paranoid(turn each other against each other)? Hold more tight weapons(Increase black the black market)? Build more prisons(Incarerate people, so they'll be more fucked up when they leave)? None of this will stop the trully unhappy, except save allievation of ignorance from our society so fondly participated by drones of media and entertainment driven minds?

Re:Gun Laws

[WhiplashII]

Or, more likely, you'd have more numerous single-casaulty shooting incidents as more weapons would result in possibly more ivolent flareups. None of which, interestingly enough, would make the news...

This is an oppurtunity to heal/change/improve.

[elucido]

The damage is done, it's not that humans are fucked up animals, it's that some humans are simply wild destructive uncivilized animals. It's our job to figure out why this particular human decided that it was okay, to murder many innocent people.

It's your job, to limit/cap human destructiveness, because if you don't, you, I, we, will be destroyed by our own nature. The best way, in my opinion, is to have better surveillance of human behavior. This may not stop all crime, but we need to stop focusing on the guns, or on these things, and focus directly on the criminal himself, the murderer himself, the serial killer himself. We need to take a mental profile of this individual, we also need to capture a behavioral profile of this individual. When a person decides to go on google, and search for ways to kill massive amounts of people, it should be logged. When a person decides to go buy the equipment, they should be tracked by the authorities at that moment.

It's not thoughts that cause crimes, it's thoughts backed up by verifiable actions, that match a behavioral profile of say, a school shooter. A school shooter has to buy a lot of guns, a school shooter has to get some sorta gun training, meaning they have to practice shooting. A school shooter, usually has to have a certain emotional profile, a certain psychological profile, and of course we should take into account, based on interviews what the situations are in their life.

What I'm saying is, we need to prevent crimes, and in order to do this we need to maximize our computer technology to identify suspicious behavior. When that suspicious behavior reaches a certain point, backed up by actions such as purchases, we can now say they have intent, and their threat level should be increased. The threat level should be adjusted based on how destructive an individual is (past criminal record), and their capability for destruction (If an angry person, who expresses feelings, or fantasies which involve killing lots of innocent people, purchases lots of weapons), it should influence the behavioral profile.

Basically criminal profiling and behavioral profiling does work. I don't think most individuals are going to behave like this. A lot of individuals may think about it, even fantasize about it, but very few actually do it.

Just like a lot of people have rape fantasies, or pedophile fantasies, but very few actually go out and do it. So just as we have sting operations to "catch a predator", it's very much the same with mass murderers. It should be possible to know a person is thinking about it by looking at their internet logs, but just thinking is not a crime, nor should it be. When this person actually goes to meet the underaged child, or makes the purchase of the weapons, thats when they should be watched. Basically you have to have behavioral surveillance, and this would require a lot of technology which does not exist yet, but which would increase security immensely.

If someone behaves like a terrorist, rapist, serial killer, the more their behavior matches that of the behavior of many previous criminals, the more attention they should get from authorities. The computers should basically list the people who have criminal behaviors, along with some verifable intent, such as purchases, or just an expression of intentions in the form of threats.

They mention there was a bomb threat previously, if there is a bomb threat that should immediately trigger a vast investigation. I really hope that this criminal in the school shooting was not the same guy who created the bomb threat because if thats the case our security is REALLY weaker than I thought. If someone makes a threat of that sort they should be watched. That's basically a terrorist threat.

Beyond technological improvements and increasingly sophisticated behavioral modeling and profiling tools. We need to be better parents, and have better parenting tools. We also need to end school bullying, and start to focus on what causes people to become like this in the first pla

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

"weapon stolen"???

[r00t]

Why do you anti-gun people keep pulling that one out? Do you really believe it? This isn't the movies; the bad guy can't "use the Force" to grab a gun.

The gun wouldn't have any bullets by the time it could be grabbed, and grabbing is only possible if I'm really bad at aiming. It works like this:

Only have the gun if you'd be willing to shoot an enemy. This is only an issue for pacifists.

Only show the gun when violence is likely.

If the attacker could grab the gun or could shoot you, then you shoot immediately. You try to shoot before the attacker even sees the gun. Otherwise, you may give the attacker a chance to follow orders and/or flee. Any movement toward you (to grab the gun or hurt you) means you shoot.

When you shoot, you aim for the easy target that will stop the enemy. Nearly always, this is the center of the upper chest. (heart, lungs, liver, spleen, spine, etc.) You don't mess around with targets that would be hard to hit, such as the head or knee.

When you shoot, you fire many rapid shots. You can empty the gun. You may reserve a couple bullets if you fear that the enemy may have an accomplice who might also need to be shot. If you know there is only one enemy, you empty the gun into him.

Now imagine that you are the bad guy. How exactly would you have grabbed the gun?

Re:"weapon stolen"???

[Acer500]

On: Weapon Stolen

Why do you anti-gun people keep pulling that one out? Do you really believe it? I've seen it happen. I was a classmate of the son of an Armed Forces officer in my country - we have very strict gun control here, and the gun crime rate is astonishingly low, which doesn't mean there is no crime, but rather that it is commited with "white" weapons (knives, etc) - and a burglar entered his house, found his cache of weapons, threatened him and his family (armed forces father absent) , stole all the valuables and left - with their weapons.

Really, do you carry your gun with you in your house at all times???

Another very famous case: the son of a police officer was threatened every day (unfortunately he went to the same school as the children of criminals), so his father gave him a gun to defend himself (bad idea), and it accidentally shot and got an innocent girl paralytic.

A very good point I usually see/raise in this kind of discussions is that if you're carrying a gun, you must be willing to shoot it and face the consequences(else it doesn't help)... and the "bad guys" will always be willing to, while you might have qualms or be scared. Simply put, they help the criminals more than they help you.

BTW, my brother emigrated to Canada and he was simply appalled at the amount of gun crime, he had never even seen a gun, it's simply unthinkable here (once again, very good gun control, and we - Uruguay - are a Third World Country!!!).

Re:"weapon stolen"???

[cayenne8]

"Really, do you carry your gun with you in your house at all times???"

No, but, I do have guns stashed around the house. I'm usually never more than an arm's length from one...

Re:"weapon stolen"???

[ciggieposeur]

Why do you anti-gun people keep pulling that one out?

And where did I ever say I was anti-gun? Are you illiterate as well as presumptuous?

Do you really believe it? This isn't the movies; the bad guy can't "use the Force" to grab a gun.

What I really believe is that the pro-gun zealots are coming out of the woodwork within minutes of this story posting when WE DON'T FUCKING NOW WHAT EVEN HAPPENED and turning this event into a political hack job.

If you like guns, then good for you. I don't FUCKING CARE about YOU and YOUR GUNS. Got that? Can you really get that? This story is NOT ABOUT YOU. It is NOT ABOUT YOUR GUNS.

Re:"weapon stolen"???

[Python]

I've seen it happen. I was a classmate of the son of an Armed Forces officer in my country - we have very strict gun control here, and the gun crime rate is astonishingly low, which doesn't mean there is no crime, but rather that it is commited with "white" weapons (knives, etc) - and a burglar entered his house, found his cache of weapons, threatened him and his family (armed forces father absent) , stole all the valuables and left - with their weapons.

Look at what you just said, by your own admission, you did not see this happen. You just passing on a story someone else told you (which may or may not be true), so I'm sorry, but you did not see it happen. Equally, your story totally refutes your point, the burglar left, no one died - having guns will not kill you, or make it easier for you to be killed - thats what happened in your story. And a burglar is absolutely nothing like a razed person that wants to KILL you. Thiefs want to steal, they don't necessarily want to kill. So you story isn't even germane. We're talking about what to do when someone WANTs to kill you. If you lack the means to fight back, you will probably die. Someone of us just want the means to fight back. If you prefer to be unarmed, hey thats your life, do with it what you like, but I like being alive and as someone trained to use firearms - I'll take my chances protecting myself thank you.

Just ask yourself this: If you were one of those students, facing this murder and you just watched him kill your friend - wouldn't you want to be able to stop the murderer from killing you or anyone else? Its just you, and the shooter. What are you going to do? Tick tock, times up. Its kill or be killed. Welcome to the real world.

Really, do you carry your gun with you in your house at all times???

In my case, yes I do, my work requires it. Some people even sleep with them (In my line of work, its good insurance). When I was back on active duty in the Army, I was required to sleep with my loaded Rifle. Old habits die hard, and for good reason. There are bad people out there that want to kill you. Thankfully, its unlikely you will ever run into one of these people, but if you do, there is nothing you can do to prevent someone determined to die from causing situations like this. When you find yourself in this situtation, you run, you fight or you die. You better be prepared to fight for your life. If you want to be unarmed, thats your business, I'd rather be able to fight back.

Something is very wrong.

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

> If you feel it necessary to carry a lethal weapon in order to feel safe, something is very very wrong.

Yes. Here is what is wrong:

1. There are people whose minds are so messed up that they heavily arm and vest themselves and go shoot over 50 people.
2. Police response times are pathetic. Even if you can get someone to answer the phone on 9-11, by the time you can explain to them what's going on you're face-to-face with someone trying to kill you and do worse to your family.

The situation and lack of safety is wrong. Wanting to be able to protect myself and my family in an unsafe world is not wrong.

Re:Gun Laws

[Fulcrum of Evil]

The strongest upside to this is that you can't massacre a crowd with a knife in the same way that you can a semi-automatic weapon.

Yeah, you can only get through about 5 or 6 guys.

Gun Laws

[ColombianKid]

While I'm all for regulating who has guns and who hasn't, we cant forget one of the reasons the Second Amendment is there.
The way i see it, America is heading down the wrong path, considering the current administration and all. I foresee the NEED for a revolution sometime in the future. I definitely want to have guns on my side when the future dictator of the U.S. sends in troops to get rid of any opposition they may have.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Anonymous Coward]

You should read this book:

The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies by David B. Kopel.

http://www.amazon.com/Samurai-Mountie-Cowboy-Contr ols-Democracies/dp/0879757566

Briefly, violence is much more a cultural thing than a weapons-available thing. Legalizing handguns would not significantly change the violence level in Japan. If the US adopted Japan-style laws, that wouldn't reduce the US's violence to Japan-levels either.

Discussing is fine, Politically milking is not

[MMaestro]

Realistically, people will always talk about events no matter when you hear about it and thats fine. Sooner or later it'll come out so you might as well get it out of the way early. After all, realistically anything we say or do will be meaningless since we're so far down the totem pole in decision making.

THE PROBLEM is when you have politicians trying to milk an incident for their own purposes/agenda. Jack Thompson is blaming games? Well what the f*** is he saying that for? For all we know (at this point), the shooter could've been an alien in disguise killing humans for fun. Maybe the shooter HATED video games and was actually targeting students who were known hardcore gamers.

The stuff that people like Jack Thompson says is the problem with the mass media age, not bloggers or small time commenter's like the vast majority of /.'ers.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[Anonymous Coward]

The brady bill had no bearing on full-auto / select-fire weapons. Those were first regulated in the 1930s(National Firearms Act), and later by the Gun Control Act of 1968, and then even latter by the Firearm owners Protection act of 1986. The mandatory 5-day wait in the Brady Bill expired under Clinton, not Bush, and was replaced by NICS. A NICS check is a 15 minute process where they quickly verify you aren't a criminal when you purchase a weapon from a FFL. There is a sort-of "loophole" in all of this legislation, where you can engage in a private sale w/o going through NICS. I can for instance sell you a gun I own w/o going through NICS or a FFL.

The Firearm owners protection act is what effectively bans full-auto weapons, you can't register any new firearm produced after 1986 because the ATF is prohibited from accepting the fee introduced in 1934. You can transfer weapons and parts if they were purchased prior to 1986. There is a $200 fee per item, a 6-month extended background check(which generally takes much longer), and all sorts of requirements for storage and use. The limited supply and relative scarcity is why class 3 weapons for civilians to legally acquire generally run up into the $10,000+ range. Now, to illegally acquire a full-auto weapon, that's pretty easy. You can make modifications to just about any semi-auto weapon to get it to slam-fire / go full auto. An SKS can be modified to do so with a freakin' *coin*. With a bit of skill you can even make/machine your own. Browning's designs are pretty mechanically simple, quite well known, and quite effective. The penalty for that is, btw, an up to 10-year prison term and a $100,000 fine.

Now, maybe you were thinking of the assault weapons ban. That particular piece of legislation banned guns based upon the cosmetic features of the weapon and placed restrictions on things like magazine capacity. A lot of things were still grandfathered in under that law though, and some of the criteria, like bayonet lugs made no sense(How many bayonetings were there last year? Seriously). The term "pre-ban" was pretty prevalent at gun shows and shops prior to the sunset of that law, and the law really had little bearing in how deadly a long-gun is. The basic problem with restricting long-guns is that anything that makes an effective big-game weapon is going to be equally effective as a people-killer.

A couple exclusive pictures

[caryw]

A couple exclusive (read: facebook) pictures on my little local forum from Fairfax County, VA:

http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read.php?2 ,33814

I believe there's a formidable error...

[Anonymous Coward]

... in any (and I really emphasize _any_ == without exception) psychological analysis.

Humans are social beings: primarily we should be looking for social effects on the individuals, not explanations from inside them. I'm not calling them victims.

I just want to point out major forces at play now, and in the past, which makes a kind of "butterfly effect" on minds. It's very practical to label these guys killers or psychopaths , it's like using an "Occam's razor". But, as the underlaying conditions remain, new episodes of the same events turn up again... and again... and again... we must recognize psychological symptoms as consequences, even if they are themselves causes of such great misfortune.

How come Japanese guys kill themselves?

Modern society is full of brilliant smart people and they are rewarded for this (Paul Graham wrote about this). Rewards come easily and quick for those who are smart; wise people even do not get recognition these days. Instead recognition goes to successful and rich, but not so wise, powerful men.

The problem is that smart guys kill people; wise guys don't.

There's a related problem in my country (Brazil). Since some time ago, we don't have mere assassinations anymore. There's a trend towards slaughter. Gangs go out and kill at least 5 people; people are advised to not gather in groups at exposed locations and in poor sections.

In other words, there are sociological factors at play. Understanding current and past factors of this nature will, in my understanding, show a path for comprehending, preventing and dealing with disasters like this one.

Lastly, my condolences to all who remain and will suffer a lot of pain; I can only say there is nothing that will bring comfort to you.

Not even if some criminal is put to death, not if you somehow find a way to revenge, not if you suicide -- nothing. The evil is done. Don't be deluded: nothing will bring wour beloved back.

But you can turn this into something good if you never forget and never let anyone forget it, if you do something to correct and prevent it from happening again and if you use this to evolve your own character in ways I cannot possibly explain nor understand.

But do remember, as we've been told, that we are dust.

Re:Gun Laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Naaa, believe me in the US happens more often and with a proportion way over the ones that happen in Europe for example. Ok, there was a shootout in Germany I think, what else? The last I've heard about a "gun related crime" was a parent that left his hunting shootgun armed, his kid took it to show it to a friend, and boooom... Today I even saw some news about a guy that gone to a bank with a fake gun just to make the bank postpone the deadline in his mortage.

Has you can see, looneys are everywhere.... unfortunately only in the USA they get to get real guns and shoot that many people. Just an hint: If someone had a gun they could have shot the guy and saved the day... or they could have just been killed, and infuriated the perp even more... this wasn't the case, but if instead of a killing spree, he just happened to be at the wrong place in the wrong time, and took hostages, you can pretty much say bye bye to your uncle, sister, brother, mother, cousin, nephew, whoever that was taken hostage because some smart ass tried to take the perp out and got shot instead and made the perp mad.

But for some reason most shootouts in USA are plain killing spree... So that might be the difference between USA and the other countries: most shootouts in the other countries are robberies gone wrong, or looneys that take hostages (and are dealt with in a matter of hours), as in the USA most shootouts that appear in the news are plain violence for the sake of it.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Anonymous Coward]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

"A republic is a form of government maintained by a state or country whose sovereignty is based on popular consent and whose governance is based on popular representation and control."

The United States of America is a liberal democracy and a republic.

In Australia ....

[kramulous]

when Martin Bryant went on a killing spree and murdered 35 people, John Howard (PM) immediately called an end of the right of the general public to own guns (in my view, the only good thing he did). The massacre brought about one very good thing, the government bought back all (read almost all) guns and outlawed them.

I know that America has it in the constitution the "right to bear arms" (or something to that effect), but surely as more of these events happen, guns should be removed from society. Yes, I understand that some people *need* guns, dangerous animals and all, and that some crims will still possess them, but eventually all will be removed ... reducing the frequency of these events.

Re:In Australia ....

[sn0wcrash]

John Howard (PM) immediately called an end of the right of the general public to own guns

Yes... if all rights of the general public were ended there'd be nothing to be scared of at all!!!

Re:Gun Laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Also people get their fingers cut if they are caught stealing. Or they are shot dead if caught smoking opium... your point being?

Re:Gun Laws

[catwh0re]

You can run away from a knife. A weaker person with a knife can be overwhelmed. It's also difficult to quickly kill someone with a knife.

Will we need bulletproof desks?

[asadodetira]

There's a patent on a bulletproof desk in a website about absurd patents, maybe now it's not so absurd?. http://totallyabsurd.com/bulletproofdesk.htm

A Message to the "Next Asshole"

[catdevnull]

A MESSAGE TO THE NEXT MURDEROUS SUICIDAL ASSHOLE:

If you're fantasizing about executing a bunch of people and then killing yourself, don't. It's a bit over done, don't you think?

Since it's become so "fashionable" to commit suicide by taking out as many innocent people as possible, think again. The only thing worse than a copy cat is a misanthropic loser copy cat. You don't want to be remembered "like that," do you? I mean you'll be listed with all the other mass-murdering assholes by all three of your names--and your middle name probably is the reason the jocks kicked your ass in junior high.

Here's a stretch: drive out to a deslolate place, far away from homes or children, and put the gun right behind your ear and pull the trigger--all alone. Maybe even zip yourself up into a body bag first--just to help the poor bastard who has to haul your rotting loser carcass to the morgue.

A polite suicide--it would be a nice change.

Better yet, get some really good medication for your "problems." Those drugs will probably help you more than they will help the numerous survivors of your would-be victims.

If you really, really need to shoot people, I strongly suggest the Marine Corps--they actually NEED people like you right now. Just try to shoot the bad guys, OK? They need help with that, too.

[I just had to vent. Pardon my sardonic method of "dealing."]

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I hate Muslims. All they can do is kill. Muslims are a scourge on humanity.

Re:At VT Duing Shooting

[MPHellwig]

Yeah, I can relate to that feeling, at once all daily life problems became irrelevant. Try not to understand what you're going through for the first couple of days and distract yourself with perhaps helping others. But remember you can't help others before you help yourself. The significance of every day problems will return eventually and don't feel bad when you realize that. Good luck.

concur

[thegnu]

who has noticed the pervasive We Obviously Need More Cops Around Our Higher Learning Facilities message being looped on tv?

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[fletcherthunder]

i'm not asking anyone to vote a certain way, or lobby against a certain group for a certain cause. i stated my opinion, that's not pushing an agenda. lobbying people to vote a certain way, that's an agenda.

we can play what-ifs all day, but if there is anything that could have been done before 31+ people got killed, i would be for it, instead of playing devils advocate all day....

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[ross.w]

...and when you do, you be locked up with the other Terrorists.

Re:Possible Suspect?

[everything_X3N]

My apologies to Mr. Chiang-- he has posted a note saying that he was not the shooter. As he says on the same livejournal:

I am not the shooter. Through this experience, I have received numerous death threats, slanderous accusations, and my phone is out of charge from the barrage of calls. Local police have been notified of the situation.

Re:Gun Laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's culture is changing rapidly? Europe? Hummm? What? When? Where? Who? Ahhh... for a second I thought I was going insane... Europe's culture is changing rapidly, thats a nice one... you got me there... Apart from GB, most of Europe's countries are used to cultural change, and in a way it has become their culture. It's the very core of the European Union: several countries with different credos, cultural backgrounds and history united. The moto is actually this "In varietate concordia" which means united in diversity. Not to mention the pluricultural background of most of the countries that are part of European Union. I wouldn't concern myself with change that much... I'm used to it... it's something normal about human beings (change that is): your born dumb and small, you grow old, first teeth appear, then fall, then second teeth... you grow older, girls get breasts, boys get beard, still changing, you grow till around 21/25, then you start to slowly die... first it's slow, then decadence catchs up around 60... And still people say that "human beings are against change by nature"... Never met a human being that was immutable since the day he was born till the day he died of old age... I would correct that to: Human beings are against change when they are too lazy to catch up with.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[(negative video)]

I am native of Japan, and where I grew up nobody but cops were allowed to carry guns.

Laws do not make a culture civilized. The culture makes certain laws practical. But human culture is written on the wind. "No society is more than three meals away from revolution."

Back there I never worried about getting killed and such, ...

The extremes of Japanese Empire are still in the memory of living men and women. You may live to see those calamities repeated, or even exceeded.

Durable civilizations assume that disaster and folly are inevitable. The people take personal responsibility for rebuilding civilization, including the tools as well as the knowledge. It is exactly like an insurance policy, with heavy costs paid now to prevent theoretical future ruin. The American approach to weapons and freedom has high ongoing costs, but the results speak for themselves in terms of the tens of millions of Americans not killed in pointless wars, the American cities not left as smoking ruins, the great industries that continued ceaselessly with only occassional diversions for other people's wars, the political parties that tore themselves to bits because they could not stomach a One True Nationalism. Compare the one great American war (the Civil War) to the wars of Europe and Asia, or the continuing carnage in Africa. There are families in Darfur that would slaughter half of their own children if it would send the survivors to New Jersey.

I'm not saying that Americans are perfect, or even great. The Flood of New Orleans was an object lesson in that regard.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[GreyWolf3000]

Yeah, you make a point, but you're country isn't turning into a 1984-esque dystopic nightmare like mine is. Hence, I'd be more scared to go out on the streets if the cops were the *only* ones with guns.

I don't think I'm arguing against gun control so much as I'm convincing myself I should move abroad...

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[pbaer]

"I seriously doubt that mate. A random armed rabble will not overthrow your government by force. You have invented the most powerful Military on the planet."

Actually an armed rabble overthrowing the U.S. government is quite feasible. Look at Iraq as an example of how well an armed rabble can stand up to our military. Throw the potency of guerrilla warfare on top of the fact that at least some of the military would refuse to shoot their own citizens in their homeland, and you have pretty decent odds of winning. Also there are limits as to the degree of force that would be used as no ruler wants to destroy their own infrastructure. I doubt even Bush would nuke Atlanta to maintain power.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[MrSteveSD]

And to this day, US citizens generally understand that if the government ever becomes tyrannical and repressive, "we the people" have the right (and must have the means) to overthrow it.

Small arms won't do it though. Iraq is a pretty good example. To stand up against a military force you need lots of explosives, RPGs etc. Anyway, both the governments of the US and UK have already moved their drinks cabinets 6 inches closer to tyranny. We didn't need to shoot anyone or set up any IEDs. All we had to do was vote them out, but we couldn't even manage that.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[jodirren]

I'm going to be honest: I can't stand this argument for the 2nd Amendment. It is so illogical. Back in they early days of this country, everyone having a rifle could in fact stop an opressive and tyrannical government. That was a good idea then. But like so many great ideas, their "greatness" wears off over time as society and technology evolves.

In this case, everyone owning a rifle (even an automatic one) wouldn't do a damned thing against our government if it were to get all oppressive. They would just bust out the tanks, fighter-bombers, helicopter gunships, HUMVEE-mounted machines guns and missiles, etc and wipe the civilians running around with shotguns, pistols, and the occasional automatic weapon right off the face of the planet in a giant fireball. For this argument in favor of the 2nd Amendment to be valid today, it would have to be updated to say that everyone is allowed one fighter jet, tank, etc. *Then*, maybe we could stop our government if it got out of hand.

But everyone having a rifle doesn't do anything towards achieving the intended goal of the 2nd Amendment. So whether or not your in favor of guns, don't use the argument that it's got anything to do with protecting us from our government. Think about it for once.

I hope this isn't a suprise

[fajin12349]

I'm not shocked, I view this world as a f*kced up place that breeds killers like this. Don't get me wrong I'm not a lunatic, I have a normal job, friends, family, feel empathy for other humans, you know I'm a typical guy. When people care more about code on a switch messing up an application, than your life, you have to ask yourself: don't some people just go off the deepend? You know, hopelessness, depression, addiction..that's the thing, that's all this guy had was hatred, and he was addicted to it. Maybe there are some people not capable of feeling empathy even if they are given a decent amount of hope and respect, but there few and far between, I can see people shaped towards becoming mass murderers everyday. I bet if this man was treated well, he might of had some positive thoughts, and this would of never happened..

Exactly

[Black-Man]

That is why this law is in effect in a lot of states, including Ohio which has a conceal and carry law.

Take a look at the web site

[daninaustin]

Take a look at the web site and you can tell that Hemmenway has a hard-on for guns. Even his own work shows that right to carry laws have no effect on homicides (and from him that is saying a lot.)

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[abb3w]

Remember the SARS outbreak? About five people in Asia died from it and it was reported as a 'worldwide pandemic.'

Your other examples are better; The World Health Organization disagrees with your death count, and I heard it more described as a potential pandemic. I don't think you seem to grasp the full threat from the multi-century periodic epidemic outbreaks. They are the single greatest natural threat to humanity's precarious dominance on this planet. And as someone who heard first hand horror stories about the 1918 Flu from one of my great aunts, pandemics are no laughing matter; she went to Camp Devens to watch her older brother die, because the army doctors were overwhelmed and helpless. She didn't tell the stories often, and never before I turned twelve, but she felt it was an important part of the family history to pass on. Even so, I got the sense she was leaving worse horrors out.

