Slashdot Mirror
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. "
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
..of those killed/injured :(
What fucked up animals we are. I wish well to all affected by this.
He probably trained on Doom. Someone check to see if he was able to aim up and down.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
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.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
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.
There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
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...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
$ strings FTP.EXE | grep Copyright
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
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.
I've read Slashdot for the last 5 years, and now I start posting... Go figure
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
then how about leaving out the clever tagline altogether?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I'm really very sorry for these kids.
This is a terrible tragedy.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
...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?
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
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.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
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.
I got nothin'
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.
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.
Yes, because criminals respect the law! [/sarcasm]
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.
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?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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.
I can throw as many stones as I wish; my house is made of transparent aluminum.
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.
Note to self: No more arguing with the faithful.
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.
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.
-- jchenx
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.
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.
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....
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.
"For years, I struggled with reality... but I'm happy to say I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
Disgraceful comment.
You're no better than Jack Thompson.
Beware of the Leopard.
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.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
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.
-- http://frobnosticate.com
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
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?
Please, folks with mod points, mod the above into oblivion. This is completely tasteless, even for Slashdot, despite anyone's fondness for Office Space.
"We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - Major Mike Shearer, UK
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.
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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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?"
-- My Sig is a P228.
The term is Asian, not Oriental.
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".
I've read Slashdot for the last 5 years, and now I start posting... Go figure
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.
Quote the head: Stuff That Matters. 31 killed on a College campus, a majority in a EE/CS building, well, it just damn Matters.
"For years, I struggled with reality... but I'm happy to say I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
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"...
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.
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.
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.
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-5065
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?
Got Code?
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?
Thanks to Jack Thompson, everyone knows that video games are a catch-all excuse.
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?
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
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
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
War isn't about who's right. It's about who's left.
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.
-- jchenx
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.
Top 10 Reasons To Procrastinate
10.
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.
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.
How..... Orientalist .
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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'."
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
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.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658
... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun."
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
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.
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.
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.
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:
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!"
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.
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.
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
What happened to the man pulling the trigger? Did the gun sprout legs and arms and go beserk??
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...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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).
what's sad was they voted down concealed carry on campus last year...8
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-5065
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
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.
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'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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Guns shoot people.
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."
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
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.
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.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
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.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
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?
Deleted
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.
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.
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.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
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.
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.
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.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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.
Top 10 Reasons To Procrastinate
10.
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...
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.
Fantastic assumption, which of course has little basis in reality.
Let's see, where to start:
- 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.
- Assumption that they correctly identify shooter, not another of the posse comitatus.
- Assumption that shooter isn't aggravated by this, and, being well armed, continues further his reign of terror.
- Assumption that more people aren't caught in crossfire.
- 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.
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.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
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.
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
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
But yet, a couple of sentences earlier, you say...
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?
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.
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.
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
Yeah like they all know kung foo right?
Simple fact : If the individual responsible had not had access to firearms, he would not have shot anybody.
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.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
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.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
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.
Vote Libertarian
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.
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.
I've built up so much character I have an alter-ego
Ah yes, the "American way". Where tragedies like this occur on a weekly basis.
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
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!
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
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.
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.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
I wonder what kind of video games he played.
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.
I've played Quake 2 & 3 and I must say the rocket launcher was very effective for defending myself.
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.
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.
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
Please stop stalking me, bro.
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.
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.)
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
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.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
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.
0 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.
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/20
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.
This one is easy: just look at countries where people don't walk with guns, you'll see no such dramatic event.
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.
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.
I like basketball!!1!
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.
We won't even mention Jack Thompson, because that's too damn easy.
Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
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?
Did Spring Break just end for this place? I wonder if the shooter got grumpy over something during the time off.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
which game will be blamed this time?
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
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.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
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
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.
http://www.mhall119.com
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...
You're funny.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
Sounds like somebody has a case of the Mondays!
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.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
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.
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
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
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.
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.
Those people disturb me as much, if not even more, than dickheads like jack thompson.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
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.
also in the news : http://www.icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
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.
