Virginia Tech killing: more than 30 dead - Page 7

I don't plan on convincing anyone here, least of all you. All of our minds are made up. I'd be better off volunteering for NRA-ILA. I'm just presenting the other point of view that criminals do not care how many laws you make, they are going to have guns and have an easier time victimizing unarmed people. People break laws, so we need more laws to make it super-ultra illegal! Kinda funny when you think about it.

Again I'll tell you, you can believe whatever you want. Dismiss me altogether. The episode changed my life and is the basis of why I believe so strongly in the 2nd A. I am fanatic. I admit it. Everyone deserves a fighting chance... and the criminal element does not want us to have a chance against their firearms. Why would a criminal hand in a gun when it gives him the ultimate advantage over law abiding people?

What if you had not been so well-trained, like the vast, vast majority of regular Joes and Janes out there that you want to arm? What if they made a mistake in dealing with the situation and actually made it worse?

I think that your case was more unique than common, and that most situations would not have ended as well as yours. The average citizen does not go to the range more frequently than cops do; they tend to fear the ones who do. Your average citizen wants to have a nice quiet and peaceful life, and most have it. Some people would like us to walk around in fear all the time.

BTW, any response to the background check that Cho passed in a minute? How did it happen if the system is so good? The Japanese media is having a field day with this.

On that topic, the Japanese media have already visited Cho's birthplace and started thorough research into his background; wonder where the US media has gotten with all this. Saw a few second of the news as I moved past the rec room today.

More, what if one of those now armed Joes and Janes flips out? You have a semi-trained, equipped killing machine on your hands.

I can see that all that media coverage is swelling your brain. What made you even think that supported this? What?! I despise this asshole!

I hope Nate will pull his head out of his ass and realize that in a situation like these, people react differently than a television show or movie. There was chaos in those classrooms something that most people have never witnessed in their lives. And this NEOCON ASSHAT thinks we all have the the courage and resolve of a former holocaust survivor or people on a hijacked airplane who ALLEGEDLY took down terrorists brandishing BOXCUTTERS. Nate should be packed up and shipped to Iraq. I would like to see his courage and resolve over there.

Oh. By the way. Speaking of Iraq...

At least 130 Faculty, Students and Staff Killed in Bombings at Universities in Iraq so far this year.

I feel horrible about what happened in VT. But it still saddens me that there is so much public outcry when 30 people were killed monday, as thousands are killed daily elsewhere in the world (ie. Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan...et al).

Ever killed anybody who just wanted your wallet? Ever kill a beggar who was TOO persistent for your liking? Ever kill anybody by mistake? In fact are you a killer? Seems like you want to be one? Did you ever leave USA - can you feel safe without feeling your gun in your panties? Did you ever get angry with a BB poster? ever want to blow them away? ;-)

You've made some pretty sick arguments on this thread considering the title.

If students had a right to guns in the class room there would be loads more killings, crimes of passion, of ego, concerning bullying, over college petty crime, over envy... the list is endless...


"Banning guns don't make the criminals give there guns up..." - this is the best you can do.

Fact this guy was not a criminal till the day he did his crime. He bought a gun because he could, he loads of ammunition cause he could. Without the gun and ammo maybe one person is dead or beaten up and/or property damage. Remember the second guy was killed trying to protect the girl - without the gun perhaps there is no homicide. When have any of these nutter school kids been hardened criminals before there final crime/action..


If they finally do ban guns in the US. There will obviously have to be a hard crack down on illegal gun ownership. Possession becomes an offense. Possession in UK is 5 years.

At the end of the day, OK you like your guns a lot I understand. YOu will make arguments to keep them, I understand. But you just going to have to pay the cost if you keep them. some time some where somebody just thinks fuck-it!. Because he has a gun (legally and easily) not the mention unlimited ammo, many people pay the price.

Cars are weapons it's true you noted this. That's why there are many laws governing their use. Licensing, rules of the road, and terms of use. To limit the number of deaths.

Well said, OfficerDigby.

I can't remember: do UK cops carry weapons?

What he said...