Yes, SARS turned out to be a dud, and the media over-hyped the disaster... but if anything, they understated the possible danger. If SARS had been only a bit more effective at airborne transmission, it could easily have dropped the planet's population by a couple percent; if it had also been one of the rare more-deadly-than-not viruses, North Korea might have been in a good position to conquer China today.

The killings are not evenly distributed

[daninaustin]

The raw numbers for murders are not a very good indication of your risk or my risk of being murdered. A very large percentage of the people killed in the US (and elsewhere I'm sure) are people involved in criminal ventures such as drug dealing, etc. I'm not so sure I would lump them all together. I'd probably say you should mark crack dealers deaths down as DSAF (did society a favor.)

Re:Gun Laws

[jadavis]

The bigger issue is what is wrong with our society that makes a person want to kill innocents around them?

So let me get this straight: this is society's fault?

Give me a break. Some people are just evil, evil, evil. This guy was one of them, and now he's dead (good riddance).

For you to blame society is to suggest that you, too, would shoot up a school given the same societal forces. I sincerely hope that's not the case.

this is different how?

[Anonymous Coward]

Happens every day in Iraq!!! Apparently white people are worth lots more!

And when students CAN carry guns you ARE safer

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is an article to show it. http://johnrlott.tripod.com/apla2.html

The solution is to arm everybody. Train everybody first just so
they understand what they do. If everybody was a black belt and
had a pistol, there would be no crime.

Re:And when students CAN carry guns you ARE safer

[Anonymous Coward]

You've never watched Jackie Chan movies have you.
This 'solution' is idiodic. Mod me down if you don't like it, but you can't deny the message: adding more guns to the 'solution' does not solve gun-related crime. Removing guns solves gun related crime.

Re:And when students CAN carry guns you ARE safer

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Parent node is obviously delusional and insane and should get his/her head checked. Everyone with a gun would eventually turn into a 300 million person Tarantinoesque Mexican standoff resulting in the deaths of everyone from Mr. White to Mr. R000B000G000.

Seriously, if everyone had guns, it would probably result in more deaths outside this one incident due to accidental firings, bouts of passion, drunken stupidity, and good old fashioned stupidity. I see things becoming horrible exponentially fast. And you can train people to be safe with really dangerous things, like, oh, I don't know, a nuclear reactor, and still have bad things happen due to negligence.

When you have a tool whose utility is killing, then it will eventually kill someone -- probably someone who didn't deserve it in the end.

Not clear anyone would be saved at all.

[DogFacedJo]

If folks were armed, then they could have shot him when they saw him shooting people?
    So, then, he wouldn't have gone in with a pistol and a bunch of bullets - he might have have used a bomb instead.

    Many, many more students have been killed in several mass murders at universities in Baghdad - just within the last few months. Iraq is drowning in guns, and there are armed guards everywhere on campuses. It is unclear how much the guns help.

eg:
(45 dead) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6396301.stm
(70 dead) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6266707.stm

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Viking Coder]

Not to quip too much, but...

"Another thing to remember is that guns have a great equalizing effect."

54% of children aged 12 years who were victims of homicide were killed by guns, between 1976 and 2004. Unless you want 12-year-olds to start carrying guns, there's no way to equalize that effect.

77.1% of 17-year-olds who were victims of homicide were killed by guns. Should most 17-year-olds be walking around with guns to defend themselves? How else can you equalize that number?

By... trying... to reduce the number of guns?

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Anonymous Coward]

"banning them doesn't mean the crazies won't find another way"

Making it harder to commit a crime will reduce the occurrences of that crime.

"Take a big guy who discovers he can get what he wants through force, now give the victim a firearm, big dude is less dangerous."

Take a small, mean, guy who finds a reason to be mad at a big guy, now give him a gun, small dude is more dangerous.

"Guns are scattered through our country now. If you banned them it would have little if any effect in the short or medium term."

Truedat. The number of criminals with guns would go down, but number of crimes they commit might rise initially. What if we took measures to combat that initial effect? Make it required that all senior citizens carry stun-guns or something. I dont claim to have a good answer to this, other than to say that sometimes you go through struggle to reap rewards. Everyone willingly gets to the airport early enough to go through metal detectors and take their shoes off so that security is improved. Police risk their lives to save others' daily.

After doing a research paper in high school, here's my argument: handguns are meant to kill people. You can get other guns for every other reason, but there is no need for society to have handguns, so why not at least get rid of them? Less people will sneak into public places with shotguns than handguns. Yes, some people will still get a hold of handguns, but the barriers will be higher, and occurrences much lower.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Coryoth]

To be fair there is not a lot you can do about cults hell bent on killing people and which have literally many many millions of dollars at their disposal. Sometimes shit happens.

Re:Gaming, no

[Anonymous Coward]

Well both 9-11 and Oklahoma City had more, and they used box cutters and fertilizer. Sure, we can pass laws to try to limit the frequency of and damage these incidents can cause through gun control laws or the Patriot Act. But at the end of the day, if someone really wants to kill a lot of people, they can. Thats certainly not a reason to oppose such laws (either from the left or from the right), just don't argue that events like this are only possible because our laws put too much weight on rights and not enough on law enforcement.

For the record, I am an alumni of VT.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

I seriously doubt that mate. A random armed rabble will not overthrow your government by force. You have invented the most powerful Military on the planet.

Yeah, because that Military is doing so well in Iraq right now. There are 250 million guns in the US. There isn't a military on the planet that could impose military law.

You seem to think that the goal of an opressive government is to kill its citizens. It's not.

In fact, the though that someone might be carrying a gun doesn't even occur to me any more.

Perhaps that should scare you. We live in a society where good people outnumber bad people by a wide, wide margin. I don't want to trust the police with the preservation of my rights and my safety. I want to trust the 25% of the population who is ready and equipped to back up my rights.

In an opressive government, it is the police who are used to subjugate the masses. Why should the police be the only individuals with the right to have firearms?

Its unfortunate, but I suspect that the only way Americans will ever view the preservation of their society

Perhaps we see the right to arms as part of the preservation of our society. And we have some pretty damned good historical evidence to support that belief. Perhaps you believe that military technology has rendered that advantage moot. But occupations are still fought on the ground, and when your army is outnumbered 300:1 by armed civilians, suddenly all of that hardware doesn't look so effective.

Apple to Apples you Americans die more than 10 times more often than us from guns.

We die 10 times more often than you from crimes committed with guns. Perhaps we should ban knives. Perhaps we should ban diesel fuel and ammonium nitrate. Perhaps we should ban chainsaws. All can be used to commit horrible, horrible crimes. But the fact is that the vast, vast majority of guns in the US are used legally and safely.

People die. We all get wrapped up in tragedies. But over 2000 people died today because of heart disease. Perhaps we should ban fatty foods? Perhaps we should ban cars, which killed more than 100 people today. We live in a world of danger. It's all a matter of risk vs. benefit. Perhaps you don't see the benefit. But the 80 million gun owners in the US do.

It's very easy to point fingers at the US. But forget comparing us to Australia - compare us to our neighbors to the north. Canada's gun violence rate (0.53 homicides per 100,000) is far, far lower than the US - but their 21% gun ownership rate is not.

Perhaps you don't think our right to own guns is important. But here, it's so damned important that it's in the Bill of Rights. It's in the same category as freedom of speech and the press. We can't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution we want to uphold. If the advocates for gun control want to propose an Amendment, so be it - then we would get down to the real question of whether or not the right to bear arms really should be a right. But trying to erode the Bill of Rights is a particularly dangerous activity - if the Second Amendment no longer is worth the paper it's printed on, what about the rest of our rights?

In the Killer's Head

[Nintendork]

The original shooting was thought to be a domestic dispute which is why they didn't lock down the entire school. I wonder if the killer performed the first murder or two in the dorms in a fit of emotions. Over the next two hours, maybe he got more worked up thinking about how he was destined for a life sentence. Result: A desire to be dead instead of life behind bars. Rage.

Then again, he did have a bullet proof vest which I'd imagine isn't something most gun hobbyists have. Did he purchase it in those two hours? Hmmm.

I wish people wouldn't use this incident to argue over politics. Video games, Iraq, gun control, religion, family values, America bashing, decisions made by the school officials, racial stereotypes.

I wish we could know his thoughts. It very easily could make an eye-opening impact, raising public awareness for countless other people on the verge of breaking down. 32 people died. How many others suffer like I assume he did and as a result, kill or hurt others? Thousands? Millions? Shouldn't we focus on learning from these incidents so we can save those yet to be slaughtered?

Re:In the Killer's Head

[Sj0]

The reason what happens happens with respect to politics is partially because people want to believe that most people are fundamentally good. If you believe that most people are fundamentally good, then rather than assume that this person is fundamentally evil, you have to assume that something outside of himself provoked him, and to stop more fundamentally good people from being pushed into terrible actions, all these pet agendas ought to be pursued.

you can never justify the use of any gun???

[daninaustin]

Dude.... drop the granola and eat a steak. Would you let a child be killed before using a gun? Raped? tortured? Face it. Some people deserve to be killed. The world will be a better off. Besides, there is no way to get back to a society without guns. There are more guns than people and they are easy to make so they will never go away. This is a problem with people and needs to be dealt with that way.

Re:you can never justify the use of any gun???

[Mr. Slippery]

Dude.... drop the granola and eat a steak.

Errr...I'm the GP poster, a gun owner, a karate instructor who teaches people how to kill and maim with their bare hands - and a vegan. Killing animals to eat their flesh has nothing to do with the rights and responsibilties of self-defense and defending others.

Nobody "deserves" to be killed, but sometimes using potentially lethal force is the least bad option available. It takes somebody somewhere to have fucked up royally for it to come down to a situation where violence is the least bad choice, but it does on rare occasions occur.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[dodobh]

Bush doesn't need to nuke Atlanta. You already have the PATRIOT act, illegal wiretaps, a no-fly list, incompetent government, and the big issues in media tend to be violence in games and abortion? You already have chains in your minds, you just don't see them yet.

The government would rather let you have those toys, and lets you think that you will be ready to fight back, when in reality you will be more interested in the next big thing on American Idol, and what Britney Spears looks like with a shaved head. Oh, and if you aren't interested in that, aren't there a few loans you need to pay back?

Don't think so...

[daninaustin]

Crime is up in Australia since they cracked down on guns. That being said, I don't think it matters. Self defense is a basic human right. Whether or not gun ownership for self defense has any effect on crime is an irrelevant side note. Like they say... you may get my guns and ammo, but you'll get the ammo first.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[dodobh]

As you pointed out, the rational criminals will simply kill first. You need to figure out the reasons for them to turn criminal, and fix those problems BEFORE they result in more criminals.

Sounds like he was a non-imigrant chinese

[daninaustin]

Which would mean he would not be allowed to (legally) own a gun. which goes to show that gun laws only keep the law-abiding from owning/carrying guns.

Why not?

[evought]

Agreed. Basically, if someone has you penned in a room and is systematically shooting, you will get killed. Escape is not an option. You have nothing to lose in an attack, and something to gain no matter how unlikely. At that point, anything becomes a weapon and many things can be thrown prior to rushing: chairs, desks, backpacks (students?), etc. You can attempt to ambush around a doorway, or door if there is an opportunity, overturn tables, anything to give yourself even the slightest edge. I walk with (require) a cane and have had some sword training, which gives me a bit of an advantage (and most people ignore "gimps" as threats). I have had police try to 'disarm' me by removing my cane, but they don't like the idea of ADA lawsuits. I also usually carry a knife as a utility, the exact sort depending on local rules. A thrown case knife won't kill (with my aim) but it will certainly distract.

Part of it is that most people do not have the ability to think in emergencies. We have not been taught to think by society. After being through several emergencies (whether from violence or otherwise), you start to think differently. After getting through a couple situations where someone really wants to hurt you, you begin to to take note of things in the back of your mind: alternative exits, cover, possible weapons. It isn't paranoia and does not take over, it is just a background process, like when I am out in the wilderness and I am monitoring weather changes, keeping track of vegetation (in case I need particular plants in an emergency), possible shelters, and so forth. It is just basic situational awareness. If you work with it and train it a bit, it makes it much more likely you and maybe some other people will make it through when things hit the fan.

My wife and I do occasional local talks about basic disaster preparedness (e.g. getting drinking water when utilities have been knocked out). It is amazing how little people think about things before they happen. After the ice storm that devastated the area this winter, people pay a bit more attention. $#@* does happen, usually with no warning, and it doesn't hurt to put a little toward it.

Re:Why not?

[Firethorn]

While I have been indeed fortunate to have never been involved in a serious attack; or even a truly serious natural disaster, I have read accounts of many who have.

While our government does great things to protect the average person; it does fail occasionally. In my belief, a person is his or her own first and last line of defense. First because you're always around, not anybody else*. Last because, well, if everybody else fails, it's you who has the last chance to avoid suffering the consequences.

For example; in 99% of sitations, I feel that the average competant adult or family should be able to survive on their own for at least a week without the basic services. Maybe not comfortably, but survive in such a way that they don't require a hospital visit. At worst; a few gallons of clean water will enable this. A week of fasting for a halfway healthy adult won't lead to anything permanent. Add a dozen cans of non-perishable food and you're eating well. Up north a heating supply that isn't dependant upon electricity; even if it's only going to heat a single room. Heck, pile three or four families into a single home and you'll find that the heating demand for that house drops sharply.

For crime; I feel that we should take a stance of fighting it whenever possible. Yes, even to the point of risking more injury to ourselves. The end result is to make sure that crime doesn't pay. It's like the lawsuit craze; stores settled cases because settling was cheaper. Yet it was like the old paying of danegeld. It only encouraged the criminals/danes to return and do it again. The mugger depends on the average roll to give up his or her money without a fight. If every one of them fights back his job is rendered impossible.

*Unless you're somebody special like the president, or rich enough to hire your own bodyguards.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[walshy007]

I'm from AU also, and even pre-port arthur where firearm laws were rather (understatement) lax, we have always had significantly less firearm related deaths than the US.

In my honest opinion, the firearm laws have mostly only made it a lot harder for legitimate lawful people to own firearms, in the process it has made illegal firearms demand outreach supply (read: price hike) so apart from small poor crooks that don't have the cash or means to steal their own, it has not stopped anyone. If you have the money and the want you can get almost anything you want in this world, just a case of how much money is required.

That being said, doing so I would assume would make it extremely more cost effective to simply get more men involved and manpower as opposed to getting firearms.

I've had the qualifications to get several types of firearms licenses for quite a few years, I love target shooting, however even though I do its just too much hassle and too many hoops to jump through and too expensive to legally own a firearm.

Even if I went and got one, I would never be able to use my favourite weapon of choice, sure I could go on a military range and shoot there (in the army also). however I'd hardly call that a fun, relaxed target shoot at the range.

I have no doubts that we should have more regulation than the US, firearms training and safety courses should always be pre-requisites of using firearms. There just comes a point where things start becoming rediculous and the effort and money involved is too much for most sane people to get them the legal way, in most cases, at all.

How much have most of the police officers shot?

[daninaustin]

How much do most police officers shoot their guns? Most of them are not "gun people" and they shoot just enough to meet the qualification requirements. Many of us with concealed handgun licenses shoot more in a weekend than most cops shoot in a year. Most cops have never had to shoot their guns in anger so they have pretty much the same experience with this type of situation... none.

guns in classrooms

[dafing]

hmm, I live in NZ where we are rather liberal and against Nuclear Power, guns etc. OUR POLICE FORCE DO NOT HAVE GUNS. Let alone children in schools! Ha, when I put a dvd on like Die Hard etc, and you see all the American officers running around shooting up cars that catch on fire, after guys with M16's I get such a laugh. We do have an equivalent of SWAT that are armoured, with M16s etc but our usual police force is lucky to have a baton as far as I know. They also have pepper spray and soon, tasers too, but thats not very well liked by the public.

I have heard that back with Columbine, the two shooters entered the building and passed an unarmed security guard, they killed him. Maybe if he was armed he could have at least hurt one of the pair, best case he could have stopped the whole thing.

Re:slashdot?

[polar red]

You expect people to die in a war. Tell that to the Iraqi people, They think Bush is a gun-nut too.

Not being killed != safe

[daninaustin]

Crime (other than murder) is much worse in the UK than in the US. Most murders in the US are of of people connected to criminal enterprises (crack dealers, etc.) In the US I can avoid going to the areas where they sell crack to avoid being killed. In the UK all you need to do is stay home to enjoy being victimized since the rate of hot home invasions is way higher (try that in Texas and see how long your criminal career lasts.) I'm not sure having everyone armed will effect the homicide rate in the US, but it will (and has) had an effect on the other crime rates.

Re:Not being killed != safe

[Cro Magnon]

I agree! In fact, I live in a "bad" area, and I haven't been shot yet, despite the perseption that bullets are constantly flying here. I suspect that most of the killing on the news is people who are actively involved in drug deals.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[paitre]

Except you conveniently ignore that virtually every one of these crimes has occurred in areas where legal possession is banned, so there's no one present with the means to defend themselves.

More strawmen, please. This one's easy...

And you think cameras are the solution?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me get this straight. Everyone wants cameras installed...the same cameras that will capture the death of innocent people. Ya, that is great.

In the end, nobody may know what music the killer listened to, what video games he played, or even what operating system his computer used, but the last thing we need is to film a ton of people take a bullet to the face and get their internal organs plastered against the wall so CNN can show us or so some security staff can leak footage of people's death to Youtube. That just makes me sick.

Re:Gun Laws

[Xybot]

I would bet money on it that when this person snapped, if he couldn't easily access a gun, then there would have been no deaths.

Maybe Guns Could be as Controlled as Cars or Beer?

[craznar]

Seems the US has something arse about.

No beer until 21, no driving a car without a licence, no sex on TV without pixelation.

Yes... a kid can go and anonymously buy a gun, ammo and shoot it - all within the law ...

WTF ?

Is the US insane ?

I'm not talking about banning guns, just about knowing who has em... not talking about stopping criminals getting them, just talking about crazy people getting them.

Jeez... get a clue US of A, the rest of the world is laughing at your stupidity.

Re: I'm Sorry, I've been through it

[evought]

Well, I'm here at tech, and am still waiting for word on whether or not I've lost any friends today. One roommate of mine may have already lost one, and some friends have lost friends of theirs.

I am sorry. It is over ten years for me now, but waiting for news through that first night and sifting the rumors was hell. Any community gets a lot smaller when something like that happens. A big thing to keep in mind is to try to keep a level head in the weeks ahead. Campus officials usually do not function very well in these situations (at least not immediately), and throw in an invasion of press and so forth, and things can get chaotic. I remember friends of mine bodily escorting a reporter off campus who had slipped through the cordon and was trying to interview the girlfriend of one of the casualties. Some of them are worse than criminals. Do not worry about being rude or offending them; they have no right to your pain.

In all likelihood, they will bring in a troop of dedicated councilors with experience in this sort of thing. Being able to talk through it helps. Anyway, hang in there. I wish you the best and will be thinking of all of you.

heartfelt condolences - and a query - from India

[adityamalik]

I felt quite horrified reading the news this morning. Even here, the incident is frontpage news. The fact that my sister and her husband are both medical school students in the US brings the incident even closer home. Having never visited or lived in the US, I have a question in mind (which perhaps many other asian/other nationals also wonder).. Is the picture of school and college life in the US, painted in Hollywood movies, really a reflection of reality? Now, India itself is probably one of the world's worst countries to grow up in for children. (Yes, it is, ok? I'm not being anti-national when I say that!). In terms of health, nutrition, child labor and other measures of human development, we pretty much scrape the bottom of the barrel over and over every year. Even so, I have never seen or felt the kind of hostility, peer pressure to conform and mental stress that, going by movie/TV standards, children in the US seem to be subjected to. I mean a social tension, although I'm sure economical disparities and dynamics must contribute in many ways... Is it for real? Are families irrelevant, or a source of negative rather than positive emotion for a lot of young people? Do kids really grow up too early, too fast? (atleast, that's the way it looks to me on TV, maybe my outlook is provincial by world standards..). And is it really easy to get your hands on a gun? I'm sure I couldn't even find one today in Delhi (I'm 25 now) even if I tried hard, and I'm pretty sure I'm better off for it. Can you guys from the states give your perspective? And, indeed, how it's different in Europe and other developed nations?

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[DerekLyons]

"I seriously doubt that mate. A random armed rabble will not overthrow your government by force. You have invented the most powerful Military on the planet."

Actually an armed rabble overthrowing the U.S. government is quite feasible. Look at Iraq as an example of how well an armed rabble can stand up to our military.

Precisely, a well armed rabble can't stand up to the US military. And they damm well know it in Iraq - which is why they have resorted to IED's and other terror tactics. The insurgents in Iraq hope to accomplish what the North Vietnamese did - to win a political victory that removes the superior military force from the chessboard, then and only then could the NVA fight (and win) it's war.
 
 

Throw the potency of guerrilla warfare

The potency of guerilla warfare is vastly overstated in the mind of the general public. The only thing guerilla warefare can hope to accomplish is to either set the stage for a political victory, or to eventually morph into something more closely resembling a military formation and win a military victory by force of arms.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[DerekLyons]

Predators go after WEAK PREY. Most criminals who might threaten others with violence tend to prefer targets that offer less risk to them. This is why people rob banks and not police stations

Criminals rob banks (and convience stores and liquor stores) because there is money there.
 
 

Anyone that has seen "Reservoir Dogs" will understand that even an unskilled person with a weapon can be a serious threat to a criminal's welfare.

Need I point out the fallacy of using Hollywood as a research resource?

Re: Soceity's Fault

[destrowolffe]

Let me clarify my earlier post. I agree that this guy was as you say "evil, evil, evil." The shootings were nobody's direct fault except his own. I fully endorse personal responsibility, and I'm glad he saved us a trial by shooting himself. However, to ignore the effects that society and culture can have on a nation suggests a profound lack of historical insight. I think most people would be amazed at what they would be capable of doing given the right circumstances or motivations, be it for good or evil. The fourteen Crusades against Islam (although everyone was slaughtered in the Holy Land) were based on large-spread, societal, religious influences. There is the overused example of Nazi Germany and the societal influences leading towards WWII. Another prime example is Communist China during the 1960s and the Red Guard --mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters, peasants, intellectuals, military officers, and land owners all committed atrocious acts of cruelty and depravity towards one another for an 'ideal.' Societal forces are very powerful, although I always believe that people are responsible for their own actions. There is always a choice --even if both options suck, but I digress.

Let me put it another way. Guns have been readily available for centuries with less restrictions than we currently have, but school shootings seem to have peaked since the late 80s with the majority taking place in the 90s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_massac res. So what is it about the past two decades that has made the "Evil People" go after schools? When I ask what has happened in society to make a person want to kill those around them at schools, I'm not looking to assign blame to society. I just want to know what changed. Unless every school shooting since the Bath shooting in 1927 is a copycat, there must be a prescribed set of events or circumstances or mental states (other than 'crazy') that make a person want to murder their classmates. Moreover, if school massacres are not widespread overseas in other Western countries (which I have no reliable statistics on) than what is it about U.S. culture,life, or society that encourages violence or aggression towards others?

Re:Gun Laws

[cioxx]

Virtually 90% of Iraqi households have guns, and not just regular birdshots but high powered assault rifles. They had them during Saddam's reign and after. Small arms are useless against a state with regular armed forces.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[terrymr]

I thought that law expired.

Shame on you

[KKlaus]

Don't distort arguments with stupid emotional appeals. If more people would die due to low profile incidents on a highly armed campus that people that die in these high profile incidents with unarmed campuses, then arming students is a bad idea, period. I don't think that situation is unreasonable to suspect considering 10's of thousands of gun related deaths a year and less than a fifty or a hundred coming from school shootings. And guess what, those people would have families too.

I am a believer in arming well trained law abiding citizens to deter crime, but the revelation that people that die have families isn't very awe inspiring. Either a policy saves more lives or it doesn't. Don't bullshit around with emotional appeals to crying parents.

The thing is though

[KKlaus]

You don't have half a second. You aren't Rambo, you aren't Arnold in Commando, and unless the gunman is pointing the gun at YOU (in which case you know the answer), you personally have plenty of time. So unless you definitively 100% know who's the bad guy, you don't pull the trigger. You wait and watch.

I know the idea of people around you carrying guns can be unsettling, but peoples that get CCWs know the law, and they know how to use guns. They aren't going to guess, and if they don't know the answer, they won't shoot. Period. And then they're obviously no worse than an unarmed citizen, and no big deal.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[gaspyy]

I agree with parent poster. Until USA, as a nation, recognizes that there's something wrong going on with it regarding guns and violence, this will go on forever and it will be only worse.

In my country (20 mil.) in Europe, people can buy handguns for personal protection or rifles for hunting but the availability of the guns is restricted (you must undertake a medical exam, get a license, etc.) and they must be kept in a locked cabinet (out of children's reach).
The result is that there was exactly one armed robbery in 10 years, and the perpetrator was a foreigner using a smuggled gun. There was one cop killed in mission by a gun in 20 years, the weapon was of Serbian origin. There were 2 or 3 persons killed by a gun last year, of which one was ruled as self-defense.

Because of your 'inalienable right', any idiot can get a powerful, sophisticated gun. An automatic rifle for self-protection? Give me a break.

Still, it's big money involved so I'm not surprised. Ask yourself who benefits from all of this.

I can't

[KKlaus]

Mod you up because I've already commented multiple times on this story, but I appreciate the good post. There ARE arguments against not arming campuses, but these stupid fantasy scenarios where the gun somehow contributes to the attackers arsenal or the trained CCW carrier kills more people than he saves in some hollywood shootout are ridiculous. So thanks.