Bill Gates said:"I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine" My favorite number is 09 F9 11 02 9D 74
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 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.
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!
Monstar L
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.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
I know many of us on
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. /. 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?
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
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:"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!
Hmm VT is a technical school, and they shot up the engineering building..
I suppose bombings don't count as murder.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Ah yeah, nothing is safer than dozens of people shooting in every direction.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
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).
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
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.
Because all other countries in the world without the right to have guns have terrible gun crime.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
I'd suggest firing a gun as part of the looking at both sides. Might as well know what your against.
The shooting was worse than originally thought: 33 were killed and many more injured.
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.
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.
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.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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: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.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
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.
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.
Mine is Good
But here are a bunch of reasons why we should keep them:
t ests_of_1989y /0,6903,1136440,00.html (Gas chamber horror in North Korea camps) ... ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_pro
http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/
http://www.greenleft.org.au/1998/313/21534
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/stor
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.
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.
It worked so well when the Germans did it. (Did I just go there? Oh yes I did)
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.
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
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."
>> 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.
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.
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.
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.
-- Brought to you by Carl's JR
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?
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.
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.
>>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
yeah, everybody having guns would have solved this ...
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
How...Occidentalist :rollseyes
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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.
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.
.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?
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
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?
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.
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
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.
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.
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.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
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?
-- jchenx
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...
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.
Your assumption is that the number of dead would only decrease as a result of other students carrying.
It certainly would have ended it much more quickly.
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.
Nothing interesting to say...MUST...NOT...REPLY...ohtheheckwithit.
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).
Wow. That would be seriously chaotic. Armed innocents shooting armed innocents. Not to mention the utter confusion for law enforcement...
Jack Thompson has already blamed this on video games. What a fucking vulture.
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.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
Yes, if all Americans had access to automatic weapons, it would be a violent hellhole like Switzerland...
t m
Oh, wait:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1566715.s
Python coder | PyQt Applications | Writer
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thats what he used... a 9mm Pistol and a 22 cal pistol...
The right to bear arms like this: http://www.bustedtees.com/shirt/secondamendment/
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.
-- jchenx
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.
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
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.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
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.
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.
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)
Great point with the CCL crime rates and stopping the spree.
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
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.
Nothing interesting to say...MUST...NOT...REPLY...ohtheheckwithit.
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.
This is not funny, and tasteless given the circumstances. It should not have been modded up.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
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.
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.
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.
... is just insane.
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
I can't imagine the police and campus security were really prepared for this, since nothing of this magnitude remotely enters our minds.
-- jchenx
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.
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.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
As a foreigner I am pretty amazed that many of you Americans advocate MORE guns as the solution.
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.
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.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
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?
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
You are attempting to confuse "nigger" with "negro".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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?
Mega Mobiles www.megamobiles.co.uk
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
From what I've heard, they counted them with Wolf Blitzer.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
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!
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
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.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
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.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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.
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
Python coder | PyQt Applications | Writer
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."
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
... a f-ed-up animal, but sympathies to the families of those who died so tragically :(
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.
Only until someone got close... splash damage is a bitch... I know! Let's outlaw weapons without splash damage!
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
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
...Asians are people, and Orientals are rugs.
paintball
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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Mod parent up!
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
[Ego]out
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.
Or, more likely, you'd have more numerous single-casaulty shooting incidents as more weapons would result in possibly more ivolent flareups.
"There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
- Bob Dylan
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.
"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.
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:
This is what Merriam-Webster says for oriental: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.
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.
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.
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.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
Education is the silver bullet.
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.
HAND.
Yes, because the presence of a gun is what causes violence. Logically, if more people have guns, there will be more flare-ups.
Rex is 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
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.
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.
Python coder | PyQt Applications | Writer
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.)
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.
paintball
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.
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.
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.
sup
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.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
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.
So it does mention it... however, you did put a very different spin on it.
HAND.
Why would the government need to give permission to itself to have guns?
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.
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.
My mom says I'm cool.
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.
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.
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"?
ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
1. Freedom of speech.
2. Right to bear arms.
Move to a different country if you don't like it.
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.
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.
