Thanks CT, I really think you nailed it there. For someone who's lost somebody in the immediete week, saying to them "This wouldn't have happenned if we had more guns!" or "This wouldn't have happenned if we had less guns!" is just the most insensitive thing ever.
My view, if you wanna discuss gun control, okay, discuss gun control. But can we please give those mourning VT some room to breathe?
Quote:
as if he most certainly obtained those handguns legally
Does it matter how he got the guns now? Regardless on how he got the guns, we need to look for the signs so something like this doesn't happen again.
I'll state it again: Guns don't kill people. People [use guns to] kill people.
I'm more shocked that no one in that university looked for or noticed something wrong on Seung-Hui's behavior: the harassments, the isolation he went through, the writings on the papers he made.
...
I'm quite shocked. I'd give this topic the proper attention that it needs but I still have to help others with flood cleanup duties (how amazing that the floods in the tri-state area [New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut] took a back seat when this [the shootings] came about).
They did notice it. He was previously in trouble for stalking some girls (and was even in a mental hospital for a little bit), he was kicked out of one class for being mean to the professor and other students, and some of them had urged him to get counseling because his writings were so disturbing.
I'll say what I have been to other people; can you really predict someone is going to do this? I mean I know he had disturbing writing and 2 years ago was accused of stalking, but do you lock him away in a nut house for that? No. Nothing could of prevented it. I don't care what people say, but nothing would have been able to stop this kid.
Actually, Britain does have a constitution, but that's neither here nor there.
Anyways, many of you are still ignoring the statistics.
Countries with less guns (ie Britain) have far, far less people getting shot, and they certainly do not have the annual school shooting America gets.
So, yes, disarming people does a hell of a lot of good. The facts are against anyone claiming otherwise.
Hey, let's ban other weapons. Like knives, or ropes, or fists.
Seriously. What seperates the gun-control-laws-NOW crowd from Jack Thompson's anti-gaming crap, in terms of morals?
School security will be like airport security now... not just in the ghettos. one person goes crazy and the whole world thinks everyone is out to get them. i mean, while international terrorism is different from a school shooting on a certin size level, its still the same concept. So, to prevent school terrorism, the only choice is to be imperialistic about it. Sometimes tough love is the only way things can work. But hey, lets just let our freedom slip away. When USA becomes a full fledged empire, you have only yourself and your neighbors to thank.
Dude, disarming and "not having guns" are two different things.
You really think it's a good idea to take away the legal guns and leave the illegal ones floating about ever so happily and free?
Guns are as easy to come by as drugs in the US, if you want to use a gun for bad, you will have a gun for bad.
Hell, the system we have now, at least it's easy to trace the gun back to the person who used it.
-
Also, SX. Please don't debate. You don't know how to do it. I'm on your side and I'm wanting to wordslap you for that post.
Quote:
Also, SX. Please don't debate. You don't know how to do it. I'm on your side and I'm wanting to wordslap you for that post.
~Rico
Today was the day the VA governor declared a day of mourning, and urged everyone to wear orange and maroon.
I'm wearing my orange Beastie Boys shirt. Dad's wearing his Tech shirt and hat, and Mom's wearing a shirt of my brother's that he didn't take to RU with him. About half of my school was participating in that today. I thought of taking my mini plushie of the turkey (VT mascot) with me today, but it would've been a hassle after already being all set.
Random: VT are the Fighting Gobblers, and they serve turkey legs at their football games. o__O;
A bomb threat was called into a high school in my county this morning. I found out during class when some kids recieved word of it via text message: www.wtopnews.com/?nid=600&sid=1120796
My Mom just now called home and said that Gar-Field (another HS here) was evacuated and they weren't letting anyone in. =/
Today's the Columbine shooting anniversary, too.
EDIT: Both schools were given an all-clear, and the county says and adult suspect was apprehended in the Gar-Field case.
Today's also Hitler's B-day...
...Uh, thanks, Hiro.
Our school observed a moment of silence before class dismissal. Unusually, our German class (all twelve people that passed German 1A) was actually silent. Except the teacher. She was laughing.
So we asked her what was so funny, and I told her she was going to burn in Hell for that one, and she said it wasn't the shooting that was funny, she said she looked at a student, and - and she was too busy laughing to finish that sentence.