Re:University of Texas Tower

[zippthorne]

The only point I was addressing was whether handguns were useless. The police on the ground would've been using handguns, too, so regardless of who was firing them, handguns are what caused him to fire from more conservative positions, which is a kind of 'pinning down' called area denial.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Anonymous Coward]

You've already gotten tons of responses, and it's totally irrelevant to the top story, but that's never stopped a slashdotter!

I own five guns. Even though I might make jokes about being a "gun totin' redneck" in my profile and elsewhere that's not really true. Here's a breakdown: I own a pellet gun which is customarily given to boys in the interior US around about the age of 10-12 in lieu of an actual .22, nearly the smallest but one of the most common calibres of firearms in existence for the last 100 years or so. I got mine for Christmas when I was 12. I also own a pair of .22 calibre rifles, the one I bought is a Marlin model 60, a very common beginner's rifle. The other is a 90-year old Steven's Favorite rifle I inherited when my Grandpa died. Both the .22 rifles are a lot of good, cheap fun at the rifle range, the expensive ammo's about $6 for 100 shots. I also have a bolt action .30-06, which is for big game--that calibre's killed a lot of deer and elk in the 100 years its been around. Ammo's pretty expensive so I usually take one of the .22's to the rifle range to keep in practice for hunting season until it's late summer when I switch over to the big boy. Rounding out the bunch is a 12 gauge shotgun. The 12 gauge is the most common size of shotgun and is typically used on duck, quail, geese, grouse, and other game birds (all extremely tasty). I, like a great many other American gun owners, store my firearms unloaded, partially disassembled, and with trigger locks. About the only time I'm ever actually handling them (again like most American firearms owners) is when I'm out hunting, at the gun range, or cleaning them at home.

I've also lived in...dodgey parts of town. The last place I lived my next door neighbor for a few months was a meth addict who kept an axe on his living room windowsill. At night I kept my shotgun loaded under my bed just in case he went apeshit. I didn't sleep well, but I did at least manage to sleep a little. If he got into the place and I didn't have that shotgun, I'd be dead--simple as that. Which brings us to self-protection. Sometimes you can't count on the police. My next door neighbor might have decided that I was responsible for whatever the fuck he was hallucinating and the cops would have taken about fifteen minutes longer than it would have taken for him to dismember my corpse. An area I hunted in was as well known for massive elk as it was notorious for drugs (meth, pot, and futher to the South poppies). The locals got pissed off about the illegal activites and formed a militia. The nearest police were 45 minutes away, assuming they immediately started off once called, in daylight, in good weather, and above all else the roads were relatively intact.

You live in Jersey. I almost took a job at UMDNJ about a year and a half ago, but ultimately couldn't. I'm pretty well-traveled, but NJ is by an order of magnitude the ugliest country I've seen in the states--it beats out Stockton, Fresno, East St. Louis, and the most impoverished Indian reservation by fucking miles. That combined with anti-gun laws that could only be described as tyrannical prevented me from taking the position. In essence, if you owned so much as a pellet gun (firing a single shot that might actually break the skin, from manually compressed air taking ~10 seconds/shot) you had to go down to the local police station and get fingerprinted like a common criminal in blatant violation of both the 2nd and 4th amendments of the US Constitution. You can be evicted from your apartment in NJ for owning a gun just on the cop's say so. The legal gun owners there are too scared to EVER be seen

You make

[KKlaus]

Some good points, particularly about the relevance of gun control even when it's not flawless, but you should be aware that that point isn't relevant to this shooting. Someone who can kill >30 people with a semi automatic weapon is not likely to be just a rampaging idiot. Particularly because we've seen rampaging idiots before, and they get one or two and wound 8. This guy killed 30, and it's very probably that he had a lot of experience with guns and moreover already owned several. So whether he can go out and get another one isn't really an issue.

And btw, the type of person that gets a CCW isn't the type of person that would hide until it was over. But even you, I suspect, faced with screaming, crying, and dying people (some of them would be female, mind you) would be hard pressed not to act if you knew you had the ability to end it all.

Re:Iraq and corrupt cops

[evought]

The problem in Baghdad is that a 3rd of the cops are in the militia, so there is absolutely no one to trust. According to interviews I've read though, they have armed neighborhood watches where they switch off patrols precisely because the government is either ineffective or actively colluding with insurgents. It's a touch different over there.

Similarly, the problem in the "Wild West" is that there was little law enforcement and much of what there was was corrupt. An armed citizenry must be combined with competent and non-partisan law-enforcement. Citizens defend themselves and police enforce laws (investigate and punish). As many posters point out, in many violent situations, police don't arrive until long after it's over. There are not (and cannot be) enough police to protect everyone, as the recent situation amply demonstrates. Having been through a school shooting myself, I am also very much for the right to self-defense.

Re:Gun Laws

[RiddleofSteel]

I'm sorry but what the hell are you basing this on? Sounds like you've watched too many gang movies and aren't basing this statement on reality. Most licensed gun owners are not nut jobs who are just itching to plug someone. Normal adults don't go around shooting each other just because they get into a fight, and the wack jobs out there are going to get guns either way.

Re:Gun Laws

[someone1234]

Right. There is a mad shooter who runs up and down shooting wantonly into the crowd. He is a single target. Now put 16 other people randomly into the crowd who are being shot on by this single person. Even if they cool headed and got some training, they will miss the target. Even professionals miss the target.

What the fuck?

[KKlaus]

I'm not pro or anti gun, but is your argument really that if we took away the attackers gun he would hijack a plane with boxcutters and fly it into the campus?

Guns are obviously not the only source of violence, and maybe you are replying to someone who didn't realize that. But even so, this doesn't have fuck to do with 9/11 and I have no idea why anyone would think it does. A gun was the weapon, so it's not unreasonable that people might take a look at guns when something like this happens. Same way people took a look at boxcutters, planes, and moreover cockpits when 9/11 happened.

33 Killed, And Still Doesn't Come Close to Beslan

[Anonymous Coward]

Never forget the 186 children, and 158 others, killed one day in September, 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage _crisis
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=34d_1176448807

You mean like this guy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, like people law enforcement should be trusted with guns:

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

Get your facts straight

[coldcell]

Just FYI, before you pull comments out of your ass again: Probable causes of death (US) Heart Disease 1-in-5 Cancer 1-in-7 Stroke 1-in-23 Accidental Injury 1-in-36 Motor Vehicle Accident* 1-in-100 Intentional Self-harm (suicide) 1-in-121 Falling Down 1-in-246 Assault by Firearm 1-in-325 Fire or Smoke 1-in-1,116 Natural Forces (heat, cold, storms, quakes, etc.) 1-in-3,357 Electrocution* 1-in-5,000 Drowning 1-in-8,942 SOURCES: National Center for Health Statistics, CDC; American Cancer Society; National Safety Council; International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies; World Health Organization; USGS; Clark Chapman, SwRI; David Morrison, NASA; Michael Paine, Planetary Society Australian Volunteers How would someone 'steal a gun' if no-one was permitted to carry a gun? Kinda self defeating argument there.

Re:Get your facts straight

[Znork]

Ah, but you forgot the very important Dramatic Factor. This is calculated by combining various factors like skin color, location, wealth, age, media connections, etc. Then you multiply the number of deaths with the dramatic factor, and get the actual importance of an event.

Seriously tho. Sometimes I feel like the only thing that'd actually change anything would be to legislate death equivalence reporting, eg, for every word a newspaper or news broadcast wants to present around a specific type of death they also have to publish a statistically correlating number of words about other types of deaths. Maybe if every '20 dead in virginia shooting' or 'x dead in terrorist attacks' article were accompanied by a phonebook of motor vehicle deaths and a shelf worth of reporting on cancer deaths we could get a financial focus on dealing with the more common problems first.

Re:Get your facts straight

[rarity]

How would someone 'steal a gun' if no-one was permitted to carry a gun? Kinda self defeating argument there.

It seems to work, though. I live in the UK, where almost all firearms are banned, with very few exceptions (I think farmers are still allowed shotguns), and we still have several thousand gun-related crimes every year. And no, it's not just the farmers.

Captcha: Armament. How appropriate.

Re:Get your facts straight

[edward2020]

Sorry, but check the number of accidental deaths by firearms compared to drowning (thats what I was getting at in that last sentence of mine). My point still being that the illegality of firearms is only going to affect that (i.e. the accidental deaths caused by gun) and not the Assault by Firearms.

Re:Get your facts straight

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

How would someone 'steal a gun' if no-one was permitted to carry a gun? Kinda self defeating argument there.

When you figure out how to magically make all the guns in the world disappear, let me know. In the mean time, in the real world, guns can be bought/stolen from police and military (and are in places with bans), or illegally smuggled in from other countries/locations. Now I know you're going to argue that making them harder to get will stop some shootings and you're right, sort of. Gun bans do reduce shootings. They increase beatings and stabbings and burnings and bomb attacks, but they decrease shootings. If guns were banned in all of the world, people would use other things and this kid would have made a bunch of bombs.

Seriously, if you want to stop violence, restricting access to things that can be used for violence is an impractical way to go about it. You need to attack the motivations for violence and look to mitigating violence when it happens. One mitigation that does work is an armed populace that can shoot back and the fear of death that generally works as a deterrent to violence.

Re:Get your facts straight

[Chmcginn]

the fear of death that generally works as a deterrent to violence.

I mostly agree with your post, but just to point out - all of the recent school shooting have ended in death, often at their own hands, of the attackers. Obviously fear of death isn't working.

Re:Get your facts straight

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

...all of the recent school shooting have ended in death, often at their own hands, of the attackers. Obviously fear of death isn't working.

Fear of death won't stop a suicidal person, like this shooter, but it does work against many people considering violence, especially those looking for profit. Aside from the fear of an armed defense, the actual defense works too, as in the case of the texas campus sniper who was held at bay by armed citizens until the police arrived, probably preventing the death toll from climbing as high as it did in this case.

Re:Get your facts straight

[YourMotherCalled]

Kudos for getting some accurate statistics but fooey to you on not thinking thoroughly.

Assuming you don't actually mean own when you say carry, guns can be stolen from homes, firing ranges, gun stores, etc. Just because someone is not carrying a gun doesn't mean they can't get stolen.

If you did mean to say own instead of carry then people like him will just use other weapons. Usually a knife. In South Korea the gangsters carry knives. In knife holsters. On their belts! Did you read about the guy in Irvine (a few years ago) that cut people up in a supermarket with his sword?

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

Re:Get your facts straight

[deanlandolt]

Just FYI, before you pull comments out of your ass again Just FYI, before you pull context out of your ass again...

And at most, such legislation only cuts down on the number of accidents involving firearms. Note, drowning kills more people and no where in the Constitution does it mention a "right to swim." Your numbers are for "Assault by Firearm" not Accidental Death by Firearm. I don't have those numbers, but I'd be willing to bet it's far less than your 1-in-325, so before you start playing fast and loose with statistics, try parsing the whole comment.

Re:Get your facts straight

[Chmcginn]

And the Applalachin Law School shooting. Which, honestly, I had heard nothing about until I read a rebuttal by an NRA member the the usual "gun control ftw!" reply to this shooting.

(The shooter, in 2002, killed his professor who failed him out, the associate dean, and then left their office & started shooting. The school allows people with concealed carry permits to bring their weapons on-campus, and two students shot at the attacker, who surrendered.)

The fact that the gun control advocates don't generally mention this incident irks me to no end.

Re:Gun Laws

[cowboycarl]

I read somewhere that the shooter was a foreign student on an exchange visa issued in Shanghai. If I remember correctly, most visas, TN, K, H, do not permit gun ownership in the US. You have to be a citizen or permanent resident to own a gun legally in the US I believe. So the V. Tech. shooter was breaking the law, or at least the conditions of his visa, by purchasing a firearm. But what are the chances he bought his irons at Gun City...

Re:Gun Laws

[teratogenicbenzene]

I'm a graduate student at Texas A&M, and we just had a fatal knifing in the local bar area of town. Some off-duty marine killed one guy, and almost killed another with just a pocketknife. Are we going to have to have mandatory friskings before you can enter an establishment that serves alcohol?

You might argue that if he'd had a gun, he'd have killed a lot more people, but those "flare ups" that you speak of are generally focused to just one or a few people. Stuff like this kid pulled at VT sounds like it came from a long-standing hatred of humanity in general.

why don't you call people what THEY want?

[wisebabo]

Why don't you just call people what they want to be called? Just because you think it's okay to call someone Oriental (or Yellow, or slant-eyed or whatever) doesn't mean it's right. (By the way, do you really think skin color "Yellow" is the same from Northern China to southern Thailand?) Why do you get to decide? Divine providence? American arrogance?

I don't agree on some of the names people in Asia call whites but I guess by your reasoning it's okay.

Re:why don't you call people what THEY want?

[animaal]

Why don't you just call people what they want to be called? Well, I'd like my race to be called "super-amazing people from East of the ocean". There are a million and a half other residents just in the city where I live, you might like to consult them all.

The primary purpose of verbal communication is to convey information. It is for the benefit of the speaker and the listeners, not for the subject of the conversation. It is polite to make an attempt not to insult the subjects of a conversation, but let's not be incomprehensible in the attempt to be politically correct.

My buddies probably understand what I mean when I say "It's besside the asian guy". If that upsets somebody, it's their problem. Any term to describe more than on person is going to insult somebody.

Re:why don't you call people what THEY want?

[EccentricAnomaly]

If white people insisted on being called "Americans" as their race label that would be incredibly offensive to non-white Americans.

Re:are you serious? [New point]

[WheelDweller]

And can you really tell me that this sounds like "a crackpot with a gun"? The official story is a domestic dispute...but with shooting 50+ people? That's not a domestic dispute, that's terrorism. Just like the DC sniper, just like 20-30 other events where people leave a mosque and start killing, over the last year or two.

They're covering it up...but we're at war, and have been for a couple of decades.

Unless you vote Democrat.

What the fuck is wrong with you Americans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, what's wrong with you? You let semi-automatic weapons being sold at grocery stores, and then "it's not guns that kill people, it's people that kill people!. My ass... Try killing 33 people with a knife and enjoy the chair that will be slammed onto your head after the first one...

You all forget a nasty side effect of this

[aepervius]

quote : Sure, the thug could pull a gun and kill you, but you have the ability to do the same. In this country even someones grandmother could be carrying a handgun in the big purse. She might even know how to use it.

If I had to do a crime and was armed with a gun, and know that the average civilian has NO gun, I will feel confident to only threaten with my own gun, and would be less likely to shoot to kill. On the other hand if even the average grandma has a gun and know how to do it, I will be much more likely to SHOOT TO KILL at the slightiest misinterpreted gesture of the persons I am threatening. So true, everybody having gun might lower the numberof crime MAYBE, but it willsurely increase the number of gun violence.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Spacezilla]

Dude, those were the exact two complaints I had with his comment too. :)

Re: Soceity's Fault

[jadavis]

When I ask what has happened in society to make a person want to kill those around them at schools, I'm not looking to assign blame to society. I just want to know what changed.

Fair enough. It's worthwhile to consider those kinds of things.

In general I think that environmental factors are more of a test that reveals immorality (this is just my belief). That being said, I feel no need to test people's morality more than absolutely necessary.

Solving the world's problems

[glasspanic]

It always amazes me that it takes extreme cases before people act (or don't act... I can recall several big shootings at schools in the last few years, and still no action). Why can't more people see that something like this is possible, and act to prevent it? The same deal goes for several other major problems - climate change and third world countries. The sooner we act on both, the better. Not to detract from the tragedy of the shootings, but if you have a look at things like third world countries, there are vastly more people dying needlessly, yet as they are on the other side of the world, they are not out problem. Coincidentally, the stopgap measures that have been used in certain situations sometimes make things worse or could be much more effective - biofuels ironically destroying rainforest to make way for cash crops, or the use of corn driving up prices, making it even the situation in Africa etc even worse. Another example is shipping grain from a developed nation to a famine, instead of purchasing from a struggling nation to help them off their feet. Basically what I'm trying to say is, many issues require comprehensive solutions and rather than just talking about them (ala what I have just done :P), people should get up and act (but not me! :>)

UNAM, 300000+ students, Mexico City

[jotaeleemeese]

Criminality ridden city, weapons all around the place (in the hand of criminals and the police mostly).

We never ever had a "school shooting" (bar the students riots in 1968, the police's bullets marks were still there when I went to HIgh School, but you will concede that is slightly different).

Why?

Most people do not carry weapons.

Spin it any way you want, it is hard time you have a look at yourselves, the statistics and the derided ammendment in your constitution that allows things like this to happen.

I hear the argument that if you ban weapons only criminals will have them.

You know what? I have no problem with that.

As the situation in Mexico City probes, criminals are not interested in indiscriminate shootings, it is a "tool of the trade" and the immense majority of people in Mexico City will never see a gun in their lives.

Re:UNAM, 300000+ students, Mexico City

[Daytona955i]

First, many people in Mexico do see guns, all the times in the hands of the police. (You can't not see them) Secondly, the corruption in Mexico is a good reason for ordinary citizens to have guns. I have a friend who was down in Mexico and got arrested because he and his friends did not have enough money to bribe to local police. He wasn't doing anything wrong, the police searched him and his car and found nothing.

If your ok with criminals having guns then I will remind you that the person who just shot up the school is now a criminal and it matters little if his guns were legal or not. Incidents like this or like Oklahoma are very unique situations and I feel that the people who committed these horrible acts would have gotten guns and/or bombs if they were legal or not.

Times have changed for sure, back in the days of prohibition, the gangsters often shot up one another and the police. However they were very careful about targeting ordinary citizens. Once prohibition was over, they had to find a new source of income. Criminals were now targeting individuals so an average person is less safe now than they were during prohibition.

Look at England where crime rates are up among individuals. It's pretty much a crime to defend yourself there, something I fear is happening here.

Another example of this was a mall shooting that happened out in Utah. Fortunately that was stopped by a plain clothed police officer who had a concealed firearm. The mall was a no-ccw area, which I believe does not apply to duty police officers (on or off duty).

While there are issues with arming everyone (such as identifying who bad guys are if something happens), I think there is a strong deterrent to someone if they have to question how many people might have a gun. Criminals are not afraid of the police shooting them because there are so many regulations put in place to try and prevent police brutality. They are however afraid of homeowners with guns because courts are much more forgiving of a homeowner shooting a trespasser who poses a threat. (Of course your mileage may vary depending on the castle doctrine laws of your state)

So if you like Mexico's laws so much move there, then you will really find out what government corruption means.

Re:UNAM, 300000+ students, Mexico City

[Nopal]

There are over 4,000 colleges and universities in the US where it hasn't happened either, many of which are larger than the UNAM. Yet you site a single school in Mexico as proof that gun laws in the US are the problem? What next, site the lack of poor people inside Bellas Artes as proof that there is no poverty in Mexico?

Moron.

I grew up in Mexico, and trust me, I feel a lot safer anywhere in the US than I do anywhere in Mexico city. Still that's besides the point.

Obviously, you did not learn anything about logic there. Shame, because the UNAM is a good school.

Stop The Faux Sympathy you GHOULS

[Rhesusmonkey]

Seriously, how many of you people decrying the political motives and angles used the phrase
"The bodies aren't even cold" "Let the bodies get cold" or some souless variation?
You don't care anymore than they do, this is some idle conversation point for you to stroke your ego on, so stop pretending you're superior to that filthy goddamn Thompson.
These are people, they have families, and are not bodies for you to build arguments out of.
Great googily moogily.
Freakin vultures.

Re:Gun Laws

[random0xff]

Holy crap, your comment in combination with your user name is scary.

What do you mean prohibition is not effective?

[jotaeleemeese]

You guys can count deaths by gun shoots by the thousends per year.

Killing people is lifestyle choice in your country.

In the UK it is national news when somebody gets stabbed to death, even more so when guns are involved (they are banned in the UK). We only have a few dozens of incidents per year in the whole country, most of them gang violence.

After the only serious school shooting incident in the UK guns were banned. Guess what? We have had no reocurrence.

Re:What do you mean prohibition is not effective?

[ultranova]

In the UK it is national news when somebody gets stabbed to death, even more so when guns are involved (they are banned in the UK).

Well, you gotta admit it's pretty impressive combination of strength and stupidity to stab someone to death with a gun ;).

Re:What do you mean prohibition is not effective?

[mikael]

Well, you gotta admit it's pretty impressive combination of strength and stupidity to stab someone to death with a gun ;).

You've never heard of the bayonet, invented by those crazy French people?

Re:What do you mean prohibition is not effective?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up and pay your taxes, serf. And watch your words ... Government Is Watching

Tea with the Queen? Nah, I'd rather have the Queen with my tea.

Re:What do you mean prohibition is not effective?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

You guys can count deaths by gun shoots by the thousends per year. Killing people is lifestyle choice in your country.

Would you feel better if deaths happened by poisoning or hatchet perhaps? The problem is violence and murder, not gun violence.

In the UK it is national news when somebody gets stabbed to death, even more so when guns are involved (they are banned in the UK). We only have a few dozens of incidents per year in the whole country, most of them gang violence.

The same is true for some parts of the US, and it's not like the UK has a lot of room to brag, compared to some places in Europe (like Sweden), including places with gun ownership rates similar to the US, the UK has extremely high levels of violent crime. In fact if you look at the whole world and compare rates of murder and violent crime you'll note something interesting. It correlates very strongly with some societal factors and very little with others. If there is any correlation between restrictive gun laws and violent crime, then statistics show that gun bans correlate with a slight increase in violent crime (barely within the range of significance).

The UK does have much lower rates of violent crime than the US. The UK also has socialized health care and drug treatment, which correlates very, very strongly with reduced violent crime. So logically, why would you assume gun laws had anything to do with it... or were you thinking logically?

Re:What do you mean prohibition is not effective?

[cylcyl]

Pls mod parent up. The problem with the "if you make owning guns illegal, then only criminals will have guns" argument is that is that if owning guns were legal, the police (and the populace) would not know if a person who has a gun was carrying it legally or not. If owning guns were illegal, anyone who was packing without a uniform would be reported and there would be alarm over it. Whereas if guns are legal, there is a more lax attitude towards holders of DEADLY WEAPONS, and they might be allowed into situations where they would hurt many people.

Many countries have banned guns and seen crime fatalities drop tremendously or be very low. UK and Japan are cases I can think of on top of my head. I have not heard of any case where relaxing laws on carrying weapons had similar impact. To request allowing carrying weapons based on the tragedy here because someone with weapons might have stopped him is not a rational conclusion. If Cho was not allowed a gun in the first place, there would DEFINITELY have been far less fatalities

Re:What do you mean prohibition is not effective?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, lots of gun crime in the UK is not reported widely. The crimes you see on national news are generally unusual in some way (a child was involved, or something like that). If you actually look at the crime figures, you'll see that hundreds of people are murdered every year with guns, but it not reported because the story is not interesting enough.

Re:What do you mean prohibition is not effective?

[DerWulf]

Insightful? How about: completely untrue? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2002/02/24/nguns24.xml Read this and weep for the 1997 act when personal firearms where banned from private use.

Re:What do you mean prohibition is not effective?

[DerWulf]

that works so well because people are nacked all the time so it's always visible that someone is packing!

Re:What do you mean prohibition is not effective?

[gg3po]

What do you mean prohibition is not effective? ... Killing people is lifestyle choice in your country.

The overwhelming majority of gun deaths in the U.S. are a direct result of the never-ending drug war (a.k.a. prohibition). Outside of known gang controlled "war zones" such things are actually quite rare.

Re:What do you mean prohibition is not effective?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The problem with the "if you make owning guns illegal, then only criminals will have guns" argument is that is that if owning guns were legal, the police (and the populace) would not know if a person who has a gun was carrying it legally or not. If owning guns were illegal, anyone who was packing without a uniform would be reported and there would be alarm over it.

People can and do legally carry guns in most of the states of the union and it doesn't seem to have been a problem yet. The police don't need to know who is legally carrying a gun. They just need to know who is shooting at people randomly. By the time the police show up to such an event, the murderer is long dead and everyone has put their guns away and is waiting for the cops to show up with the paperwork.

Whereas if guns are legal, there is a more lax attitude towards holders of DEADLY WEAPONS, and they might be allowed into situations where they would hurt many people.

Allowed in situations where they would hurt people? Guns don't just randomly start shooting people you know? There needs to be intent. If there is intent to do violence, then a gun can help make sure the majority wins the fight.

Many countries have banned guns and seen crime fatalities drop tremendously or be very low. UK and Japan are cases I can think of on top of my head.

You are 100% wrong. Statistically gun bans and restrictive gun laws correlate to a very slight increase in violent crime and murder. The UK, for example, claims it does not know if their crime went down because they coincidentally completely changed how they count and report violent crime right at the same time, and most studies seem to indicate that it has gone up.

To request allowing carrying weapons based on the tragedy here because someone with weapons might have stopped him is not a rational conclusion.

Why? What reasoned evidence do you have to support your opinion that increased gun ownership would not have resulted in a net decrease in murder in this instance?

If Cho was not allowed a gun in the first place, there would DEFINITELY have been far less fatalities

No, there would no have definitely have been fewer fatalities. First, he was breaking the law to have the gun on campus, so how would another law saying he couldn't own a gun on campus help? Second, what makes you think he couldn't buy one illegally if he was so determined? Third, assuming he could not get ahold of a gun for some reason, what makes you think he would not have constructed a bunch of bombs or concocted a poison that would have killed more people? The gun was the tool he used, but if he was this angry and messed up do you think he would have just thought, "well gee I'd like to kill people but it's such a bother without a gun, I guess I'll go volunteer at the hospital and help kids."