Fine with me. Check your guns at the door.
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.
See #2. But I can understand why you'd want a restriction like this.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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..
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...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
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.
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.
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.
...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.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
Short on time, so short comment:
;) ) - 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.
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...
That it for today. Goodnight!
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.
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.
1) Your analysis is based on bad assumptions so your result is way off. 2) You're a sick bastard for fucking a horse.
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.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
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.
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...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That's why we have things called background checks.
Even the NRA doesn't want to arm everybody.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
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".
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Global warming.
SearchIRC - Now with live chat directory!
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.
I got nothin'
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.
-- jchenx
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.
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.
> 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.
Democrat delenda est
No, latin for black is nig(er, ra, rum). You're thinking Spanish.
Defenseless Victim Zones
- psycho students around me? Yeah sign me up for classes... in some other country. Fortunately I'm already there.
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
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.
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)
my associative arrays can kick your hash - TCL
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.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I would bet money that this person was not liscensed to carry a concealed weapon.
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.
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.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
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.
...what matters is what you like, not what you are like...
Ah background checks. Yes, they clearly work really well.
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.
### 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.
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.
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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
* 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.
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.
paintball
Asians are inhabitants from anywhere in Asia, not just the Orient.
Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
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.
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?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
...what matters is what you like, not what you are like...
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.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
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.
Penny - plain text accounting
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.
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
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You're pretty much right. that guys an idiot.
Nathan Friedly
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."
Don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon.
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.
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.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
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.
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
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.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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.
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.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
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).
Method of processing duck feet
### 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?
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And there you have it. These rules ensured that there was no one able to take down the assailant in this situation.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
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
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
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...
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
An honest question: should people be able to carry on a plane?
Education is the silver bullet.
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.
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
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
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.
Education is the silver bullet.
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.
:-P
We don't actually have "high streets" in the US.
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.
Hi there!
.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.
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
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
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
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.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
Until the next time
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.
1) Your analysis is based on bad assumptions so your result is way off. 2) You're a sick bastard for fucking a horse.
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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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).
Learn to love Alaska
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.
-Julius X
remove "-whatkindofspamdoyoutakemefor-" from email to send
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
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
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.
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.
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".
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
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).
Relax I just want some peanuts.
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.
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).
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
*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.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
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.
Don Imus.
JK.
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.
paintball
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.
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.
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.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
So, when is the correct time to discuss it? Two hours from now?
I know what the Internet is, what the hell is this Interweb business?!
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.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
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.
Don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon.
at 5000$, market exclusively in america, and make it a money back guarantee.
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.
Python coder | PyQt Applications | Writer
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?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
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?
Money is the root of all evil?
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.
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.
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.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Seastead this.
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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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.
You save only 59 seconds over 8 miles by going 75 instead of 65. Do you really have to pass that guy? Do the Math!
"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
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
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.
3. Right to look like an illiterate boob on slashdot.
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.
u k_gun_crime/html/1.stm )
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/
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.
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.
What?
I would bet money that some one who could have carried a gun legally would have shot the assailant legally.
Money is the root of all evil?
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.
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.
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.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
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
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..
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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*: ...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
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)
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.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
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 if they don't want to be the scapegoat.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
"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.
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.
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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
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.
?/o
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.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
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.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
Yes, because that's how all mass shootings normally end. Seriously, who swallows this argument?
This sig is false.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
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.
Speak before you think
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.
"Flee at once, all is discovered."
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.
testing out my trending skills
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?
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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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.
.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.
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
Fight back!
Josh
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
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?
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Actually, I think the 3-14 days often has more to due with paperwork processing time than cooling-off.
paintball
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.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
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.
Read radical news here
Abraham Lincon:
Benjamin Franklin:
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.
GeekServ Unix Consulting Services (http://www.geekserv.com)
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.
1) Your analysis is based on bad assumptions so your result is way off. 2) You're a sick bastard for fucking a horse.
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.
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.
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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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.
Yes it is.
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.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
Not the way it is...but the way it should be.
Money is the root of all evil?
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".
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-
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.
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."
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
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.
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.
paintball
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.