Sounds like there's some people here who agree with that view. Keep in mind I don't own a gun, have no present need or desire to own one, but won't give up my right to legally own one if I so choose. Once you start taking rights, where do you stop, who's opinion is correct?

***EDIT***
Oh yeah, this needs to be proofread BAD.
***EDIT***


I'd be careful of that statistics statement, Tonton. Statistically, out of 300,000,000 Americans, and out of 6,000,000,000 humans, 33 died. From a statistical perspective, that's less than insignificant. Comparing it to, say, Iraq, 33 seems to be an average number of dead these days, yet we don't generally make a big deal out of that. Maybe the reason is that when our soldiers die, they are, at least nominally, able to defend themselves, and so have a fighting chance, whereas those students and teachers were defenseless. I think maybe that's what makes it a tragedy. It cannot be because people died, for people die in vast numbers every day. It cannot be because people died violently, for people die violently in vast numbers every day. I think it's because those who died were ultimately defenseless, and each one of us can see ourselves being one of the victims, or their families.

One idea that people on both sides of the Gun Rights debate tend to shy away from is that of balanced gun control. In an ideal world, where we were able to eliminate all firearms, the problem of firearms related crimes would vanish. People who were determined to commit violence would use other means, such as knives, swords, or even (let's not be silly with this now) martial arts. Man's capacity to kill is almost as boundless as his capacity to love. However, eliminating firearms would, until some more efficient means of killing was found, reduce the potential for one-man rampages to a very low number. That would, however, bring along with it some other problems. Throughout history, societies governments have always, without exception, become corrupt and abusive, even repressive, of their populations. That's a whole discussion by itself, so I'll just observe that it is so, and make my point: It is, I think, at the very least incautious of us to believe that our government will not (has not?) degrade to that very same point which has destroyed ever previous human empire or large scale government. So the argument can be made that there is a use for firearms. Also, the government would surely maintain firearms for military and police purposes. This is where the real problem comes in: It is not possible, I think, for ALL firearms to be eliminated. Nor, I think, is it possible to eliminate all threats to personal safety, be they from other people, government, or wild animals. As long as there are weapons, criminals will find ways to get them. Think about nuclear weapons, for example. Nuclear material is probably the most tightly controlled stuff in the world, yet it can still be obtained and turned into weapons. How much easier is it to get some lead, some steel, some carbon, sulfur, and saltpeter, and build a weapon? Humans are very good at creating weapons. So I would volunteer that in the absence of total and permanent disarmament, criminals will still have access to weapons. This leaves the populace vulnerable.

One of the worst trends that I see in our society today is that we have degraded to a point where we expect that most fundamental responsibility, self preservation, to be handled, and flawlessly so, by an absurd minority of our population: The police. This is fundamentally foolish. Police are human, just like the rest of us, and so are limited in how quickly they can get to where they need to be. Anyone who has dialed 911 knows the reality of this. Leaving issues of civil rights alone for the moment, if we truly wish to shirk our responsibility to protect ourselves, we must increase the police force to an almost unimaginable degree. Even then, if we had one police officer for every civilian, we ignore the fact, again, that police are human, and do commit crimes (with less frequency, we hope). It is truly sad to see that we have gotten to the point that we live in a delusional state where we expect the government to provide for our individual safety and security. Those are fundamentally individual responsibilities.

Now, getting back to the gun control point, each side tends to make good points. Guns in the hands of everyone is a bad idea because many people are irresponsible, unfamiliar with guns (and so are unintentionally dangerous), or have malicious intent. Likewise, the loss of all guns strips people of that most basic natural right to self defense, and removes a critically important barrier against governmental tyranny. Meet in the middle. Some people should be armed, if they choose to be, and entrusted with the protection of society, while others should not. In the context of Virginia Tech, I hope every person on the Gun Ban side will consider the question, "What if just three people in Norris Hall had been legally armed?" A 9mm and a .22 are NOT, despite how effectively they were used in this case, a disproportionate threat when put up against your typical concealed cary pistol. (Think of a man with a chopstick attacking another man who is tied to a chair. The chopstick is only a deadly threat when the victim is unable to defend himself. Untie him and give him a chopstick too, and they can eat noodles rather than kill each other. Hmm.. explore that idea of equality for a minute or two if you get the chance.) For 30 minutes Cho walked about killing people. Those heros who did stand up were unable to properly do what heros do because they had no arms. Whether any of them would have been armed if it were legal is a somewhat moot point, as it is a simple thing to encourage public armament should we decide to allow it (caveat again: for those responsible enough for it). I hope also that everyone on the Gun Rights side will consider the question, "What if there were closer examination of those allowed to purchase firearms? What if a careful study of the person's character were taken into account before he was allowed to purchase a weapon?" I'll leave that one for you to digest.