Your assertions are nearly indefensible and the facts you present are highly inaccurate. Please actually do a little research and learn what you're talking about before trying to persuade others.

Re:What do you mean prohibition is not effective?

[makomk]

In the UK it is national news when somebody gets stabbed to death, even more so when guns are involved (they are banned in the UK).

Not really. As far as I can tell, gun crime and stabbings only hit the national news here when kids are involved or it's otherwise major or sensational. I think gang warfare involving guns - and gun deaths from that - generally happens with little news attention, for example, though it's hard to be sure.

Re:Gaming, no

[Mr. Shotgun]

I'm not pro or anti gun, but you simply can't go on a mass murdering spree like this with a knife or a bow and arrow. If yo plan it right you can, and this one moderately well planned. FTA:

Police found the front doors of Norris Hall chained shut and that by the time they got to the second floor, the gunfire stopped. This guy was planning on having a high body count and did not want the police to interrupt nor his victims to escape. So he locked them in. People do not do that on a whim. So with this in mind it is easy to imagine someone putting forth the effort of waiting till late at night and sneaking into peoples rooms and stabbing them to death instead. Or else locking the building and torching the place. The point is that people will find a way once they have the will to do something like this.

No you tell them.

[jotaeleemeese]

Try explaining to them that in the rest of the civilized world (and most part of the not so civilized one) "school shootings" are not a familiar term.

School shootings are like apple pie, Coke, and McDonalds: all American icons.

Explain that to the parents of the kids if you possibly can, if you can't see the clear correlation between the crappy gun controls in your country and the applaing acts of random violence then you need to question your sanity.

I do understand if US people have the right to bear arms, but if you think that the people that worte the constitution had in mind every person having free, unlimited access to any weapons of their choice, well, I can say no more and let that poor logic speak for itself.

Re:No you tell them.

[makomk]

Ever heard of Dunblane? (It's worth noting that, while the resulting restrictions on gun ownership may have reduced the number of people going on rampages with guns - it's hard to tell for sure - they didn't help with gun crime in general.)

Re:Gun Laws

[bigmattana]

However the USA has fallen behind with the rest of the world with it's attitude to gun ownership. It's definitely behind with it's "fear" of tougher gun regulation.

*sigh* My BS meter begins to go off whenever I hear someone say the US has "fallen behind" the rest of the world in something. Usually, "rest of the world" refers to a handful of countries, mostly in Europe, with less than 1/10th of the worlds population, and "fallen behind" means we haven't blindly followed the latest political fads.

In this particular case, it is thankfully not the first time we have fallen behind. In 1938, we must have looked like we were living in the dark ages when Nazi party introduced their gun control laws. We are STILL hearing stories of people alive back then who didn't resist because they were "powerless" to do so. (Know the story of the current pope?)

Complete loss of power to the ruling party is the real reason we have the second amendment. Nazi Germany is but one of many examples of what this looks like. And it certainly had nothing to do with civil wars. Good grief! The argument of whether there will be more or less deaths with or without gun control is irrelevent when trying to understand why people believe in the importance of the right to bear arms. That is completely sitution dependent, but from what I see, the places with more people carrying guns *legally* have less violent crime. The cities in the US with the most murder have the toughest (and in some cases unconstitutional) gun laws. Although I can see that in different cultures depending on the situation and the history of the laws there, etc., gun laws could possibly reduce murder. Still, if you seriously think the second amendment should be repealed to save lives, you need to understand why it is there, and the risks that were all too obvious to the founding fathers.

This has nothing to do with "fear of change", and the resistance is not "pettish". Those who resist are the ones who know history, and understand the concept of greater of the two dangers.

The US appaling statistics....

[jotaeleemeese]

.... clearly indicate that you live in a land full of fairies.

Back in reality you have thousends of deaths per year by gun shoots and with regularity random acts of violence.

In the mean time your government spoon feeds you fear of terrorism that is hardly a danger.

Guys, you are not smelling the coffee, for bunnies sakes, you show no signs of even waking up.

Don't be disingineous.

[jotaeleemeese]

If that was the case dictatorships would not exist.

Wo and watch "The life of others" (won Oscar for bet foreign movie last year) and see what people are prepared to do if told so by an authority.

Dead people are not statistics.

[jotaeleemeese]

The only fact is that in your country guns are being used indiscriminately to kill people in a daily basis, in most other countries (unless they are in war) they aren't.

The cold war was not cold.

[jotaeleemeese]

Unless you forget Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, El Salvador, Nicaragua and many others.

And all the dictators of both colours whose crimes went unpunished (Mobutu Seseko, Pol Poth, Pinochet, Ferdinand Marcos).

THere were millions killed thanks to rampant armamentism (of the conventional kind) that came very handy for the big arm producers and their economies (US, UK, France, Eastern Block, most recently China).

US society is sick, paranoid.

[jotaeleemeese]

I would not want my son studying there, there are many good schools elsewhere where the culture is more humane.

Re:US society is sick, paranoid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Taking /. and the media gives you a very, *very*, biased sample. The media is by nature alarmist (alarmist makes money), and /. has a strong libertarian leaning (not that there aren't more reasonable people).

Is US society sick and paranoid? /. libertarians and the media are. I, however, am not. A very small fraction of the people I know are. Most people I know take reasonable points of view on most things and are somewhat disgusted by the media and the aforementioned libertarians.

In short, people here are pretty much just like people wherever you are (as a whole, outlier behavior may vary).

Re:US society is sick, paranoid.

[Jesus_666]

It's all about tradeoffs. The Second Amendment was created not so that J. Random Redneck can take potshots at people trespassing on his front lawn. It was created so that, should the people decide that the government has become unbearable, they have all they need to start an armed insurgency. The tradeoff is that they also have all they need to randomly shoot people.

Yes, the Second Amendment is a bit dated in the age of combat drones, DU bullets and stealth bombers, but the idea behind it is not bad... even if the side effects are quite unpleasant.

Re:US society is sick, paranoid.

[Paulrothrock]

It was created so that, should the people decide that the government has become unbearable, they have all they need to start an armed insurgency. The tradeoff is that they also have all they need to randomly shoot people.

If you are going to commit treason against your government, don't you think that you wouldn't mind getting weapons and explosives illegally, or that there would be a market willing to sell them to you?

Re:US society is sick, paranoid.

[Jesus_666]

The black market for guns wasn't particularly strong in the 1780s and logistics were a lot harder. I was saying that it makes less sense today than it did back then.

I shoot you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, like you said, it's ok to shoot _armed_ students.

Yeah, look at Somalia, Iraq.

[jotaeleemeese]

Very peaceful down there buddy.

Somalia and Iraq....

[jotaeleemeese]

... where guns are easily available, must also be.

It's probably time ...

[chris_sawtell]

To admit that 'gun-control' will never work in the US, and pass a law which compels everybody to be trained to carry a government provided, fully loaded, hand-gun at all times. That would stop suicidal nutters dead in their tracks.

Would I want to live in such a society. No Way. But what's the alternative to having dozens of the nation's best being bumped of this mortal coil with monotonous regularity?

I can't kill anybody with a first aid kit.

[jotaeleemeese]

Well, one could I suppose, if it is quite heavy and one aims carefully (me rolls eyes at stupid comparision).

Re:Gaming, no

[Catchwa]

The only higher World Wide (at least so far) was the Port Arthur Massacre with 35 deaths who used an AR-10 rifle.

Which prompted a tightening of gun laws here (Australia), although handgun laws weren't focused on until 2002 when a student at Monash uni opened fire with multiple handguns.

Time to watch Bowling for Columbine again

[Anonymous Coward]

and - maybe - you will get the idea of what is wrong in your country.
Ever wondered why not more Canadians, Europeans die in gunfights?

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[CptPicard]

And to this day, US citizens generally understand that if the government ever becomes tyrannical and repressive, "we the people" have the right (and must have the means) to overthrow it.

If the Finnish government tried to become repressive and tyrannical, people would start laughing at it. Nobody would take it seriously, not co-operate with it and the attempt would fizzle. This is the way it happens in societies which have a functioning civil society and people who are not terrorized into the mindset that everyone else is out there to get them, including the government. The solution would not be to get up in arms, but to simply make use of effective passive resistance (provided anything like that ever got through the political process in the first place). The civilian side of our government -- regardless of what Libertarian horror stories of Nordic mommy states would make you believe -- is not nearly as powerful in everyday affairs as you'd like to believe. Now, if the army got involved, I don't think any civilian militias would stand a chance. Then again, our military is based on conscription, so all adult males know how to shoot assault rifles, courtesy of the government...

Man, I am so proud of my nanny state :-)

Re:Possible Suspect?

[dsanfte]

You should really be more careful before libelling/slandering people. You're not alone, though.

Your brain does not compute.

[jotaeleemeese]

That was a monumental failure of the police, but it is an isolated incident.

Police in the UK are unarmed (the incident you refer to involved special police forces) and they still somehow manage to deal with criminality.

Should I take the definition .....

[jotaeleemeese]

... of a company based in an interventionist, formerly imperialist country?

Nope, not me, thanks.

Most people in Asia,, believe it or not, prefer to be called Asians, the conflict in "the Middle East" is referred as the "West Asia" conflict in Asian countries.

SO I will take my clue from them, because I prefer to be respectful and sensitive.

Re:Should I take the definition .....

[ultranova]

Most people in Asia,, believe it or not, prefer to be called Asians, the conflict in "the Middle East" is referred as the "West Asia" conflict in Asian countries.

I find it hard to believe that most people in Asia give a damn whether people half the world away call them "Easterners" or "Asians", since I know I don't give damn if they call me "European" or "Westerner". Do you have any kind of evidence to back up your claim ?

Re:Should I take the definition .....

[DavidShor]

I'm from the middle east, I do not want to be called Asian, as it does not represent my heritage. I have far more in common with a North African than I do with someone in China. I think Indians would resent being lumped in too.

It works a treat in Somalia...

[jotaeleemeese]

... Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Anonymous Coward]

You appear to be ignorant of firearms law in the US.

For one thing, fully automatic weapons are mostly illegal here. (They are only technically illegal if they were manufactured after 1986, but the prices of pre-'86 automatic firearms are astronomical... so they are not easily obtainable, even by criminals.)

The US is a big country... much larger and more populous than any European nation. You should take that into account when comparing the amount of crime.

And yes, we do have an uncomfortably high rate of violent crime here... but for the most part, that seems to be a social problem which is only slightly, if at all, related to our relatively permissive firearms laws.

Sorry to spoil your "facts"

[jotaeleemeese]

Google for this: kabul deaths by shooting

GIven yesterday's news....

[jotaeleemeese]

... your checks seems to be working wonders.

Bullshit.

[jotaeleemeese]

In most cases where somebody is stabbed to dead, the victim is attacked simultaneously by several individuals.

In a one to one situation you still have good chances of survival even if you don't have a knife.

Re:Bullshit.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Yeah, right. One good hit and you're done. Most people who've had the opportunity to experience both will tell you they'd rather be shot - knives leave nasty wounds and, despite what you think, one guy with a knife who knows his stuff will take you apart.

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

hmm.. someone has been watching too many movies.. you're more likely to die from blood loss.. and that is after the attack

A simple solution to the mass murder problem

[bgspence]

Let anyone who wants to carry a gun have one, but with one simple change. Design the gun blow up with a reasonable enough frequency to kill the shooter. Say, about once every six shots. Then, most gun toters would limit shooting to life threatening situations, and mass murderers would be automatically eliminated when their luck ran out.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Anonymous Coward]

It is quite outstanding record for a 20 mil. country. By the way, which country is it? List of countries by population shows only Romania in Europe having approximately that population.

I have looked at both sides of the issue.

[jotaeleemeese]

In the UK (guns banned) there is a minimal amount of people killed by guns (mostly gangs or criminals attacking each other), ditto Germanny, Japan, Malaysia, heck, even Mexico may be better I think.

In the US life is cheap, thousends of people are killed by guns (in relative terms the US is far above any other country similar in other ways).

What else do I need to know?

Re:Gun Laws

[catwh0re]

Your argument is completely ignorant to how Hitler came into power. It's also ignorant to the fact that the amendment by the founding fathers was written long before Nazi Germany, and rather it was written (if you read the amendment in full) to specifically apply to those serving in the state-run armies(there was no federal army at the time) these were known as militia in the day.

Also your comparison is particularlly irrelevant considering that USA is a rich country and not a struggling country with an imagined enemy living inside it's borders. Which is one of the mechanisms Hitler used to gain the goodwill of the people.

America is, unfortunately, behind in the world, not because of some intellectual fad, but because America has the most gun related deaths of this kind in the world, it's a number, not a fashionable theory.(It's also a number that is disproportionate to the population, you might not realise this but 300M people is far from the most populous country in the world.) Similarly populous countries don't have the reoccuring problem that was sadly demonstrated at VT.

However with a political system as corrupted as the USA is experiencing right now, you're going to need a bit more than guns to fix it. (It has been lime-washed for a very long time that the 2nd amendment was some how related to ensuring the government stays free of corruption/or other nazi-germany type embroilment. This is often cited as an excuse for why the amendment still exists today.

Also, for your reference, the only European country I listed in the examples was England. This is hardly an USA bashing, it's a realisation that when it comes to gun laws, the USA is behind the curve. (Also of interest, is that some American states -already- do have these stricter gun laws with the positive results having been known for quite a few years. These states are neither being overrun by criminals, nor are they at threat of being enslaved by the government or foreign nation.

What you wrote reads exactly like a piece of fuddle the NRA have been spreading for a very long time.

We don't need perfection.

[jotaeleemeese]

We just need to drive the whole affiar underground, that way the immense majority of nutters could not act their derided fantasies.

It works in other countries, I see no reason why it could not work in the US.

Re:We don't need perfection.

[Cpt_Kirks]

IANAL but write like a drunk one.

Truer words were never written.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[jez9999]

If someone breaks into your house and attacks your family, how long do you think it will take for the police to arrive?

Grab a crowbar, or a baseball bat, or a knife, then. I don't see why you see guns as the catch-all only solution.

That is useless.

[jotaeleemeese]

What is needed is that you convert that heart felt simphaty into political action.

Something is clearly wrong in the US and their love for guns, but most people there are prepared to do nothing to contain the problem.

Re:are you serious? [New point]

[rh2600]

I'd say the individual had a gun, and was likely "a person who is eccentric, unrealistic, or fanatical." so yeah... I'd call him a crackpot with a gun.. that doesn't mean he's not a terrorist though... I agree with you there...

It's interesting that you consider the chance of a cover-up, and that this individual might have had clear "terrorist" motives that make him different to the columbine kids, but the same as the DC shootings. I guess time will tell...

But I do hope that your distinction isn't merely because this person was an asian, and the DC shootings were by a black/muslim duo.. whereas columbine was just some redneck idiots.. but I might be putting words in your mouth here... you may consider all these acts of terrorism, and I'd probably agree...

In regards to your final statement about democrats... here in NZ we don't have Republicans or Democrats (probably because we aren't a republic yet! :) ), but we were the first place to give women the vote, so we regard ourselves are quite democratic... I would be regarded as a right winger in NZ, which means I would have republican leanings if I was to relate that to the US. Generally though, as you can tell by my perspective on guns, and you can probably guess my perspective on Iraq - that I would probably relate more to the democratic agenda on those topics...

However, I do find your statement disappointingly polarising, and unfairly simplistic so this is where I get off...

See you 'round brother - probably on a topic we totally agree on :)

That is untrue.

[jotaeleemeese]

And you know it, but keep labouring the point ad nauseam.

There is no way wahtsoever that a guy armed with a knife only can put down 30 healthy teenagers or 20somethings.

There is absolute no way of that happening.

Re:That is untrue.

[Cro Magnon]

He can if they just cower like frightened sheep! OTOH, if 30 people can rush an assailant at close quarters, they could feed him his weapon whether it was a knife, sword, or gun.

Re:That is untrue.

[Mr. Slippery]

There is no way wahtsoever that a guy armed with a knife only can put down 30 healthy teenagers or 20somethings.

This middle aged guy in China got 10 people with knife and ax.

Richard Speck strangled and stabbed eight people in one gruesome night.

The Hutus were able to kill a hell of a lot of Tutsis with machetes - i.e., big knives.

Petar Brzica is said to have knifed 1,300 people in one night, though concentration camp inmates were obviously easy targets.

Somebody trained, with quality knives (including big knives such as swords or machetes), against 30 untrained panicing young people, divided into a few smaller groups in classrooms? Quite possible.

There's a reason that sword-wielding tyrants and conquerors, from the generals of Athens to the shoguns of Japan, were able to succeed: if I have a big knife and you don't, I'm in charge or you're dead. Even if there's a dozen of you.

But, we do need to recall that while this incident was the worst school shooting, it was not the worst school mass murder: the Bath School disaster killed 45 people. For mass murder, fire and explosives are the way to go.

Thanks for the hint!

[Anonymous Coward]

I scheduled my rampage for next week. Please leave your street address so I can start there. My aim is to take down as many arrogant smartasses as I can.

Oh yeah, this is sarcasm.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[GauteL]

"Take a big guy who discovers he can get what he wants through force, now give the victim a firearm, big dude is less dangerous."

No. He is in no way less dangerous. This means that the thug will pull a gun and shoot you dead rather than pull a gun and threaten you, because he can't take the risk that you will kill him once he turns his back to you. This makes him a hell of a lot more dangerous. If guns are rare, armed robberies will much more rarely lead to murders. I dislike armed robberies, but I prefer them to actual killings.

The same goes for arming police. Contrary to popular belief, the UK police used to be armed a lot more than they are now. People and some politicians now call for them to be armed as if it was something 'new', but lots of policemen and policewomen would disagree. If the police don't have guns, sure they can lose a few armed criminals who will threaten them and then run away, but if the police have guns, the criminals are so much more likely to kill them.

This is not rocket science. It is just escalation of violence. You see it in any conflict.

What the hell is wrong with you

[Piazzola]

Good job. Not even 24 hours and you're already turning the tragedy into an anti-gummint tirade. How about this? Kids shouldn't have to go to class armed in order to protect themselves. Even if someone else had been armed, people still would have died. If the nutjob who killed them hadn't had a gun, no one would have died.

Oh please.....

[jotaeleemeese]

We don't need the majority to be nutters. A big minority of nutters will do.

Check the deaths by gun shoot by 1000 of population and ba ashamed in you are USian.

You sound like an idiot.

[jotaeleemeese]

So guns would be taken from you.

So instead of such subjective judgment, the only reasonable alternative is to impose restrictions on everybody.

Re:You sound like an idiot.

[Skapare]

I was trying to think of something clever I could call you. But nothing came to mind. So it seems you are simply one of those liberals that wants to use government power to run everyone's lives and use tragedies to justify the laws that enable it.

Tens of thousends of deaths in the US

[jotaeleemeese]

By gun shoot.

Each year.

And your country is not a war zone.

If you don't class that as a bloodbath then I don't know how much more blood you need.

Regarding the "Defenseless Victim Zones"

[void aint ()]

I call bullshit on the assumption that gun-control laws lead to "victim zones" as you put it - the opposite is the case. The important point about gun-control laws is availability, rather than carrying of firearms. Of course you cannot stop people from bringing their guns into gun-free places like VT (except by installing a perimeter of metal-detectors around campus, and then the psychos might still go amok at the entry-points), if they are allowed to own a gun in the first place. Therefore gun-control needs to legislate the availability of firearms, and not how and where carrying a gun is OK.

And, yes, it's certainly not a quick and simple task to disarm american society, but if you don't start now, your murder-rates and public safety will never be on the level of other civilised nations.

It is not what it says.

[jotaeleemeese]

And a fucking law that is broken, should be fixed, not followed blindly like if it was the written word of god or something.

You clearly are fantasist.

[jotaeleemeese]

That whatever number of veterans would not act as an organized force, many of them would support whatever the government of the day says and a big amount of them will be in no position or inclination to fight anybody.

Also I don't see those armored thanks and aircrafts, heavy guns, mines and other palafernalia that vets keep in their backyards in case of such eventuality would happen.

Re:You clearly are fantasist.

[nbritton]

Yes I know it's a fantasy. Around 52% of the veterans are disabled or over the age of 70, leaving 12,679,627 who could fight. Assuming 50% are indifferent your down to 6,339,814 vets.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-22.pdf

Which part of "keep guns at home"...

[jotaeleemeese]

... is not clear to you?

The pro gun lobby and pro-gun nutcases alway cite Switzerland (I am sure most of them could not find it in a map) but conveneintly forget to say that you are not allowed to carry arms in public....

A bit late but...

[xtracto]

Just read into slashdot, yesterday I went to bed and the story was still in the firehose (in UK here). But on one of my thoughts were around the question of the two separate incidents, according to the press conference I saw yesterday, the police representative said that after the first two shootings in the first building they believed that the murderer had left the campus and treat was over. My though was, how fucked up should the US be that for them a murder of two people in a school is seen as something normal, and after it finishes they think "uh, okay, well the guy killed two persons but he then escaped, well, it is good that it is over, lets clean the corpses and continue living".

But then again I am all against this US gun-o-rama culture. That is one of the reasons why I would *never* go to USA to study or work... ha, just when I was considering going there, no thanks I prefer to stay in my poor third world country eating beans.

Re:A bit late but...

[Anonymous Coward]

They shut down Universities for Holidays, Snow, and Good Friday. Apparently Murder doesn't rank up there with reasons to close a school, or at least delay its opening. This is not like an apartment building, many of the students probably do not live on campus.
Those that do might be far away from the incident.

You can close down a school, you can notify students.
The fact that they didn't do this after a SHOOTING shows gross negligence on the part of the University.

2 hours to warn students of a murderer in their midst, and to take any action is deplorable.
I would not want those making these decisions in charge of my academic affairs personally.

Your patological love for guns is the problem

[jotaeleemeese]

Not the lack of them in the few civilized oasis in the US that resist such idiocity.

Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're responsible enough to carry a firearm, you should keep it with you at ALL times.

Never leave home without it. Bring it to school. To church. To family dinner.

If you have one, and can handle it responsibly, there is absolutely no reason why you should risk being caught without it. How would you live with yourself if you'd been present at this, or any other, massacre yet had left it at home that day?

I'd recommend reading "On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs" by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman for the reasoning around this, as well as some other important points. Although I'd also say he's full of shit at the same time. And not just the whole "signing all mail, blog comments, etc. with Hooyah!" thing.

Link: http://hobbes.ncsa.uiuc.edu/onsheepwolvesandsheepd ogs.html

Re:Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs

[sentientbeing]

Jesus. Is the US full to bursting point of cowboy role-playing fantasists?

Why the FUCK would somebody bring a gun to the family DINNER TABLE?

Are you smoking crack?

Re:Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs

[Taevin]

Are you smoking crack?

Are you deliberately being obtuse?

Of course it's very unlikely that you'll need to use your weapon at the family dinner table. However, you might need to use it if someone picks dinner time as the time to break in. Or perhaps you get mugged on the way to dinner?

You could come up with a million different scenarios where you might need to use your weapon, even when proceeding with the most innocuous tasks. The point the AC was making is that you should carry everywhere. Not because you think you'll need it, but because you never know when you might. Take driving as an analogy. Do you only put on your seatbelt when you think you're entering a dangerous stretch of highway? No, you keep it on all the time because it's no inconvenience and dramatically raises your chance of surviving a collision. Same with a gun; carrying it around is only a minor inconvenience but could save your life and the lives of countless other in a situation like the one at Virginia Tech.

Re:Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the FUCK would somebody bring a gun to the family DINNER TABLE?

You've never met my family.

Re:Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs

[feed_me_cereal]

I would actually tend to agree, except that there are a lot of places you can't bring a concealed weapon (hospitals, many universities, many privately owned businesses). In fact, it's a felony to bring a handgun into a place that serves alcohol in ohio. So, keeping it on your 24/7 is kind of problematic, legally... And I do agree with the no guns + alcohol law; it makes sense.

Re:Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs

[Anonymous Coward]

No guns when drinking or getting high certainly makes sense.

As for places you can't bring a gun, that's a legal matter.

My point was that you shouldn't leave home without it, unless you're going to get drunk.

What about the rate of the reduction in firearms?

[FreyarHunter]

I'm not here to say that I'm in favor of banning guns. However, what I wanted to bring up was the banning of firearms in general here in the United States. Currently, they are available. (Hell, even I own a small .22 used for target shooting at a local range.) However when you think about it, what will happen to people that don't have them compared to people that do and plan to use them illegally?

I see some major issues if the very unlikely event of a nation-wide gun ban were to be made possible. More along the lines that criminals would be more likely to get away with what they want, and get away with being more effective until the supply of firearms disappear. So it's pretty much a hard decision to make. Possibly putting the public in danger by disarming them, but nearer the end, it's possible that these kinds of things will become safer.

The way I see it, the United States policies has caused us to become kind of cornered in how to deal with it. On top of that, our rights to bear arms also come into effect causing a ban unlikely. (Already overturned in 2(?) places.)

At the same time though, a practiced, safe, and sane person who had a firearm in this case could have in fact prevented so many deaths in this case. Recently here in Salt Lake we had the shooting here in Salt Lake which was ended by an off duty police officer. While at the time the person that ended the shooting was an officer, my point is he did have a weapon, which managed to end it before things got worse than they already were.

Imagine what an off duty officer, or a trained concealed carrier was there.

Re:Ban the second amendment!

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you seriously believe that the government would try to oppress you by having a 'gun fight' (good luck to your militia against an abrhams tank), or do you think they would be a bit smarter, perhaps by using fear-mongering and scare tactics to get their way? In their eyes, let the populace have their guns (which, compared to the weapons the army has, are little more than pea-shooters, so aren't a real threat) so they feel in control and don't rebel, then scare the shit out of them all the time and use patrotism in order to push the agenda they really want.