I don't read AC A human right
"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.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
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.
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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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.
Now imagine them with guns.
Learn to love Alaska
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
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.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Please take a moment to think and feel before you post, please.
-- jchenx
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.
Other than this text, there is no discernible information contained in this sig.
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".
Also, Dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.
P.S.,
This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated.
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)
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
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.
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...
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.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
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.
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.
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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
P.S.,
This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated.
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.
What's so bad about being lazy? What if there was a war and nobody showed up?
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.
If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
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.
Everyone with guns does not a police state make. And I must have missed the posts from the pro-gun crew suggesting cameras.
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".
In my next incarnation, I hope to come back as a code monkey.
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
SARAVA!
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.
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.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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 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.
I have not advocated letting untrained people carry weapons. You should not do so either.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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.
How about you shoot the asshole chaining the doors shut?
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.
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...
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.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
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.
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...
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
How much training do you feel is enough?
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
He killed himself because he knew the gun totin cops were coming.
No matter where you go, there you are.
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.
>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?
--- Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity
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.
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.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
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.
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.
"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?)
No matter where you go, there you are.
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.
filter: +3. Hey, look! all the trolls went away!
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
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
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.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
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.
No words of wisedom here.
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?
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.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
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?
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
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.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
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
Go read a book - the wild west is largely a creation of hollywood.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
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?
> 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.
MORTAR COMBAT!
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.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
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....
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
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.
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.
A couple exclusive (read: facebook) pictures on my little local forum from Fairfax County, VA:
2 ,33814
http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read.php?
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.
IAALS.
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.
...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.
God was my co-pilot, but then we crashed and I was forced to eat him.
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 ?
"[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
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
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.
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 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."]
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
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.
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
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
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.
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?
God was my co-pilot, but then we crashed and I was forced to eat him.
who has noticed the pervasive We Obviously Need More Cops Around Our Higher Learning Facilities message being looped on tv?
Please stop stalking me, bro.
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....
...and when you do, you be locked up with the other Terrorists.
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
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.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.
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."
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.
"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".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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...
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
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.
There are 11 types of people, those who know unary and those who don't.
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.
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 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.
...what matters is what you like, not what you are like...
That's right, fools. Jesus was Asian! (Israel is technically in the Asian continent). Hehe.
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
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.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
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..
That is why this law is in effect in a lot of states, including Ohio which has a conceal and carry law.
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.
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.)
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.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
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.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
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.)
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.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
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.
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.
If folks were armed, then they could have shot him when they saw him shooting people?
m m
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.st
(70 dead) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6266707.st
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?
Education is the silver bullet.
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.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
The guy that shot up a college in Montreal last september had all his guns registered.
You can't take the sky from me...
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?
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
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.
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
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.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
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.
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 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.
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.
---
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
As is evidenced by their stunning success in subduing the Iraq insurrgency.
God was my co-pilot, but then we crashed and I was forced to eat him.
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.
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...
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.
God was my co-pilot, but then we crashed and I was forced to eat him.
Dude, Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature....
This is ridiculous!
Don't you realise why things like that happen more often in the USA than in Europe?
"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.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Criminals rob banks (and convience stores and liquor stores) because there is money there.
Need I point out the fallacy of using Hollywood as a research resource?
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_massa
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."
-PB_TPU_40 The trick to flying is to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
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.
I thought that law expired.
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.
Relax I just want some peanuts.
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
Seastead this.
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.
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.
Relax I just want some peanuts.
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.
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.
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.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
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.
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?
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.
Relax I just want some peanuts.
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.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
"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!
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
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.
Relax I just want some peanuts.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
Walter, this isn't a guy who built the fucking railroads, here.
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.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
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.
Relax I just want some peanuts.
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.
I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
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.
Launchy.net changed my world.
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...
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.
The Secret of Life: Proteins fold up and bind things.
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.
your comment cracked me up dogg +5 funny
Do you love freedom??? Do you love freedom!!! DO YOU LOVE FREEDOM!!!!!!!!
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.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
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.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Dude, those were the exact two complaints I had with his comment too. :)
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.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Okay, I've resisted the urge to post for a reaction for long enough.
