Shootin' at VA!

[Anomica]

There is another problem with guns lying around the homes of LAW ABIDING citizens - family members being killed by family members. I agree that a sane person would not use his/her gun to kill someone in anger, but not everyone with a gun at home is to be regarded as sane or stable. A lot of the gun-related killings in the US are comitted by one family member against another. I know that the people that are opposed to stricter gun laws (since I agree that its impossible to ban guns entirely) claim that guns don\t kill people... but if there are no guns, but throwing knives, or kitchen knives, many lives would be spared. That is my firm convictions. I know its really not my business since I\m not living in America, but I have views and always love a good debate

 

[Onhell]

I agree that a sane person would not use his/her gun to kill someone in anger

That makes no sense. Actually "sane" people agree they would never kill  someone, however most murders, are "crimes of passion" done under the influence of, what else? Anger. Murder is a rare occurance, cold blooded murder even more rare. But I agree with you as far as even law abiding citizens having access to weapons, because even law abiding citizens have domestic disputes, cheat, abuse their spouses (both men and women, though obviously mostly men), even law abiding citizens have stupid teenage kids that want to show off to their friends and end up kililing one of them... so on... and so forth.

 

[Raven]

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.

Actually, I believe this opinion to be pretty narrow-minded.  Video games do not influence people's behaviour as a rule; it's when parents use them to babysit their kids rather than actively trying to instil some sense of right and wrong in them that the problems arise.  If your kid is learning moral lessons from Grand Theft Auto or similar game, then what the hell have you been doing as a parent?  Basically, no-one wants to blame the parents, even though they're the ones who have most power over how their children develop from an early age.  People like Jack Thomspon entirely miss the point; if you're taught right from wrong at the beginning, then you can play a game like GTA, listen to Slayer and watch horror movies without adverse effects because you realise it's not real.  In fact, I'm quite surprised that Jack Thompson hasn't filed a lawsuit against any entertainment group so far...but the point is, video games are not the problem.  Dare I suggest it, but perhaps the parents are at fault?  But that's ridiculous...because the parents aren't likely to be sued....

P.S. Actually, it appears that Jack Thompson blames the game Counterstrike for Virginia...a game with hardly any graphic content and little questionable moral content...they must be desperate.

 

[IronDuke]

Video games do not influence people's behaviour as a rule; it's when parents use them to babysit their kids rather than actively trying to instil some sense of right and wrong in them that the problems arise.  If your kid is learning moral lessons from Grand Theft Auto or similar game, then what the hell have you been doing as a parent?  Basically, no-one wants to blame the parents, even though they're the ones who have most power over how their children develop from an early age.  People like Jack Thomspon entirely miss the point; if you're taught right from wrong at the beginning, then you can play a game like GTA, listen to Slayer and watch horror movies without adverse effects because you realise it's not real.  In fact, I'm quite surprised that Jack Thompson hasn't filed a lawsuit against any entertainment group so far...but the point is, video games are not the problem.  Dare I suggest it, but perhaps the parents are at fault?  But that's ridiculous...because the parents aren't likely to be sued....

I can't agree more with you, Raven. In actuality, the rate of violent crimes among youth in America (and the populace as a whole) has FALLEN dramatically since 1995, when the first truely controversial video games began to hit the shelves. There is absolutely no statistical evidence which links violence to kids who play violent games, nor are there reliable psychological studies which suggest a link.

 

[Raven]

I can't agree more with you, Raven. In actuality, the rate of violent crimes among youth in America (and the populace as a whole) has FALLEN dramatically since 1995, when the first truely controversial video games began to hit the shelves. There is absolutely no statistical evidence which links violence to kids who play violent games, nor are there reliable psychological studies which suggest a link.

While It's heartening to see that I'm not alone in this opinion, I would have to disagree with you (and others) about tightening of gun laws not being the answer.  The fact of the matter is, if you present a kitchen knife and a gun to a would-be killer, he's going to choose the gun if he wants to cause massive damage.  If you make it harder for him to get the gun, the chances are he's going to think twice about trying to get one illegally.  The idea that if someone is set on murder, they'll find a way to get a gun is true, to a certain extent, but making it extremely difficult for such a person to get a gun is going to discourage many people.  At the very least, it would hopefully force them to use less lethal weapons, that turns them from huge menace to a lesser one.  This is going to be especially true of the kind of person that is usually the killer in these school shootings; someone who, perhaps, has never had any kind of major criminal activity before, and so would be hard pressed to find contacts in the underground who can supply him with a gun.

Additionally, I find the idea of feeling that you need a gun to protect yourself against other people with guns a bit ludicrous.  It's exactly this concept that has brought Iran into confrontation with the U.S. over nuclear weapons, because if you're not willing to compromise on your weapons, what chance is there of any authorities being able to stop people who really want to harm someone with a weapon?  Sure, if you can prove that you use your weapon for recreational activity, for example at a firing range, shooting club or similar, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't keep a firearm, but having a gun lying around your house 'just in case' is asking for trouble.  You're more than likely to come home to find yourself staring down the barrel of your own gun, as to be able to use it to defend your property.