Thankfully, this doesn't appear to be happening at all, and so long as you have your 9mm pistol, your government isn't going to do anything to take away your freedom. Oh, wait...

Weird brainwiring some of you have.

[Anonymous Coward]

I see a lot of posts claiming "If someone had had a gun they could have downed the shooter before he managed to do any harm" as an argument for looser gun-restrictions.

What the hell is up with you people? Guns caused this tragedy, and odds are the shooter would have managed to kill off at least some people before this hero-vigilante, who gun-nuts are advocating for, would incapacitate the shooter.

Let me tell you a story. Where I live guns are outlawed to such a degree that you'd have to be a licensed hunter to possess a hunting-rifle, or get some kind of extremely hard-to-get collectors-license (which would make your collected guns no more than fancy mantle-pieces). This basically means that if I ever see a gun, and it's not behind glass, carried by military, or in a forest, then something is wrong. I do not see any reason why guns shouldn't be outlawed, "But uhh, I can protect my home with it" some would say, failing to realize the heightened risk of manslaughter apparent when the burglar is just as capable at arming himself at K-mart as you are, pitiful.

Preventing shootings by arming the public to counter-act such incidences is like saying we should prevent fat-jokes by giving away free MacDonalds-food so everyone can become fat and vulnerable to said joke thus preventing fat-joke-uttering. Only problem with this scenario is nutjobs : Anyone can go insane given the right circumstances, even "good ol' stable NRA-members", question is whether anyone would like such a person to have access to guns in his closet when the circumstances are right and he blows a fuse.

Re:Gun Laws

[Anonymous Coward]

A knife is MORE lethal than a gun, given decent knowledge of its use. But its range is limited, and it doesn't lend itself to massacres. You could still most definitely take out people one by one more effectively, though, as killing someone with a knife can easily be done before they notice anything is wrong, and there isn't any noise.

That said, why aren't the *teachers* allowed to carry guns? I'd say banning students from packing is all good if you also mandate that all the mentally stable teachers have to carry a firearm on campus. They're here to help the students, so let them acquire ALL the skills to do so. Like the math teacher, except without dying themselves.

captcha: amused. I'm not.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[grumbel]

#### Um, ever thought about self-protection?

Do you need a deadly weapon for self protection? Wouldn't a taser, peeper spray or something along the lines be enough?

that's the exact point

[checkup21]

"I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it." The guy shooting on the campus "needed" the guns too. It could have been, that from his point of view, he was in the position of the "defender". 2 days earlier one or more guys/professors somebody did something wrong... you turn around in anger and "defend" yourself later. The point in not allowing guns to the general public, is that "the general public" has no need to defend itself (against whom anayway?) but is rather stupid enough to shoot each other because of bad grades or called names or because one out of 2000 has XX-Chromosomes and he "knows best" why he needs the gun. Europe is doing a good thing in not permiting guns. You say: "I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it." I say: "I know that i could carry it with responsibility, but i know there are enough fucktards who cant! So ban em!"

Parent is right - this is what everyone is missing

[Overzeetop]

I just find the idea that people would be bringing guns to class at 9am in blacksburg virginia to be strange, regardless of what laws they have

You folks (GP and others) who live with the idea of violence all around you 24/7 miss what Blacksburg is all about. We have guns everywhere. The whole surrounding area practically shuts down in October and November for hunting. The level of crime - especially violent crime - is extremely low, especially on campus. It's generally considered a safe place. To have anyone carrying on campus for "personal protection" is a ludicrous idea.

For those, including the media, who mistakenly link this shooting with the shooting last summer, let me set the record straight: Last summer, a man in his early 20s who was not involved in any way with the university escaped from detention while at the local hospital, then ran to an area of town near the university, where he shot and killed a local town law enforcement officer. You may as well say that there are shootings "at" every college campus in every large city in the US. It's news because it almost never happens here.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[TommyMc]

"Disarmed countries are easy to control."

I hear this argument often, but i have my doubts.

At first glance, it seems an obvious truism but I think it relies upon a simplistic view of history which neglects any complexity to the extent whereby any non-democratic, oppressive movements which may need to be addressed are assumed to have a clear signal. In modern times, it seems, the opposite is true.

Empowerment of a population strikes me as the way to breed complacency within it (the old "bread and circus" routine) and one thing that seems to happen in America is that the population is so 'aware' of its second amendment, and its been repeatedly -through media outlets- told that it's 'born of revolution' from oppression that an opinion of "well, if it's THAT bad, SOMEONE would have done something" seems bound to surface.

Mix into the above scenario metaphorical 'circuses' in the form of Jerry Springer; metaphorical 'Bread' from SUV's and Suburbs and I can't imagine a worse environment for change.

Iraq insurgents had a signal, a "go" sign in the form of a war with an outside force. It seems that the time for weapons is really over in the Western world, words and ideas are what change our world now, and if you have you were to try to use a gun in the name of revolution, or even in defense of you perceived 'rights', you'll lose the war of words before you start, the media shouts loudest, and you're just another crackpot with an agenda.

I'm British by the way, and although I'm pro gun control in my own country, I understand the difficulty in America with it's own laws. As other posters have said, the cat is too far out of the bag, but any pro-gun arguments concerning population control are universal, and that's why I've taken up this argument.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[irchans]

> About five people in Asia died from it and it was reported as a 'worldwide pandemic.' Why exaggerate? (More like 800 deaths.) http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Nook/5440/WHO-SARS-d ata-fits.html

Re:heartfelt condolences - and a query - from Indi

[pookie13]

First I have to give condolances to the victims' families. This is a really sad incident.

In Finland, Europe, you need a permit to buy and own a firearm. The permits are granted by Police and you have to wait for the permit about 1-2 weeks. Approved purposes for owning a firearm are:
- shooting of animals as permitted by hunting legislation
- shooting competitions and other target shooting
- work in which a firearm is necessary
- demonstration, filming or other similar presentation
- keeping in a museum or collection
- keeping as a memento
- signalling.

Taken from the pages of Finnish Police:
http://www.poliisi.fi/poliisi/home.nsf/pages/C72E5 8A5707DBF7CC2256C45003923A1

There were 112 manslaughters, murders or homicides in the year 2006 in Finland according to Statistics Finland. I have a feeling that many of them were done under the influence of alcohol (Which is really sad also).
http://tilastokeskus.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_oikeusol ot_en.html

It is really difficult to buy illegal firearms or such. For example I am 28 years and I wouldn't know where to buy an illegal firearm if I really wanted to (Of cource I don't want to). All automatic and other dangerous weapons are also illegal in Finland. I have never felt unsafe anywhere in my country. Of cource you have to remember that there are only 5,25 million inhabitants in Finland.

He was just exercising his 2nd amendment rights.

[AP31R0N]

Why can't these nutjobs just kill themselves, or just the one or two people who drove them nuts? Why take a bunch of innocents with you? And why do they always kill themselves before they can be caught? We can never ask them "why?!".

Do not quote Gandhi out of context.

[jotaeleemeese]

He was never armed. I am sure you knew that. ANd also you may know about "pacific resistence".

He would have been horrified at the suggestion of a society where every person is armed.

What he was referring to is to the racist attitudes of the British, not to the love of weapons of Indians.

Re:Do not quote Gandhi out of context.

[drinkypoo]

He was never armed. I am sure you knew that. ANd also you may know about "pacific resistence". He would have been horrified at the suggestion of a society where every person is armed. What he was referring to is to the racist attitudes of the British, not to the love of weapons of Indians.

If you read the Hitler quote that someone responded to my Gandhi quote, you will see what he was afraid of.

Gandhi did not only say that nonviolence was the answer; he also said that nonviolence should only be practiced by those who believe it.

You have clearly misunderstood the motivation behind his statement. A nation disarmed is a nation which is easy to control.

Same procedure as every month...

[panther_d]

You know what I don't get about you people (US citizens)? Either ban the stupid fucking things, or quit whining. Either every citizen has one or more firearms at home which "empower" the average Joe Sixpack to kill his fellow citizens with the touch of a finger, without at least a rudimentary idea about the power he is wielding and the responsibility that comes with it, or you just quit whining about your second amendment, shove the guns up the NRA's members a****, and be done with it! Of course, other countries with stricter weapon laws have incidents like that, too - but I would say this is a matter of degree! Allowing everyone to buy and own guns and then complaining when people who crack actually use what they have so easy access to is like complaining that your airbag didn't protect you in an accident because you have an amendment that grants you the right to decide whether you actually wear your seatbelt or not! My heartfelt condolence for all who lost friends and loved ones, once again.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[MZoom]

I seriously doubt that mate. A random armed rabble will not overthrow your government by force. You have invented the most powerful Military on the planet.

That is odd. I seem to remember a historical fact about a colonial army of civilian volunteers sending a certain king's army back across the pond.

What I think about the whole gun issue

[hairykrishna]

I live in the UK. We have very strict gun laws and have done for some time. As these laws have been around for so long, the supply of guns (and even more so, ammunition) is scarce. This means that these laws can actually work - banning the widespread distribution of firearms prevents people who shouldn't have firearms from obtaining them. This pisses me off a little bit as I feel it is wrong that my personal right to own a gun is curtailed because of criminals and assholes. I suck it up though because it saves lives and that is more important than my entertainment or any false sense of safety I could obtain through being armed.

Over in the USA you have a different situation - guns are widely available and would remain so even if tighter laws were introduced. Solution? God knows.

Re:What I think about the whole gun issue

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I suck it up though because it saves lives and that is more important than my entertainment or any false sense of safety I could obtain through being armed.

Statistically speaking, gun bans in general result in a very slight increase in murder and violent crime, not a decrease. The situation in the UK is more than a little muddled due to the fact that the UK completely changed how it counted crime statistic relative to its own past methods and other countries, but to assert that crime decreased since the UK instituted strict gun control laws is not supported by any numbers in any credible study I've seen. Even the UK police in their official documents claim only ignorance, not evidence of a decrease.

Over in the USA you have a different situation - guns are widely available and would remain so even if tighter laws were introduced. Solution? God knows.

Yeah and in Sweden they have gun ownership rates and laws similar to that in the US, but have ten times lower violent crime rates than the UK. What does that imply about the causative relationship between guns and violent crime? The solution for decreasing violent crime in the US is to socialize heath care, redirect our socialism towards helping the poor instead of fat military contracts with no bidding, and decriminalize drugs. Of course all of that is hard and would result in politicians making a lot less money, so instead we'll see a bunch of media hype and useless or counter-productive gun bans with no one in the news mentioning that guns were already banned on that campus, possibly contributing to the body count.

Re:What I think about the whole gun issue

[hairykrishna]

The UK has had strict gun laws for the majority of the last century, so it's not an ideal example to use. Sweden too is unusual - a population of less than ten million with a disproportionate population of over 65 year olds. The (relatively recent) UK handgun ban was no more than political bandwagon jumping. Nobody sensible, I suspect including politicians, thought that removing semi auto handguns from the few thousand people that actually legally owned them would change anything.

I am not aware of any statistics related to violent crime from a country which has gone from liberal gun laws (US style) to restrictive gun laws - can you point me to a link? I fully agree that improving healthcare and decriminalising drugs would work wonders for violent crime rates.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[oztiks]

Does the right to bare arms insinuate that one human being "should" be entitled to have the power to kill over 30 people easily and affectively without any great effort or brain power to achieve? No, its not its a law designed to protect people from being attacked, until the law "defines" this aspect when it comes to gun control then expect guns to be used to their maximum potential and plenty more deaths to follow.

So many ways to kill people...

[SanityInAnarchy]

You could punch someone hard enough, and in the right place -- I believe you can drive a bone from their nose up into their brain.

You could stab them in the throat. Doesn't even have to be a knife -- you could probably do it with a ballpoint pen.

You could run over them with a car. You could light their house on fire.

You could hit them with a blunt object. A baseball bat would probably be the simplest.

There are so many ways to kill people, or inflict violence in general.

The ability to inflict violence does not make you violent.

Seriously, if a minor quarrel could turn into a block-wide shootout, why don't they already turn into a block-wide bar fight? (And before you tell me it isn't as dangerous, go read over the above list. As far as I know, you don't need any kind of a license to learn a martial art...)

I know it's an old line, but guns don't kill. People do, and they don't need a gun to do it. And for that matter, you'll notice how in this instance, the guy systematically killed some 20-30 people -- he couldn't exactly have been shaking with anger if he was shooting that effectively.

Re:Gaming, no

[Money for Nothin']

but you simply can't go on a mass murdering spree like this with a knife or a bow and arrow.

Actually, you can: on June 8, 2001 a Japanese psycho went on a 15 minute knifing rampage, killing 8 elementary school children and wounding 13 others and 2 teachers.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[TempeTerra]

To briefly recap another post I just made:

I'm from New Zealand, much like Australia except our police aren't usually armed. Gun-culture is completely different outside the US. Over here, the bad guys don't even carry guns. Because the good guys don't carry guns, a knife or blunt instrument is sufficient if you want to threaten people, and nobody needs to get scared and jumpy with a firearm in their hand. Win-win. In New Zealand, relaxing gun controls is clearly the wrong thing to do. In the US, the gun situation is so bad already that arming everyone may be the only solution.

Already tired of the reporting

[smchris]

Figured the 2000+ posts didn't need another one but I got tired of hearing "worst massacre in U.S. history!" repeated over and over again this morning. Say "worst one-off mass murder in U.S. history", "in _recent_ history" or "worst massacre since Wounded Knee".

But "worst massacre in U.S. history"? Give me a friggin' break attention deficit disordered America.

Here we go again.

[InfusionX]

I feel sorrow for the families and friends who lost loved ones. I'm sure the loss is unexpected, untimely, and unjust.

I blame the touchy feely "give me a hug" society for this event. Unfortunately people are to used to statements like "things will get better", "don't worry you'll recover", and "look forward to tomorrow, and not this moment". Some people always expect a "pick me up" when they are down. Our American society needs to be more emotionally hard. Not everything will be better. Some things won't change, and tomorrow just might suck worse than right now. We need to grow up and be a little more rugged like our grandparents were. This didn't happen at all until we traded an ass whoopin' for a hug and an emotional time out. Teach your kids to "stop crying and get tough" and prevent this shit from happening in the future.

Mike Wilson

P.S. And for Christ's sake, don't try to blame this bullshit on any video games or the kid drinking to much soda or eating too many candies.

Re:Here we go again.

[Vegeta99]

Why? Our grandparents didn't do this kind of shit according to you, and they didn't have the obesity problems then, much less the video games!

(Not that I'm proving a point any better than you, I'm just pointing out a logical flaw)

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Guppy06]

So we shouldn't even bother to try doing anything about them and instead focus solely on what we believe might be their choice of weapons?

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[TempeTerra]

Quick nitpick about SARS. I know a little about it, and feel the need to correct misconceptions. cut+paste from wikipedia: 8,096 known cases of the disease, and 774 deaths (a mortality rate of 9.6%).

It actually was a big deal that thankfully didn't eventuate into a global catastrophe - just like H5N1 bird flu. 10% mortality is huge for an infectious disease, and there's a very legitimate concern that with the ease of modern travel we're going to suddenly find a deadly, infectious disease spreading quickly around the globe. SARS was a likely candidate. Flu epidemics actually come around quite regularly and in varying potencies, but we haven't had a scary one since aeroplane travel became commonplace. The names to look up if you're interested are the spanish flu (1918) and the Hong Kong flu (1968). I saw a good chart once showing those, plus the minor epidemics that came every 12 years or so in between, but I can't seem to google it right now. Pandemic preparations are actually morbidly fascinating. There are unexpected problems, like pandemics of illnesses which are entirely treatable in a hospital - but that's no good if there are 30,000 serious cases in your town, and logistical problems if 10% of the population dies, like making sure the rubbish still gets collected.

As for the media, most of the reporting was done by fear-mongering retards. Scary headlines get more attention, often at the expense of truth, and that leaves the current situation where you, and many others, have been desensitized to the thread of epidemics by exaggerated reporting.

Anywho, it's just a pet topic of mine and I take any opportunity to lecture on it.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[ivan256]

The point is how pointless it is to assume what would have happened if the situation would have been different.

That's ironic given the basis of this thread is that the situation would have been different given stronger gun control laws.

Since I wouldn't be wearing body armor 24/7, I'd probably be dead. It wouldn't really matter what I would rather have had.

The shooter was using a handgun. Unless he hits you in the head, you're probably not dying immediately, you would probably survive given rapid attention, and there is a decent likelihood that the shooter would miss. Almost half of the people this guy shot are still alive. Chances are that if you didn't get hit in the head, you'd have a chance to get a shot or two off.

Mad World

[SanityInAnarchy]

I always hear that playing in my head when I read things like that.

Went to school and I was very nervous
No one knew me, no one knew me
Hello teacher tell me what's my lesson
Look right through me, look right through me
And I find it kind of funny
I find it kind of sad
The dreams in which I'm dying
Are the best I've ever had

Re:Gaming, no

[Kirth Gersen]

I'm not pro or anti gun, but you simply can't go on a mass murdering spree like this with a knife or a bow and arrow.

But you can with a box cutter, according to the Bush administration.

Weasel Words?

[sonoronos]

Can you first give a single concrete example of the following subjective terms:

1. Excessive Weaponry
2. High End Weapon
3. Massacre vs. Rampage Shooting
4. Basic Level of Arsenal
5. Sophisticated Weapon

Second, stripped of what I perceive to be a disturbingly pseudo-academic tone, my interpretation of what you are saying is this: "Gun Laws prevent massacres by preventing an arms race."

I disagree, mostly because of Factual History:

1. September 16, 1920 - 23 Wall Street Bombing - 38 killed, 400 injured.
2. April 19, 1995 - Oklahoma City Bombing - 168 killed, 800+ injured.
3. September 11, 2001 - WTC Attacks - 2973+ killed

In short, unless you intend to put fertilizer, nitromethane, diesel fuel, jet planes, and Ryder Trucks on your short list of excessive, sophisticated, or high-end weaponry, I would say that your argument is utterly wrong.

Re:Weasel Words?

[Anonymous Coward]

i think you're just upset they used the word pettish, and that you had to reach for the dictionary to figure out what it means.

i didn't bother reading it all as it was a long post, but I'm sure they wrote gun related crimes, you've listed a bunch of bombings. so yeah the academic in all of us just gave you D-

Send in the Troops!

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously Al Qaeda and the ghost of Saddam were behind this. They are working out of Somalia. The liberal press wants you to believe the "facts". We must send in the troops now and start bombing. If we don't do this the terrorists win.

Support out troops!

An armed student/teacher, or Rambo,

[Anonymous Coward]

or that guy from 24; if one of them had showed up just in time and shot the guy, that would have totally ruled.

Accurately firing a handgun under ideal circumstances is difficult. It requires a fair amount of practice. Doing so when while trying not to shoot bystanders and to avoid getting shot yourself is probably significantly more difficult. It's naive to think that merely loosening concealed carry rules would have prevented this, or even markedly reduced the severity of the incident.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Anonymous Coward]

No one can walk into a shop and buy an automatic weapon. No one. There are masses of regulations and the prices are ludicrous. AK47s are automatic weapons. And if you yourself admit that violence is nothing like as much of a problem as it'd made out to be, why do you think stripping citizens of even more rights is a good thing to do?

History can teach us...

[fallen1]

There is a massive hole with your fantasy world - namely that the police and the government (through the Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines/Reserves) would still have guns. Lots of them and the majority of them fully automatic and/or highly explosive. Do YOU _really_ trust YOUR government and police force to be the only people with guns? God help you if you do because I don't. These (government and police forces in the USA) are the people who have constantly proven thy can NOT be trusted with the power they already have with a well-armed populace (militia, aka The People) to keep them in check NOW. Can you imagine the gutting the Constitution would take - and civil rights? - if the barrier of an armed populace was removed as a check to the powermongers sitting in the White House, Congress, and the police forces around the country?

Have the British completely forgotten the lessons of a ragtag bunch of individuals in the 13 colonies taught them? That oppression can and will be met with armed force where necessary? That in defense of life and liberty the good of the common man, the PEOPLE must take up arms against their leaders when all else has failed? The problem with your fantasy world of NO GUNS - NO DEATHS is that We, the People, would not be able to take up arms against those oppressing us. At least not as easily or quickly and, quite possibly, not enough of them to make a difference.

Has everyone alive forgotten the lessons of Nazi Germany? Where everyone stood by while other groups were oppressed and did nothing? Why? Because one of the first things Hitler did in his rise to power was to remove all personal weapons from THE PEOPLE. Those same people who he then oppressed right into gas chambers by the thousands and thousands. Those same people he used in scientific experiments into deadly diseases and biological/chemical warfare. Those same people that, if they had had the means to rise up against those who were massacring them, could have fought back and maybe World War II might not have happened at all - or might have been fought on a much smaller scale.

Before you spout off about NO GUNS - NO DEATHS, please remember the lessons that history can teach those willing to learn from it.

Also, my apologies if you meant absolutely no guns in anyone's hands (including the government and police forces) but from my initial impression in the thread it seems you meant just The People should not have guns or access to them and so the history reminder.

Where Is That Quote From?

[Slashdot Parent]

I seriously doubt that mate. A random armed rabble will not overthrow your government by force. You have invented the most powerful Military on the planet.

I'm sorry, is that a quote from today describing the US military? Or is that a quote from the mid to late 1700s describing the Royal British Army and Navy? It's hard to tell without a little bit of context.

Removing my tongue from my cheek, look at the success of the insurgency in Iraq, a poor country with a decimated military. Do you really believe that the US military would be successful fighting against Americans on American soil? Really? Do you? Shooting at Americans?

Look at the fall of the USSR. Where was the huge, fearsome Soviet army?

The American Revolution was fought by a bunch of ragtag hacks against the most powerful military in the world. The Revolutionaries did not even enjoy the support of the majority of the colonial population.

Could the US government be overthrown? Under the correct circumstances, I believe that it could.

Getting a Gun

[pentalive]

If you have strict enough gun laws in your area (city, state, country) so no one is armed, some other area will have more lax gun laws where guns may be stolen. If laws are strict enough everywhere (fat chance) people who really want guns can still hand-make them.

Guns will always be available, regardless of your local law, to anyone willing to break the law.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Slashdot Parent]

TV shows talk about an 'epidemic' of road rage, an epidemic being five reported incidents in the country in the last year.

I think the keyword there is "reported" because I have personally witnessed more than 5 incidents of road rage (one car trying to run another off the road, etc.), and I don't even drive that much.

The US has always been a violent and aggressive society. Just look at the historical figures that we glorify, such as Billy The Kid, Wyatt Erp, etc. All violent people.

I think part of it might be that we have more space here, so we get testier when we feel that it is violated. Everyone is so cramped together in Europe that you kind of have to learn to get along with those around you because there is no escape. Here, we don't like people to get in our faces.

Re:I guess this makes me rather un-american

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I don't like the rest of the world thinking the US is a dangerous place to live in general, as it really is not. However, clearly violent crimes are more common in the US than most western countries (except perhaps Russia, which I understand is rather prone to person-to-person violence).

There are some pretty strong correlations between violent crime and other societal factors, correlations which make a reasonable person consider causation, especially after that causation has been observed in some locations. The thing is, strict gun control laws are not one of those correlations.

And anyone who commits a violent crime with a firearm should be punished extremely severely... as in decades, at the very least. However, I think the prisons are too full right now with people caught with pot or other drugs.

I agree with both of your statements, however, I don't think the increased punishments is likely to result in decreases of crime. Decriminalization of drugs, however, does correlate strongly with decreases in crime.

A clip from MSNBC story

[Brad1138]

"Gun crime is extremely rare in Britain, and handguns are completely illegal. The ban is so strictly enforced that Britain's Olympic pistol shooting team is barred from practicing in its own country.

Britain's 46 homicides involving firearms was the lowest total since the late 1980s. New York City, with 8 million people compared to 53 million in England and Wales, recorded at least 579 homicides last year."

That's under 1 per 1,000,000 in England and over 72 per 1,000,000 in New york.

The 2nd amendment only applies to people in "A well regulated militia". There is NO Constitutional right to own a gun.

People will often say, "If it save's 1 life it's worth it" to justify virtually anything. As long as it doesn't stop the red necks from having their guns, "Yeehaw".

Re:A clip from MSNBC story

[Vegeta99]

I am a militia age man, and currently possess a registration number with the Selective Service System. At any time that Congress deems appropriate, I can be called against my will to defend the United States.

And since they're Congress, there's nothing stopping from saying "You should probably bring your own gun, too."

So yeah, I think I'll keep my weapons as long as they keep forcing us to register for the draft. It's pretty well regulated.

Please...

[Anonymous Coward]

tell us how many Swedish women were raped by immigrants/immigrant's offspring last year. And while you're at it, tell us how many vehicles were torched in France. Only happens in America....feh!

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[fatcock84]

I am licensed to carry firearms in MA and NH and have done so for years. I have managed to resolve differences with people without them ever even suspecting that I am carrying. Just because I don't fear an inanimate object the way many people do, does not mean the I lack the morals to know murder is wrong and the judgement to apply force in self-defense.

And yes, with a greater likelihood of being confronted by someone capable of stopping you from committing murder, you would have a harder time committing murder.

The bottom line is that there is a dark side of human nature from which most people are shielded. As a result, some people delude themselves into thinking such horror is just not a part of their world. But it is a part of life, and always has been. Even before the invention of firearms, video games and other popular scapegoats, there were massacres, genocide and enslavement. As has always been the case, the people who are least capable of defending themselves will bear the brunt of such horror.

Gun deaths or prohibition deaths?