... Guess that's just proof that 2 heads are better than one.
.. Well, at least he did a better job than Eric and Dylan those years ago, they only managed a meesly 13 between them.
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!
That kid obviously needed more practice at Quake before he decided to make it real.
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.
M-M-M-M-Monster Kill!
I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.
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
Too much Law; not enough Order.
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.
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! :>)
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
You need more psychedelic art in your life. rhesusmonkey.deviantart.com
Holy crap, your comment in combination with your user name is scary.
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
Q: Did it really matter what race he was?
A: No.
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
.... 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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
No. Why do you think the American military emphasizes discipline and following orders without questions?
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).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I would not want my son studying there, there are many good schools elsewhere where the culture is more humane.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Very peaceful down there buddy.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... where guns are easily available, must also be.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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?
Well, one could I suppose, if it is quite heavy and one aims carefully (me rolls eyes at stupid comparision).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
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
Too much Law; not enough Order.
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.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
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.
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 :-)
I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
You should really be more careful before libelling/slandering people. You're not alone, though.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... 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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Google for this: kabul deaths by shooting
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... your checks seems to be working wonders.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
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?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
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 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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
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.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
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.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
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.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
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...
:) ), 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...
:)
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!
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
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
"Maybe he's Swedish, where every male is required..."
I think you mean Swiss...
"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.
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 :).
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
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.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Yes and one light airplane armed with a sidewinder could have ended 911 right at the beginning.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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.
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
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
So guns would be taken from you.
So instead of such subjective judgment, the only reasonable alternative is to impose restrictions on everybody.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Sorry, couldn't resist, but *YOUR* oversimplification does betray your ignorance, too... ;)
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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."
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.
And a fucking law that is broken, should be fixed, not followed blindly like if it was the written word of god or something.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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?
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... 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....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
amen
Doolittle :
Bomb no.20 : To explode of course.
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.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Not the lack of them in the few civilized oasis in the US that resist such idiocity.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
If the students were armed... ...this would be happening every week.
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.
Empathetic-- 94% You tend to walk in someone else's shoes a hundred miles before pointing a finger.
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?
What a long, strange trip it's been.
#### 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?
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.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
>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.
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.
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.
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.
Stupid people think it's cool. Smart people thinks it's a joke; also cool.
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.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
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.
> 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
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?!".
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
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.
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.
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Yes... if all rights of the general public were ended there'd be nothing to be scared of at all!!!
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
Art is the mathematics of emotion
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?
95% of all computer errors occur between chair and keyboard (TM)
- 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.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.
intoxicated, adj.: When you feel sophisticated without being able to pronounce 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.
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.
Integrity is what you are when nobody is looking.
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?
------
beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
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.
"Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
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.
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!
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
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.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
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.
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
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.
.evom ton seod gis eht
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.
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.
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
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.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
It's all about RTFM.
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.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
No matter where you go, there you are.
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?
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.
There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
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.
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
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.
.evom ton seod gis eht
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.
That's ironic given the basis of this thread is that the situation would have been different given stronger gun control laws.
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.
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.
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
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
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.
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
But you can with a box cutter, according to the Bush administration.
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.
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
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.
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/
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.
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
.evom ton seod gis eht
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.
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.
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.
Just
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.
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
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.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
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.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
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.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
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.
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.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
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.
There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
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.
"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".
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
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.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
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.
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".
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!".
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
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.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
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.....
Telecommuting! What about socialization?
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.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
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.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
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.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
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.
butter the donkey
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
butter the donkey
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.
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
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:
...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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's so that you can defend yourself against the English soldiers when the king of Great Britain sends them your way.
butter the donkey
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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.
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.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
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.
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!
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.
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
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.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
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.
Neither, it seems, do you.
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.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
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.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
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.
Green's Law of Debate: Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about.
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.
Facts are stubborn things.
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.
"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?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Professor Liviu Librescu, holocaust survivor and hero. I suspect his background long ago taught him the importance of facing evil directly.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
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.
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.
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.