One possible solution might be to work from the knowledge that one person, who may be fully capable and trustworthy of bearing arms in one situation, may not be suitable to bear arms in another situation. For the extreme example, lets consider a person who lives in the wilds of Alaska. It may be well within reason to allow and even encourage that person to carry arms, for the preservation of himself, and for the preservation of others in that community. However, it may not be reasonable to allow him arms when he is moved from that wide open environment to the very dense (in terms of population density), high stress environment such as a University. When totally out of his element, he may react unpredictably and with poor judgement if and when a threat, or perceived threat, may appear. This is a bit of an extreme example, though I think it is a logical one. It makes sense that when one thing changes, such as your environment, something else may change as well, such as you immediate quality of judgement of threats. (Off hand, I should note that proper training and simply being in the new environment for a while will generally help such a person adjust with no trouble.)

So that's as far as I'm going to go for now, because I have some nasty Calculus to take care of and finals are approaching at the speed of... um... one second per.. second? Yeah. I'll have more later.

One question for Tonton though:


What context do you feel the second amendment was written in, and why is it now obsolete? Surely, if it was intended to protect the masses from the threat of tyranny, then because of that tendency for a government to deteriorate that I mentioned above, the second amendment is more relevant now than ever, and will become increasingly so as time progresses.

Food for thought.

Celemourn
Iraq Veteran

**NOTE**
I'll probably proof read this post again later. No time right now.

If they get guns into an isolated place like Japan that has had tuff gun laws for a long time, how do you expect any kind of a ban to work in the US? My city is full of illegal people, drugs and guns. Get real! The question is not if we would be better without guns. The question is how to realistically make that happen. We are not Japan. We are not the UK. Your solutions won't work here! Can't you see that? There are tons of guns out there. The police can't protect you.

That is a very loaded question. We should not assume that choosing not to take part in a particular military action indicates cowardice. Indeed, stepping up to fight without regard to why you are fighting is simply Bravado, not courage. Not a good question to ask. I expect better than that from you, Artman.

Subjects, meet The New KING of Strawmen...

... as well as a greater chance that someone will be able to stop them before they commit mass murder.

I'm sorry you hate this right so much. I'm sorry you have become so extreme as to say "ban em all" rather than understand the dynamics of the predator/prey relationship that governs violent criminal behavior. I'm not backing down one bit, and neither are you. Great. That's the RIGHT we have in the country. RIGHTS matter.

Yes. I'm reflecting my anger towards another person's opinion. But I feel that Nate's opinion that average, young and inexperienced students would stand up to a madman with lethal firepower is totally wrong and uncalled for too.

As you said...

Hmmm...I suppose you support the ACLU? Left wing but usually fair in supporting even rights of folks they hate.

Vinea

Indeed, I think the ACLU has its place and has done some excellent work on behalf of preserving our rights. Specifically concerning privacy and surveillance.

Amendment one applies against states.

Amendment two, thus far has not. Not all do. Also, amendment 2 does not mean that the government cannot regulate firearms and weapons of war (ie tanks, grenades, etc).

As long as there is no federal ban on all guns amendment 2 has been satisfied. What folks do at the local level is up to the...local level. I really doubt either Texas, Virginia, etc will ever ban all guns.

Vinea

or Mexico or.....

Will the liberals put checkpoints at state borders so that Texas guns don't go to Boston to kill well-meaning latte-sippers?

