Shootin' at VA!

Mmm...Donuts

Mmm...Donuts

Trooper
Damn. 32 students/faculty down. 1 killer dead. This in the deadliest school shooting in US history. Damn, I feel sorry for what happened, since I express disgust at the shedding of innocent blood. For now, they're not sure of the motives.

I hope justice, in any way can help shed light.
 
According to half-assed reports, it is now known it was a 23-year-old Asian Male (Korean I think) who had a history of "distrubing" behavior. Again, as reports go (from what I watch at work) He was upset with his girl friend (who would date this guy?), killed her and the advisor she was with and then decided, "Hey what the fuck, why not kill some more?" and that is exactly what he did lining people up and executing them.

While it is a tragic event forgive me for not being as sympathetic as I should be. As I told my dad, these things happen so often (school shootings in the U.S) it's like murders in L.A or N.Y. There is one every year (We had one at our University last year in fact) and people are always surprised. Whether it was the deadliest or not is not what is important here, but the fact that they keep happening. I'll ask the same question one of the talking heads on tv made, "Why does it seem the U.S seems to have the copyrights to this type of shootings?"
 
Onhell said:
"Why does it seem the U.S seems to have the copyrights to this type of shootings?"
Click to expand...

It doesn't. It's just that the shootings in Germany don't get any news coverage in the US.
 
And are they wacko's like the ones in the U.S or is there some actual motive behind it? I'd take a cold-blooded, methodical maniac over some nut that just snapped any day.
 
If somebody goes around in a school shooting aimlessly, he's pretty much a wacko to me. But officially, it's usually about revenge against real (seldom) or imagined (mostly) enemies.
 
Perun said:
If somebody goes around in a school shooting aimlessly, he's pretty much a wacko to me. But officially, it's usually about revenge against real (seldom) or imagined (mostly) enemies.
Click to expand...

Don't be fooled Perun! The underwear snatching gnomes are real! REAL I TELL YA!
 
Probably a reason why these kind of things don't appear in other countries is that not all countries allow free possession of weapons.  Here in Finland, it's really hard to obtain a weapon.  You need licences for it and all, I'm not exactly sure of the procedure; but one thing I am sure of is that it's rare for people to own guns of any sort here (my grandfather has hunting as a hobby, and he's the only person I know who owns a gun).  For this reason, it's very hard for some violent wacko to obtain a gun and do these kinds of things.
While I don't want to make this political too much, I'd just like to point out that it's America's own legal system's fault to a certain extent.  Sure, you can't control these wackos, but you could at least limit their possibilities of getting a gun. 
 
I'm pro gun-laws and everything, but let me state this: Strict gun control will only help reduce those rampages in which an available weapon is the inspiration for the deed. If someone is determined to kill, he will find a way. Not to mention that no sane or insane country allows a minor to access weapons anyway.
 
One thing that did strike me was the owner of the gun store that sold the weapon to this madman had to justify his sell to reporters. End of story is that he did nothing illegal - although it was stated that to prove he was not mentally unstable, all this guy had to do was check a box on the application for and say "no".

Onhell, as Perun stated, it does happen elsewhere - this is not exclusive to the US - it just may not be reported so vastly. This does happen in the UK (albeit, very rarely - most gun crimes are targeted at pre-determined individuals rather than aimlessly firing at a group of people) but only once a decade or so - fortunately. Dunblane in '96 and Hungerford in '87 are the most recent.

Perun said:
I'm pro gun-laws and everything, but let me state this: Strict gun control will only help reduce those rampages in which an available weapon is the inspiration for the deed. If someone is determined to kill, he will find a way. Not to mention that no sane or insane country allows a minor to access weapons anyway.
Click to expand...
After Dunblane, The Duke of Edinburgh talked about stricter gun laws in the UK. He was against this saying that "if someone walked into a school with a cricket bat and mercilessly killed a few people with this bat, would you ban cricket?". Really, the bottom line is that if someone is hell bent on killing - they will do so with whatever tool/weapon/whatever they can find. Stopping the use of a gun will not stop deaths.
 
