# Student Kills 33, and wounds 28 in VA. Tech school shooting



## Mastodon (Apr 16, 2007)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/16/vtech.shooting/

There's a ton of theories floating around right now about whether it was one student, two students who collaborated, or two seperate incidents.

This is a huge scale though, I definately would not have expected this.


----------



## Loomer (Apr 16, 2007)

I'm watching this on CNN as we speak, but I have to leave for band practice. 

This sucks, so bad. My condolences to the victims 

"This is ridiculous, this isn't happening" Jason Piatt, VA Tech student on CNN.


----------



## Makelele (Apr 16, 2007)

That's really sad. Some people are sick in the head.


----------



## Karl Hungus (Apr 16, 2007)

Queue a few dozen noisy bible bashers: "Oh it's all Marylin Manson's fault!"


----------



## Makelele (Apr 16, 2007)

Karl Hungus said:


> Queue a few dozen noisy bible bashers: "Oh it's all Marylin Manson's fault!"



Nah, it's computer games and movies.  

I guess some people need something to blame for these kinds of things. They apparently can't believe that people can be insane without some kind of influence.


----------



## the.godfather (Apr 16, 2007)

What a tragedy, and a large scale too.  

Such a shame.


----------



## Karl Hungus (Apr 16, 2007)

Makelele said:


> Nah, it's computer games and movies.



Oh yeah, it's all Counter Strike's fault.


----------



## Mastodon (Apr 16, 2007)

They interviewed a parent of a victim from Columbine who went on to talk about how if people really want to get down to the bottom of why these type of things happen, they need to get the judge who sealed documents from a report detailing the actual cause behind Columbine to unseal those documents.

I agree with this.


----------



## Dive-Baum (Apr 16, 2007)

This isn't really the time for jokes. This is just so tragic that even saying it is tragic just doesn't sound right. I wonder what kind of world I brought my children into. Some people seem to hold life so cheaply and have no respect for their fellow man or for life for that matter. It sickens me to know that this could happen any time, anywhere.


----------



## eaeolian (Apr 16, 2007)

This is very sad.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Apr 16, 2007)

Why'd you guys have to bring up that gay shit in this thread? 


That's really horrible that this happened though


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Apr 16, 2007)

i think they uped the death count to 31 and rising'


----------



## SevenatoR (Apr 16, 2007)

Death toll is now confirmed at 31 per msnbc.

Unfucking real.


----------



## Karl Hungus (Apr 16, 2007)

Dive-Baum said:


> This isn't really the time for jokes.



I don't mean to joke, I just hate those bastards that come out of the woodwork and throw up scapegoats like music, films and games as the 'Real' culprits in these situations. Makes my blood boil.


----------



## Nik (Apr 16, 2007)

Wow, I'm on campus right now and I haven't had time to watch news, but this truly sounds tragic, and the scale sounds beyond belief


----------



## the.godfather (Apr 16, 2007)

31 now!? Jesus.

In the report it said that the shooter was shot dead.
But does anyone know if they shot themselves? Or if they were shot by the police or someone else?


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 16, 2007)

the.godfather said:


> 31 now!? Jesus.
> 
> In the report it said that the shooter was shot dead.
> But does anyone know if they shot themselves? Or if they were shot by the police or someone else?



CNN says that's still under investigation. 

But holy crap...I mean, what do you say about something like this....


----------



## Drew (Apr 16, 2007)

Updated the title. 

I think Marilyn Manson's commentary on "Bowling for Columbine" was particularly telling. For anyone who's not familiar, when asked in an interview what he would tell the shooters, he replied, more or less, "What would I tell them? Nothing. I'd listen. It's something that evidently nobody ever bothered to do for them." 

Manson's a much deeper guy than he's generally given credit for.


----------



## HighGain510 (Apr 16, 2007)

Shouldn't this be under current events? Sorry, I created a thread in there because I didn't see this here.

EDIT: Looks like someone else did too, might want to move the thread to current events section.

I think the REAL problem people should look at is how the parents raise their children. Don't look for things outside your own home to scapegoat like they did with columbine. There's no "secret sealed document" that's going to give you all the answers. I firmly believe that if you are raised properly, the likelihood of you doing something like this is going to be WAY lower unless you have a mental issue going on that has been left un-checked. Things like this always make me sad, I truly feel for the families of those that were taken away in this tragedy. Such a terrible shame when stuff like this happens.


----------



## JPMDan (Apr 16, 2007)

how can a single person kill 31 people and columbine couldn't even get near that number having 2 people thats just not right.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 16, 2007)

it's all about surprise. It happened in 2 seperate buildings. And large building at that/ Depending on the gun, it may not have even been heard on other floors of the same building.

EDIT:

Columbine also had school wide intercoms to warn people that something was happening. VA Tech was emailing people and telling them that there was a gun man on campus. Just another factor to consider.


----------



## Mastodon (Apr 16, 2007)

Also it is now being reported that he chained the entrances/exits shut.

As far as the document goes, it is rumored that what is contained inside the document is medical records and other insights into the mentality of someone who is capable of doing this.


----------



## HighGain510 (Apr 16, 2007)

With the amount of copycat crimes up to and including this one, wouldn't they have found the same psychological evidence somewhere else already? I doubt columbine was the only one to have records like that right?


----------



## Drew (Apr 16, 2007)

JPMDan said:


> how can a single person kill 31 people and columbine couldn't even get near that number having 2 people thats just not right.



What's more troubling was there were two "waves" of shootings, more than two _hours_ apart.


----------



## drshock (Apr 16, 2007)

I was watching a video in Government on Columbine today-- thats pretty fucked up.


----------



## Gilbucci (Apr 16, 2007)

31? Holy shit..My prayers go out to all the parents.


----------



## the.godfather (Apr 16, 2007)

Drew said:


> What's more troubling was there were two "waves" of shootings, more than two _hours_ apart.



Yeah, that truly is the worrying part.

I mean, what was the killer doing in between time? And I know it could have depended on the gun, but surely the word/sound must have spread. Unless as has been stated already, they chained the doors shut.

The investigation will find out I suppose.


----------



## Nats (Apr 16, 2007)

JPMDan said:


> how can a single person kill 31 people and columbine couldn't even get near that number having 2 people thats just not right.



cause they didn't go about it the right way. they showboated and taunted people. if they just walked down a crowded hallway, they could've picked off as many people as they had bullets


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 16, 2007)

Nats said:


> cause they didn't go about it the right way. they showboated and taunted people. if they just walked down a crowded hallway, they could've picked off as many people as they had bullets



Brutal, but true.


----------



## Rick (Apr 16, 2007)

My little brother graduated from there last year and he still knows people there. Fortunately, so far, he doesn't know any of the dead or injured. Reminds many of the University of Texas shootings in August 1966.


----------



## Seedawakener (Apr 16, 2007)

Makelele said:


> Nah, it's computer games and movies.
> 
> I guess some people need something to blame for these kinds of things. They apparently can't believe that people can be insane without some kind of influence.



uhh.... They are most likely influenced by something. A man does not take a gun to school and shoot all of his classmates of NO reason. If that would be the case he wouldnt know what a gun was. Something must have given a spark to this persons actions. How come school shootings like this mostly occur in the US? It might be because the policy on guns... hmm... This is so fucked up though, I cant believe we as living breathing individuals have to put up with this...   Im just so sad tyhat stuff like this actually happens daily...


----------



## noodles (Apr 16, 2007)




----------



## Cancer (Apr 16, 2007)

My ex fiancee went to VA Tech. It's like in the middle of nowhere literally, right in Roanoke which is like, the definition of a small, sleepy town. She liked the place, said it real peaceful.

Weird.


----------



## LilithXShred (Apr 16, 2007)

That's why i hate weapons....


----------



## zimbloth (Apr 16, 2007)

LilithXShred said:


> That's why i hate weapons....



That's why I hate people  This is really sad, I'm very disturbed by this. So senseless...


----------



## Drew (Apr 16, 2007)

Nats said:


> cause they didn't go about it the right way. they showboated and taunted people. if they just walked down a crowded hallway, they could've picked off as many people as they had bullets



Um, it worries me you've thought this through as well as you have.


----------



## Rick (Apr 16, 2007)

zimbloth said:


> That's why I hate people  This is really sad, I'm very disturbed by this. So senseless...



 

I feel totally numb right now. I've got the live stream conference online right now but it hasn't started yet.


----------



## Nats (Apr 16, 2007)

Drew said:


> Um, it worries me you've thought this through as well as you have.



i don't see what's so complicated about the theory that would need me to think it through. i'm sure you've gone to school and seen how crowded a hallway can get between any period


----------



## Wiz (Apr 16, 2007)

Yeah it sucks, I think I was quite lucky to have gone to a different university. It could have been me there this morning. I really sympathize with the victims and their families, it's quite a tragedy, and we can do nothing about it.

It's not even a matter of guns. Anybody can get access to them anywhere in the world, if he/she really tries, but for some reason only in our country people decide that they can start spraying bullets at kids because they have problems. It's so hard to understand why this happens, and how someone could possibly do that.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 16, 2007)

Nats said:


> i don't see what's so complicated about the theory that would need me to think it through. i'm sure you've gone to school and seen how crowded a hallway can get between any period



I don't think they tried killing people in the hallways at all. Didn't they target specific people in the library and classrooms?



Wiz said:


> Yeah it sucks, I think I was quite lucky to have gone to a different university. It could have been me there this morning. I really sympathize with the victims and their families, it's quite a tragedy, and we can do nothing about it.
> 
> It's not even a matter of guns. Anybody can get access to them anywhere in the world, if he/she really tries, but for some reason only in our country people decide that they can start spraying bullets at kids because they have problems. It's so hard to understand why this happens, and how someone could possibly do that.



Most people don't seem to be willing to even try and understand why it happens, which is why events like this keep repeating themselves.


----------



## Nik (Apr 16, 2007)

zimbloth said:


> That's why I hate people  This is really sad, I'm very disturbed by this. So senseless...



So true, times like this I lose faith in humanity. 

But the most puzzling aspect is, as Drew pointed out, that there was a 2-hour break between the two shootings. 

I remember, a couple of months back, there was a big scare at my university because they reportedly saw somebody running into the campus with a gun. There were no actual gunshots or anything, but the police still closed off the campus, barricaded everything, and even sent in sharp-shooters minutes after the initial report. You'd think that they'd have a similar response in VA  

Then again, they only caught one of the culprits here, so maybe they weren't able to track down the guy there as well.

They need to do something about that right to bear arms


----------



## Nats (Apr 16, 2007)

distressed_romeo said:


> I don't think they tried killing people in the hallways at all. Didn't they target specific people in the library and classrooms?



i don't remember the circumstance. i was just comparing before with the amount of firepower they had the damage they (the columbine kids) could've done if they were going for 'kill as many people at random as possible'


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 16, 2007)

Nats said:


> i don't remember the circumstance. i was just comparing before with the amount of firepower they had the damage they (the columbine kids) could've done if they were going for 'kill as many people at random as possible'



Actually, come to think of it, I think this is the first time anyone's tried the 'kill as many people as possible in the shortest space of time' thing during a school shooting...


----------



## HighGain510 (Apr 16, 2007)

I think a factor in stuff like this is the stupid media. They give so much attention to stuff like this that the kids see and feed off of it. It's sad but true. I'm not trying to say they shouldn't broadcast stuff like this, because it is important to know, but when these kids see how much attention they can gain they feel like they could be celebrities, if even for only a day. The reason WHY they are put in the spotlight doesn't matter, I think these kids want attention and they're willing to do something as terrible as this to get it. Ugh, this topic seems to come up every few years now and it's terrible. The saddest part is that usually when kids see this on TV, the copycat crimes start just like columbine. I hate this stuff.


----------



## drshock (Apr 16, 2007)

Nats said:


> cause they didn't go about it the right way. they showboated and taunted people. if they just walked down a crowded hallway, they could've picked off as many people as they had bullets



they did waste time but they still wounded 30 others expending 199 rounds of ammo.


----------



## Drew (Apr 16, 2007)

Death toll's now at 33, gunman included.


----------



## drshock (Apr 16, 2007)

damn

They've confirmed it was an Asian male about 6'0. Go figure, a six foot asian.


----------



## Mastodon (Apr 16, 2007)

distressed_romeo said:


> I don't think they tried killing people in the hallways at all. Didn't they target specific people in the library and classrooms?
> 
> 
> 
> Most people don't seem to be willing to even try and understand why it happens, which is why events like this keep repeating themselves.



That's a common misconception. They were actually fairly popular at Columbine and had a sizeable group of friends. The people they shot were completely random.


----------



## mefrommiddleearth (Apr 16, 2007)

regardless of the gunmen and victems personel circumstances,location,age and whether or not they had asizable group of freinds or not this shit sucks


----------



## playstopause (Apr 16, 2007)

Wiz said:


> It's not even a matter of guns. Anybody can get access to them anywhere in the world, if he/she really tries



I think it is. At least a part of it.

Guns are easier to find in some countries than others.
In some countries, there's a higher gun per person ratio.
How come nobody talks of the fucking gun?

After all, it's the tool.
How many people can you hurt / kill with a baseball bat?
Find a gun and you will hurt many. No gun, never that much damage.
Just f*ckin destroy every single gun.... Humans are stupids.
They hold to their guns just because they're scared shitless.
Who taught the dark ages were over?
...