I was scrolling through and just had to take the bait on this one.

You, sir, are a fascist. A liberal fascist. There have been a lot of valid personal opinions here on the topic of gun control. Most of have presented and debated evidence on violence, possession, legality and the Constitutionality of said laws.

But you? You've stated that you "don't give a shit" about someone's constitutionally protected right to carry a weapon. You state that it's an outmoded amendment and that it was created centuries ago. Let me ask then...what other amendments shoudl we just pput aside because they are old? Hmmm...let's see:

1st Amendment: You know what? Most people are religous, so let's just do away with the Establishment clause. I mean hey...it's 2007.

3rd Amendment: Hmm...soldiers should have comfort too. I say we let them take over your house at will. You know, watch your TV and have sex with your wife. Gotta keep morale up!

5th Amendment: We had a lot less crime when this was added. Let's do away with it and make people offer evidence against themselves, with written confessions in their own blood.


If you want to talk about banning handguns and revising or repealing the 2nd amendment, that's one thing. Calling people neanderthals because they disagree with you is unacceptable and shows you to be a fascist zealot with perhaps half a brain.

The context for protecting the masses from the threat of tyranny can be seen in the words "a well regulated militia".

How many gun owners are members of a well regulated militia? Perhaps gun owners should be required to put in a few weekends of training a la the National Guard.

There is also context to "keep and bear arms" which can be seen as stating that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms AS "ARMS" EXISTED 220 YEARS AGO.

That is: a single-shot, front-loading, ball-and-powder rifle, that cannot be used for "concealed carry" and that anyone could see that you were "bearing" from hundreds of feet away.

Also, murder by gunshot was practically nonexistent at that time. We live in a very different world today, with vastly different technology and sociology.

You, sir, don't know what fascist means.

A government that in it's wisdom has decided that corporate oil interests and the military-industrial complex have far greater value than your life and your individual rights. Umm... you're kidding, right?

This little rant sounds very close to the VT gunman's choice of words. Interesting. Anti-gun violence violence.

/shrug

As I said earlier the black market can move only so much goods. Restricting ammo or firearms raises the cost both for criminals and citizens and reduce availability.

Saying a handgun ban would be completely ineffective in reducing handgun crime is one of those "I'm so extreme I'm willing to say things clearly stupid" kind of statements.

The real discussion is whether the cost of a handgun ban is worth the reduction you get. Loss of use in legitimate purposes is part of that cost evaluation. Freedom is part of that cost evaluation. Freedom is not absolute and has a high value but not trump all.

A total ban is also unecessary. If you HAD to go through the same process to qualify for both handgun and ammo purchase that you have to do for concealed carry you can still allow use of handguns for all legitimate purposes while reducing the number on the street.

If you required technological markers (RFID) in new guns and ammo then you have traceability to catch the bad apples selling guns to anyone and giving the entire group a bad image.

The problem is that these suggestions are shouted down because pro-gun zealots do not want registration (because this is step 1 in banning guns), mandatory training and proof of competence (because its tied to registration I suppose), and trackable guns and ammo (at least some folks are outraged at the RFID idea...from a dubious privacy standpoint).

Since no reasonable limitations are acceptable to the pro-gun lobby then gun opponents go for is total ban which fuels the conspiracy thinking that liberals are all out to ban guns. Of course some are also equally unreasonable, hate guns and believe there are no valid reasons to have any but I believe that the majority of Americans support private gun ownership with better and reasonable regulation.

Personally I have always felt that fighting gun registration and mandatory training/testing is completely unreasonable and stupid. If we register cars and require testing before issuing a drivers license we should also do so for guns as a default. This is the official position of the NRA (more or less) but not its most vocal elements and other RTBA supporters.

Heck, too many pro-gun folks think the NRA too liberal in their views of gun control. So there's no real need to wonder why 73M gun owners think the other 2-7M gun owners belonging to gun groups are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

The problem with pro-gun groups is the same as that of Libertarians. The most vocal elements are (or come off as) complete loons to mainstream america.

IMHO of course.

Vinea

You guys need to calm down.