[2901]

We've seen this all before. Think about the Saint Valentine's Day massacre. Americans decided that the cause was the prohibition of alcohol to adults, not the availability of fire-arms, and in 1933 prohibition was repealed not the second amendment.

So understand that the statistics you read on "gun crime" in America are not objective facts but political choices. The compilers of the statistics decide that the situation with cannabis is not analogous to the situation with alcohol and chose to count crimes carried out in turf wars over the control of the illegal drugs trade not as "prohibition deaths" but as "gun deaths".

Re:Gun deaths or prohibition deaths?

[Dobeln]

There are lots of variables interacting here - Sweden runs a tight drug prohibition, and our problems with drug-related turf wars are merely a fraction of those of the US. But do I believe that the vast ease of getting a cun contributes to the sheer lethality of the inner city? Yes, I do.

Re:Gun deaths or prohibition deaths?

[2901]

My objection is to "managerism". Lots of people want to compile statistics, discover the objective truth about the interaction of the variables, and then optimise society. There is an idealism here, of striving for evidence based social policy, that I find commendable.

When I see what actually goes on under this banner, I am disappointed. Which interactions get discovered depends on political choices about which variables are endogenous and which are exogenous. If changing drugs policy is politically impossible, then drugs policy is modelled as an endogenous variable, and we get a strong link between guns and crimes. If drugs policy is an input to the optimisation process, we model it as an exogenous variable, and repealing prohibition becomes an alternative policy option, in competition with gun control as a means of reducing inner city violent deaths.

Up thread, posters were quoting "scientific research" on gun deaths without appreciating that they were actually quoting "political research" that ignores selected causal connections in order to marginalise the policy options that are mediated by them.

To rephrase that in English. If your research divides up national gun deaths into "normal" and "prohibition related" libertarians will pick up your research as proving that "we don't need to change the second amendment, just stopping the war on drugs will get America close enough to international norms for gun deaths.". Obviously one blocks this by aggregating the figures. However this is "the continuation of politics by other means" not science.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Coryoth]

No, you do the best you can, but realise you can't always do everything. I meant more that afterwards you didn't see people throwing their hands up in the air saying "well, the laws against that didn't do anything, let's make Sarin gas and VX legal!".

How about a little perspective!

[Slashdot Parent]

I have been to Mexico City, and I have been to Blacksburg. There is not a single square inch of Mexico City where I feel safer than any single square inch of Blacksburg, Virginia.

In Mexico, you're lucky if the only thing that happens to you is that you are pulled over by the police for some invented "infraction" and required to pay the fine on the spot, in cash, under penalty of finding yourself in a Mexican jail. Getting robbed, mugged, etc., in Mexico City is a fact of life.

Look, I'm not happy about the VT massacre either, but let's try to maintain a little perspective here. Mexico City is orders and orders of magnitude more dangerous a place than Blacksburg, VA.

Re:University of Texas Tower

[asninn]

Yes, and if this guy lives in a glass bubble, he might not have been able to get a gun. But I will bet you that I can purchase an unregistered handgun within 24 hours in any city over 20,000 people in this country. It might cost a few extra bucks, but it can be had.

I see that argument being thrown around a lot, but one thing I'm wondering about is this: would that still be true if guns weren't as widespread as they are now in the USA? I'm not saying it wouldn't; I'm just not sure either way, and I'm wondering. Food for thought..

Outside of that, don't underestimate things like "it might cost a few extra bucks", either. I have no idea what a gun costs, especially if it's bought illegally, but I estimate you'd have to part with a few hundred bucks at least - money that a student might not have. And also, how does an average person where to buy illegal firearms, anyway? I live in a city with more than 20,000 inhabitants, but I wouldn't know where I could get a gun - I wouldn't even know where to start looking (things like "the seedy side of town", in my experience, mostly exist in RPGs, novels and the like: in real life, you can't just go to the red light district and expect to be able to buy a gun in the first bar you walk into).

None of this would probably stop someone who's determined to go on a shooting spree, but I don't think it's true that guns are equally available illegally no matter how they are regulated. If that were true, they'd also have to be equally available all over the world - but in reality, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[drinkypoo]

There were no automatic or semi-automatic weapons in the 18th Century, and it was conceivable that a group of a few thousand armed and motivated farmers could sack the White House should the need arise. Those days are long gone, unless you're willing to ensure that private citizens also have the right to drive battle tanks and possess tactical nuclear weapons.

Dude, you don't need tanks or nuclear weapons to attack the white house, although a tank would make it pretty easy. There are a number of tanks in private ownership, and even more armored non-tank vehicles (LOTS of APCs.)

If you had enough dedicated people, you could just storm the fucking thing.

Probably the best way to go would be to use a suicide bomber or a robot to drive an APC up the front steps, packed with explosives.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[BgJonson79]

Well, you never see rampages at gun shows...

Heck, I'm pretty sure the NYPD shoots more unarmed civilians a year than people in my STATE do.

Re:University of Texas Tower

[drinkypoo]

I see that argument being thrown around a lot, but one thing I'm wondering about is this: would that still be true if guns weren't as widespread as they are now in the USA? I'm not saying it wouldn't; I'm just not sure either way, and I'm wondering. Food for thought..

It would raise the bar, but it would not eliminate them. Don't forget that it's fairly trivial to make a gun. You can make a single-shot weapon with pipe and files and little else. But mere mortals can also make their own submachine guns. You can buy blueprints pretty trivially and nothing is going to change that. And even a silencer is a truly trivial piece of equipment.

Also let us not forget that people who want to kill people will find a way. Don't have access to guns? Perhaps you will use poison, or a bomb, and REALLY kill a whole fucking bunch of people. So outlawing guns would be stupid from that angle as well.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[asninn]

Could anybody enlighten me as to why people want to carry guns at all?

It's so that you can defend yourself against the English soldiers when the king of Great Britain sends them your way.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[drinkypoo]

No shit, that's the purpose. Anyone found with a gun will get locked up.

The prison system is already overloaded with people busted for victimless crimes, which is to say drugs. And murderers are already released early because there is no place to hold them.

I find your idea to be hopelessly ignorant.

Re:are you serious? [New point]

[WheelDweller]

Yeah, I knew the shooter was Asian, but outside of Arabia proper, the largest clump of mulims are in Indonesia (no requirement to be Arab). But the same is true of black men, for example; they have a historical link to that scene, as evidenced by the "Nation of Islam" (which no Arab seems to cliam) and so-called 'black leaders' like Molique Shabazz. (He was probably Fred Smith until he learned how to shake-down people over race.)

The black man needs no voice; he can speak for himself, just like the other demographic bunches of people like the Irish, Spanish, Polish, etc...these guys are now in the business of hate-for-pay, as is evidenced in the Duke LaCross case, for example, and hundreds of other scams.

Understand that America is anything but casual about guns; hundreds of laws exist about guns including waiting periods, extra jail-time for gun-related crimes, it's a real zoo. And I'm all fine with that: it's an important and deadly tool. Just keep in mind that, if "all guns" are outlawed, criminals will still have them in the same way they have illegal drugs, booze, and anything else they can pay the black market for. Outlawing guns just makes it easy for criminals.

These are days that a single busybody can make a phone call to the pipeline of the New York Times and their pipeline, and it all gets published as truth without review (as is evidenced by the reporter they fired, and got his face on magazines, for making up stories.) So you'll find evidence on both sides of most issues. The truth is out there....it's probably not on TV.

Swimming Pools...

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet more children die in swimming pools per year than from gunshots. No one thinks twice about having a swimming pool, either.

FUNNY!

[Slashdot Parent]

The engineering student was probably an american. [...] So far the word is the kid was a senior with 3 engineering majors.

I know that you posted this long before the announcement, so this is not a criticism of your post, (in fact, my first reaction was, "Prolly an engineering student that snapped under the pressure") but...

It turns out the guy was a South Korean English major.

Truly.

An English major.

Anyhow, I wish everyone down in Blacksburg all the best. And that's coming from someone who married into a Wahoo family.

What about non-lethal weapons?

[yetanothertechie]

There have been a lot of comments saying that allowing the students and faculty to be armed would have prevented such a large number of deaths. It bothers me to hear such loose talk about "taking [the shooter] down"...do you really want to kill someone? Are you that confident that you could do that, when even trained police officers have trouble doing it? Wouldn't it better to stop them from killing without killing them?

What about allowing people to carry stun-guns? The kind that you can fire from a distance. Shooting the killer with these would have stopped him without killing him, and without the danger of killing any innocents. There also would be no fears of more indiscriminate killings that might happen if everyone were armed with firearms.

I've been a 2nd amendment proponent for a long time, but I'm seriously rethinking my position. If we banned guns, but allowed law abiding citizens to carry effective, non-lethal weapons, I think we'd see much, much less killing. People would still be able to protect themselves, even in the short term while the glut of illegal guns was being eliminated.

Is there a downside to this solution?

Side note, 2 of the kids killed yesterday were seniors at our local high school last year. I saw one of them in a play last year...very sweet girl, with the world open in front of her. My own grief is almost overwhelming, I can't even imagine what her family and the families of the other victims are going through right now.

Re:What about non-lethal weapons?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

It bothers me to hear such loose talk about "taking [the shooter] down"...do you really want to kill someone? Are you that confident that you could do that, when even trained police officers have trouble doing it? Wouldn't it better to stop them from killing without killing them?

These are matters of personal morality. It is important to remember that the relevant discussion is often that of ethics, which is to say, should the government or school be choosing whether or not a person should defend themselves with lethal force, or should the person defending themselves be given the freedom to arm themselves and use that weapon. Whose choice should it be?

What about allowing people to carry stun-guns? The kind that you can fire from a distance. Shooting the killer with these would have stopped him without killing him, and without the danger of killing any innocents. There also would be no fears of more indiscriminate killings that might happen if everyone were armed with firearms.

The device you are describing is called a "taser." There are several issues with arming the students with them. First, being that they are non-lethal, the likelihood of abuse of them is much, much greater. Even trained police officers have a disturbing tendency to overuse these devices injuring and killing the elderly, children, and pregnant women, when that same officer would never have considered using a firearm against that same person.

While I find the above a considerable issue, I'm not opposed to legalizing the carrying of such devices on campus, but neither do I assume it would be useful in stopping a shooting like this one. Tasers have very limited range, are inaccurate, and take a considerable amount of time to reload. Moreover, they are extremely bulky, probably ten times the volume of a small pistol designed for everyday carry by a normal citizen. You might be able to put one in your bag or large purse, but I don't see it as a real option for an everyday, convenient defense.

I've been a 2nd amendment proponent for a long time, but I'm seriously rethinking my position. If we banned guns, but allowed law abiding citizens to carry effective, non-lethal weapons, I think we'd see much, much less killing.

What makes you think that? Banning guns does not mean criminals stop carrying them. It doesn't mean criminals do not carry a non-lethal device, but then kill their victim once they have been disabled by it. It may mean criminals assume there is no real danger to their lives if they do go out and commit violent crimes, removing a reason for them to not do so... fear.

People would still be able to protect themselves, even in the short term while the glut of illegal guns was being eliminated.

Illegal guns would never go away. In places with complete bans, career criminals still smuggle them in from other countries or buy/steal them from police and military. The most a ban does is drastically reduce availability. The problem is, when gun availability drops, criminals just turn to other weapons. Look at the UK. So called "gun crimes" are down since they instituted very strict controls, but stabbings, beatings, robberies, burglaries, etc. are way up resulting in a slight increase in overall crime and violence.

Is there a downside to this solution?

Yes. Statistically it will slightly increase murder and violent crime, not decrease it. Look, decreasing violent crime is not rocket science. There are certain societal factors that correlate very strongly with violent crime and the US manages to bring together a lot of them. If you want to decrease violent crime the most probable ways are:

• Reduce wage disparity - this is the #1 correlation. Progressive taxes on the high end that reverse wealth condensation that has brought our country to its present state where a few percent of the population control the majority of all the wealth. With a society like this p

Re:What about non-lethal weapons?

[yetanothertechie]

What about banning semi-automatic handguns? It seems that the ability for concealment, rapid reload, and large capacity magazines are main factors in what make attacks of this nature so deadly, ie. that there are so many victims.

I could see where banning semi-auto handguns, creating and enforcing extremely stiff laws concerning the possession (or sale) of them, while still allowing revolvers, may at least lessen the carnage. People would still be able to protect themselves with revolvers.

What do you think?

Re:What about non-lethal weapons?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

What about banning semi-automatic handguns? It seems that the ability for concealment, rapid reload, and large capacity magazines are main factors in what make attacks of this nature so deadly, ie. that there are so many victims.

As far as I know, most of these attacks take place using long guns, which are much, much more dangerous. Personally, if some nutcase was shooting at me, I'd prefer they had a semi-automatic handgun. It is much less accurate and deadly than the average long gun and a lot more likely to jam or misfire than a revolver. This applies much more so to the more common illegal uses of handguns in robberies and the like. Some nutcase might be an expert and take their time to aim for each shot and might maintain their weapons very well. The chances of that person being the one robbing the store you're in or doing the drive by shooting is slim to none though.

It is an idea with some merit, but really the last thing I'd want to happen is for some nutcase like the one in this incident to be thinking, "well I only have a revolver, what else can I use to kill a lot of people in a crowd," and putting a long rifle in a bag and setting up on the roof next to a crowd, or worse yet building a few bombs, or poisoning a water supply. Assuming some citizens are armed (which some students have now said they would have been if not for the campus ban) I don't think it matters if the shooter has a semi-auto handgun, as they will not have the leisure to aim and fire that many times before someone starts shooting back.

Finding a better way

[phorm]

I was in school when Columbine happened. I remember people being really nice to me, and I couldn't figure out why until Iheard about the event later. Apparently - as most people generally made strong efforts to make my life unpleasant - they believed that I might be capable of a similar episode.

I've never understood this. Yes, in my younger days I was unhappy, unpopular, and played a fair bit of games such as doom/quake/etc. Now that I'm older I still enjoy such things in addition to paintball, airsoft, etc.

However, rather than seeking revenge at the end of a firearm, I've always been of the mind that I would rather work hard, better myself, and prove myself to not be the type of loser other always made me out to be.

At this point I've got a house (well, with a mortgage), rather new car (paid off), and a decent job. Still working on the wife & kids angle but I'll attribute that more to not wanting to get hitched/settled-down simply because I'm tired of searching (as opposed to finding the right person).

I've got my 10-year-grad coming up in a few years... and indications are that I'm already doing a fair bit better than most of those who used to look down upon me. I know for sure that when I run into various girls from school they seem to be a lot friendlier towards me nowadays, although again part of this I must attribute to having also improved my own social tendencies.

To those that may be reading. Going berserk only in some ways proves what others may have said to put you down. It doesn't make you a hero, and everyone will remember you not only as a loser but as a psycho. It might be hard, but do your damndest to make something of your life, and if you must hold something in the face of your enemies, show up with a success story to compare to others' McDonalds jobs. I will guarantee you that at least a good portion of those who spend their younger lives looking down on others weren't doing much productive with their own lives.

The hard, awkward times do pass. Sure, there will still be hard times in the future, but you can find them mixed with a sense of accomplishment and success as well.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[lawpoop]

"If the general population of Japan is prohibited from carrying firearms, then why do the police have them?
...
I'll go one step further. In Japan you can only be assured that the LAW ABIDING folks aren't carrying guns."

You are claiming that there are no law-abiding police in Japan?

"Thereby, you enjoy the illusion of safety."

Do Japanese citizens live in an illusion of safety, thinking they are safe, or do the statistics show that in reality, they are actually less likely to be harmed or killed by firearms?

Similarly, do those who carry firearms for personal protection live in an illusion of safety, where they are actually more likely to be violently injured or killed on account of their firearms, because of accident, mental illness such as depression, or conflict-escalation?

And a salute to one who did NOT cower

[abb3w]

Professor Liviu Librescu, holocaust survivor and hero. I suspect his background long ago taught him the importance of facing evil directly.

Re:Ban the second amendment!

[feranick]

Your answer is very accurate, and it reflects the thoughts of many people. For this reason I won't say (as you did with my post), that you are an insane psychopath, who don't trust anybody. No, in fact you have all the rights to defend yourself, as it is in mine to protest against the uncontrolled use of weapons. My thoughts were simple really. Explain the families that lost dear members yesterday, that a green card holder got easy access to guns and ammunitions and he did what he did. Sure the gun industry is very regulated, NRA meetings are a family event. So it's the oil and tobacco industries. I am thinking practical here: For 100 people who responsibly own a gun, there are some who misuse it. Your take is that your rights shouldn't be limited by the behavior of those individuals. Mine is the opposite, it's not that I trust the government (I don't really) but I don't trust people that needs to be protected at all cost (even at the cost of other human lives). So I will fight with all my power, that is why I decided to become an American citizen. I fight all the sick regulations in place today (including the Patrot Act), just with different tool, that you have no right or authority to question.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Grishnakh]

Ok, suppose your wife, who's 5'0" and 90 pounds soaking wet, is home alone with your three small children because you're out on a business trip. Three thugs, all 6'4" and 250 pounds and fresh out of the pen, break down the door and are determined to rape her and who knows what else.

Do you really think she stands a chance against these men with a knife or crowbar? Don't be stupid.

Gunman bought 9mm pistol legally...

[Anonymous Coward]

just last month. Police found a receipt (dated sometime in March) for the gun in his backpack. A few weeks after legally buying that gun he proceeds to use it to kill a bunch of people at Virginia Tech. Gotta love that 2nd Ammendment and easy availability of guns.

Re:Gunman bought 9mm pistol legally...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are in the minority here, most folks see it the other way:

That is, if the school administrators HADN'T fucked with the 2nd amendment, and allowed people to carry sidearms on campus as permitted by the constitution, the murderer would probably have been stopped before he could kill all 32 people (see comments above for more articulate explanation of this concept).

Allow Guns, Ban Games

[ehel]

I say allow every U.S. citizen carry arms--concealed or not--wherever they please.

In fact, to kill two birds with one stone, I would also propose the banning of all violent computer games altogether.

Logically, then, nothing like Virginia Tech's tragic events would ever occur in the U.S., because what seems the seed of all violent behaviour (i.e. computer games) would be absent from the society, and even in the stray case of a lunatic on rampage, the aggressor would be immediately and effectively taken down by fellow, vigilant, gun-carrying citizens. Problem solved.

I feel relatively safe being nearly 10,000 kilometers away, anyhow.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Grishnakh]

The cops have access to tasers and pepper sprays too, but they still carry guns. Why is that?

Pepper sprays actually don't work against a lot of people. They also are useless in the wind since it will blow back in your face. Tasers are only effective against one person, and you only get one shot, so if you miss you're screwed. Guns are simple and effective.

Besides, what's wrong with the weapon being deadly? Why should I care about the life of a criminal bent on doing me harm? I'd rather he be taken cleanly out of the gene pool, than survive to repeat his crime (after costing the State thousands of dollars to prosecute and imprison him until he's released to make room for some nonviolent offender sentenced to mandatory prison because of screwed-up drug laws).

It's not high-scores

[phorm]

It's comparative statistics.

Was this incident worse than others. If so, what contributed to that, and can we do anything to reduce both the possibility and impact of a future incident?

Anti-Gunners Unite

[AUDIOMIND]

As a former alumni of Va. Tech and former resident of Roanoke, VA, I would like to thank the Va. Tech talking heads, other liberal colleges around the state, campus police, Larry Hincker and all the other anti-gun crowd pundits who had a hand in striking down (illegally IMO) sound legislation (House Bill 1572); legislation proposed by the honorable Del. Todd Gilbert that would have allowed students and teachers, who hold a state-issued concealed carry permit, to carry a concealed gun on campus(es).

By there very unconstitutional actions they were complicit and abeted Cho Seung-Hui in the killings of 33 students yesterday at Va. Tech. There is no guarantee, but if the students/teachers of Va. tech would have been allowed to lawfully carry a concealed weapon on campus (without the fear of ejection from the college) this tragedy may have been averted. My sympathies to the families who have been affected by this insane action by a seriously disturbed murderer.

HB 1572
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?061+su m+HB1572

Virginia Tech's ban on guns may draw legal fire
http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/xp-21770

A bill being considered in the House of Delegates challenges the authority of public universities to restrict weapons on campus.
http://www.roanoke.com/politics/wb/49915

Gun bill gets shot down by panel
http://www.roanoke.com/politics/wb/50658

College spokesman celebrated 2006 defeat because it would help make campus safe
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=55226

Va. Tech: Gunman Student From S. Korea
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/17/ap/natio nal/main2693365.shtml

Re:Anti-Gunners Unite

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think that the solution to rampant gun crime is to have less restrictions on guns, then you are deluded. Plain and simple.

Of course you can look at the fact that gun crimes are rare in most European countries, for example, where there is heavy gun control, and you can say that its just a fluke.

You can question the worth of these statistics, or dismiss the notion of statistical inference. That is your perogative. But unless you really are very thick indeed, then you are just deluding yourselves.

And this leads on to the unfortunate fact that you and your views are a large part of the reason why the 33 college students died yesterday.

WAKE UP! Deal with the pain and then come to terms with the fact that something is wrong with your society. Then start to change it.

More guns cannot help you.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Brownstar]

Because No one ever get's shot in Japan huh?

As to feeling scared all the time, that's just you.

I grew up in Detroit during the 80's. I went to school in Flint, MI. and lived in what most would consider a violent crime ridden ghetto. I can probably count the number of times I've felt scared of a stranger in my life with on 1 hand. And at the time, that was the "Murder Capital" of the U.S.

I've never seen a gun drawn in anger.

Most people in general are not out to kill you. Even when you're in a Ghetto full of people that look different than you.

Most people in the U.S. don't walk around carrying arms. And in general, those few that do, particularily those that legally do, have had very good training about when to pull a weapon, almost never, and how to use if if needed.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[chamenos]

The rampage was done with plain jane semi-automatic pistols (.22LR and 9mm). No fancy mean-looking "automatic assault weapons" here.

You obviously know nothing about firearms, because anyone who's had any experience with them knows most automatic small arms expend ammunition needlessly whilst being hard to control at anything past point blank ranges. Automatic weapons only become useful when mounted on a tripod/bipod or a vehicle and used in a crew-served role.

You also obviously know nothing about the Brady Bill, which had nothing to do with automatic firearms (which have been strictly regulated since the earlier half of the 20th century). The Brady Bill merely regulated features of firearms such as magazine capacity, bayonet lugs, and how much a legal semi-automatic firearm -looked- like an evil scary-looking "assault weapon".

You are obviously a clueless idiot, so stop mouthing off about something you know -nothing- about.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[fiannaFailMan]

I would rather get gunned down in strip mall by some nut, then have to governtment tell me what I can and can't do.

Good for you. I'll go with the government telling me what to do, thanks.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[gg3po]

Could anybody enlighten me as to why people want to carry guns at all?

Sure. So that stories like this could end like this, instead.

Why do the police "want to carry guns at all?" Maybe they think they can use them for their own protection. If guns are really useless for protecting oneself, then surely police and military would stop using them immediately. What you're really doing when calling the police to help you is essentially outsourcing/delegating your personal security to someone else. Some people simply feel that this is a function that they are capable of providing for themselves in a more effective way. Many civilians with Concealed Carry Permits are ex-police, btw. In order to obtain a CCP one has to pass rigorous training and many retrain frequently at local ranges. The police are not necessarily better trained, nor more trustworthy, anyway.

If you take anything away from this tragedy, maybe it should be that you can't trust others to defend your security with the same enthusiasm with which they defend their own. The police were completely ineffective throughout this debacle even though they apparently had around 2 hours warning before the majority of the of the carnage occurred.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[BgJonson79]

And all that confiscated drug money is stored, where, a Bingo parlor?

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[BgJonson79]

Guns are the symptom, not the problem. Get rid of the socio-economic inequality, and the crime goes down. And, of course, the Second Amendment guarantees our rights to own guns. We can repeal that, but it's tough (by design) to do.

Britain got rid of guns, then people started stabbing each other. Now they're getting rid of big kitchen knives.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[BgJonson79]

Why would the thug shoot me dead? Felons aren't allowed to own guns. It's illegal!

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean by "these crimes"? Shooting sprees? Because they happen even in Texas.

So change the Constitution...!

[fantomas]

"I'm not aware of any other constitutionally-protected right which requires a license"

So change the Constitution! Since it got created in 1776 or thereabouts, your countrymen have been happy to change other aspects. An all-seeing infallible god didn't create the constitution, it was just a bunch of human beings who lived in their time and responded to the situation in their time.

You guys in the USA have managed to change other pretty substantial aspects of how your country is organised: you no longer think slavery is acceptable, women can now vote, Great Britain invading is no longer the major threat to your country's existence. I'd say if the constitution doesn't work, don't be afraid to change it. I'm not saying that licencing gun ownership is the solution but quite clearly for some reason gun massacres occur with much greater frequency in the USA than in any other developed countries. Surely something has to change so such terrible incidents don't keep on re-occurring?

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Anonymous Coward]

It's very easy to point fingers at the US. But forget comparing us to Australia - compare us to our neighbors to the north. Canada's gun violence rate (0.53 homicides per 100,000) is far, far lower than the US - but their 21% gun ownership rate is not.

Completely the wrong argument to make if you are defending the "American way" of having a right to bear arms. In Canada, most of the guns are owned by those who live in rural areas and hunt. Gun ownership in Toronto? Way, way below 21%.

The reason Canadians do not shoot each other yet have lots of guns, is because Canadian kids are taught to be nice, to be caring, and to take part in volunteerism. From what I can gather the ethos of the "American way" is to get ahead no matter what. Even if (and sometimes especially if) you have to tread on someone to get there.