Anyway, and most importantly, this is just really, really sad.


----------



## BigM555 (Apr 16, 2007)

/\ I might open myself up for a flame here but I'd argue the complete oppostie.

If everyone had a gun what do you think the ultimate death toll would have been in this case? The gunman/men would have been picked off by some not so innocent bystander long before it got to 30.


----------



## mefrommiddleearth (Apr 16, 2007)

playstopause said:


> I think it is. At least a part of it.
> 
> Guns are easier to find in some countries than others.
> In some countries, there's a higher gun per person ratio.
> ...



I think the gun problem side of it is mostly poor gun attitudes. I've been a target shooter for a few years and I'm dead keen to get into hunting but I'm straight against the whole guns for self defense thing. It should not be necessary for a civilian to carry a gun in a healthy civilised society and keeping a loaded pistol, rifle or heaven forbid an assault weapon is just asking for it to fall into the hands of a criminal a troubled youth or a child that does not understand the danger. poor gun handling and a lack of a healthy respect for lethal force in general undoubtedly leads to death. I personaly find it disgusting that hunters who do not identify there targets and wind up killing or maiming a person can get off prison time in my mind they have through a lack of healthy respect of lethal force demonstrated that they are not fit for society and certainly not fit for firearms ownership that
these kids got access to firearms annoys me greatly and somebody needs to go to jail over this thoose kids should never ever been able to get accesss to firearms ever.

now back to mourning the poor souls who have lost there lives


----------



## Nik (Apr 16, 2007)

BigM555 said:


> /\ I might open myself up for a flame here but I'd argue the complete oppostie.
> 
> If everyone had a gun what do you think the ultimate death toll would have been in this case? The gunman/men would have been picked off by some not so innocent bystander long before it got to 30.



I'm sorry, but I really disagree with this argument. That's kinda like saying, "Whoa, what if Iran makes a nuke??? I know! Let's give nukes to all of the countries in the world that haven't made one yet, someone's bound to nuke Iran!!!  "

Guns are objects made to kill. It's baffling to me how easy it is to get a gun in this country. Unless I'm mistaken, tragedies like this occur in the U.S. moreso than in most other countries. Coincidence?


----------



## playstopause (Apr 16, 2007)

BigM555 said:


> /\ I might open myself up for a flame here but I'd argue the complete oppostie.
> 
> If everyone had a gun what do you think the ultimate death toll would have been in this case? The gunman/men would have been picked off by some not so innocent bystander long before it got to 30.



No flame here 
To everyone his own opinion.

But i'll agree to disagree because imo, everyone having a gun on him
is _clearly not_ an option. Middle-Age is over.


----------



## Durero (Apr 16, 2007)

distressed_romeo said:


> Most people don't seem to be willing to even try and understand why it happens, which is why events like this keep repeating themselves.


I agree DR. Although such an event is overwhelmingly horrific, I really think that there should always be a huge effort made to follow-up and try to learn anything at all about what happened that could prevent, or at least lower the chances of a repeat of such a tragedy. A competent media would broadcast any helpful information as fervently as they sensationalize these events in the first place. I think the horror of this event will be compounded if we don't learn anything from it. 

Very sad & depressing news.


----------



## drshock (Apr 16, 2007)

playstopause said:


> I think it is. At least a part of it.
> 
> Guns are easier to find in some countries than others.
> In some countries, there's a higher gun per person ratio.
> ...



Destroy all guns so we can go back to medieval slaughterings.


----------



## playstopause (Apr 16, 2007)

I don't think removing guns from circulation would bring us back to Medieval slaughterings. What's up with that?


----------



## drshock (Apr 16, 2007)

playstopause said:


> I don't think removing guns from circulation would bring us back to Medieval slaughterings. What's up with that?



Look at Britain and Austrailia. Outlawing firearms hasn't done anything for them except raise crime! Go ahead and make firearms illegal, see how criminals treat that law. Rape is illegal, theft is illegal, but they happen everyday. If criminals cared about the law they would obey it. Making more laws against firearms only makes honset citizens more and more defenseless. In Florida crime has dropped dramatically since they have been given the right to carry. Crime has gone down there just because thugs dont know if they're armed or not.


----------



## Wiz (Apr 16, 2007)

Nik said:


> I'm sorry, but I really disagree with this argument. That's kinda like saying, "Whoa, what if Iran makes a nuke??? I know! Let's give nukes to all of the countries in the world that haven't made one yet, someone's bound to nuke Iran!!!  "
> 
> Guns are objects made to kill. It's baffling to me how easy it is to get a gun in this country. Unless I'm mistaken, tragedies like this occur in the U.S. moreso than in most other countries. Coincidence?



I don't know if that information is true or not, but I clearly remember mentioned in Bowling for Columbine that Canadians have just many guns and access to them as peeps in the US and they have orders of magnitude less murders per year.

This imho is a good argument against those who think that weapons are the real problem, not a society's culture. I'd honestly love to ban all weapons myself, and I'm never going to buy a gun because it will most likely get me or someone else killed, but I'd suggest that the real causes should be researched to understand why, not the most apparent ones.


----------



## playstopause (Apr 16, 2007)

drshock said:


> Look at Britain and Austrailia. Outlawing firearms hasn't done anything for them except raise crime! Go ahead and make firearms illegal, see how criminals treat that law. Rape is illegal, theft is illegal, but they happen everyday. If criminals cared about the law they would obey it. Making more laws against firearms only makes honset citizens more and more defenseless. In Florida crime has dropped dramatically since they have been given the right to carry. Crime has gone down there just because thugs dont know if they're armed or not.



Jesus, can you imagine how everything would be if everything was permitted?
Anyway, i wasn't talking about a law.
Don't make guns legal or illegal : just remove them from where they should not be ('cause of course, you can't remove _every _gun).




Wiz said:


> This imho is a good argument against those who think that weapons are the real problem, not a society's culture. I'd honestly love to ban all weapons myself, and I'm never going to buy a gun because it will most likely get me or someone else killed, but I'd suggest that the real causes should be researched to understand why, not the most apparent ones.



A battle can occur on 2 fronts.


----------



## drshock (Apr 16, 2007)

playstopause said:


> Jesus, can you imagine how everything would be if everything was permitted?
> Anyway, i wasn't talking about a law.
> Don't make guns legal or illegal : just remove them from where they should not be ('cause of course, you can't remove _every _gun).



Well I didnt mean it like _that_. In short my opinion is I think we already have all the laws on guns we need. We need to enforce the ones we have better.


----------



## playstopause (Apr 16, 2007)

^


----------



## drshock (Apr 16, 2007)

See? We _can_ come to an agreement


----------



## playstopause (Apr 16, 2007)

Of course. Discussion prevails.


----------



## BigM555 (Apr 16, 2007)

mefrommiddleearth said:


> It should not be necessary for a civilian to carry a gun in a healthy civilised society.......



This would be great if it were remotely possible. I'd love to see it, but can anyone show me a completely civilized society on this rock where individuals still don't have to defend their person, property or family? Somewhere there is no crime? I can't think of any.



mefrommiddleearth said:


> and keeping a loaded pistol, rifle or heaven forbid an assault weapon is just asking for it to fall into the hands of a criminal a troubled youth or a child that does not understand the danger.



 and why I am a complete advocate for firearm education. Not per se in how they operate but in exactly what you state. What the dangers are, safe handling, etc. ........the more you know!



mefrommiddleearth said:


> I personaly find it disgusting that hunters who do not identify there targets and wind up killing or maiming a person can get o prison time in my mind they have through a lack of healthy respect of lethal force demonstrated that they are not fit for society......



I can't disagree with this. Suddenly Dick Chenney comes to mind.  



mefrommiddleearth said:


> now back to mourning the poor souls who have lost there lives



Yes, I really did not intend to de-rail the thread. I feel great sorrow for such tragedies.  Though I also feel strongly that further control or outright prohibition is NOT the answer.



Nik said:


> I'm sorry, but I really disagree with this argument.



And your certainly entitled to. I just feel I'm also entitled to mine. The argument that they are not needed in part of a civilized society is moot to me. If society were really THAT civilized then why would you have to prohibit them? If societies hold on civility is so tenuous it's argueably an illusion.



drshock said:


> Look at Britain and Austrailia. Outlawing firearms hasn't done anything for them except raise crime! Go ahead and make firearms illegal, see how criminals treat that law. Rape is illegal, theft is illegal, but they happen everyday. If criminals cared about the law they would obey it. Making more laws against firearms only makes honset citizens more and more defenseless. In Florida crime has dropped dramatically since they have been given the right to carry. Crime has gone down there just because thugs dont know if they're armed or not.



Great post! This is exactly my thoughts. Those who would use guns aren't obtaining theirs legally anyway. Prohibition is impossible. You can't un-invent something. Criminals will naturally be more brazen when they feel there is no one to challenge them. I would prefer NOT to be thought of as prey.  



Wiz said:


> I don't know if that information is true or not, but I clearly remember mentioned in Bowling for Columbine that Canadians have just many guns and access to them as peeps in the US and they have orders of magnitude less murders per year.
> 
> This imho is a good argument against those who think that weapons are the real problem, not a society's culture. I'd honestly love to ban all weapons myself, and I'm never going to buy a gun because it will most likely get me or someone else killed, but I'd suggest that the real causes should be researched to understand why, not the most apparent ones.



Another great post. If only you could put the genie back in the bottle. I just don't see there being a point of "no weapons". A persons hands can be a weapon, a potatoe chip, a plate of spaghetti. So long as anyone has reason to fear another there will be an arms race.



drshock said:


> See? We _can_ come to an agreement


----------



## Mastodon (Apr 16, 2007)

To add my 2 cents to this conversation.

As stated before what the United States needs is a re-working of its attitude towards firearms.

Just like it needs a re-working of its attitude towards alcohol.


----------



## 7StringofAblicK (Apr 16, 2007)

I hope this guy burns in hell; this shit makes me so sick to my stomach.

No body deserves this shit. 

And to think the media will soon exploit this kid; he's getting what he wanted: attention.


----------



## Cancer (Apr 16, 2007)

drshock said:


> damn
> 
> They've confirmed it was an Asian male about 6'0. Go figure, a six foot asian.



Huh.....?!??!??!??

Holy new-rule-for-criminal-profiling, Batman. 

Please excuse my surprise, I am not trying to imply anything by it, but that is not what I expected to hear. Too much Columbine on the brain perhaps.


----------



## mefrommiddleearth (Apr 16, 2007)

On the matter about the necessity of carrying a gun for safety let me make this point. I in my life have never felt the need to carry a gun, knife or any other form of lethal force and I'm not some sort of person who locks themselves away from the big bad world. I strongly belive that personal safety is far more due to smart decisions than carrying a lethal weapon. for starters don't go where the streets aren't well lit or known for crime try to go out in groups after dark etcetera. Being smart saves lives. 

Not only that but someone who finds themselves having been attacked even if they got out of it all right having shot someone is going to be understandably nervy and could potentially turn on an inocent bystander if they mistook them for another agressor. also you talk about the thugs who don't attack incase someones packing well what about the thugs who think well I'll just shoot first then and who are probably going to bag a gun to sell to some other goon in the process? I'm sorry but I'm just unable to see how pasing out lethal force to all and sundry is a better solution to improved law enforcementm, better social problems to stop kids becoming crims in the fist place and good sense about not putting ones self in a potentialy dangerous position.

And lastly I'd like to clarify my point the problem is attitudes toward guns not guns themselves or particular legislation (although sensible gun laws help) using guns for sport and hunting is in my belief a positive thing however not being able to separate guns from the idea of using them against other people society as a whole needs to get away from this a gun is access to lethal force it should be treated with the maximum of respect and in my mind this includes realising that it is probably best that their use be strictly recreational or in law enforcement and national defence.

Edit: paragraph pwnd


----------



## djpharoah (Apr 16, 2007)

Dear god - please space and paragraph your responses. I couldn't even finish reading it without getting a headache.


----------



## Samer (Apr 17, 2007)

Man i feel so bad for the people that died and the families, i almost cried today when i herd about this. 

One of the biggest problem in this country is guns, and how easy it is to buy them and ammo.

I would rather no one had guns, not the police or criminals. Like in the U.K. where the cops don't have pistols. And there gun deaths per year are so low just like Canada. This country has a big problem with guns and idiots that think its there rights to be able to have M-16's in there houses.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 17, 2007)

Okay, here's the lowdown, since i didn't see it mentioned:

The reason why there were "Two Waves of shootings"--

The gunman had his g/f cheat on him. She went to get a counselor to talk about it. The kid shot her and the counselor (First two deaths). After that he want across campus and shot everyone else. they thought he had fled campus which was why the didn't issue a warning (so they say). 
It fucking sucks. especially considering i heard about it just after getting off campus. Kinda strikes home that way. What if it was my campus? 

My thoughts on the things we've brough up in this thread so far:
1) Blaming this on media is friggin' dumb. "Something had to influence them to do this"? Yeah, mental instability. Guaranteed i listen to more violent music and played more violent video games. I've never shot up any school, nor do i know anyone personally who have. As widespread as this media is in culture, if it influenced people to do crimes, there'd be a LOT more of them. Some fluke person with a mental disorder doesnt fault the media. 