"There's no such thing as talent, cap'n. Only inspiration and ambition. And mine burn white hot." - Scrooge McDuck
"Which part of Europe?"
s p
w 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.
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.a
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/s
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
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 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?
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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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).
u m+HB1572
I CLE_ID=55226
o nal/main2693365.shtml
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+s
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?ART
Va. Tech: Gunman Student From S. Korea
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/17/ap/nati
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.
Ah, that's what I was trying to say, but there -- you said it with so much more eloquence...
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.
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.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
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.
---
And all that confiscated drug money is stored, where, a Bingo parlor?
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
>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.
"This thing does science so hard, you say, 'I've never seen that much science.'" -Sam
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.
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
Actually, they're now saying he was an English major. Not that it really matters, I guess.
Sorry, should have previewed.
"This thing does science so hard, you say, 'I've never seen that much science.'" -Sam
Why would the thug shoot me dead? Felons aren't allowed to own guns. It's illegal!
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
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.
"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?
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.
Agreed. More people present that were trained in security would have made a difference -- something like, say, more trained Concealed Carry Permit holders.
CCP holders have to pass rigorous training very akin to the kind of training undergone by "security officers".
---
Link to relevant data, please? Don't preach to me about availability of weapons, because Switzerland already provides counter-example.
---
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.
You mean places known for extreme violence like Switzerland?
---
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
---
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.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
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:
7 /041707_giovanni_convocation&Studio_B&'We%20Are%20 Virginia%20Tech!'&acc&US&-1&News&206&&&new
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?04170
We are the Hokies. We will prevail. We are Virginia Tech.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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.
Top 10 Reasons To Procrastinate
10.
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.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
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.
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.
Wow, thanks for pointing that out to me. Why are the standards so low for police?
Doubtful that this guy bought the guns for the massacre.
/ NA-GEN-US-University-Shooting-Weapons.php
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/17/america
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.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
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.)
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.
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
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
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.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
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.
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=18
Check out the FBI crime statistics here: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/standard_l
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.
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.
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.
I don't read AC A human right
No, they weren't. Straw purchases and selling to minors are both illegal.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
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.
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...
---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
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
Integrity is what you are when nobody is looking.
But the return fire from the lubney shooter would have been just like the movies?
Don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon.
- 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.testing out my trending skills
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?
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
### 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.
The following seemed at least partly appropriate story given the parent post:a 1.html
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070418
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.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
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.
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.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
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.
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.
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?
Let the statistics speak for themselves:
c le2458855.ece
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/arti
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.
Riiiiight. What color is the sky in your world?
"Ok, that's a homicide rate of 1.4 per 100,000"
) 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.
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
"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.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
### 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.
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.'
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
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.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
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.
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
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.
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
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.
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).
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.
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
### 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...
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?
You think? Try linking to some hard examples, next time. Unbacked thoughts are cheap.
Wrong. It is quite real.
Maybe not blow up a building, but bleach can easily be used in conjunction with ammonia to make deadly chlorine gas.
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.
Strawman. I never said anything about making explosives with chewing gum or toothpicks.
I'd like very much to see a reasoned explanation of why you feel it's unrelated.
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).
---
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.
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?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)
-- jchenx
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.
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.
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
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.
"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?
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
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.
-- jchenx
of course the government would probably charge him with a crime for protecting people from a nut
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.
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.
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.
**Life is too short to be serious**
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.
**Life is too short to be serious**
Then the shooters will get the illegal ones.
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.
I am quite familiar with it.
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.
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.
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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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.
Yes. So did the administration of the school. Now the kids are dead. Consequently, I think your arguments are pretty silly.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Prove that illegal guns are just as easily accessible as legally purchased ones.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
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.
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?
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.
Hello! McFly!
Who STARTED the slave trade?
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
What sucks is he bought both guns and the ammo legally.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
"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.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
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.
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.
:) 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 ;)).
re: Reservoir Dogs:
I didn't mean to imply it was meant as a Serious Research Resource -- sorry that it came off that way.
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.
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.
Seastead this.
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.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
The first sentence of the second paragraph from your link.
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.Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?