But over 2000 people died today because of heart disease. Perhaps we should ban fatty foods?

Pfft. Grow a brain cell - when I can be killed by someone else's burger, let me know.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Anonymous Coward]

Now here's my return question for you: why should I, as an American, GIVE UP my right to keep and bear arms,

Ah, the old "What I am doing now cannot be wrong because I've always done it" argument. If all people still thought the way you do, blacks would still be considered 3/5 of a person.

How many horses were shot dead last year (or any year you care to provide statistics) by people entangled in stirrups? Because I'm hearing that's a statistic being used to justify 300,000,000 people being allowed to carry a gun. My wife and 90% of her friends work with horses, and not one of them owns a gun. I get the feeling if I suggested that they carry a gun to protect themselves next time they go gallopping through the undergrowth I'd be laughed out of the stables.

We're not all veterinarians, so when the calf goes breech and the doc ain't around (put that way for effect), the mom usually gets one in the back of the head.

Maybe it's just us, but our farm has a vet next door, and I can't recall any other farmer off the top of my head who can't get hold of one PDQ. That said, we all have rifles anyway BUT WE CAN'T TAKE THEM TO THE MALL.

Re:Gun Laws

[IdolizingStewie]

He wouldn't have killed too many more people unless you just mean the rest of the party. I wouldn't mind mandatory frisking before entering a bar. If you're dumb enough to carry a weapon when you know your mind will not be functioning correctly, you deserve to have it taken away. I carry a knife. I leave it at home when I'm going to be drinking so I don't kill a guy for defending his brother from the other Marine who thought he had a right to hit on the brother's girlfriend without being bothered.

Re:Gun Laws

[gg3po]

There is this wide belief that removing guns will somehow make the community more susceptible to external gun attacks. (This is FUD, and extensively disproven in other countries.)

Link to at least one of the many the extensive studies that disprove this, please? Certainly the Jewish community in Germany of the 1930's and 40's suffered under all kinds of external attack after they were forbidden to own firearms.

which aren't required to hunt deer for example.

Who cares about deer hunting? Worrying about "hunting rights" (whatever that is) did nothing to protect these 33 students. This is about the right to self defense without being forced to depend on an ineffective, and/or inept police department.

The strongest upside to this is that you can't massacre a crowd with a knife in the same way that you can a semi-automatic weapon.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Petty thieves aren't the ones carrying out massacres, anyway. Someone bent on killing a large quantity of people obviously wouldn't choose a knife. You can't, however, pass enough legislation to outlaw all possible combinations of household chemicals that could conceivably be used to make Improvised Explosive Devices. The killer at VT committed suicide afterwards, anyway. He could have just as easily strapped a few IED's to his body and blown up a few floors of building instead of shooting off firearms -- the result would be the same.

This contrasts to a situation where excessive weaponry is freely commerced, where an enraged person has easy access to a high-end weapon, which allows them to quickly carry out a massacre.

Sorry, but your argument completely falls apart when one considers the gun politics of Switzerland, where large quantities of people have ready access to *full-auto* weapons, and yet the kind of carnage you allude to is not common. Clearly there is something else wrong with current American culture other than availability of firearms.

Assuming Asian==EastAsian is offensive

[EccentricAnomaly]

To make my original point clear.... it is offensive to imply that all asians look like East Asians. It is a big continent and there are a lot of different races on the continent. Some of which have been persecuted because f their race in recent history and it is VERY culturally insensitive to marginalize them.

We Will Prevail! WE ARE VIRGINIA TECH!

[Overzeetop]

Sorry about the caps, but I just had to let that out. For those who don't know, or were unable to see the convocation live, foxnews.com has the Nikki Giovanni closing speech here:

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?041707 /041707_giovanni_convocation&Studio_B&'We%20Are%20 Virginia%20Tech!'&acc&US&-1&News&206&&&new

We are the Hokies. We will prevail. We are Virginia Tech.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[0kComputer]

Maybe I was presumptuous in concluding that it was done with automatic weapons. I made the post before that information was release. You made my own argument w/ the Brady bill. If the magazine capacity was less, this tragedy may not have been bad. A word of advise: calling someone names does nothing for your otherwise logical argument besides make you look like a douchebag.

Spare a thought

[Trogre]

for the gunman. After all he's done, and taking suicide as an easy way out, he's going to have a lot to answer for when he appears in judgement.

Re:Ban the second amendment!

[feranick]

Just to prove my point: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/17/vtech.shooting/in dex.html "The student who killed 32 people and himself Monday at Virginia Tech paid $571 for a 9 mm Glock 19 pistol just over a month ago, the owner of Roanoke Firearms told CNN Tuesday. John Markell said Cho Seung-Hui was very low-key when he purchased the gun and 50 rounds of ammunition with a credit card in an "unremarkable" purchase. Cho presented three forms of identification and state police conducted an instant background check that probably took about a minute, the store owner said." In other countries, you have to prove that you have moral standards to own a gun. Go ahead, mod me down.

Carry places...

[Firethorn]

I don't go there. I did have a short coversation with the local mall when they slapped up generic signs listing mall rules, which included saying 'no weapons allowed'. I pointed out that criminals wouldn't obey the signs; CCW holders and police are not the problem - and the police carried anyways. I also pointed out that by denying me the right to carry my weapon that they may assume a legal responsability for my safety - if I or somebody under my care are harmed in a situation I might have prevented with my gun, it's their fault for not making up the security lost. They redid the signs, I'm not sure that it was because of me though. Did it for the local cell phone shop as well. Again, I think that that particular sign was a national generic, issued to all stores.

Besides, state law gives those signs no legal merit*, but if they feel the necessity I simply won't give them my business.

I HATE leaving a firearm 'in the car'. Cars get broken into and things stolen. While it hasn't happened to my car... If I have to visit the courthouse I generally leave it at home. I just wish we were like some of the other states where they're required to have secured lockers at the entrance for legal but prohibited items while I'm there.

*Worst case is they can tell me to leave and charge me with tresspassing if I don't. I'm not stupid, they tell me to leave I'm leaving.

Re:Gun Laws

[Anonymous Coward]

i think a crazy is not likely to be able to put together an effective bomb in the timeframe that they are looking for.. that shit is for movies, just a few bottles of household bleach and suddenly you can blow up buildings, that's all crap, you'd need a truck of raw materials to make an effective IED.

Yes, thieves aren't carrying out these massacres, but thievery is very commonplace, and the defence of the home/person against thieves who could turn violent is a lead to the basic level of gun protection in many homes. (So the thieves themselves have to carry guns, et al mini-firearms race begins.)

I've been reading a lot of disturbing stuff on slashdot today, there are many posters that either believe the movies are real and you can kill many with a pocket knife.. or that it's just a trivial matter to fashion an improvided explosive out of chewing gum and toothpicks.

Also unilateral gun restriction of the jewish is unrelated to gun laws that effect everyone.

Guns aren't going to keep you safe from a corrupt government.. they're certainly not working right now.

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

... an average 115 people were killed on the roads in the US today.

Re:Gun Laws

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but having a gun on you if you happen to "flare up" strongly increases the chance that you will use it. If you don't have a weapon you can hurt someone by punching and kicking, but the chances are that you will not kill them.

What if I've never "flared up" to the point of punching and kicking anyone, ever? Is there any reason to think that I might inexplicably start tomorrow?

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[phlinn]

No, they weren't. Straw purchases and selling to minors are both illegal.

Re:Dangerous, not armed Re:More than 20. . .

[SoulRider]

I take it you have never been in a situation where someone was shooting at you? Guns never run out of bullets when someone is shooting a you. Your aim goes to hell when you lost count and cant remember if the shooter shot 14 or 15 times and you just want to throw something at the person. Schools rarely have bunkers in the classrooms, trust me desks are not very good at stopping bullets. When the lead starts flying it is usually every person for themselves, it is really difficult to organize a counter offensive when everyone around you is too scared to move. Unless you have been under fire before none of these things are easy. Sure they look easy on TV but when the bullets are flying nothing seems to work right.

strange to be armed

[doug]

I just find the idea that people would be bringing guns to class at 9am in blacksburg virginia to be strange,....

I've lived almost all of my life in North Carolina and Virginia, and I never consider it strange to see someone armed.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[MZoom]

Every time a news of shooting breaks out, I always wonder why the possession of firearms is not banned entirely in this country. I am native of Japan, and where I grew up nobody but cops were allowed to carry guns. I live in New Jersey now, and I really miss a sense of security I used to have back home. Back there I never worried about getting killed and such, whereas I feel physically threatened where I live now since there have been a number of incidents of armed robberies on campus at Rutgers and in my neighborhood. (My own apartment was robbed several years ago, too.) Seriously, it makes a huge difference when I have to take into consideration the possibility of the possession of firearms when some strangers attacked me. I am aware that there are gun lobbies working against the ban of firearms, but it never made any sense to me. Could anybody enlighten me as to why people want to carry guns at all?

Perhaps the mayor of Nagasaki would disagree that a firearms ban is really all that effective in Japan considering he was shot dead today. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/17/news/nagasa ki.php

Re: Soceity's Fault

[eugene ts wong]

I agree with you. I think that society would be best served if we looked at the killers, and the types of people that they kill.

• Why not bomb shopping malls?
• Why not just shoot random people at an intersection?
• Why not bomb/shoot people in a church?
• Why not bomb/shoot people in office buildings? Hmm, maybe they need to reexamine the Oklahoma bombing, and 9/11.
• Why not bomb/prison?
• Why not restaurants?
• Why not stadiums?
• Why don't we hear about banks?

There's an obvious pattern here that people don't seem to be seeing.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[grumbel]

### The cops have access to tasers and pepper sprays too, but they still carry guns. Why is that?

Because they are the executive force of the state, they are the ones that go in and fight a criminals actively, so they need to be on the same level as criminals when it comes to weapons. For some random Joe on the other side getting away from a criminal is enough, they don't need to actively fight them.

### Besides, what's wrong with the weapon being deadly?

Well, they kill people, thats what wrong with them. Some people actually considering killing people a wrong thing to do and thus of course tools that are constructed for the very purpose to kill somebody can't be considered a good thing either, especially not when there are non-deadly alternatives.

### I'd rather he be taken cleanly out of the gene pool, than survive to repeat his crime

The "gene pool cleaning" is job of the state and thus police, not some random Joe who bought a gun in the next best shop.

Keep in mind that a whole bunch of the weapons that are out there in the hand of criminals started out as perfectly legally produced items, the less legal weapons you have around, the less illegal ones you will have. Of course getting rid of all the weapons in the USA would be a hard problem, but not even trying it can't be the right thing to do either.

Nagasaki mayor shot by gangster

[mathcam]

The following seemed at least partly appropriate story given the parent post:
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070418a 1.html

Group Self defence: Throw Rocks

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I don't want armed students or teachers. More guns, More risk. However, more than once the shooter (any shooter w/ a handgun) will be within hitting range of a dozen very charged up people. If baseball size rocks were "decorations", that is, handy in large numbers, it could be an effective way for a group w/o guns to fight back at one person with a gun. Just one landing right gets enough time for a few more to disable. One or two close shots starts to disrupt the shooting enough for the first good hit.

Schools and malls need to decorate w/ rocks.

everyone should carry tear gas

[Anonymous Coward]

If everyone carried tear gas with them, then they could immobilize everyone else, but they couldn't each kill dozens of people.

Criminals will always be able to get guns, but now they'll need gas masks too...

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Right, but I meant that they purchased the guns in a way that went through legal gun dealerships.

Had there been a ban on gun sales period, they would not have reached the boys.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[gdavidp]

Please, please, please, get your facts straight: The first case of SARS appeared in November 2002. It killed 800 people around the world, including 44 in Toronto. The disease killed 350 in China. That country later ordered the killing of some 10,000 civet cats, suspected to be carriers of SARS. The weasel-like mammals are considered a delicacy in Guangdong and are served in wild-game restaurants.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Grishnakh]

So if a criminal comes in your house and wants to rape your wife, you're OK with that? Sorry, but I'm not.

For some random Joe on the other side getting away from a criminal is enough, they don't need to actively fight them.

You can't "get away" from criminals all the time. So you'd have us just do whatever the criminals ask?

Well, they kill people, thats what wrong with them. Some people actually considering killing people a wrong thing to do and thus of course tools that are constructed for the very purpose to kill somebody can't be considered a good thing either, especially not when there are non-deadly alternatives.

You value the lives of murderers and rapists? You have some screwed-up morals.

The "gene pool cleaning" is job of the state and thus police, not some random Joe who bought a gun in the next best shop.

So why don't I have armed police at my home at all hours to protect me? If the state can't guarantee my personal safety, then it must allow me to defend myself.

Re:Ban the second amendment!

[jools33]

Let the statistics speak for themselves:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/artic le2458855.ece
The real question is what will it take for America to wake up to reality? The Second amendment is a joke to most non Americans.

from The independent 18/4/2007

The massacre at Virginia Tech has, yet again, focused attention on the culture of guns and the ease of obtaining firearms in America, an unending source of amazement to most of the rest of the world. Roughly 29,000 people are killed by firearms every year - 10 times as many as died on September 11, 2001. Of the victims, some 11,000 are murdered, 17,000 use a gun to commit suicide, and almost 1,000 die in accidents. Some sub-statistics are even more disturbing. Every day three children under 19 die from a gun wound. Across the country, roughly 1,000 crimes involving firearms are committed every 24 hours. The rampage of Cho Seung-Hui, the deadliest mass shooting in US history, will merely add one suicide and 33 murders (at the latest count) to these grim totals.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[geminidomino]

Riiiiight. What color is the sky in your world?

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[grumbel]

### You value the lives of murderers and rapists? You have some screwed-up morals.

Just because somebody breaks into your home doesn't mean he is a murderer or rapist, he might just want to steal your TV/XBox/whatever and yeah, I consider it wrong shooting those guys. Most people are simply not interesting in you, they want your stuff, nothing more.

If you really want to feel secure at home, you better buy a solid front door, windows that can't be easily broken, an alarm system and whatever, a gun will help you very little if somebody surprises you when you are sleeping.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Right now, purple, since it's early morning and the sun's rising.

Reality? Guns used in shootings tend to be bought from legitimate legal dealers.

So make them illegal.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. If the finnish govenment would turn into tyranny, there would be a lot of people like me trying to stop it. With arms if necessary.

Most of us are not wimps or sheeples. Communists tried to turn this country into totalitarism in the 1918 revolution, but the common people fought back. And destroyed the communist forces and drove communist leaders to Russia.

I'm proud of them. Not sheeples like you. Ridiculing the totalitarian government does not produce any positive results. It would just send you into a prison camp.

baghdad is nearer to my home...

[Anonymous Coward]

... and still so far away... ... but, suddenly, after reading all that sobs, this today's news touches me a bit more:

Über 80 Tote bei Anschlag
Bei einem Anschlag auf einem schiitischen Markt in Bagdad wurden am Nachmittag mindestens 82 Menschen getötet. Insgesamt starben heute bei Anschlägen in Bagdad rund 130 Menschen

80 people murdere at once, 130 through the all day.

RE: real question - sheep at slaughter

[PredatorOmnivore]

the real questions are: Why did most of the students cower and hide under their desks waiting their turn to be slaughtered like sheep? Why did they expect the police to come rescue them? Why are the police being blamed for not showing up on time? It is a no brainer truism that the police cannot be everywhere all the time to protect someone. Why is there no media outrage expressed that the students failed to protect themselves? Whatever happened to the concepts of personal responsibility and self-defense? The gunman was only one gunman. Instead of quivering like sheep, the students should have rushed the lone gunman en masse. The best and first act of self-defense is escape. If trapped in a classroom and facing certain death waiting to be shot, why didn't the students swarm the gunman? Why did the students act like sheep waiting to be slaughtered? One would think that in this post 9/11 era with widespread media coverage of the self-defense actions of the passengers on flight 93 assuming your own self-defense would be the obvious course of action. Here is a link to a blog by a forensic psychologist pondering the sheep mind set: http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2006/10/lets-roll.html

Re:Ban the second amendment!

[dwpro]

It is amazing to me that 17k of the firearm related deaths (well over half) of those were suicides, yet you attribute those deaths to "the culture of guns". Correlation != Causation.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Grishnakh]

You're a moron. How the hell am I supposed to know if a burglar wants to kill me or not?

Thankfully, the law here is common-sense for this case: if anyone breaks in my house, I'm allowed to shoot him, no questions asked.

Apparently, you'd have people ask the intruder what he wants, and then give it to him.

Solid front doors can be broken down with enough force. But it's a lot easier going through windows; there's no such thing as hard-to-break windows: they're all made of glass. You could put bars in front of them, but I'd rather not live like I'm in a prison. I'm happier just living comfortably and just shooting anyone that comes in.

Dogs are good for alerting people to unauthorized intruders.

Re:Ban the second amendment!

[cloud9ine]

Doesn't anybody get how absurd it is for me to carry a gun and be ready for a crazy maniac 24/7? That I'm not living if I have to do that? That making sure the maniac does not get a gun is as effective as or more effective than giving me one. How can someone about to be shot at ever be as ready as someone who's about to shoot? I'd like to walk out there on the street and be sure I am safe. Except for law enforcement officials who know who to shoot, I don't want anyone to have guns. See how much that would simplify things? So much less for the cops to take care of. And to someone wielding a knife, I might be able to run / defend myself long enough for the cops to reach me. In summary, I beleive making guns legal for anyone is as absurd as Speeding being illegal, but radar detectors being legal (mostly).

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[grumbel]

### Thankfully, the law here is common-sense for this case: if anyone breaks in my house, I'm allowed to shoot him, no questions asked.

Lets just say I consider a country where people can be shot just for entering your house uninvited rather screwed up.

### there's no such thing as hard-to-break windows

There are plenty of them, but they cost a some extra cash. Just like a door or a safe they can of course be broken with enough force, but they give you see time to call police. And if that still isn't enough for you get yourself a Panic room, might also be useful in case of tornado or a nuclear bomb. But on the other side not everybody is a paranoid nut job...

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Grishnakh]

Lets just say I consider a country where people can be shot just for entering your house uninvited rather screwed up.

Let's just say I consider a country where people CAN'T be shot for invading your home and terrorizing your family to be rather screwed up.

How exactly are you supposed to determine the difference anyway?

No wonder your European countries are so screwed-up and crime-ridden. Check out the stats; the UK leads the developed world for crime now. Here in the USA, we don't have to worry much about being mugged on the street, and home break-ins are fairly rare overall. These incidents are extremely common in UK, Australia, etc.

I guess it's better to suffer with lots of crime rather than dealing with the possibility that those "poor, disadvantaged, misunderstood" criminals might get killed. boo-hoo.

What a bunch of pansies. It's no wonder Hitler was about to conquer your sorry asses.

Is Neville Chamberlain your hero?

Re:Gun Laws

[gg3po]

i think a crazy is not likely to be able to put together an effective bomb in the timeframe that they are looking for.

You think? Try linking to some hard examples, next time. Unbacked thoughts are cheap.

that shit is for movies,

Wrong. It is quite real.

just a few bottles of household bleach and suddenly you can blow up buildings, that's all crap,

Maybe not blow up a building, but bleach can easily be used in conjunction with ammonia to make deadly chlorine gas.

the defence of the home/person against thieves who could turn violent is a lead to the basic level of gun protection in many homes. (So the thieves themselves have to carry guns, et al mini-firearms race begins.

If this "mini-firearms race" you speak of really exists, I'd like to see some articles about street muggers holding people up with bazookas.

I've been reading a lot of disturbing stuff on slashdot today, there are many posters that either believe the movies are real and you can kill many with a pocket knife.. or that it's just a trivial matter to fashion an improvided explosive out of chewing gum and toothpicks.

Strawman. I never said anything about making explosives with chewing gum or toothpicks.

Also unilateral gun restriction of the jewish is unrelated to gun laws that effect everyone.

I'd like very much to see a reasoned explanation of why you feel it's unrelated.

Guns aren't going to keep you safe from a corrupt government.. they're certainly not working right now.

Agreed. Guns won't protect you from all levels of corruption in government. That said, it really depends on what kind of corruption we're talking about. If you're just talking about bribes, under the table deals, pork-barrel spending, or even fake foreign wars for personal profit, individual ownership of firearms would probably have no perceptible influence in such matters. The one area where it might make a difference is when said government reaches such a level of corruption that it begins to consider the cost-benefit of going door-to-door and exterminating large segments of its' citizens. The goal here is to make the cost sufficiently high as to nullify any possible benefit to such an organization (Incidentally this is why the reference to the Jewish Holocaust above is relevant).

Re:Ban the second amendment!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Doesn't anybody get how absurd it is for me to carry a gun and be ready for a crazy maniac 24/7?

It's called personal responsibility. Be ready for a maniac or don't but don't get in the way of others who want to make different choices and don't complain about it when your unpreparedness causes you grief.

That making sure the maniac does not get a gun is as effective as or more effective than giving me one.

Really? So you think if he could not get a gun legally he would have taken up knitting instead? You don't think he would have bought one illegally or built a bomb or poisoned the water supply?

How can someone about to be shot at ever be as ready as someone who's about to shoot?

This is an absurd question. You don't even specify who is who in this situation. If I heard a lot of gunshots then saw some kid with a gun walk into the room and shoot a classmate, what makes you think he'd have his gun up and aimed at me before I had mine aimed at him? Why would he be "more ready" than everyone else in the room who just saw his actions and were on the defensive?

I'd like to walk out there on the street and be sure I am safe.

Well boo-hoo, it ain't gonna happen. It is a dangerous world out there and you can never be sure of safety. You can be even less sure of your safety if gun bans are passed because statistically it increases the rates of violent crime and murder. If we could magically make all guns disappear, I would say it is better to use our magical power to simply stop violence. Both are about as likely to happen.

Except for law enforcement officials who know who to shoot, I don't want anyone to have guns. See how much that would simplify things?

Lots of people who are not police are trained. In fact, several students on campus that day were trained experts forbidden by the campus rules from having their weapons. Statistically speaking, police have a greater chance of shooting the wrong person than average citizens by more than twice as much, because average citizens are there and see the guy shooting others, while police arrive very late and are guessing who the psycho is. The police cannot protect you and it is not their job. In fact, SWAT teams responding often wait a period of time for the shooter to leave before moving in to reduce the chances they will be shot. Their job is to capture and punish criminals, not to protect you from the crime in the first place. That is your responsibility and if you shirk that responsibility the least you can do is not try to pass laws to stop other people fom being responsible.

And to someone wielding a knife, I might be able to run / defend myself long enough for the cops to reach me.

An illegal gun will shoot you just fine. Do try running away from the shrapnel thrown by a bomb. Your implication that if guns were banned somehow criminals would just have knives is idiotic.

In summary, I beleive making guns legal for anyone is as absurd...

That is because you want and expect someone else to take responsibility for your safety and you're afraid of giving normal people the freedom to do what they need to to protect themselves. It is also, probably, because you are considering the issue emotionally, instead of objectively looking at the relative levels of crime as it correlates to strict gun laws and places with carry permits.

Where is your morality?

[jchenx]

I'm glad you're a free speech supporter. I suppose what I most object to about your free speech is the fact that you insist on referring to people who express opinions that you don't seem to like as "lobbyists." That is both insulting and inaccurate, unless you consider every person in the US to be a lobbyist if they express a political opinion.

Glad you found it insulting, because that was sort of the point. No, of course I don't actually think that everyone who expresses a political opinion is a lobbyist, nor did I really think that you actually are a lobbyist. But I personally think that someone who starts to blame the school for not allowing guns on campus only a few hours after the incident really is despicable, and yes, I will call you a lobbyist as an insult. Makes me happy to know that you were offended, because that was the point.

True, but I'm not particularly grieving here or emotionally involved in the situation. I'm simply responding to other people who are emotionally involved and whose method of coping is to try to solve the problem by reacting illogically and latching on to whatever easy answer they can conceive of, even if looking at it logically or rationally shows that the so called solution would actually make things worse. You and others can grieve and cope all you want, but when part of the coping process is a call for legal changes that likely will result in more violence and suffering, that is where I step in and refute those irrational pleas in the hope that I can help stop suffering in the future.

Here's a tip. Don't become a counselor. Heck, if someone is grieving, you might want to stay out of their way, lest you make them even more upset.

First of all, I wasn't "latching on to whatever easy answer they can conceive of". Heck, I didn't conceive of any solution. (I'm rather indifferent to the whole pro/anti-gun debate) I'm just saying that it's too damn early and insensitive to start turning this into a pro-gun debate, before the bodies are even cold, or we haven't found the shooter yet. You, however, are doing a wonderful job of making me pissed off at pro-gun supporters in general, if they tend to have the same moral compass (or lack thereof) that you do.

That said, yes there will be people personally involved (like myself) who are going to lash out and try to find something quick to blame. That's just a part of the grieving process. Of course it's not often going to be rational, which is why decisions shouldn't be made in the spur of the moment. As I've said before, there will be a time where some honest discussions can occur. Perhaps that time is now, a few days after the shootings have taken place. But just hours after?

And this is where we strongly differ. If someone who was concerned about the incident commented that perhaps video games are the problem and we should ban them, as part of said coping process, you see that and see people responding to that comment as the same thing as what Mr. Thompson is doing. I see it as a discussion that helps people work through the issue and come up with ways to potentially prevent similar things in the future.

The problem is that this isn't what happened. The original poster basically said this: "The only person to be blamed here is the shooter. And yes, he's dead. But Virginia Tech is not at fault.". Fair enough. In times like this, solidarity is important. But then you come in and shit all over that by blaming VT for not being pro-gun. Gee, way to go bud. There wasn't a debate, until you brought it in.