2) Guns -- There's LOTS of control on guns. But unfortunately we can't account for everything. They're wondering how this guy got a gun, since foreign people can't buy guns on visas. How are we to know that he didn't have a friend or stole a gun? 
You know, i think that even if we DID ban guns, we'd still have all the violent crime we still do here. If someone REALLY wants to kill someone, they'll do it regardless of what they have.


----------



## Korbain (Apr 17, 2007)

drshock said:


> they did waste time but they still wounded 30 others expending 199 rounds of ammo.



not to mention they were throwing pipe bombs and had planted explosives around the school that would have likely brought the death toll into the hundreds. Luckily they were shit at wiring detonators. The columbine shooting was in a sense similar to this, the columbine shooters had certain targets, then from whats been gathered they just started shooting people randomly. Their over all goal was too kill as many as they could. Its alot more deeper than just a school shooting, the columbine dudes had this huge plan of what they wanted to do, only thing that really stopped em going through with it, was that they couldn't blow up the explosives they set so just resorted to going in and shooting people, they put bags filled with explosives in the cafeteria and stuff and waited till morning tea. Anyways...they're fucked in the head them two...

Can't say much about whats went on in the tech school, its fucking terrible. I feel bad for the families, people involved and that a guy was pushed to the edge to do something like that to innocent people. i'm also just baffled too what the fuck went on, people shot dead out the front 2 hours before, students weren't notified next thing he's as at the other end shooting another 30 people. I'm sure its all to do with the situation, when you 2 people shot dead you tend to think, theres others here and wheres the shooter. God i write alot...but im glad i got it out of me


----------



## ohio_eric (Apr 17, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> The gunman had his g/f cheat on him.





He killed and wounded over 60 people because his girlfriend cheated on him? Either the whole story isn't out yet or he is totally fucked in the head.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 17, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> He killed and wounded over 60 people because his girlfriend cheated on him? Either the whole story isn't out yet or he is totally fucked in the head.



That's what i've heard on some of the 'prelimary reports'. Don't know how accurate that is. 
But thats whats so fucked up. Anyone who'd do that over something as 'trivial' as a bad relationship needs to be in a mental ward, not a college.


----------



## Korbain (Apr 17, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> He killed and wounded over 60 people because his girlfriend cheated on him? Either the whole story isn't out yet or he is totally fucked in the head.



i believe its alot more than that. No normal person goes and shoots 60 people because a girl cheats on em. He obviously had issues, other reasons to shoot the others...maybe it was a student that his bitch cheated on him with?!? who knows...we'll find out sooner or later. maybe it was just a big go for fame in a sick way. Maybe there were 2 shooters? So many questions...its still only just happened not that long ago, so everythings gonna be smudged and twisted on whats happened.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 17, 2007)

Of course there's more to it, But like i said, thats what i heard on the radio.


----------



## Korbain (Apr 17, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> Of course there's more to it, But like i said, thats what i heard on the radio.



It'll prob take a few days before we really get what happened. What we're getting over here is basically all thats been said...i'm more interested in if it what 2 separate incidents or what. In a way i can see them being related, but being at separate sides of the place is weird. Especially condsidering he was out to kill as many people as possible, you'd think he'd shoot everyone on the way...its just so fucked up, i really can't believe it. It could happen anywhere at anytime...its just weird putting yourself in their position, you'd never expect something like that happening, its so sad


----------



## Vince (Apr 17, 2007)

MSNBC just reported that ATF says the gunman was a Chinese national here in America on a student Visa. He had a bulletproof vest on, a 9mm handgun and a .22 handgun with multiple clips. Both guns had the serial number scratched off. This was just reported on the Keith Olbermann Show.

WTF? A terrorist? He had the whole thing planned? This is getting weirder & weirder.


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (Apr 17, 2007)

This shooting is sad, but enough people die in the world every day, and enough people get slaughtered through disease, famine, civil war, in ways far more unpleasant and far more horrific than this.

And, at the same time, seeing as most of the american constitution is mangled in some way, does the right to ebar arms still exist? Surely noone needs an automatic weapon to defend his liberty. I mean, who's going to invade? The british? There are hardly any indians left to shoot and relocate, and the civil war is long since passed. So why, apart from what is a pretty moronic argument based on psychological need (that of "but if i don't have a gun, and they do, they'll shoot me" -> 1: you are more likely to get shot waving a gun at someone, 2: if noone had guns there wouldn't be that problem now would there?)

And I'll be interested what gets blamed. It'll be anything but that he/they had firearms and was/were allowed to purchase/obtain them pretty freely without hassle.

The biggest tragedy about this shooting is that nothing will effectively get done to prevent another one happening, and in effect, all the wrong percieved problems will be highlighted.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 17, 2007)

7 Dying Trees said:


> And, at the same time, seeing as most of the american constitution is mangled in some way, does the right to ebar arms still exist?



Considering the population today, you'd have to start a whole new country to get rid of that.


----------



## Korbain (Apr 17, 2007)

desertdweller said:


> MSNBC just reported that ATF says the gunman was a Chinese national here in America on a student Visa. He had a bulletproof vest on, a 9mm handgun and a .22 handgun with multiple clips. Both guns had the serial number scratched off. This was just reported on the Keith Olbermann Show.
> 
> WTF? A terrorist? He had the whole thing planned? This is getting weirder & weirder.



yep thats word at the moment. He went back got an ammunition belt, stocked up on ammo and grabbed a chain. Its fucked up, and he was dressed up in some sort of weird outfit too. I guess columbine was like this just after it happened too, its just because everyone is speculating why it happened and what caused it etc. But i must admit, this is just strange because he wasn't an american citizen, had guns with no serial numbers, he shot 2 people, then came back with ammo and shot the fuck outta everyone. Its getting a bit beyond the point of it being a domestic gone sour. If he had just shot the women and maybe that guy, fair enough thats not cool at all. But too shoot them, then go stock up and shoot 50 others. Its odd...I am keeping a close eye on here because news is slow here in aus lol


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 17, 2007)

Nik said:


> They need to do something about that right to bear arms




There have been numerous studies that show that looser gun laws contribute to LESS crime. Mostly because a criminal will approach you with a gun to your face as an intimidator. If you put a gun in theirs, they take off real quick. It's very rare that a handgun used in self defense ends up in death of anyone involved. The CLinton administration (notoriously anti-gun) did a study that showed that in a single year, guns were used in a defensive situation 1.5 million times. That's alot!!!

But look at states like FL. We have perhaps the least amount of gun control laws, but we also have significantly less crime than states who have much stricter laws. And as our laws ease up a little, our crime rates drop alot.

It's not the weapons themselves that harm anyone. It's the whack jobs that get their hands on them. If this guy couldn't get a gun, then he'd find another weapon to use on people. The problem with any kind of mass killing is that the person decided that they were going to start killing lots of people. Once someone makes that decision, there's not a whole lot that will stop them. They could grab a knife, a bat, a pipe, whatever. And what shows that this guy was going to do damage no matter what, look at the chains and padlocks on the doors.


----------



## Makelele (Apr 17, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> It's not the weapons themselves that harm anyone. It's the whack jobs that get their hands on them. If this guy couldn't get a gun, then he'd find another weapon to use on people. The problem with any kind of mass killing is that the person decided that they were going to start killing lots of people. Once someone makes that decision, there's not a whole lot that will stop them. They could grab a knife, a bat, a pipe, whatever. And what shows that this guy was going to do damage no matter what, look at the chains and padlocks on the doors.



It's MUCH easier to defend oneself against, or flee from someone who has a knife than from someone who has a gun. Killing 30 people and wounding another 30 with a knife would be impossible.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Apr 17, 2007)

I have to say I agree with you completely, Joe. 

If 5, 3, even 2 of those students had been carrying weapons, there probably would have been far, far fewer deaths.

Said my piece.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 17, 2007)

Makelele said:


> It's MUCH easier to defend oneself against, or flee from someone who has a knife than from someone who has a gun. Killing 30 people and wounding another 30 with a knife would be impossible.



But you would still have a whack job going into the class room trying to kill people. And he would succeed. You're right, maybe it's only 10 people, but they're still dead. And it's for the same reason. Some kid needed professional help and didn't get it. That has nothing to do with weapons what so ever.


----------



## Korbain (Apr 17, 2007)

Guns aren't dangerous, its the people pulling the triggers that are


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 17, 2007)

7 Dying Trees said:


> The biggest tragedy about this shooting is that nothing will effectively get done to prevent another one happening, and in effect, all the wrong percieved problems will be highlighted.



That's what I said earlier on. It'll be much easier for everyone to externalise all the problems (i.e. find a convenient scapegoat to throw off the mountain) and go on with everything as they always have. Incidentally, I don't think this is something specific to modern America; it's just human nature.


----------



## Korbain (Apr 17, 2007)

being realistic, you, me and/or no one else can really stop terrible things like this happening. I don't know the reasons for this guy doing this shit, but once a person is pushed to a limit and they click it, thats it. What they think at the time is what they do, i dunno how you could think "lets lock people up somewhere and shoot them" but hey. Word up on that DR, its just human nature nowday.


----------



## DelfinoPie (Apr 17, 2007)

This is horrible...I can't even begin to imagine what the families of those who were killed are going through right now.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 17, 2007)

Korbain said:


> Word up on that DR, its just human nature nowday.



It's not even a recent trend. It's something that seems to be inate to mankind. Where do you think the burning of witches came from? Hell, why do you think every culture seems to create an 'embodiment of all evil' figure (be it Set, Satan, Ahriman or whoever), or in the modern age people choose to kid themselves that the world sucks because there's a malevolent secret society running everything behind the scenes?

It's much easier to cast out or bury everything about ourselves that we may find disturbing, but as incidents like this prove, it usually ends in tears.


----------



## Korbain (Apr 17, 2007)

so they released who the shooter was...as much info as it is i guess...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/17/vtech.shooting/index.html



distressed_romeo said:


> It's not even a recent trend. It's something that seems to be inate to mankind. Where do you think the burning of witches came from? Hell, why do you think every culture seems to create an 'embodiment of all evil' figure (be it Set, Satan, Ahriman or whoever), or in the modern age people choose to kid themselves that the world sucks because there's a malevolent secret society running everything behind the scenes?
> 
> It's much easier to cast out or bury everything about ourselves that we may find disturbing, but as incidents like this prove, it usually ends in tears.



i agree 100% Certain humans are born with it in them to just pointlessly slaughter other humans...for no reason at all. Its fucked up, we're humans not frigin animals. Its just been human nature from beginning, look at what the nazi's did to the jews for example. Humans will always slaughter humans, whether it be for war, or because something turns sour in their lives and they take it out on innocent people, etc.


----------



## Pauly (Apr 17, 2007)

From another forum I go on.



> A somewhat notorious psychologist, Wilhelm Reich, noted positive correlation between sexual repression in a society and its denizens' propensity towards violence.
> 
> Whether a shooter in question IS a social outcast, or whether they just perceive that they are a social outcast is irrelevant. As long as the perception is there, many people will get depressed/jealous/bitter and blame everybody for their own problems and insecurities. That's because finger-pointing and blaming others is much easier than actually doing the work of improving oneself. Sure, the other person/persons might be, "at fault." But you cannot control the actions of others--you can only control the actions of yourself.
> 
> These shooters don't understand this, and thus lash out and go on a shooting rampage. Sure, there are sociopathic people--but I'd say they are more of the cold-hearted types like the Malvo sniper guy. When a kid walks into a high school, workplace, or university, it just REEKS of a guy who perceives himself as a failure and blames the victims for his failures.



I heard the rumor is that the 20 year old shooter was left by his girlfriend and she had moved on but he still wanted her. The forum's consensus even before this rumour spread was that this guy must have low self-esteem coupled with no women skills. I'm sure it'll be blamed on Counter Strike or something though.


----------



## noodles (Apr 17, 2007)

> A somewhat notorious psychologist, Wilhelm Reich, noted positive correlation between sexual repression in a society and its denizens' propensity towards violence.



*Attention Moral Majority: This is why prostitution should be legalized.*


----------



## Chris (Apr 17, 2007)

Pauly said:


> From another forum I go on.
> 
> 
> 
> I heard the rumor is that the 20 year old shooter was left by his girlfriend and she had moved on but he still wanted her. The forum's consensus even before this rumour spread was that this guy must have low self-esteem coupled with no women skills. I'm sure it'll be blamed on Counter Strike or something though.



 Since the guy is dead, there's nothing possible BUT speculation as to his motive. Speculation, and people looking to capitalize on it.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 17, 2007)

Pauly said:


> From another forum I go on.
> 
> I heard the rumor is that the 20 year old shooter was left by his girlfriend and she had moved on but he still wanted her. The forum's consensus even before this rumour spread was that this guy must have low self-esteem coupled with no women skills. I'm sure it'll be blamed on Counter Strike or something though.



Good quote. I've written several essays on this topic, linking sexual disorder/insecurity with humankind's 'monsters'.



Chris said:


> Since the guy is dead, there's nothing possible BUT speculation as to his motive. Speculation, and people looking to capitalize on it.



Bet you the first book'll be out within a couple of weeks.



noodles said:


> *Attention Moral Majority: This is why prostitution should be legalized.*



I'm not sure even that would be a solution. The problem runs far deeper than a few men lacking social skills around women.