Gilsch, what right do you have to judge what you know nothing about? Do you have a wife and kids? Have you ever been violently victimized?

Don't be an idiot.

Cho had no history of violence or criminal acts, so of course he passed a cursory background check. Even people with mental instabilities have rights. The fault is still entirely that of the shooter. I'm sure many of you saw the English teacher at VT on the news this morning talking about trying to get help for Cho. She knew there was something wrong with him that disturbed her and nearly all the students who met him. Didn't mean he was a criminal at that time, just a psychotic.

There were another 100+ people killed just today in Iraq. I guess that's why it seems senseless to dedicate so much time to the VT massacre. It's a hundred times worse in Iraq than it is here, and their violence is daily.

Are you answering the question of context, or are you saying that because gun owners tend not to be in militias, the second amendment is obsolete, or are you simply making an observation? That second paragraph is a logical fallacy if used as a reason for repealing the second amendment. See wiki on Red Herrings.


paragraph 1: Again, red herring. The intent was likely focused on the potency of weapons possessed by the public versus that of those possessed by the government. As civilian weapons have evolved, so have the government's. In fact, the balance is probably quite far to the side of the government these days, what with tanks and jets, etc. To imply that because blackpowder guns were what the framers had in mind, and so that's all that we should have, ignores that underlying principle of balance of power.
paragraph 2: Invalid example, as pistols did exist, as well as large, bulky coats. Easy to hide.
paragraph 3: Speculation.

My take on those last three paragraphs is that you feel that while the amount of damage that an individual could have caused 200 years ago was deemed acceptable, because of technological advances and increased lethality (well, only in volume... a .50 cal ball will do a lot more damage than a 9mm), that potential to cause harm is no longer acceptable. Is that what you were getting at?

WTF's a "liberal fascist"??? I think we've had this conversation before.

I find it ludicrous that some people, a lot of texans apparently, believe more guns= less crime. Bizarro world man. I do agree with them somewhat when they say strict gun control may not(won't) work here in the US. The reason is simple. We should've banned guns a long time ago, but thanks to powerful lobbies like the NRA hidden behind the "constitutional right" argument, it has never come close to happening. Background checks? Don't make me laugh.

More guns will bring more crimes and the NRA Kool Aid drinkers will just keep saying that the real problem is that there aren't enough guns around. Pretty retarded vicious circle.

A government that we voted in and we partially voted out in 2006 and have the opportunity to do so again in 2008.

A system of government that persists even in the "disarmed" populace of UK and Japan.

Vinea

And just how to propose to protect yourself or your family on the day a robber or rapist breaks into your house? Knives? Fists? Curses? I'd rather have the gun than the alternative.

So I shouldn't ask questions and take everything at face value in a discussion? Want to discuss forum "etiquette", start your own thread elsewhere.


Oooh. Big word. Glad you're not judgemental.

Gilsch, the argument is not that more guns reduce crime, it's that more deterrent reduces crime. Firearms in the hands of responsible citizens is just as much of a deterrent as additional police are. Perhaps even more, since a potential violent criminal has no way of knowing when 'the coast is clear', so to speak. The problem with proliferation is not that there are more guns, it is that the wrong people get them. It's a piece of metal until picked up by a person. Then it becomes whatever the holder makes it into.

You can keep your gun. At home. I'd personally rather invest in a reliable home security system with armed response since I haven't been trained by Chuck Norris. Oh, and a dog.

Guns or nothing eh? Wonder if that name's taken.

Of course you should ask questions. As a matter of fact, one would never be able to tell who is lying or telling the truth on these boards, unless you yourself could independently verify it. In that sense, it might be irrational for me to defend a person I don't know, but then it could be just as valid to say that you were a complete jerk to someone whose family was nearly killed by a criminal.