Albie said:
Onhell, as Perun stated, it does happen elsewhere - this is not exclusive to the US - it just may not be reported so vastly. This does happen in the UK (albeit, very rarely - most gun crimes are targeted at pre-determined individuals rather than aimlessly firing at a group of people) but only once a decade or so - fortunately. Dunblane in '96 and Hungerford in '87 are the most recent.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm driving at here. that is two almost 10 years apart. Here in the U.S there is one EVERY YEAR, from minor ones (the one in my university only one person was killed and then the gunman killed himself) to the ones like Columbine or this one at VA Tech.
 
Onhell said:
That's what I'm driving at here. that is two almost 10 years apart. Here in the U.S there is one EVERY YEAR, from minor ones (the one in my university only one person was killed and then the gunman killed himself) to the ones like Columbine or this one at VA Tech.
Click to expand...

There's been one every year (or almost) in Germany too during the past five years, which is even more scary considering the population of the US is more than three times as much as that of Germany...
 
A reminder to those who say the US needs stricter gun control (especially our European friends who may not be familiar with US law):

The US Constitution - the nation's highest law - guarantees the right to bear arms. This is the main problem with most proposed gun control measures; they would violate the constitution.

Right now, the only measure in place on a national basis is a background check to make sure the purchaser is not a convicted felon. However, there are venues (such as gun shows) which are exempt from even this check - not to mention the black market or stolen guns.

There used to be a ban on private ownership of assualt (i.e. military-grade) weapons, but that ban has expired. (Even when it was in effect, it wasn't very effective; it was written in such a way that it actually banned very few guns.) And such a ban would not have affected this killer, as he was reported to be using handguns.

The good news is that this killing is getting enormous amounts of press, and hopefully will lead to better gun control.

The other difficulty in getting better gun control is the enormous influence of the NRA (National Rifle Association). They can buy enough votes in Congress to neuter almost any legislation, like they did with the assault weapons ban. Money talks, and the NRA will spend millions to thwart any gun control efforts. Even if effective legislation passes Congress, it's almost certain Bush would veto it. So we may have to wait until we have a new (hopefully Democrat) president in 2009 before any decent law passes.

Many television commentators are saying that after the first 2 shootings, VA Tech should have closed their campus and sent students home from the classrooms where the remainder were killed. Anyone who has been to a large college knows that's almost impossible; you can't get a message out that fast to that many people in all those buildings. But one MSNBC commentator was on the right track when he noted that in this age of nearly everyone carrying a cell phone, some kind of quick mass alert ought to be possible.

So what really needs to come out of this is an emergency alert system for cell phones. Tell the phone networks to ring every phone at once. That will be noticed everywhere, and everyone will know something serious is happening. Even those without phones will hear all the noise and know. Then have a recording with the details which everyone hooks into when they answer their phones. A system like that might have saved lives in VA.
 
I saw at CNN that the guy was already detained in 2005 for some case, I wonder why he wasn't given a probation with the gun. There were many videos of him talking about blood on your hands that won't wash off, this is for the other people who suffer because of you. Maybe something about  mistreatment or some other thing.
 
As SMX said, the fundamental law of the United States guarantees the "the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms".
It is part of American culture, and illegalizing guns would just create a black market underworld in them which would give rise to something comparable to the mobsters during Prohibition in the 1920s.

Moreover, someone who is going to commit a pre-meditated crime such as a school shooting (and psychologists have found that they're often planned months in advance) can easily obtain any gun they want on the black market. This means that illegalizing guns would just punish responsible citizens who have committed no crime.

The previous government in Canada tried to establish a "registry" for long guns (hand guns have been illegal here for over 80 years, unless you're a peace officer). The original projected cost was about $100,000,000, but it quickly skyrocketed to over ONE BILLION DOLLARS. The system basically treats citizens as criminals just for having a gun - it requires them to pay huge fees and have their privacy invaded on a regular basis. The registry is run by urbanite bureacrats from Southern Ontario who only see the negative side of guns in city life. They don't know about responsible gun owners in the "hinterland" of the country, where people use them on farms, for hunting, or for marksmanship hobbies.