----------



## Nik (Apr 17, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> There have been numerous studies that show that looser gun laws contribute to LESS crime. Mostly because a criminal will approach you with a gun to your face as an intimidator. If you put a gun in theirs, they take off real quick. It's very rare that a handgun used in self defense ends up in death of anyone involved. The CLinton administration (notoriously anti-gun) did a study that showed that in a single year, guns were used in a defensive situation 1.5 million times. That's alot!!!
> 
> But look at states like FL. We have perhaps the least amount of gun control laws, but we also have significantly less crime than states who have much stricter laws. And as our laws ease up a little, our crime rates drop alot.
> 
> It's not the weapons themselves that harm anyone. It's the whack jobs that get their hands on them. If this guy couldn't get a gun, then he'd find another weapon to use on people. The problem with any kind of mass killing is that the person decided that they were going to start killing lots of people. Once someone makes that decision, there's not a whole lot that will stop them. They could grab a knife, a bat, a pipe, whatever. And what shows that this guy was going to do damage no matter what, look at the chains and padlocks on the doors.



I see what you're saying  However, as Makalele said, it's not possible to inflict as much damage with a pipe or knife or whatever. 

If they legalized marijuana, do you think that marijuana use will go down? Nope, and looser gun laws will only end up putting more guns in more people's hands. Let's face it--people are remarkable, wonderful beings. However, a fraction of the population will always be stupid/unstable/unwise. Would you really feel secure if everyone had a gun, these people included?

Fact of the matter is this: if some crazy loon really wanted to get a gun, even if firearms were made illegal, he still would be able to. Sad, but true. However, by laxing gun laws to the max, getting his hands on a gun would be a million times easier.

I've walked through some shitty places in my life, but I've never felt the need to have gun. Nor have I ever even actually held one. I just don't get this mentality 

This whole mentality of 'someone could've picked him off!' IMO is flawed in that it puts absolute faith in the judgement and decision-making of the innocent bystanders. However, many people fail to realize the magnitude of the power that a gun holds. That's why you hear news stories about the new boyfriend shot by the girl's ex, or about little Billy who found his dad's gun and decided to play 'policeman' with his friend Jimmy, only to end up accidentally putting his friend in the hospital.


----------



## zimbloth (Apr 17, 2007)

Man, I don't even care to debate about this stuff, I just feel so sad for those lost and those who knew them. This is so tragic. I'm really disturbed by all of this. :/


----------



## Digital Black (Apr 17, 2007)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ac6_1176750032


----------



## Chris (Apr 17, 2007)




----------



## Chris (Apr 17, 2007)

Ryan Clark, 22, was known as "Stack" to his friends in the Marching Virginians college band. The Virginia Tech senior came from Martinez in Georgia and was a "true example of 'The Spirit Of Tech'," according to a message posted on the band's Web site. He majored in biology and English, and carried a 4.0 grade-point average, according to the coroner in Columbia County, Georgia. Clark was a resident assistant at West Ambler Johnston Hall, the dormitory where he and another person were shot dead at 7:15 a.m. Monday. He had been planning to pursue a PhD in psychology with a focus in cognitive neuroscience, according to the Marching Virginians Web site. 





Kevin Granata, age unknown, was one of the* top five biomechanics researchers in the country working on movement dynamics in cerebral palsy*, the head of Engineering Science and Mechanics Department at Virginia Tech said in an e-mail to The Associated Press. His academic career included stints at the Johns Hopkins University, Ohio State University, University of Virginia and Wake Forest University.




Liviu Librescu, 76, a professor at Virginia Tech, was recognized internationally for his research in aeronautical engineering, the head of the Engineering Science and Mechanics Department at Virginia Tech told AP. Librescu, *an Israeli Holocaust survivor*, was born and received his advanced degrees in Romania.




. V. Loganathan, 51, was a professor of civil and environmental engineering in the College of Engineering at Virginia Tech. Since coming to Virginia Tech in 1982, he earned the Outstanding Faculty Award, the Dean's Award for Excellence in Teaching and the Faculty Achievement Award for Excellence in Civil Engineering Education, according to his biography on the Virginia Tech Web site.




Ross Alameddine, 20, was a student from Saugus, Massachusetts. The sophomore English major was shot during French class, a family friend told The Associated Press. A Facebook page created in Alameddine's remembrance called him "an intelligent, funny, easygoing guy who will be greatly missed."


----------



## zimbloth (Apr 17, 2007)

Chris said:


>



Fuck that guy  The news is saying he had reciepts for the guns he purchased in his bookbag. He bought them in March from a store. 

Also news is saying they found a 'disturbing note' at his home in Centreville, VA.

EDIT: Yeah I read about those victims, very sad. All very productive members of society


----------



## Chris (Apr 17, 2007)

I was suprised when I heard that all he had was a 9mm and a .22. Granted the 9mm is all he needed, but when you think of 30+ people dead, I envisioned a bit more.


----------



## zimbloth (Apr 17, 2007)

Also announed "Erin Peterson", a girl... is among the dead. Said her father had been trying to find news on her all night, and told CNN "my baby didn't make it". *sigh*

I don't know how anyone could shoot a girl, shooting anyone is revolting but that just bothers me even more for some reason.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 17, 2007)

Nik, what you're underestimating is the responsible gun owner's survival instinct. Would someone who carried take a chance to save people's lives? I certainly believe so. Of course, nobody is allowed to bring a firearm onto school property except for on duty, uniformed police officers. However, I do believe that someone would have stood up to the challenge and did what they could to end the slaughter.

I myself carry on a daily basis. I may not ever need to draw it, and I sure as hell hope I never need to, but to have it in a worst case scenario can save my life, the live's of those I keep close to me, or some hot chick that will do some wild things to me for saving her life (a guy can dream can't he). I have had to defend myself. I have had to get stitches from some drugged up jerk weed slicing me open trying to get the $5 in my wallet, and I have had to step in for someone that was in the process of being raped. I dont know about you, but I will NOT be a victim and my little buddy up against my kidney reminds me of that all day, everyday.

Part of our nature is to want things that either we can't have or that we would have a very hard time getting. That's just who we are. By making it so that nobody could have a gun, I promise that MORE of the bad guys will have guns and you'll see alot more people die every year because of gun shot wounds. By me carrying a gun in my day to day life and my step dad, and the millions of others out there who carry daily, the bad guys are less likely to cause harm to people because they don't know who may harm them. It's been shown in countless studies that more guns leads to less crime in our society. Maybe it doesn't work that way in other countries, but in the US, that's what it takes for our scum bags to smarten up and not threaten an innocent person's life.

Of course this whole argument has NOTHING to do with what happened yesterday since Mr. Seung-Hui was going to kill people regardless of what weapon he had at his disposal. That's a psychological issue as opposed to the sociological issue presented in the gun control debates that have plagued us ever since the early 90's (I'm not sure if they were around before that or not, I haven't looked back that far )


----------



## zimbloth (Apr 17, 2007)

Fox News/Chicago Tribune on note:

Railed against "rich kids", "deceitful charlatans", had set a fire in a dorm and stalked women.... signed his letter "Ismail Ax"


----------



## Rick (Apr 17, 2007)

I hope he rots in hell.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 17, 2007)

Chris said:


>



So many killers seem to have that wierd glassy-eyed stare. The creepy part is, you can imagine just what he would have looked like when he was little...


----------



## zimbloth (Apr 17, 2007)

Chris said:


> Liviu Librescu, 76, a professor at Virginia Tech, was recognized internationally for his research in aeronautical engineering, the head of the Engineering Science and Mechanics Department at Virginia Tech told AP. Librescu, *an Israeli Holocaust survivor*, was born and received his advanced degrees in Romania.



Students are saying this man sacrificed himself to save his students. He barracaded the door and then threw himself at the gunmen so students could escape out windows. What a great man and a hero.


----------



## eaeolian (Apr 17, 2007)

distressed_romeo said:


> So many killers seem to have that wierd glassy-eyed stare. The creepy part is, you can imagine just what he would have looked like when he was little...



Dude, I see hundreds of photo ID pics. About 1/3 of them look like that, including my current DL pic, where I look like a Manson Family member.

You can't draw conclusions from a low-res pic taken under bad conditions.


----------



## BigM555 (Apr 17, 2007)

Nik said:


> I see what you're saying  However, as Makalele said, it's not possible to inflict as much damage with a pipe or knife or whatever.



So that means that it's okay to not address the real problem so long as we lower the death toll.  Doesn't sound a whole lot different than the proposal that a gun carrying bystander may (likely WOULD) have picked him off. Same reduction in fatalities with the added bonus of a deterent. What kind of deterent is there to criminals/whakos if they know that no one, or only a trivial few (law enforcement), can challenge them?  



Nik said:


> Fact of the matter is this: if some crazy loon really wanted to get a gun, even if firearms were made illegal, he still would be able to. Sad, but true. However, by laxing gun laws to the max, getting his hands on a gun would be a million times easier..



There are already checks and balances in place to try to prevent such people acquiring weapons. It's not 100%, but I prefer these checks and balances stay in place. As you state however, a person that decides to kill will find a way. Once that decision has been made the only alternative left is to "nip it in the bud" and stop the killing ASAP. We're all witness to what the toll is when you wait for the authorities.

In any case, it's a tough nut to crack (no pun intended...sorry). I certainly am not an advocate of "everyone carrying a firearm". Without doubt there are some that should not. I just don't think that rounding up all the firearms and destroying them (as some would like) is a realistic sollution.

Guns are a focal point but they really only alter the magnitude of the problem. Even if they had never been invented we would still be in shock after some lunatic went crazy and killed 5-6 people with a baseball bat. It's all relative.

Assuming that no one would intervene is every bit as flawed to me. If a fight breaks out at a party your at does every one just stand back until the bodies hit the floor? I doubt it. There is always someone willing to intervene. I'd like to retain my belief that people are generally "good" and will do the right thing.


----------



## noodles (Apr 17, 2007)

eaeolian said:


> Dude, I see hundreds of photo ID pics. About 1/3 of them look like that, including my current DL pic, where I look like a Manson Family member.



I always knew you were a tortured soul one step away from becoming completely unhinged.


----------



## Chris (Apr 17, 2007)

zimbloth said:


> Students are saying this man sacrificed himself to save his students. He barracaded the door and then threw himself at the gunmen so students could escape out windows. What a great man and a hero.



That's pretty fucking awesome.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 17, 2007)

eaeolian said:


> Dude, I see hundreds of photo ID pics. About 1/3 of them look like that, including my current DL pic, where I look like a Manson Family member.
> 
> You can't draw conclusions from a low-res pic taken under bad conditions.



I'm not saying that a photo like that is evidence that someone's a potential psycho (I don't put many pics of myself online just because I always look pretty deranged), just that after the event it always seems an image like that that ends up being used to represent them. I just think it's pretty wierd.



zimbloth said:


> Students are saying this man sacrificed himself to save his students. He barracaded the door and then threw himself at the gunmen so students could escape out windows. What a great man and a hero.



Just heard about this on the news. Agree 100%.

RIP


----------



## Nik (Apr 17, 2007)

BigM555 said:


> So that means that it's okay to not address the real problem so long as we lower the death toll.



Where I come from, a lower death toll would be considered a good thing.  

That's just the thing--this is a problem that you can't address. Sadly, there will always be wackos, and there will always be people killing other people. You can't address this issue because it's a sad but inseparable aspect of humanity. So, the best that you can do is do your best to keep as little innocent people from being harmed as you can. 

In any case, I respect your opinions, as I hope you respect mine, and I really don't feel like debating this anymore. It really is a time for mourning and not a time for overzealous debate over old issues.

EDIT: what that man did truly is remarkable


----------



## drshock (Apr 17, 2007)

> Guns are a focal point but they really only alter the magnitude of the problem. Even if they had never been invented we would still be in shock after some lunatic went crazy and killed 5-6 people with a baseball bat. It's all relative.




+1
If guns weren't ever created they'd blame it on knifes and swords.


----------



## BigM555 (Apr 17, 2007)

Nik said:


> Where I come from, a lower death toll would be considered a good thing.



Sorry, I was being somewhat sarcastic.



Nik said:


> In any case, I respect your opinions, as I hope you respect mine, and I really don't feel like debating this anymore. It really is a time for mourning and not a time for overzealous debate over old issues.
> 
> EDIT: what that man did truly is remarkable



 x 10,000

If this man made such a sacrifice he should truly be honored.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Apr 17, 2007)

zimbloth said:


> Students are saying this man sacrificed himself to save his students. He barracaded the door and then threw himself at the gunmen so students could escape out windows. What a great man and a hero.


What a badass.  Dude, you rule  



eaeolian said:


> You can't draw conclusions from a low-res pic taken under bad conditions.


Definitely, my military ID pic is pretty creepy and in my university one I'm damn sexy with a tan


----------



## zimbloth (Apr 17, 2007)

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0417071vtech1.html


----------



## noodles (Apr 17, 2007)

zimbloth said:


> Students are saying this man sacrificed himself to save his students. He barracaded the door and then threw himself at the gunmen so students could escape out windows. What a great man and a hero.



I saw this on the news at lunch. They had several of his students on the news, tearfully thanking him for giving up his life to save them. A true hero.