One last thing, everyone who reads this post please visit this memorial site for VT. Wear maroon and orange on Friday, if you can. And no, signing the memorial with a comment that VT should be blamed for not being pro-gun, is not appropriate. (You seem to need this bit of social advice, so I'm just sharing it with you)

Re:Where is your morality?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Glad you found it insulting, because that was sort of the point.

Ahh yes because insulting people by intentionally misrepresenting yourself is such an effective method of... I'm sorry were you trying to do anything other than the flamebait you just admitted?

But I personally think that someone who starts to blame the school for not allowing guns on campus only a few hours after the incident really is despicable...

Great, I think people who like the TV show friends are despicable. Why should I care what you think?

Here's a tip. Don't become a counselor. Heck, if someone is grieving, you might want to stay out of their way, lest you make them even more upset.

You mistake my intention. I don't give a rat's ass if I make them more upset. People are too concerned about their delicate, fragile feelings these days and not concerned enough about making a real difference in the world or thinking clearly.

First of all, I wasn't "latching on to whatever easy answer they can conceive of". Heck, I didn't conceive of any solution.

Feeling a bit defensive are we? I was responding to a comment that VT was blameless, a comment you did not initially make unless you have multiple userids.

I'm just saying that it's too damn early and insensitive to start turning this into a pro-gun debate, before the bodies are even cold, or we haven't found the shooter yet.

Screw that crap. I'm not here to be sensitive. I'm here to address the misguided comments made by others before they can persuade other addle-brained nitwits into making things worse. As an aside, the shooter was reported dead long before I commented.

You, however, are doing a wonderful job of making me pissed off at pro-gun supporters in general, if they tend to have the same moral compass (or lack thereof) that you do.

You're pissed off eh? And I suppose that changes the facts or logic of the situation, or do you just make irrational decisions based upon your emotional instability? As for my "moral compass" it does not figure into this. Morals are subjective and we were discussing the law. That is a matter of ethics, not morals. My personal feelings are irrelevant. The question was as to who held responsibility and that is, or course the people who claimed that responsibility. Since a combination of the law and the college rules claimed responsibility by making the decision of whether or not to carry a gun on behalf of all the students, then they are ethically responsible for the consequences of that decision. Would more people have been killed or less is one point, but what we're really discussing is who should be responsible for making that decision, the university or the individual students.

That said, yes there will be people personally involved (like myself) who are going to lash out and try to find something quick to blame. That's just a part of the grieving process. Of course it's not often going to be rational, which is why decisions shouldn't be made in the spur of the moment. As I've said before, there will be a time where some honest discussions can occur. Perhaps that time is now, a few days after the shootings have taken place. But just hours after?

I take it you haven't read much about the psychology of decision making. Most people reacting strongly and emotionally may form incorrect opinions and express them and others form opinions on the same basis. As emotion fades and time passes, people find themselves more and more invested in that opinion and the longer they hold it, the greater threat to their ego it is to change it, as it means admitting, even if only to themselves, that they were wrong. This is why it is important to immediately refute any such irrational assertions before others start to form their own opinions. Note, if no one had brought the subject up, I'd be happy to wait for emotions to calm before discussing

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[m0rtadelo]

And a gun would save her for getting beaten, raped or sth worse? Everyone is answering that Police is not in charge of protecting people. What does "To serve and protect" really mean then?

I think that we simply have different points of view in Europe and in the States. Someone have said it is a long-time established law, so I guess it is not only a law, but also a way of live, sth that is inside the culture of everyone and it is really difficult to change it. Even more when many people do not even think there is something wrong with it.

I suppose something similar would be bull fighting, here in Spain. Many people from abroad can not understand the underlying culture, excitement or admiration for the fight of a man versus an animal. From outside it is only usually seen as a cruel massacre of poor and indefense animals.

I suppose everyone is both right and wrong.

Just me here

[COMON$]

But as a gun owning individual, I can say that personally if I were to draw my weapon in public I would resign myself to the fact that I have greatly increased my chances of being shot myself. It is a risk assesment that any person trained in weapons should understand. So upon a situation in a grocery store, School, or any public place, if I decide to be the vigilante I have taken the risk, if I get shot and die but 20 people are saved because the guy who accidentally shot me also got the gunman, I will take that trade. But that is just me.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Grishnakh]

And a gun would save her for getting beaten, raped or sth worse? Everyone is answering that Police is not in charge of protecting people. What does "To serve and protect" really mean then?

A platitude to make people feel better?
Or "To serve and protect society" perhaps. Individuals are not important to police. They cannot protect every single person. Anyone who believes they can is a fool. If someone breaks through your window, how long do you think it'll take the police to get there?

As for the gun saving her, why not? Are you really that dense? It's so simple, a 1st-grader could understand: bad guy comes in house, woman gets gun, shoots bad guy, bad guy dead. It helps that the homeowner has the "home court advantage"--they know the layout of their house much better than an intruder.

I think that we simply have different points of view in Europe and in the States.

Apparently so. In Europe, it's seen as horrible to defend yourself against any type of criminal or attacker, and it certainly isn't permitted to arm yourself against them even when they attack in large gangs. In Belgium last year I believe, an older bus driver was attacked and murdered by a gang of Muslim youths; all the people on the bus just got off the bus, and didn't bother to call police. What did the government do about this atrocity? Nothing! Yeah, that's a great system you got over there.

When people try to defend themselves against intruders in England, they end up going to jail.

I suppose something similar would be bull fighting, here in Spain. Many people from abroad can not understand the underlying culture, excitement or admiration for the fight of a man versus an animal. From outside it is only usually seen as a cruel massacre of poor and indefense animals.

It IS a cruel massacre of animals, and you people are sick and demented for continuing it after all this time. Why don't you just have a fight to the death between two humans, like the Romans did with their gladiators? I think that would be a lot more fair. And to make it more like your bullfighting, one of the fighters should be some random person from the crowd, forced to fight and/or die against his will.

I always laugh when I read news reports about matadors being gored and killed. Serves them right. They should get a Darwin Award for it.

It's really rich that Europeans would have the gall to look down on Americans for having guns when they have such a barbaric practice as bullfighting.

It's even more interesting that at least the animals in these barbaric rituals are allowed to fight back to an extent, whereas humans are not when they're attacked in their homes or on the street. Apparently, animals and criminals have more rights in Europe than law-abiding Citizens.

Re:Gun Laws

[mink]

"False, ANY law abiding citizen with a CCL shoots this motherfucker before he kills 31. "

Would you put your life on that?
Do you believe there is no chance he would get the drop on someone?

Wow, you're just ... twisted and unemotional

[jchenx]

Good lord, I didn't know just how unemotional and twisted you are, until your last post. There's just so much wrong there. Sorry, maybe you need to see some counseling. I have nothing else to say, as it's just pointless to talk to someone with such a different belief system than mine (and most others). I know you don't care, so I don't want to waste my time.

Re:Wow, you're just ... twisted and unemotional

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Good lord, I didn't know just how unemotional and twisted you are, until your last post.

You mistake me entirely. I have a great deal of emotion, I just don't let it influence my decision making. This is called being "rational."

I have nothing else to say, as it's just pointless to talk to someone with such a different belief system than mine (and most others).

I usually find it is pointless to debate with someone who does have the same belief system that I do, since you don't learn any new perspectives or ways of looking at things, but only reinforce your own beliefs, both the correct and incorrect ones. In any case, I'd just like to mention one more time that this is not about belief. It is about ethics, which are not a system of belief, but a rational set of rules for determining responsibility. Perhaps you should look into the concept as it is one of the vital tools for correct decision making, something you seem to be lacking.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[m0rtadelo]

It IS a cruel massacre of animals, and you people are sick and demented for continuing it after all this time. Why don't you just have a fight to the death between two humans, like the Romans did with their gladiators? I think that would be a lot more fair. And to make it more like your bullfighting, one of the fighters should be some random person from the crowd, forced to fight and/or die against his will.

I always laugh when I read news reports about matadors being gored and killed. Serves them right. They should get a Darwin Award for it.

I just showed you a comparable situation, but you do not even have the intelligence to try to look a t it from a different point of view. You just assume your point of view is just right. You did not even try to abstract yourself from your way of seeing things. I can assume americans have firearms in their culture as something normal. I do not share the vision that you must own a firearm to defend yourself, but at least I can understand your point of view and I am no one to dictate what is good or bad for you.

I am no supporter of bull fighting. I do not like or enjoy it, but I respect people who enjoy it. It is a really old tradition, and such it has not evolved with time as it should have to. I know that these words will tell you nothing, since you have got a really distant point of view. My mother's region in Spain has a tradition to breed bulls for bull fighting. Brave bulls are breed free in countryyard. They are probably the "domestic" animals that lead the best life, but have one of the most horrible deaths. There are other examples of animals, such as goose in farms for foie gras, that lead a much worse life.

I do not try to change your mind, but to transmit you another point of view.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Grishnakh]

I've known about bullfighting for a long time; it's nothing new to me, just like the other stupid tradition of "running with the bulls".

Just because a tradition is old doesn't mean it makes any sense or that it should still be practiced. Slavery is very old too. Should we start keeping slaves again? Some countries in Europe, such as Spain, have a tradition of invading other countries and native cultures, conquering them, stealing their gold, raping their women, and eventually colonizing them. So why is it that people don't see this as a good thing any more? I've never heard of anyone defending the Conquistadors in modern times. The USA has a tradition of mistreating and forcibly moving the Native American people who lived here. Was that a morally correct thing to do? Again, I don't see that treatment defended much these days. So why are these other traditions so revered? It's because people cling to traditions, not because they actually make any sense.

Any tradition or practice can be analyzed using ethical standards and other measures to determine if they're a good idea or not. Private ownership of firearms is no different. It's not just a tradition or cultural standard as you try to make it out to be. It's a societal issue, which has positive and negative benefits, just like any other factor of a society. On the positive side, there's plenty of evidence that firearms allow citizens to effectively protect themselves, and that crime rates are lower in places where firearms are common. On the negative side, there's incidents of violence such as the one at VT. These are facts, backed by evidence. Where "point of view" or cultural standards come into play is how these factors are weighed by the society to arrive at decisions on how to handle the issue. One society may value individual liberties, and decide that's more important than the occasional nutjob who goes on a shooting spree or the occasional gun-related crime of passion. Another society may decide the other way, and be willing to live with occasional terrorist activities that could have been minimized by greater firearms proliferation, or increased violent but non-fatal crime (muggings using knives, for instance), in exchange for fewer guns and shootings.

Bullfighting is quite different. If your morals place value on an animal's life, and dictate that needless animal suffering at the hands of humans is wrong, then bullfighting is therefore wrong as well. If you don't care about animals suffering, then bullfighting is probably OK with you. So if you respect people who enjoy it, then you admit to seeing nothing wrong with it. Tradition has nothing to do with it. If someone came up with elephant-fighting, would the same respect be given to that, since it's the same thing with a different animal, or would they not since it's not a tradition?

We have a similar sport here in North America called cockfighting, where cocks (male chickens) fight to the death, many times with razor blades and such attached to their legs. It's illegal of course, but some people (usually rednecks and especially Mexicans) do it anyway. I don't know anyone who likes this barbaric "sport", but if I did I certainly wouldn't respect them, any more than I'd respect a murderer.

Most of the time, traditions are just excuses for continuing bad behavior.

Arrest the professor

[ghoul]

The professor Giovanni who victimized Cho should be arrested and charged with at least manslaughter. She is a professional victim who built her career on claiming discrimination and when she is finally in a position of power she victimizes this young man till he goes crazy. I mean this is not a Engineering or Management student. This is an English major - a person with a sensitive psyche who wants to be a writer or a poet. You take such a person who has struggled against the Asian family pressure of going into Engineering to choose an English major and you ostracize him by excluding him from your class. When he tries to get a date with a girl richer than him you make him an object of ridicule by calling the cops on him and sending him for Psych eval- why? Because hes crazy enough to try and get a date with someone above his social class. This kind of mental torture goes on everyday in campuses all araound the US. Unfortunately only innocent victims end up paying the price and the people who carry out the bullying never get punished. I could not believe Virginia Tech actually let Giovanni speak at the memorial. Just goes to show while talented people are busy doing work the leeches grab all the attention.

Gun control works partially

[ghoul]

I am only going to address the argument which pro gun people make that given gun control law abiding citizens would not have guns but the criminals would still get them. I counter this by noting the fact that most high end criminals who have some brains dont go around shooting people. They may use guns as threats but they avoid killing people as the professional criminals know theres a world of difference between being sent away for robbery or for murder. These are the guys with the wits to get guns even under a gun control regime but they wont go around shooting people. On the other hand are the strung out junkies and teenage boppers trying to hold up stores and the psycho students. These are people who dont understand the consequences and if they have guns they will use them. However they are too stupid to actually procure black market guns so if we had gun control we would have a far lower rate of gunshot deaths as it is the stupid criminals who do the most damage.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[geminidomino]

Then the shooters will get the illegal ones.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[pario]

And to this day, US citizens generally understand that if the government ever becomes tyrannical and repressive, "we the people" have the right (and must have the means) to overthrow it.

Thank you for your informative comment. I was not aware of this piece of historical background. That being said, I still wonder whether people should be allowed to carry guns to defend themselves in the modern, 21th century United States. We certainly do not live in the Colonial Period anymore, and citizens with firearms cannot possibly fight against the US military with modern equipment. Also, the availability of firearms may help American citizens defend themselves in the short run, but it is, in my humble opinion, detrimental to society in the long run, as evidenced by this extremely unfortunate incident.

2nd amendment - US Court of Appeals

[fyngyrz]

You've never read the Second Amendment, have you, dear child?

I am quite familiar with it.

You see, the first clause...

Ok, here we go with the argument from the prefatory clause, ignoring the operative clause. Rather than debunk your position myself, I'll let the United States Court of Appeals do it for me. Suffice it to say that your argument begins to fail with your misunderstanding of what the authors of the 2nd amendment meant when they wrote "milita", and that I concur with the majority opinion.

As for self-defense, any competent self-defense instructor will tell you that facing an armed opponent who has the drop on you is foolish.

Look at the URL at the top of my posts. Do you think that might be a hint as to my bonafides? I've been teaching martial arts for many years. And your contrivance isn't what we're talking about here. We're talking about one armed person - with pistols - facing over thirty people, and as a reasonably competent instructor, my input is, if everyone can shoot back, a lot fewer people will be likely to die, but one of them will almost certainly be the perp. Therefore, my input is also that everyone should be trained and armed.

I'm not sure if I could kill a man -- and I challenge you to prove that you are capable of doing the same. None of us will ever know unless we're put in that situation, and Odin willing, none of us ever will be.

As for killing, I spent a while (two tours) in Viet Nam doing exactly that. It wasn't pleasant, but then again, it beat hell out of being killed, and having (more of) my friends killed. As should be obvious even to someone like yourself, if less than 30 of these kids had died, the outcome would have been better by the only metric that counts. Finally, these kids were put in that situation, and like almost everyone, they would likely find that when the choice comes down to letting the perp kill the kid next to you or shooting him now, it's not all that tough a decision. It is one hell of a lot harder to reconcile the idea that you didn't act when you could have. Of course, these kids never had that opportunity: because the law and the school rules ensured that they were unarmed victims.

Re:2nd amendment - US Court of Appeals

[Lane.exe]

First, the DC Cir. case isn't authoritative; I'll keep an eye on it through WestClip (I'm a law student) and see how it fares on cert, if the Supreme Court adopts it. Second, its notes that its position is in the minority, when it says that the operative clause defines individual ownership. Third, this doesn't necessarily invalidate my argument. My argument is that the only unfettered right of access and ownership of firearms belongs to "the militia," or the regulated state military forces. I am fine with private ownership, but what I am not fine with is unregulated or unfettered private ownership. For instance, I support bans on weapons not reasonably necessary for such legitimate private interests as sport shooting or hunting. My point was that allowing students to be armed in university classrooms with handguns or other easily-concealed and carriable weapons is a recipe for disaster, and the Second Amendment doesn't protect that, because it does not give an absolute right to private ownership and possession at all times.

Next, I will take you at your word that you are a Vietnam vet. There are some sites on the internet however that would ask for proof. If you've been put in that situation, and been forced to make that choice, then I can honestly say that you could react in the way necessary to prevent violence, but most people cannot. That is why people in the military or armed law enforcement services receive training for doing exactly this kind of thing, because it does not come easily or naturally to most people. We consider someone who is arbitrarily violent a sociopath, and a danger to society. I don't fancy arming the maximum amount, because only naturally-violent people will be predisposed to arm themselves. The rest of us would have to arm ourselves out of fear of the violent people, and that puts too many itchy fingers on triggers.

The kids were not "unarmed victims." To add to this, if they had guns, there is no logical reason that they wouldn't have been "armed victims" instead. Arming people is not a panacea that prevents violence. Sure, the death toll may be have been lower had some fortunate or skilled "victim" been able to drop the shooter... but it could just as easily have been higher if people got caught in a cross-fire. I think you're idealizing the situation and projecting too much hope into a situation. If you were in Vietnam, you know the best-laid plans sound great until someone starts shooting, and then they go to hell, and your only objective is getting your own ass out alive (this is from my grandfather, a WWII veteran). I'm just saying that the more likely outcome of arming all students is an increase in violence, not a decrease.

Re:Gun Laws

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm willing to bet a million bucks you don't own a gun and have probably never shot one before. The only people who would go on a shooting spree because they got "flared up" are immature assholes who haven't received proper education with a gun.

I've been around guns all my life and I know what they can do. I'm not going to pull it out of my holster and shoot a guy just cause he's being a dick head to me. I wouldn't even THREATEN him with that. It simply would not be proper at all. Threatening someone for being an asshole when you have a weapon is borderline psychotic.

So please, spare us your propaganda, you piece of shit.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Prove that illegal guns are just as easily accessible as legally purchased ones.

Re:And still you fight for your right to bear arms

[geminidomino]

Correction: Easier. No waiting periods. No Background check. No mandatory safety training. Just more expensive.

Convicted felons are not legally allowed to own firearms in the US.
The repeat offense rate involving firearms is non-zero.
Thus, the law doesn't stop them.

Re:Ban the second amendment!

[feranick]

Sure, let's be objective. According to your reasoning it's perfectly normal to give access to guns to a delusional psychopath, because after all it's his problem and we can easily defend ourself. The fact we have such individuals has nothing to do with the presence of guns. Well, that is where you are VERY wrong, in my honest opinion. To get a driver license, you need to pass an exam. Why not doing the same for guns (or get mental certification at least?) What's wrong about controlling who's carrying guns? In every civilized country you can have guns, and all owners agree that regulations are actually good for them, because they protect them and everybody else. Why are you insisting that you need them to defend yourself? Freedom for me is valid until it doesn't step on someone else freedom. In this specific case, I see freedom of getting such weapons with such ease to be a strong limitation in my freedom (to move, to study, to work). Why should I give up my right for your right to defend yourself from an unknown enemy?

Re:Ban the second amendment!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Sure, let's be objective. According to your reasoning it's perfectly normal to give access to guns to a delusional psychopath, because after all it's his problem and we can easily defend ourself.

This is wholly untrue. A delusional psychopath is not responsible for their own actions (under the law) and correspondingly has their rights limited and arbitrated for them by the government or a guardian. Are you trying to equate the average citizen with a delusional psychopath, implying that all american citizens are too irresponsible and insane to care for themselves and all of the should have their movements and behaviors restricted by some, more rational and responsible guardian?

Well, that is where you are VERY wrong, in my honest opinion. To get a driver license, you need to pass an exam. Why not doing the same for guns (or get mental certification at least?)

This is called a straw man argument. I made no argument against required training and licensing to operate and carry a firearm. The point of the matter is, however, there were trained and licensed experts who were students at VT and the university decided that wasn't good enough and that no student could be responsible enough to have the right to carry a gun, even if they had taken the required training course and obtained a concealed pistol permit.

Why are you insisting that you need them to defend yourself? Freedom for me is valid until it doesn't step on someone else freedom. In this specific case, I see freedom of getting such weapons with such ease to be a strong limitation in my freedom (to move, to study, to work).

As evidenced by this incident and many others, in some places and times you do need a firearm to defend yourself. The chances of that situation arising may be very small in some location and very high in another. The point is, it should be the individual's assessment to make. Personally, I never carry a pistol, although I used to when I lived in a place where there were many bears and I had to walk a significant distance through the woods to get to my vehicle. Does someone else know the risks I face better than I and should they be able to say no one needs a gun to defend themselves? What gives them the ability to judge that better than the individual who knows what risks they face in their daily life?

As for freedoms coming into conflict with others, a person carrying a firearm in no way conflicts with any basic, human right as recognized by any human rights organization I've ever heard of. A person shooting you conflicts with your rights, and that is why it is illegal.

Why should I give up my right [...freedom (to move, to study, to work)] for your right to defend yourself from an unknown enemy?

How does me or anyone else carrying a gun remove from you the right to move? You can't move if I have a gun in my pocket? What an unusual medical problem. How does it stop you from studying? Do you go blind in the presence of firearms? Perhaps you are understanding my point now? You need a real conflict of rights and a reason to remove an individual's right to make their own choices. VT removed that right out of their own hysterical fear and the result was a likely increased amount of pain and suffering and death in the world. That is what happens when bureaucrats try to take away personal rights because they think they know better than the people.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[gknoy]

You're right, it was a poor example to say bank vs police station. However, there are arguably similar amounts of cash at a convenience store and The Restaurant The Cops Hang Out At, and only the dumb criminals would rob the latter.

re: Reservoir Dogs:

I didn't mean to imply it was meant as a Serious Research Resource -- sorry that it came off that way. :) However, it does give a hypothetical example of how Bad Shit can Happen to criminals when the victim is armed. My point was that when you think that a significant portion of the populace are also armed, you're less likely to make a nuisance of yourself (assuming you're rational... whether criminals can be considered rational is debatable ;)).

Say there's a 5% chance that any given person is going to have a concealed carry permit. (This number is pulled out of nowhere, as I had trouble finding statistics on the total number of CC-permitted people there are in states which allow it.) That means that for any given number of people (N), there's 0.95^N chance that NO ONE is armed. For 5 people, this would would out to a little over 77%. As an armed, rational criminal, would you threaten the lives of more than 5 people, knowing that you have a noticeable chance that someone may have a weapon?

Let's look a little closer to the example at hand. Let's imagine that perhaps 2% of the population at Virginia Tech took place had concealed-carry handguns, permitted by school policy and the requisite laws. In a classroom of 30 people, there's a 54% chance that there isn't at least one armed person. If the proportion of the population which carried were 3%, or 4%, then the likelihood that at least one person in a room of 30 is armed rises to 60% and ~70%, respectively.

I guess my general arguments were:
- rational criminals are risk-averse
- irrational criminals are undeterred by risk, and seem to be only preventable via force.
- large-scale killings by whack-jobs could potentially have a more-than-even chance that at least one potential victim would be carrying a means to defend themselves, were concealed-carry more acceptable and widespread.

That's a lot of hypotheticals, but it seems that the probability makes a decent argument.

Re:Why are people allowed to possess guns in the U

[Anonymous Coward]

So are you going to apologise for calling me ignorant when it was you that was ignorant, or what?

Nuanced raciosexual hypothesis

[Baldrson]

The list of victims with photographs are now available and do not support the naive "Asian-chauvenist" raciosexual motive, although a raciosexual cause may still be valid hypothesizing a higher vulnerability of east Asian men to sexually vicious multicultural environments--hence a higher level of stress.

Moreover, an interesting fact is that it appears there are actually more "Asian" victims than one would expect by more than a factor of 2. However, these are divided between East Asian victims (Henry Lee and Mary Read) and other "Asians": South Asian victims (G.V. Loganathan, Partahi Lombantoruan, Minal Panchal, Reema Samaha) and West Asian victims (Ross Abdallah Alameddine and Reema Samaha both Lebonese--and we might include the Egyptian Waleed Mohammed Shaalan). There are a lot more dark skinned Asians among the victims than one would expect. Moreover, the sole female East Asian victim was Korean, "born on an Air Force base"--meaning she was probably sired by a white military man with a Korean mother. Given these nuances it is rather difficult to dismiss the raciosexual hypothesis altogether and indeed, it seems desirable to invoke a variant of the raciosexual hypothesis to explain the over-abundance of dark-skinned Asians among the victim list and the "coincidence" that the sole east Asian female victim was not only a conational of the killer but the product of an interracial marriage involving a Korean mother.

Troll food! Hot fresh troll food!

[Chmcginn]

You're equaiting carrying a gun for personal protection, from an agressor, to carrying a gun for psychological protection, from people who make fun of you for being anti-social?

Yes, I'll agree that people shouldn't make fun of others for being socially inept. But equating Cho's actions with self-defense is asinine.

Re:Troll food! Hot fresh troll food!

[checkup21]

the equation made sense in cho's mind as well as the equation of the replied post "made sense" to the poster (to carry a gun even if not needed). I wanted to point out that whatever anybody thinks "making sense" should _NOT_ be connected to ppl carrying guns.

- You are wrong?!
- i am wrong?!
- Cho was wrong?!


I don't care, take away the guns! Thats what laws are for!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society#Organization_ of_society

Re:Troll food! Hot fresh troll food!

[Chmcginn]

One common theme for societies in general is that they serve to aid individuals in a time of crisis.

The first sentence of the second paragraph from your link.

The respective trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual appellants and dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

A summary of Warren vs. District of Columbia - the primary duty of police is enforcing the law, not protecting lives from crimes currently in progress. So if the "crisis" is an armed, violent person with a gun, and the main duty of the police is cleaning up afterwards, then how does society aid the individuals being shot at? I would argue by allowing adults with clean criminal & mental health records access to firearms.