 

[Deano]

Right! The video game analogy being just another excuse for what has happened and continues to happen all over the world. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.... video games don't kill people, people do, etc. I'm glad you picked up on it and hit it right on the head. Parenting issues should definitely be looked at here, since Monday we haven't even heard from this guy's parents which should tell everyone something.

Yes, guns are a more efficient way to kill but that is all they are, another evolutionary instrument of inflicting death. Again, an inanimate piece of metal is not to be blamed here. Had all guns on the planet all at once disappeared, this maniac would have still found a way to kill... maybe not as many but all it takes is one to be a tragedy in my book.

 

[Albie]

Had all guns on the planet all at once disappeared, this maniac would have still found a way to kill... maybe not as many but all it takes is one to be a tragedy in my book.

Whilst I do agree with this statement - can we suggest that some people would be drawn to perform such a macabre act, simply because they were "inspired", in some way, to do some sort of bravado act only because of their love of guns. Had it not been for the gun, would they still be as sick? The reason I say this is from looking at the pictures of this guy (and another) holding a gun to the camera. Article here.

 

[national acrobat]

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 have a question concerning the actual constitution. I'd heard before that the statement concerning the right to bear arms had been misquoted, meaning instead of anyone having the right to have a firearm, it was the right of a state militia to bear arms, which then evolved into the National Guard.

The 2nd ammendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It seems ambiguous to me. Does it guarantee any individual the right to bear arms, or the right of states to form a militia in times of need?

 

[IronDuke]

I have a question concerning the actual constitution. I'd heard before that the statement concerning the right to bear arms had been misquoted, meaning instead of anyone having the right to have a firearm, it was the right of a state militia to bear arms, which then evolved into the National Guard.

The 2nd ammendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It seems ambiguous to me. Does it guarantee any individual the right to bear arms, or the right of states to form a militia in times of need?

Both, actually. It establishes the need for a standing army AND the right of the PEOPLE (not just the militia) to have arms. It's actually pretty explicit. Some people have argued that the comma is just a placeholder meant to signify a grammatical pause, but it seems odd to me that the people who wrote the constitution would use such a device here and not anywhere else in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Raven]

I have a question concerning the actual constitution. I'd heard before that the statement concerning the right to bear arms had been misquoted, meaning instead of anyone having the right to have a firearm, it was the right of a state militia to bear arms, which then evolved into the National Guard.

The 2nd ammendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It seems ambiguous to me. Does it guarantee any individual the right to bear arms, or the right of states to form a militia in times of need?

Actually, there's another theory that the whole confusion over the issue is simply due to a typographical error, and that rather than reading 'the right to bear arms' it should be 'the right to bare arms', i.e. roll your sleeves up and settle the matter through a few rounds of fisticuffs.

 

[SinisterMinisterX]

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. ... Are the US people afraid of bears and wolves?

The text of the law is quoted a few posts above this one. If you refer to it, you'll see it talks about a well-regulated militia. Recall that this law was written shortly after the US won their independence, with an army composed of people who used their own guns. In other words, the founders of the US thought: "It's good for everyone to have a gun to form a quick militia, because we've shown that an armed populace can keep the government in line."

In other words, it wasn't about fear, and it wasn't solely about self-defense; it was mostly about preserving liberty.

Sadly, too few people today own guns. The government knows that the people don't have the means to stage a successful armed revolt. So they can do almost whatever they want; review the actions of the Bush regime for almost countless examples. If anti-war protesters all carried rifles, then they'd get taken much more seriously.

 

[IronDuke]

In other words, it wasn't about fear, and it wasn't solely about self-defense; it was mostly about preserving liberty.

Sadly, too few people today own guns. The government knows that the people don't have the means to stage a successful armed revolt. So they can do almost whatever they want; review the actions of the Bush regime for almost countless examples. If anti-war protesters all carried rifles, then they'd get taken much more seriously.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Jefferson

 

[Anonymous]

I love it when people quote other people's opinions.

 

[Onhell]

I love it when people quote other people's opinions.

Me too

 

[IronDuke]

Me too

Onhell's a communist.

 

[thousand_suns]

Re: Shooting at VA!

After hearing the news about the Virginia Tech massacre in Blacksburg, Virginia, I found that kind of news was shocking. South Korean student Cho Seung-Hui killed 32 people and wounded 29. When I read newspapers I thought Cho was still alive. I was wrong. He shot himself with his own pistol. Almost everybody including parents of the massacre victims expressed their condolences. The picture below, as you people knew it, shows him delivering a message to N.B.C. by brandishing two pistols.

[attachment deleted by admin]

 

[Onhell]

Onhell's a communist.

Guilty as charged!