----------



## Drew (Apr 17, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> There have been numerous studies that show that looser gun laws contribute to LESS crime. Mostly because a criminal will approach you with a gun to your face as an intimidator. If you put a gun in theirs, they take off real quick. It's very rare that a handgun used in self defense ends up in death of anyone involved. The CLinton administration (notoriously anti-gun) did a study that showed that in a single year, guns were used in a defensive situation 1.5 million times. That's alot!!!



1.) I'd be curious to see who funded those studies, because most I've seen concluded the reverse. If you think about it, if you loosen gun control laws, then what you're seeing happen is more people who for one reason or another - criminal record, history of mental disease making them a potential suicide risk, whatever - wouldn't be given a gun suddenly are able to get them. The majority of people who would carry one for self defense generally are "low risk" gun buyers, so would be approved anyway. I'm not saying your scenario is necessarily wrong (though it's worth noting that if you pull a gun on a guy pointing a gun on you, there's also a chance he could freak and shoot before you get yours out, which actually INCREASES your risk of being shot), just that allowing riskier and riskier people to buy guns would have less of an effect on self defense and more of an effect of putting guns into the hands of people more likely to use them on themselves or on others, actually potentially increasing gun-related injuries and deaths. 

2.) Define "defensive situation." The figure looks impressive, but if you include things like, oh, shooting the criminal in the above situation when he runs off after you pull a gun on him, or taking a shot at a shadowy figure you scared off trying to break into your garage when simply yelling would have done just as much, you have to ask the question if the guns are actually making things better. And even if you try to keep it restricted to "defensive situations involving probable risk to your person or property," or some such thing, well, even that's a blurry line. What about a guy who pulls a gun in a bar fight when a bigger guy throws a few punches at him? Sure, by pulling the gun and potentially shooting at him you're saving yourself an asskicking, but bigger picture is it better off getting beat up a bit, or not getting beaten up but putting yourself in a situation where you may potentially kill the agressor? 

Anyway, since you bring up the Clinton administration, it's worth mentioning that the "notoriously anti-gun" Clinton reduced gun-related crime by 40% during his Presidency.  


Without going into it much further than this, I've heard a lot of "this wouldn't have happened if the students had guns, because they could have taken this kid out early on" arguments since this happened, and there's a certain amount of truth to this - the body count undoubtably would have been lower. However, with tighter gun control laws in place, there's a higher chance that an introverted loner looking to buy two pistols a few short months before graduating from college (a notoriously traumatizing experience if you haven't yet found your place within the world) would have garnered some additional attention, and the tighter the laws, the more likely it is he would have failed a psychological examination or something and simply not been given a liscense to purchase guns, assuming the sale was even legal (which it may not have been - the serial numbers were filed off, after all). 

Sure, looser gun control laws would have meant the student would have been shot before he could have killed more people... but properly enforced tighter laws, and odds are he wouldn't even have had the gun in the first place.


----------



## Drew (Apr 17, 2007)

zimbloth said:


> http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0417071vtech1.html



Yeah, seeing that makes me feel increasingly comfortable in saying that if he was required to pass a psychological evaluation before purchasing a handgun to make sure he wasn't likely to use it against someone, this would not have happened.


----------



## zimbloth (Apr 17, 2007)

Agreed Drew.

CNN just had the father of a girl who was killed. A Lebanese student, who was a dancer. His courage to be able to speak about it and remain his composure is remarkable. Very sad, she was very pretty and by all accounts a great person (I know no one's gonna say 'yea she was a bitch', but you can just tell...).


----------



## noodles (Apr 17, 2007)

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

This kid was seriously fucked up.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 17, 2007)

Drew said:


> Yeah, seeing that makes me feel increasingly comfortable in saying that if he was required to pass a psychological evaluation before purchasing a handgun to make sure he wasn't likely to use it against someone, this would not have happened.



Agreed.

Also, i think its worth noting, if we didn't have guns, i bet we'd have more instances of Oklahoma City instead.
Fact of the matter = Crazy people want to kill a lot of people to take out their aggression. They'll do it any way they can. like i said before, if someone REALLY wants to kill somebody, they'll do it no matter what they have on hand.


Also, Props for that Israeli professor dude. Thats one of the most badass things i've heard in a long time. That dude's a hero \m/


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 17, 2007)

noodles said:


> http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/17/cho-seung-huis-plays/
> 
> This kid was seriously fucked up.



His plays suck too. How this guy ever got onto an English degree is beyond me.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing unfortunately...


----------



## Nik (Apr 17, 2007)

Well said, Drew  



Drew said:


> 1.) I'd be curious to see who funded those studies, because most I've seen concluded the reverse. If you think about it, if you loosen gun control laws, then what you're seeing happen is more people who for one reason or another - criminal record, history of mental disease making them a potential suicide risk, whatever - wouldn't be given a gun suddenly are able to get them. The majority of people who would carry one for self defense generally are "low risk" gun buyers, so would be approved anyway. I'm not saying your scenario is necessarily wrong (though it's worth noting that if you pull a gun on a guy pointing a gun on you, there's also a chance he could freak and shoot before you get yours out, which actually INCREASES your risk of being shot), just that allowing riskier and riskier people to buy guns would have less of an effect on self defense and more of an effect of putting guns into the hands of people more likely to use them on themselves or on others, actually potentially increasing gun-related injuries and deaths.



Without starting the debate again, here's a paper with interesting statistics I saw posted in regard to this issue on another forum, if anyone is interested in further reading into this topic:

http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/pdf_files/understanding_files/19_GUN OWNERSHIP.pdf


----------



## Mastodon (Apr 17, 2007)

The Phelps family have already stated that they plan to protest the funerals of those who died.


Also, this is making assumptions but it wouldn't surprise me if the way he was raised had at least something to this with this. My korean friends often tell me about how harsh first generation parents can be and I have a friend who often talks about how Northern Virginian korean males in particular have such terrible attitudes and out looks on life.

I recognize that is generalizing, but it definately could have been a factor.


----------



## noodles (Apr 17, 2007)

Mastodon said:


> The Phelps family have already stated that they plan to protest the funerals of those who died.



I really hate those stupid fucks.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 17, 2007)

Mastodon said:


> The Phelps family have already stated that they plan to protest the funerals of those who died.



Oh boy...

I suppose it was inevitable...



noodles said:


> I really hate those stupid fucks.



Agreed.


----------



## Drew (Apr 17, 2007)

Who the fuck are the Phelps family, and what are they doing protesting funerals? 



Metal Ken said:


> Also, Props for that Israeli professor dude. Thats one of the most badass things i've heard in a long time. That dude's a hero \m/



A-fuckin'-men, dude. I can only hope that if I'm ever in his shoes, god forbid, I have the strength to do the same thing. I don't even know what to say, except that people like that make me proud to be a human.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 17, 2007)

Drew said:


> Who the fuck are the Phelps family, and what are they doing protesting funerals?



The same ones who were picketing military funerals.


----------



## noodles (Apr 17, 2007)

Mastodon said:


> The Phelps family have already stated that they plan to protest the funerals of those who died.



It's those sick fucks from The Westboro Baptist Church. They ever show up at a funeral I'm attending, they won't like how it turns out for them.


----------



## Drew (Apr 17, 2007)

Oh, those motherfuckers? 

There wouldn't happen to be 33 of them, would there? I mean, I'm sure we can drum up a crazed gunman from SOMEWHERE...


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 17, 2007)

Drew said:


> Oh, those motherfuckers?
> 
> There wouldn't happen to be 33 of them, would there? I mean, I'm sure we can drum up a crazed gunman from SOMEWHERE...



I'm sure there'd be 100 mile long queue of 'crazed gunmen' lining up to deal with them.

Actually, it wouldn't suprise me if one day someone does open fire on them, as they're pushing a lot of people to their absolute limits...


----------



## DelfinoPie (Apr 17, 2007)

noodles said:


> It's those sick fucks from The Westboro Baptist Church. They ever show up at a funeral I'm attending, they won't like how it turns out for them.



Thats so fucking disrespectful. They aren't human, they have no sense of decency...the logic behind their actions is absolutely baffling.

Pieces of shit.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 17, 2007)

DelfinoPie said:


> Thats so fucking disrespectful. They aren't human, they have no sense of decency...the logic behind their actions is absolutely baffling.
> 
> Pieces of shit.



Calling it 'logic' is being far far too generous.



Drew said:


> A-fuckin'-men, dude. I can only hope that if I'm ever in his shoes, god forbid, I have the strength to do the same thing. I don't even know what to say, except that people like that make me proud to be a human.



It's really disturbing that a guy who survived the Holocaust could be killed in that way. Life is so unfair...

Still, a guy like that provides some hope that the human race isn't a totally lost cause yet.


----------



## fathead (Apr 17, 2007)

This is such an awful tragedy and my heart goes out to all those affected by it. So many peoples lives have been changed forever and it's a terrible thing. And I hope the heroes that helped to save others will not be forgotten. What I'm about to say is with the deepest respect to all of the victims.

But there is something deeply disturbing about all of this. Dr. Joseph Cacioppo of Montgomery Regional Hospital said "There wasn't a shooting victim that didn't have less than three bullet wounds in them.". Now according to CNN there was 31 killed and 15 wounded. So before the wounded that would be 93 bullets. If each injured victim was hit once that would be 108, or if each was hit three times 138 rounds. 

Now we know Hillary Strollo who is a survivor was hit three times and according to CBS she went on to say "..he fired approximately 5- to 6- clips - around 3 bullets into each person in the classroom."

According to CNN the combined capacity of these two guns is 27 rounds counting one in the chamber. So twenty five rounds each time both the clips in the guns are changed. And multiple witnesses have said that he was reloading by dropping the clips on the ground and pulling a new one off his vest.

So if we go with what the doctor and the media says. He would have around 12 clips for a round total of 152 give or take depending how much he used each gun. I've seen three separate students who were barricaded into classrooms and said he tried to shoot through the door and others said he was firing wildly so 12 clips could be a low estimate and remember Hillary alone saw him shoot five or six clips.

Now I'm all for the right to bear arms. But can somebody please explain to me how a resident alien college student, who may have been on antidepressants, can purchase two guns, at least twelve clips, enough ammo to fill them, and a vest to strap them to without setting off any alarm bells?

And also according to The Post Chronicle and Fox News Live yesterday there was one shooter already in custody.


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 17, 2007)

Drew said:


> Oh, those motherfuckers?
> 
> There wouldn't happen to be 33 of them, would there? I mean, I'm sure we can drum up a crazed gunman from SOMEWHERE...



I'm surprised, like, genuinely astonished that nothing has happened to them yet.


----------



## Mastodon (Apr 17, 2007)

The worst part of the Westboro Baptists is that their whole goal is just to piss people off so that they can sue and make a boat load of money.


----------



## ohio_eric (Apr 17, 2007)

Mastodon said:


> The Phelps family have already stated that they plan to protest the funerals of those who died.



May Fred Phelps soon cross the line with his protests and be sent to jail and forced to take many gay lovers.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Apr 17, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> May Fred Phelps soon cross the line with his protests and be sent to jail and forced to take many gay lovers.



I'm not gonna laugh in this thread, but that is awesomely fitting.


----------



## ohio_eric (Apr 17, 2007)

It wasn't a joke. It was a wish and a prayer. I hate Feed Phelps with a passion.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Apr 17, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> It wasn't a joke. It was a wish and a prayer. I hate Feed Phelps with a passion.



Still, it was very funny, and yet, karmically, a terrific concept.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 17, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> May Fred Phelps soon cross the line with his protests and be sent to jail and forced to take many gay lovers.



Hopefully it'll happen sooner rather than later.


----------



## drshock (Apr 17, 2007)

Nik said:


> Well said, Drew
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Funny how they fail to mention the non-gun related crimes in those countries.


----------



## mefrommiddleearth (Apr 17, 2007)

if I remember rightly they did and there was no correlation


----------



## drshock (Apr 17, 2007)

This still doesnt prove that letting people own firearms increases crime. Do you think the Latin Kings get thier guns from Gander Mountain? Of course yes, some criminals get thier weapons legally, but even with all the background checks in the world, you still can't read a man's mind.


----------



## mefrommiddleearth (Apr 17, 2007)

I've been trying to find a video clip they played on the news here were a local exchange students family told of how when he first arrived there he was shockedat how easy it would be for him to acquire a gun but I can't seem to find it if anybody else is interested in finding it it's probably on the tvnz website. 

One of the things that worry me about this is that it'll have knock on effects in other countrys like my own were it'll hurt recreational firearms owners (by the way I find my countrys firearms laws and culture something to be proud of people here to get a gun licence have to have two people one of whom is not a famiy member have to atesst to that persons sanity and good nature and no gun shop in the country has racks of pistols it's all recreational weapons).


----------



## eaeolian (Apr 17, 2007)

Drew said:


> A-fuckin'-men, dude. I can only hope that if I'm ever in his shoes, god forbid, I have the strength to do the same thing. I don't even know what to say, except that people like that make me proud to be a human.



It's funny, people talk about heroes in these situations never being the one's you'd expect. Yet another case. It makes me as proud to be human as it does sad that we have to discuss this.