Here's how ridiculous the Canadian system really is: I am a member of the Canadian Forces Reserve (like the National Guard in the USA), I have a liscence from the Federal government to run small-bore target ranges (basically .22 calibre rifles), and I have never been convicted of a criminal offense - not so much as a traffic ticket. BUT because of this law, I am not allowed to officially own the rifles my grandfather gave to me on his deathbed.

So, gun control does not work to stop crimes or rampages. It punishes private citizens and leads to incrased government waste. Education about responsible gun use is what will stop these things.

Finally, was anyone aware that same day of these shootings in Virginia that over 70 people were killed in a bombing in Iraq? Why are American lives more newsworthy than Iraqi ones?
 
IronDuke said:
Why are American lives more newsworthy than Iraqi ones?
Click to expand...

Because the Iraqis have been living in an environment of violence for the past four years. Americans don't, and the shooting took place in an area that is supposed to be safe and that people are supposed to trust in. Rampages in an LA ghetto don't get any news coverage either. Besides, the dead Americans are American (most of them), and in America, while the dead Iraqis are Iraqis and in Iraq.

And in case anybody misunderstood me in my first post here, I'm pro gun laws and against gun ownership, but I still think that, while strict gun control is necessary, it will not help to prevent acts that were illegal in the first place (like killing somebody).
 
SinisterMinisterX said:
A reminder to those who say the US needs stricter gun control (especially our European friends who may not be familiar with US law):

The US Constitution - the nation's highest law - guarantees the right to bear arms. This is the main problem with most proposed gun control measures; they would violate the constitution.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the problem. The constitution was written when America was still pretty much a law less land with wild animals roaming and native Americans and outlaws where more prevalent than today. Then there was a need for self protection. It's interesting that a document that is so hailed in America and so often amended, this particular issue is a "don't-touch" area? Are the US people afraid of bears and wolves? If a madman decides to kill someone in school and has to bring a knife, no way 33 people would have to die before someone stopped him.
The constitution is at least partly to blame for these tragic events - not only in schools. A few years ago someone went mad and started shooting in a MC Donald's and malls have been targeted as well. Less guns, less gun killings. It IS as easy as that. Look at violent deaths all over the Western world, how many are dead and by which cause. No country in the Western world as as large a part of gun-related deaths as the US - not by a long shot.
 
Yet that is the issue, a LAW banning guns in any or all fashion would take firearms out of LAW ABIDING citizens hands (like IronDuke, who has to suffer inquires and issues about family heirlooms that have undoubtedly never been used to hurt anyone). These weapons would be taken away and likely be destroyed but in my estimation that, at most, would eliminate 50% of the guns in America; keeping in mind here the amount of dishonest, non-LAW ABIDING citizens that would not willingly give them up. That leaves thousands upon thousands of firearms that are still out there that would become available on the black market to almost exclusively criminal customers (and don't forget, now the good guys have no firearms in their homes to protect themselves because they obeyed the law and turned theirs in.... sounds like an open invitation to the criminals to me). Meanwhile Chow Mohammed Garcia Jones is attending school at the University of Wherever and has absolutely no friends. He is a loner and he perceives that everyone hates him and that the world is against him, so what does he do? He runs downtown one night and picks up some illegal guns and some ammo from some shady sources, because the gun laws are doing about as good as the drug laws, and he brings them to school the next day and kills 40 fellow students (he wants to go out as the record holder now). Damn! Everybody had felt so safe too because of the laws in place to prevent this kind of thing. How could this have happened?

There are many problems here in America that lead to issues like this but the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is not one of them. True, it was written over 200 years ago when most people were still sane but more importantly, they didn't have TV's and video game consoles to play games in which the whole point is to steal as many cars as possible while killing as many people as possible (oh, and getting rewarded with better weaponry the more you kill, too). Therein lies our biggest problem in this age in my estimation.

Just my little rant on the subject, but as an American that is from Virginia I can honestly say that I don't believe any gun law would have prevented what happened on Monday.
 
In a way yes, laws can't really prevent. It's more of guidelines. Damn this sounds like Johnny Depp.
Anyhow, what I'm saying is for people to be more alert, help contribute to public safety, you know, I got your back.
If only brotherly love can be used well, but with these killings and all, we just might need it all the more.
Just my 2 cents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top