As we probe deeper, other things surface. I was curious as to why he wrote "Ismail Ax" in red on his arm....the MSM doesn't think it's relevant. Here's someone's take on it:
\t
Ismail Ax: The Shooter Was Another 'Son of Sacrifice'

"First it was Johnny Muhammad, now it was Cho Sueng Hui aka Ismail Ax. Precisely how many mass shooters have to turn out to have adopted Muslim names before we get it? Islam has become the tribe of choice of those who hate American society. I'm not talking about people who grew up as Muslims, confident and secure in their faith, good fathers, sons and neighbors. I'm talking about the angry, malignant, narcissist loners who want to reject their community utterly, to throw off their 'slave name' and represent the downtrodden of the earth by shooting their friends and neighbors.

This morning I read that the Virginia Tech shooter died with the name Ismail Ax written in red ink on his arm. The mainstream press doesn't seem to have a clue as to what this might mean. To quote Indiana Jones, "Didn't any of you guys go to Sunday School?"

The story starts with a man named Abraham. He is the father of the Jews, the Muslims and the Christians. He was born in Iraq, the son of a wealthy idol manufacturer. He came to believe that there was only one true God and, according to tradition, took up his ax and destroyed his father's idols.

Eventually he left Iraq and moved to what is now known as Israel. He had a son with his concubine whom she named Ishmael. The Muslim world prefers the Arabic spelling of the name: Ismail. Eventually Abraham had a son by his rightful wife and named the son Isaac. Ishmael and his mother were disinherited and sent out into what is now Saudi Arabia. Isaac became the heir.

Eventually, God decided to test Abraham by telling him to kill his son, Isaac. Abraham took up the knife, but God stopped him at the last moment. Isaac lived and eventually became a man of great wealth. Ishmael became a desert warrior chieftain.

The Jews are the descendants of Isaac, the Arabs are the descendants of Ishmael.

In the 7th Century, Muhammad, the founder of Islam, re-wrote the story, claiming that Ismail was the true faithful descendant of Abraham and that it was he, not Isaac, who God told Abraham to sacrifice. Ismail was the one saved. For Muslims, Ismail (not Isaac) was the true 'Son of Sacrifice.' In the original version of the story, Abraham used a knife, in some of the later Muslim versions, he used an Ax.

Flash forward 1,400 years: a sullen, angry young man who rages against rich people and apparently against Christians, writes a play in which a mother and son try to kill his step-father, but in the end the boy (age about 13, the age many think Ismail was when he was exiled) is murdered by the step-father with 'a deadly blow'. Father issues? Yeah, I think so.

Cho Sueng-hui cum Ismail Ax hated the American society to which he had been brought 15 years earlier. His play McBeef (a poor pun from an English Lit major on Macbeth) is one endless screed against the corruption of American culture. A cheesy re-telling of Shakespeare's Hamlet, it involves a young man abused by his step-father, a former NFL football player. The son, throws epithets at his father calling him a 'Catholic priest'. And makes derisive comments about McDonalds. It seems that none of the foundational structures of Western Civilization, Christianity, capitalism, family, are spared his rage. In other words, he really meant what he said in his last words: 'you (that is us, America) made me do this.'"

Well, he certainly was physically, mentally abused and needed help. But there were offers given to help him and they went nowhere. Sometimes I think we dig too deeply. Usually there's nothing there. Just a boiling inner rage.

Anyone else want to take a stab for the "Ismail Ax" symbolism?

I wonder if these gun owning types attract criminals trying to kill their families?

Personally, I'm glad I have the option to buy a gun, and I'm also glad I've never been in a situation facing a dangerous and armed opponent. I don't own a gun, but I would feel much better if more people were trained and armed than not.

Absolutely fascinating. Muslim extremism is the new magnet for the mentally disturbed. I also got the impression from his writings (that have been released so far) Cho may have been molested or sexually repressed.

You're just window dressing the argument. More guns= more "deterrents"=reduced crime. That's not different to what I said based on what others claimed. What's a responsible citizen by the way? Someone with no criminal background? Apparently the VT killer had that. I also don't agree with comparing a "responsible citizen" with a cop. Give me a break. Speaking of Utopian. A "responsible citizen" by the way, has the potential to fuck up an already bad situation...not to mention causing accidents.

Quite a contradiction there. The problem with "proliferation" is that there are indeed more guns available to end up in the wrong hands.