----------



## drshock (Apr 17, 2007)

mefrommiddleearth said:


> I've been trying to find a video clip they played on the news here were a local exchange students family told of how when he first arrived there he was shockedat how easy it would be for him to acquire a gun but I can't seem to find it if anybody else is interested in finding it it's probably on the tvnz website.
> 
> One of the things that worry me about this is that it'll have knock on effects in other countrys like my own were it'll hurt recreational firearms owners (by the way I find my countrys firearms laws and culture something to be proud of people here to get a gun licence have to have two people one of whom is not a famiy member have to atesst to that persons sanity and good nature and no gun shop in the country has racks of pistols it's all recreational weapons).



That's a good idea but you still never know what anyone's plotting in thier head.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 17, 2007)

eaeolian said:


> It's funny, people talk about heroes in these situations never being the one's you'd expect. Yet another case. It makes me as proud to be human as it does sad that we have to discuss this.



So true, so true...


----------



## Nik (Apr 17, 2007)

drshock said:


> This still doesnt prove that letting people own firearms increases crime. Do you think the Latin Kings get thier guns from Gander Mountain? Of course yes, some criminals get thier weapons legally, but even with all the background checks in the world, you still can't read a man's mind.



Again, I don't want to get all in-depth into this discussion again. Still, the article does not say that guns increase crime. For the sake of discussion, let's just say that the amount of crime is constant. What I'm trying to say is that, with widespread gun-ownership, the fraction of crime which involves guns goes up. And since guns are more effective at killing people than other weapons, it follows logically that more people die.

It doesn't matter that that paper doesn't discuss non-gun related crime because that data is not pertinent to the topic at hand, and the lack of this crime does not in any way affect these statistics, since this examination looked at homicides per 1 million, and % of households with guns.


----------



## mefrommiddleearth (Apr 17, 2007)

what I'd also like to point drshock is a few other things

1. some people have talked about the fact that even if people had no access to firearms they'd still kill but I don't think so. with a gun you have an easy to use weapon that gives you the luxury of killing at a distance for a lot of shooters that would be central to there plans

2.you talk about how most criminals would get there guns illegaly but where do those guns come from in most cases I'd say they are stolen from legitamete firearms owners and if there loaded in an unlocked draw and ready to go all the better for the crim


----------



## Mastodon (Apr 17, 2007)

Apparently the killer's parents attempted suicide today.

The father succeeded and the mother did not.


----------



## Samer (Apr 17, 2007)

Mastodon said:


> Apparently the killer's parents attempted suicide today.
> 
> The father succeeded and the mother did not.



wow, man.

I read what you were saying about Korean culture in a earlier post. This one Korean kid who went to my high school got a C on a test and later that day committed suicide due to fear of his parents finding out (he was a straight A student, always got A's). He killed him self by crashing his car. 

I don't want to generalize any one but that is pretty fucked up.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Apr 18, 2007)

That's pretty sad


----------



## ohio_eric (Apr 18, 2007)

Mastodon said:


> Apparently the killer's parents attempted suicide today.
> 
> The father succeeded and the mother did not.






God, that is depressing.


----------



## Korbain (Apr 18, 2007)

another life lost due to this. I can't believe his parents, jesus. But i know how the koreans and asians in general are about the whole respect and honor thing. Either way its terrible his dad killed himself and his mum attempted


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 18, 2007)

Have any further clues about the killer's background emerged yet?


----------



## fathead (Apr 18, 2007)

distressed_romeo said:


> Have any further clues about the killer's background emerged yet?



On CNN today they were talking to a couple different teachers who had been having problems with him for a while. One was willing to resign because he was such a problem and nobody would do anything about it. The other became concerned because of his writings which the police now do not want released so she couldn't say what was in them.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 18, 2007)

distressed_romeo said:


> Have any further clues about the killer's background emerged yet?



From what I've heard (mostly the news, but who knows for sure how accurate the info is), he had a history that was kind of disturbing. He had a history of stalking women both in person and online, was Baker Acted for suicide (locked in a mental ward for 72 hrs for evaluation) and had written many disturbing stories and plays that usually involved brutal murders and his English professor tried to get him help at that point.

He seems to have been the type of person that nothing would've been able to stop. He recieved some professional help and that just wasn't enough for him. It's sad to see his background and then to look at where it lead, but hindsight is always 20/20.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 18, 2007)

This just makes me think of that quote from Marilyn Manson that Drew mentioned earlier; 'I wouldn't have talked to them, I'd have listened'...


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 18, 2007)

distressed_romeo said:


> This just makes me think of that quote from Marilyn Manson that Drew mentioned earlier; 'I wouldn't have talked to them, I'd have listened'...



Unfortunately, people did listen to him. It just wasn't enough. But Manson was certainly right. More often than not, just listening to people can help them tremendously.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 18, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> Unfortunately, people did listen to him. It just wasn't enough. But Manson was certainly right. More often than not, just listening to people can help them tremendously.



I wasn't thinking of him in this case. I was thinking more of the teachers and pupils who'd known, and been saying, for ages that the guy was seriously disturbed and were largely ignored. This seems to be another case of people not being willing to confront a problem that's staring them in the face.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 18, 2007)

distressed_romeo said:


> I wasn't thinking of him in this case. I was thinking more of the teachers and pupils who'd known, and been saying, for ages that the guy was seriously disturbed and were largely ignored. This seems to be another case of people not being willing to confront a problem that's staring them in the face.



That is true, however from what I've heard, people did listen to them as well. His English professor was deeply disturbed by his writings and sought professional help, the police took action and tried to get the guy help, and the police were at his dorm room some what regularly regarding his stalking habits and again, tried to get him help. There's also word that he was prescribed anti-depressants which can be a very helpful supplement to the other help as long as they take their meds. So I really do believe that people took other students and faculty's concerns seriously and did try to intervene and help him. Of course, that's if the news info I've heard is accurate, which is still in debate as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 18, 2007)

Arrrrrgh. You're right, there are some people who just can't be helped...it's just sad when it leads to things like this. From all the background that's emerging on him it sounds like the guy should probably have been institutionalised, but unfortunately that's easier said than done.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 18, 2007)

distressed_romeo said:


> From all the background that's emerging on him it sounds like the guy should probably have been institutionalised, but unfortunately that's easier said than done.




So true. You can Baker Act someone, but it's only for 72 hours. Aside from that, you have to wait for them to do something bad to force them into an institution without their permission.


----------



## irg7620 (Apr 18, 2007)

and let's not forget this. one person from another country with severe problems does not make the country bad. and you can't ban guns just because someone used one in a violent crime. we have the constitutional right to bear arms and if he was of age, and legally able to own one, he had that right. he had no right to kill people. i think if he had such problems, i think they got out of hand because of the culture/language barrier, if there was one. i don't hate koreans because of this. it's extremely sad that this guy couldn't get help when it is so apparent that he needed it. my condolences go out to the people at VT.


----------



## Rick (Apr 18, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> That is true, however from what I've heard, people did listen to them as well. His English professor was deeply disturbed by his writings and sought professional help, the police took action and tried to get the guy help, and the police were at his dorm room some what regularly regarding his stalking habits and again, tried to get him help. There's also word that he was prescribed anti-depressants which can be a very helpful supplement to the other help as long as they take their meds. So I really do believe that people took other students and faculty's concerns seriously and did try to intervene and help him. Of course, that's if the news info I've heard is accurate, which is still in debate as far as I'm concerned.



Well, it turns out my little brother, Steve, had an English class with him last year. He said he could sort of tell something was wrong and he wanted to try and talk to this guy and make him feel a bit more welcome or at least, try to pull him out of his shell. But the killer never came to class after the 2nd week and Steven didn't get to talk to him like he wanted.

Steve also knew Ryan Clark, the RA that was killed. He was the first friend Steve made when he arrived. He said they weren't the best of friends but they would always say hi to each other whenever their paths would cross. Steve actually introduced Ryan to his dad at the Columbus regional of the NCAA basketball tournament. He said that his dad sort of took the tragedy a little harder but I talked to both of them this morning and they're both okay.

I asked Steve to send me a Tech tennis t-shirt the next time he goes to Blacksburg and he said he would. Such a horrible tragedy.


----------



## Drew (Apr 18, 2007)

NLB and I have been having a discussion on the side about this, and I think I should chime in. 

I'm a liberal, and more-or-less anti-gun. Yet, I'm prepared to accept private ownership of firearms simply because in this country one way or another that's a reality - there's no way in hell a total ban will ever pass since there's too much widespread support, and in a democracy that means that it's something I have to live with. I'm ok with that.

However, I'm ok with that on the condition that there are "controls" in place to make sure that the only people owning guns are ones who are not likely to hurt anyone with them. Background checks (psychological examinations as well as one's criminal record), lengthy mandatory gun safety education, periodic re-testing, and tiered liscensing so that the more "dangerous" a gun is in the hands of the wrong person the harder it is to get liscensed (i.e - hunting rifles are relatively accessable, a few more classes are required for handguns, and if we can't ban automatic assault weapons alltogether then there needs to be some serious background checking and safety regulations in place before you can buy one). In short, model getting a gun liscense after getting a driver's liscense, motorcycle liscense, or pilot's liscense. Also, make the penalties for illegally purchasing, owning, or selling a gun significantly higher so that circumventing these controls is a pretty serious offense. 

The sad fact of the matter is, there's no way in hell this kid should have been able to buy a gun a few short weeks before he graduated from college - especially with a degree in english, he's basically the poster boy for a high risk candidate to flip out and kill people, yet he was able to go into a gun shop and buy two pistols shortly before the shootings. Hell, I didn't even know he'd been Baker Acted, which in itself is a reason not to sell someone a handgun. 

THAT is ultimately the scariest thing here, not that he killed people, but that he was able to legally purchase the guns when there were so many reasons he shouldn't have.


----------



## Drew (Apr 18, 2007)

irg7620 said:


> we have the constitutional right to bear arms and if he was of age, *and legally able to own one,* he had that right. he had no right to kill people.



That's sort of my point. 

We have many constitutional rights, but barring a few very specific ones for prisoners, many of them get waived as punishment or in specific situations. At the most fundamental level, the Constitution defends our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but if you break any federal or state laws, these rights are voided as punishment. 

So, just because you have a "right" to something doesn't mean you're _*automatically *_ entitled to it. As such, I have no problem on one hand accepting the legality of gun ownership, but on the other questioning the ascertation that "anyone" can own a gun. In a situation like this where there is reasonable cause to believe that if someone was to own a gun then he might use it on himself or on others, then he should not legally be allowed to own a gun. 

What his "rights" are doesn't matter, as there is precident for restricting those rights in situations where there is reason to believe allowing someone to excersize those rights may result in harm to themself or harm to others.

Now, I don't LIKE gun ownership, but I accept it as legal and constitutionally protected, provided that it is done in such a way that guns don't end up in the hands of people who may use them on themselves or on others. This is clearly a case where the later is true, and there was ample evidence to the fact, and that there should have been no way in hell this guy should have been able to purchase a gun.

I know I'll take some flack from the libertarian elements for this post, but whatever, I think honest and open debate is what we need here, not black-and-white "no guns!" or "guns are our right!" statements, so bring it.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 18, 2007)

I hate to admit it, but I certainly have to agree with Drew....We came to that conclusion earlier after being able to put our thoughts togather in a manner that we could both understand. I'm not the most articulate person, but the gist of my argument is that I'm all for people owning guns. And I'm all for having to go through a more lengthy process to be able to own one if it means that I will never have to use mine, or at least reduces the risk of me having to significantly.

I think that the most important thing that could be used to determine if someone should be allowed to own a gun would be some sort of psych evaluation. Of course with it being mandated, it wouldn't be the most all inclusive or even the perfect determination, however it would be a much more accurate way to tell if someone is a danger than simply looking at their criminal background. Also, I think that any sort of negative mental history should show up in the background check, but our confidentiality laws prohibit that.

Now, for one thing that I feel Drew has wrong is in regards to automatic weapons. There are EXTREMELY stringent guidelines as far as who can own one and how they may be purchased. First off, you must not have ANY criminal history with the exception of traffic tickets. Second, they do a super thorough check. Third, you must get permission from your local sheriff and your state's law enforcement agency. And lastly, after everything else, you must sign a waiver that allows the police to come into your home at any time (while you're home unless you're under investigation) to search for any illegal or unregistered weapons, drugs, explosives, etc. If they determine that you are irresponsible with your guns, they seize all of them. It's something I had to do ALOT of research on to find out, but that's pretty much what it consists of and usually takes about 6 months for everything to be set for you to purchase a Class III firearm.


----------



## Rick (Apr 18, 2007)

I agree, Drew. I think acquiring a gun is too easy.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 18, 2007)

rg7420user said:


> I agree, Drew. I think acquiring a gun is too easy.



Come on, you're from Texas. You're supposed to say that everyone should be handed a gun the day they're born. That's the problem with the NRA today...too many softies like you


----------



## Rick (Apr 18, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> Come on, you're from Texas. You're supposed to say that everyone should be handed a gun the day they're born. That's the problem with the NRA today...too many softies like you



Hey just because I'm from Texas doesn't mean I agree with everything here. We're not all a bunch of "Walker, Texas Rangers."


----------



## Drew (Apr 18, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> Now, for one thing that I feel Drew has wrong is in regards to automatic weapons. There are EXTREMELY stringent guidelines as far as who can own one and how they may be purchased. First off, you must not have ANY criminal history with the exception of traffic tickets. Second, they do a super thorough check. Third, you must get permission from your local sheriff and your state's law enforcement agency. And lastly, after everything else, you must sign a waiver that allows the police to come into your home at any time (while you're home unless you're under investigation) to search for any illegal or unregistered weapons, drugs, explosives, etc. If they determine that you are irresponsible with your guns, they seize all of them. It's something I had to do ALOT of research on to find out, but that's pretty much what it consists of and usually takes about 6 months for everything to be set for you to purchase a Class III firearm.



 Actually, we don't entirely disagree. Again, I'd rather see them banned, because I feel there's no reason for a private citizen to own something like that. 

But if that isn't an option, then that's actually going most of the way (further in places - the random searches, for one) towards the sort of checks I'd want in place.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Apr 18, 2007)

rg7420user said:


> Hey just because I'm from Texas doesn't mean I agree with everything here. We're not all a bunch of "Walker, Texas Rangers."



Not everyone can be as uber as Chuck Norris.


----------



## Rick (Apr 18, 2007)

No one is.


----------



## drshock (Apr 18, 2007)

mefrommiddleearth said:


> what I'd also like to point drshock is a few other things
> 
> 1. some people have talked about the fact that even if people had no access to firearms they'd still kill but I don't think so. with a gun you have an easy to use weapon that gives you the luxury of killing at a distance for a lot of shooters that would be central to there plans
> 
> 2.you talk about how most criminals would get there guns illegaly but where do those guns come from in most cases I'd say they are stolen from legitamete firearms owners and if there loaded in an unlocked draw and ready to go all the better for the crim



1. I thought we already made clear earlier in the thread that when a person wants to kill they will attempt it either way.

2. Are you kidding? You think that big-time gangs in LA or the mob in New York get enough weapons to supply their entire gang by busting a local gun shop? It's all smugguled into the country in bulk shipments. Then whatever they don't use for themselves they sell to others on the black market. I also believe that even if that was how everyone was getting thier weapons, the NRA would have addressed this problem already.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 18, 2007)

Getting back to the point of "If someone is decided to go on a killing spree, they'll find a way to do it"...When I was in high school, I went to a rich neighboorhood school. For the most part, the kids came from upper middle class to upper class families. In the school parking lot, you could purchase just about ANY gun you wanted out of someone's trunk for about $50. There were a few of these guys. SOme sold handguns, some rifles, some automatic assault guns, and a few others sold grenades, mortars, etc.

Regardless of how strict laws are, people always find ways around them. We're talking about high school aged kids getting their hands on stolen guns and selling them to other high school aged kids in a good neighboorhood with a low crime rate....Just food for thought.


----------



## telecaster90 (Apr 18, 2007)

zimbloth said:


> Students are saying this man sacrificed himself to save his students. He barracaded the door and then threw himself at the gunmen so students could escape out windows. What a great man and a hero.



Wow.

He's a good man


----------



## Drew (Apr 18, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> Getting back to the point of "If someone is decided to go on a killing spree, they'll find a way to do it"...When I was in high school, I went to a rich neighboorhood school. For the most part, the kids came from upper middle class to upper class families. In the school parking lot, you could purchase just about ANY gun you wanted out of someone's trunk for about $50. There were a few of these guys. SOme sold handguns, some rifles, some automatic assault guns, and a few others sold grenades, mortars, etc.



NLB, this was probably 1997-1999 or so, right? What was the prison sentence for a minor illegally buying or selling a firearm, back then, in Florida?


----------



## drshock (Apr 18, 2007)

Drew said:


> NLB, this was probably 1997-1999 or so, right? What was the prison sentence for a minor illegally buying or selling a firearm, back then, in Florida?



Um, what's the price for murder???? 25 to life-- DEATH????? Does that scare criminals? Do criminals give a shit what the law says?


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 18, 2007)

drshock said:


> Um, what's the price for murder???? 25 to life-- DEATH????? Does that scare criminals? Do criminals give a shit what the law says?



point is if they got arrested and involved in the legal system, they wouldnt be selling shit.


----------



## Drew (Apr 18, 2007)

drshock said:


> Um, what's the price for murder???? 25 to life-- DEATH????? Does that scare criminals? Do criminals give a shit what the law says?



No, but it sure as hell cuts down on repeat offenders.  

Also, let's be honest. In the eyes of your typical 17-year-old, selling guns for cash isn't really on par with aggregated murder - it's more akin to dealing weed or something. Selling handguns out of your trunk at $50 a pop is easy money if the worst you have to worry about is the equivalent of a slap on the wrist. However, the big fundamental difference is, weed in the wrong hands makes you do dumb shit. Guns in the wrong hands kill people. Make the "slap on the wrist" prosecution as an adult with a 10-year sentence for first offenders, and suddenly the number of teenagers dealing guns on the black market are going to drop. 

Look at it this way - if the sentence for murder was 30 days in jail, 200 hours of community service, and six months of probation, Bush would be dead right now.  A heavy sentence won't deter someone who's dead set on killing someone, just as a heavy sentence won't deter someone who's dead set on dealing guns on the black market. However, the lack of a heavy sentence makes it a lot easier for someone who just wants some easy cash to get involved.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 18, 2007)

Drew said:


> NLB, this was probably 1997-1999 or so, right? What was the prison sentence for a minor illegally buying or selling a firearm, back then, in Florida?



Yeah, I graduated in 2001, so it would've been around then. My brother told me he remembers that happeneing when he was in school there too, he's 7 years older than me.

As far as I know, the mandatory sentence for that was 5 years at the time, like it is now. Although I'm not really sure because the law has changed a bit since then. And I'm also not sure about the sentence for a minor. I know that today, it's a mandatory 5 years regardless of age. The only difference is where they send you to serve your time. A juvi jail or state prison.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 18, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> point is if they got arrested and involved in the legal system, they wouldnt be selling shit.



That's not really true. Most criminals are repeat offenders. There really aren't as many people that get out and never get in trouble again. They may find something else to do, but the criminal mindset has already been established and it becomes more about breaking the rules and feeling more powerful than other people (rapists, murderers, etc) than about staying out of trouble. That's the problem I have with people saying that hardened criminals can be rehabilitated and placed back into society.


----------



## drshock (Apr 18, 2007)

Drew said:


> No, but it sure as hell cuts down on repeat offenders.
> 
> Also, let's be honest. In the eyes of your typical 17-year-old, selling guns for cash isn't really on par with aggregated murder - it's more akin to dealing weed or something. Selling handguns out of your trunk at $50 a pop is easy money if the worst you have to worry about is the equivalent of a slap on the wrist. However, the big fundamental difference is, weed in the wrong hands makes you do dumb shit. Guns in the wrong hands kill people. Make the "slap on the wrist" prosecution as an adult with a 10-year sentence for first offenders, and suddenly the number of teenagers dealing guns on the black market are going to drop.
> 
> Look at it this way - if the sentence for murder was 30 days in jail, 200 hours of community service, and six months of probation, Bush would be dead right now.  A heavy sentence won't deter someone who's dead set on killing someone, just as a heavy sentence won't deter someone who's dead set on dealing guns on the black market. However, the lack of a heavy sentence makes it a lot easier for someone who just wants some easy cash to get involved.



I agree with what you're saying about guns in the wrong hands kill people. As I have already stated once or twice in this thread- we already have the laws we need, but they need to be enforced properly.


----------



## ohio_eric (Apr 18, 2007)

First off here's my thoughts on gun control. I cna't stand not being part of debate, the pushy bastard that I am.  I wrote this a while back as part of a bigger piece on my pro-life beliefs. I just copied and pasted it here because I'm way too lazy to type it again. 



> On to the issue of gun control, this is a more derisive issue than it needs to be. Im not quite idealistic enough to think our nation will ever disarm. But there a lot of changes that if made would help curb gun violence. Im willing to allow for guns for hunting and even some self-defense. But our nation is armed to the teeth and its not helping us in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In so far a the argument of people will go on killing sprees regardless of whether or not they have a gun. It seems to me guns make killing sprees like this a lot easier. Killing and injuring 5 dozen people without a semi-automatic handgun that holds 15 rounds is a lot more difficult than it is with one.


----------



## drshock (Apr 18, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> That's the problem I have with people saying that hardened criminals can be rehabilitated and placed back into society.



Agreed. Prison _does not_ reform serious offenders. If anything they get smarter, and more vicious on the inside.

To Ohio Eric: You can put some of those laws on guns but the only thing that does is stop honest citizens from doing it. Criminals will do it anyway.


----------



## Drew (Apr 18, 2007)

I did some research - here's all I could find on the subject. 

Posession of a firearm under the age of 21: 



> (5)(a) A minor who violates subsection (3) commits a misdemeanor of the first degree; for a first offense, may serve a period of detention of up to 3 days in a secure detention facility; and, in addition to any other penalty provided by law, shall be required to perform 100 hours of community service; and:
> 
> 1. If the minor is eligible by reason of age for a driver license or driving privilege, the court shall direct the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to revoke or to withhold issuance of the minor's driver license or driving privilege for up to 1 year.
> 
> ...



http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/in...tatute&Search_String=gun&URL=CH0790/Sec22.HTM

For selling - nothing about selling WHILE a minor, but selling TO a minor:



> (1) A person who sells, hires, barters, lends, transfers, or gives any minor under 18 years of age any dirk, electric weapon or device, or other weapon, other than an ordinary pocketknife, without permission of the minor's parent or guardian, or sells, hires, barters, lends, transfers, or gives to any person of unsound mind an electric weapon or device or any dangerous weapon, other than an ordinary pocketknife, commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
> 
> (2)(a) A person may not knowingly or willfully sell or transfer a firearm to a minor under 18 years of age, except that a person may transfer ownership of a firearm to a minor with permission of the parent or guardian. A person who violates this paragraph commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.




A misdemeanor 1nd degree:



> (a) For a misdemeanor of the first degree, by a definite term of imprisonment not exceeding 1 year;


http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/in...e&Search_String=firearm&URL=Ch0775/Sec082.HTM


Unless there's an additional law I didn't find on selling a firearm without posession of a permit to sell firearms or something, this is pretty much a slap on the wrist.


----------



## noodles (Apr 18, 2007)

UPDATE

A Virginia court found Cho Seung-Hui an "imminent danger to others" in 2005.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 18, 2007)

It's not a state law. It's a federal law that you must have an FFL to sell fire arms. I believe that stands for Federal Firearms License, but I'm not 100% Being a federal law, it's automatically a felony. I'll see what I can find.


----------



## drshock (Apr 18, 2007)

Like I've been saying enforce the law better.


----------



## Rick (Apr 18, 2007)

noodles said:


> UPDATE
> 
> A Virginia court found Cho Seung-Hui an "imminent danger to others" in 2005.



Wow.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 18, 2007)

This is from the NRA website

_Under federal law supported by the National Rifle Association, the use of a firearm in a violent or drug-trafficking crime is punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of up to 20 years. A second conviction, if the firearm is a machine gun or is equipped with a silencer, brings life imprisonment without release. Violating firearms laws should lead to very real punishment for violent criminals, but the laws first must be enforced._


----------



## Rick (Apr 18, 2007)

Only up to 20 years?


----------



## Drew (Apr 18, 2007)

See if you can find the text, NLB.  

Part of it is clearly that existing laws need to be enforced, then, but I still believe that not only do they need to be strengthened (5 years for an improper sale is pretty lax, when you consider that in doing so you're in essence becoming a potential accessory to violent crime), they need to be augmented with more in depth background checks.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 18, 2007)

I found this, but I haven't been able to find a punishment for breaking the law yet:

_The Gun Control Act, as amended by The Firearms Owners` Protection Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-308), requires that persons engaged in the business of dealing in, manufacturing, or importing firearms, or manufacturing or importing ammunition, obtain a Federal Firearms License (FFL). _


----------



## Drew (Apr 18, 2007)

rg7420user said:


> Only up to 20 years?



Presumably on top of any other punishment for the nature of the crime - if you're busted for dealing coke and pull a gun on someone, then you get up to 20 years for the gun conviction, plus whatever else they try you for. 

Now, what's subject to interpretation is if simply posessing the gun during a crime is enough to get the sentence, or if you have to use it or try to.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 18, 2007)

In FL, if the gun is used, even if it's only displayed and not fired, during the commission of a crime, then it is punished. 5 year minimum and it goes all the way up to life depending on the details.


----------



## Rick (Apr 18, 2007)

Man, this is getting weirder and weirder. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070418/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_shooting


----------



## zimbloth (Apr 18, 2007)

Wow, I definitely didnt think he went to the post office in that 2 hour window. Interesting. What a fucked up kid


----------



## Rick (Apr 18, 2007)

He must have had solid ice in his veins to be able to do that after having just killed some people.


----------



## Mastodon (Apr 18, 2007)

He really really thought this out.


----------



## Drew (Apr 18, 2007)

rg7420user said:


> He must have had solid ice in his veins to be able to do that after having just killed some people.



You'd be surprised. I haven't have a lot of really fucked up/extreme things happen to me over the course ofmy life, but what little I've seen leads me to suspect that if I'd just gunned down a handful of people, and was planning on going back and shooting so more, the sheer surreality of it all would probably keep me functioning pretty rationally. 

Then again, a reading of "Crime and Punishment" is probably worth mentioning here.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 18, 2007)

Drew said:


> You'd be surprised. I haven't have a lot of really fucked up/extreme things happen to me over the course ofmy life, but what little I've seen leads me to suspect that if I'd just gunned down a handful of people, and was planning on going back and shooting so more, the sheer surreality of it all would probably keep me functioning pretty rationally.
> 
> Then again, a reading of "Crime and Punishment" is probably worth mentioning here.



 It's amazing what you can do once you get to the point where you quite literally have nothing left to lose.


----------



## Rick (Apr 18, 2007)

Drew said:


> You'd be surprised. I haven't have a lot of really fucked up/extreme things happen to me over the course ofmy life, but what little I've seen leads me to suspect that if I'd just gunned down a handful of people, and was planning on going back and shooting so more, the sheer surreality of it all would probably keep me functioning pretty rationally.
> 
> Then again, a reading of "Crime and Punishment" is probably worth mentioning here.





distressed_romeo said:


> It's amazing what you can do once you get to the point where you quite literally have nothing left to lose.



Both excellent points.  

Guess he just figured I'm gonna die soon anyway, might as well do whatever.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Apr 18, 2007)

rg7420user said:


> Man, this is getting weirder and weirder.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070418/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_shooting


----------



## Metal Ken (Apr 18, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> In FL, if the gun is used, even if it's only displayed and not fired, during the commission of a crime, then it is punished. 5 year minimum and it goes all the way up to life depending on the details.



THe "10-20-Life" Law... 
10 if you carry a gun in a crime, 20 if you use it and life if you shoot someone. At least we got that here in Gainesville, and back in tampa. I'm pretty sure its statewide. And at least thats how the spin it on all the radio commercials.


----------



## Mastodon (Apr 18, 2007)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18169776/

These pictures are insane.

Some of them are really intriguing in that he looks angry, sad, and determined all at the same time.

Edit: Part of the video is available too. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18138907/site/newsweek/\


----------



## drshock (Apr 18, 2007)

I just came upon this if anyone's interested.


Another "Gun Free" Zone Failure in Virginia 
Here Come The Gun Banners 
By Tom Gresham 

April 16, 2007, just might be a turning point in the battle to restore gun rights to Americans. The tragedy at Virginia Tech today, with more than 30 people being killed in a premeditated murder spree, will be the fulcrum upon which the anti-gun rights forces leverage their efforts to restrict (destroy, if possible) your right to not only own guns, but to protect yourself and your family. 

Quite simply, this is the mass shooting the anti-self defense forces have been waiting for, as we will see over the coming days and weeks. The papers are already drawn up; the proposed restrictions were penned long ago; they have merely been waiting for this moment. 

Lost in the coming cacophony will be the utter failure of the "perfect" gun law -- a total gun ban. You see, on that university campus, no one is allowed to have a gun for self -protection in dorms or classrooms. It is the latest in a long string of murderous failures of "gun free" zones, or as they are better called, "victim-rich environments." 

According to the school's "Campus and Workplace Violence Prevention Policy": 

"The university's employees, students, and volunteers, or any visitor or other third party attending a sporting, entertainment, or educational event, or visiting an academic or administrative office building or residence hall, are further prohibited from carrying, maintaining, or storing a firearm or weapon on any university facility, even if the owner has a valid permit, when it is not required by the individual's job, or in accordance with the relevant University Student Life Policies. 

Any such individual who is reported or discovered to possess a firearm or weapon on university property will be asked to remove it immediately. Failure to comply may result in a student judicial referral and/or arrest, or an employee disciplinary action and/or arrest." 

(Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Policy 5616, Campus and Workplace Violence Prevention Policy, http://www.policies.vt.edu/5616.pdf) 

A similar situation to the one that happened at Virginia Tech occurred on January 16th, 2002 at Appalachian Law School in Grundy, Virginia. A disgruntled former student began a similar shooting spree. The difference in this case was that the attack was stopped by three individuals, two of whom were legally armed with handguns. Unfortunately, the attack was not stopped until three people had been killed and three more wounded. Why did it take so long to stop the attack? The good guys had to retrieve their guns from their parked cars before they could confront the gunman. ALS was a gun-free zone, you know. 

Barely more than a year ago House Bill 1572 couldn't even make it out of committee in the Virginia General Assembly. The bill would have made it legal for students and staff at Virginia universities to have guns for their own protection. Today's shooter did not wait for such a law, and took advantage of the government-mandated victim-state. 

When House Bill 1572 was defeated, state newspapers reported: "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.'" 

Once again, the desire to "feel safe" prompts decisions which actually make people less safe. 

What does it mean to America's gun owners? It certainly sounds the battle cry for those who enacted, then lost, the ability to ban full-capacity magazines for defensive firearms. Expect a quick call for limiting magazine capacity--and thus, the ability to fully protect yourself and your family. There may well be calls for the banning of all autoloading (semi-automatic) firearms, even though those have been in use for more than 100 years. 

Fortunately, the political landscape is much different than it was when the Brady Bill and the Clinton Gun Ban were passed in the early 1990s. Those acts helped pull together a fragmented firearms industry which, until then, had kept out of politics, leaving that to the NRA. The firearms industry now understands the threat, as do individual gun owners who use guns for recreation, but especially for self-protection. Passage of the so-called "assault weapon" ban resulted in the Republican Party taking control of Congress, according to President Bill Clinton. The gun issue is largely credited with keeping a Republican in the White House since then. Elected officials of all stripes know that any proposal to infringe on gun rights is a third rail, capable of cutting short almost any political career. 

Certainly, some closet gun banners will be emboldened by this tragedy and will come forward, counting on a groundswell of public outrage to carry the day for repressive gun control laws, much as it did in England and Australia after those countries experienced similar shootings. The disturbing fact that the violent crime rate skyrocketed in both countries following the confiscation of guns from honest people will not quell the zeal of those who dream of a country where the criminals are free to prey on the defenseless. 

They long for the day when they can bring the failed experiment of "gun free" zones to every town, neighborhood, and home in America. 

Until Monday, April 16, it was thought that gun control would be an issue politicians would try to duck over the next 18 months. That may have changed. What has not changed, though, is the awareness of the American public that they need firearms for personal protection. The vivid images of helpless people during Hurricane Katrina being victimized by thugs, with no police to help, crystallized the understanding that each of us is responsible for our own safety,. Today, we all know we can certainly take advantage of help from official sources, but we also are clear that we should never give up our ability to help ourselves. 

Today's shootings are terrible. Our hearts go out to the victims and their families. We don't want to inject politics into this, but to ignore this is to pretend the sun doesn't rise each day. The assault on our rights surely will come. 

Whether we gun owners get swept away by a tsunami of gun restrictions, or swim to the top with logic and organized persuasion depends, I think, on the intensity and the quality of our reaction. One thing is for sure. This is the fight that will determine the future of gun rights, the firearms industry, our ability to protect our families, and the strength of our Constitutional protections. 

Tragedy Makes Our Disconnection From Reality Obvious 
By Jim Shepherd 

What happened yesterday at Virginia Tech was a tragedy of almost incomprehensible proportion. There is absolutely no way to rationalize the acts of a single individual determined to inflict as much harm as possible on as many people as possible, especially if that individual is not concerned about losing their own life in the process. 

The attack on unsuspecting students is the worst carnage ever visited on American student. It is also another glaring demonstration of the fact that many "average Americans" - and most media members, have no concept of operating in real-time. Only hours after the murders, Tech students were popping up across the cable networks, expressing their displeasure at having not been notified sooner. Of course, they're located on a campus comprised of around 25,000 students and several hundred buildings, but the campus police and school officials are supposed to be able to make everyone instantly aware of everything - simultaneously. 

Everyone seems to forget a college campus this size is the equivalent of a self-contained small city. A city with only 50 police officers. 

Not that it will make any difference. 

People are looking for someone to blame for all this, a scapegoat. Amazingly, the thought of blaming the shooter doesn't seem to enter into the equation. We'll hear it's the fault of the administration, the police and, eventually, the firearms, but we'll hear precious little credit for this heinous act laid at the foot of the disturbed person who pulled the trigger and reloaded those evil firearms. 

That, unfortunately, seems to be the modus operandi today. 

Yesterday afternoon, as Virginia Tech's police chief Wendell Flenchum fielded rapid-fire questions from reporters, it became apparent they weren't hunting for answers, they were hunting for a villain. 

In the course of that conference, one reporter asked Flenchum "isn't this an unusual situation for a college police department to handle?" Flenchum, who is obviously more tactful than most, replied simply: "This is an unusual situation for any police department to handle." 

As the story continues to unfold, it becomes painfully obvious this country has lost touch with reality - unless it's reality TV. 

Life does not come in 22-minute bundles, neatly wrapped and ready-to-go. 

In press conferences today, reporters who didn't get the answers they wanted simply tried to frame the question differently. They seemed befuddled at the fact that anyone would give simple, declarative answers to what were, in fact, ignorant questions. 

Coming less than 24 hours after the close of the 136th Annual National Rifle Association meetings in St. Louis, this tragedy may suddenly become the focal point of the firearms question as we head into 2008. 

There's a lot at stake in both sides of the firearms discussion. 

If Second Amendment supporters wage a spirited fight - and keep firearms one of those voting issues that might not get you elected, but could certainly get you defeated, we have an opportunity to demonstrate our resolve to politicians. 

Should the anti-firearms leaders of Congress not win - and win convincingly - their more liberal supporters will be screaming for the heads of the Democratic leadership. 

We are all stunned and saddened at yesterday's tragedy. Now, we must move through the shock and begin preparing for the inevitable. 

--Jim Shepherd april 17, 2007


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 18, 2007)

Fucking hell, is it just me, or should these people at least let the smoke clear and give all the facts time to come out before this gets turned into political fodder?!


----------



## ohio_eric (Apr 18, 2007)

I just saw the footage on MSNBC and it's distrurbing to say the least. If you didn't know it was real you'd swear it was a poorly written movie with odd dialogue and an improbable plot. That's what makes it so confusing that this is one of those times when chaos won. There's no logic to this killing spree. There's no sense of rhyme or reason. There was just a mentally ill person who thought the world was against him and he wanted to get even and, as he said, end up like Jesus and inspire others. Sometimes there are only questions because there are no answers. 

On a brief asise. I caught about a minute of that no talent ass clown Glenn Beck tonight. Of course because he was in Idaho when the shooting happened he had a different perspective and a far better one than the mainstream media. So what did he lead with? We need to make sure non-citizens can't get guns. Because that would have solved everything. Glenn beck is so ignorant he shouldn't be allowed to own a TV much less be on it.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 18, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> That's what makes it so confusing that this is one of those times when chaos won.



There's a lesson here; never underestimate how powerful and destructive chaos/insanity can be. There's no way in hell anyone could have prepared for this, with all the foresight in the world unfortunately, and in the aftermath we all have to just accept the limits of our understanding.

Such is life.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 18, 2007)

This has just reminded me never to take anything in life for granted.


----------



## Nik (Apr 18, 2007)

I really think the news networks need to cut down on how much pictures/footage of this guy they show. No one knows what things went through this crazy guy's head, but publicity certainly seems to have been one of them--that's why he took photos of himself and mailed it to NBC. He wanted to be seen and to get attention, and sadly, he succeded. What if some other unstable kid sees this and says, "Gee, look at how much attention he got, I should do the same!"

I'm not saying they shouldn't report on this. I'm just saying that there should be a lot more emphasis on the victims and heroes, like Liviu Librescu.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 18, 2007)

I wonder how long it'll be before teenagers start setting up worship sites for this guy...


----------



## D-EJ915 (Apr 18, 2007)

oh god not more Nevada-tan shit


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 18, 2007)

D-EJ915 said:


> oh god not more Nevada-tan shit



Pardon?


----------



## D-EJ915 (Apr 18, 2007)

distressed_romeo said:


> Pardon?


you said teens start worship sites, cue Nevada-tan


----------



## distressed_romeo (Apr 18, 2007)

D-EJ915 said:


> you said teens start worship sites, cue Nevada-tan



Oh, I see what you mean. Sorry, I had to Google the name. I was thinking more of all the kids who seemed to worship the Columbine killers.


----------



## Korbain (Apr 19, 2007)

distressed_romeo said:


> I wonder how long it'll be before teenagers start setting up worship sites for this guy...



dude its probably happening right now. Its like every shooting spree that goes like this, each killer wants to try and get a higher kill count. Its like a competition for fame by how many people they can kill so they get a name for themselves. I also think they know, there are people out there like them, so then they think they're something special and go do it.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 19, 2007)

Nik said:


> I'm not saying they shouldn't report on this. I'm just saying that there should be a lot more emphasis on the victims and heroes, like Liviu Librescu.



So true. I think in this country we tend to put more emphasis on the people who do the bad crap. The media shows them again and again, unintentionally gloryfying them. WHile the victims are left to be victims yet again. People don't usually get to hear their stories however tragic, heroic, or even cowardlike. I'd rather hear that a victim was screaming trying to hide behind other bodies than hear more and more about Seung-Hui.


----------



## nitelightboy (Apr 19, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> THe "10-20-Life" Law...
> 10 if you carry a gun in a crime, 20 if you use it and life if you shoot someone. At least we got that here in Gainesville, and back in tampa. I'm pretty sure its statewide. And at least thats how the spin it on all the radio commercials.



That's the one I was thinking off. It's 5 if you have the gun on you and 10 years if you pull it out. That's where I messed up. Thanks Ken


----------