Yeah. My German teacher's evil. Once we had a fire drill, unannounced, and I said, "Is that a drill?," and she replied, "Oh, I hope not."
Countries with less guns (ie Britain) have far, far less people getting shot, and they certainly do not have the annual school shooting America gets.
Ever think its because Britain have less people? The reason America has school shooting issues is the media. They make such a big deal out of it and make the people that did it famous, it just encourages others to do it.
Quote:
Ever think its because Britain have less people? The reason America has school shooting issues is the media. They make such a big deal out of it and make the people that did it famous, it just encourages others to do it.
pro-rata.
also o.o, so it shouldn't be on the news because it might encourage other nutters to go on a shooting spree in school and colleges?
Creo, that hasn't actually happened that I know of, but the Columbine shooting and this one have triggered MANY copycat bomb or shooting threats at schools across the nation.
Quote:
Ever think its because Britain have less people? The reason America has school shooting issues is the media. They make such a big deal out of it and make the people that did it famous, it just encourages others to do it.
Actually, we have less gun crime in Britain in proportion to the size of the country.
Far, far, less.
So, no. It's because we ban guns, and because of this, banning guns is a good idea.
It's not the morals. It's the practicality. I'm not morally against guns, but the sheer fact of it is that less people die if you ban them. Far less people. That's a good thing.
Baning guns isn't a god idea. Laws don't stop lawless people. And yeah, the right to bear arms is one of teh things this country is founded on. I don't think it's right to throw the Constitution out the window about this. o_o
Welp, for all the gun people - no surprise that someone decides to copycat. This time it's an older guy.
This time it's Houston, and somehow I doubt it's coincidence.
So how many people do you think should die by gun violence before it becomes unacceptable, Ultra, SX? That's 35 in one week - more than Japan and Britain combined - and these are the ones we know of.
Quote:
The reason America has school shooting issues is the media.
The media doesn't tell people to kill others. The media doesn't give people the idea to kill others. People have the idea to kill others for thousands of years. Using guns to kill has been around for centuries. Using guns to kill, or attempt to kill, in schools has been around much longer than 1999. The only differences between Columbine and the others that happened much less quietly were 1) it was in the "safe" suburbs, 2) the randomness of it (as usually shooters had 1 or 2 specific targets due to gang issues or whatever), and 3) the potential scale of it had the planted bombs actually worked.
Quote:
So how many people do you think should die by gun violence before it becomes unacceptable, Ultra, SX? That's 35 in one week - more than Japan and Britain combined - and these are the ones we know of.
First of all, that was another gun-free zone.
Secondly, why is that every time there's been a killing spree with a firearm, the first thing some people seek is to disarm everyone who didn't commit the crime?
And lastly, if we ban guns, wouldn't it also make sense to ban automobiles? I mean, automobile accidents claim over 60,000 lives in the United States alone. Just to move your words about a bit, how many people do you think should die by automobile violence before it becomes acceptable?
The media doesn't tell people to kill others. The media doesn't give people the idea to kill others. People have the idea to kill others for thousands of years. Using guns to kill has been around for centuries. Using guns to kill, or attempt to kill, in schools has been around much longer than 1999. The only differences between Columbine and the others that happened much less quietly were 1) it was in the "safe" suburbs, 2) the randomness of it (as usually shooters had 1 or 2 specific targets due to gang issues or whatever), and 3) the potential scale of it had the planted bombs actually worked.
What I was saying if the media didn't promote the hell out of stuff like this, maybe it wouldn't encourage people to do it.
Y'know, the Virginia Tech killer, you know he admired Dylan and Eric (The Columbine shooters,) and made several references to htem i nhis letter, going so far as to say he was a martyr, like them, or something. He said that about a lot of other school shooting incidents, too.
Surely, he knew all of them IRL.
Let's ban psychopaths. And Koreans. And nail files, 'cause they can file the serial numbers off guns.
First of all, that was another gun-free zone.
Secondly, why is that every time there's been a killing spree with a firearm, the first thing some people seek is to disarm everyone who didn't commit the crime?
And lastly, if we ban guns, wouldn't it also make sense to ban automobiles? I mean, automobile accidents claim over 60,000 lives in the United States alone. Just to move your words about a bit, how many people do you think should die by automobile violence before it becomes acceptable?
The answer is simple - because automobiles are not designed to harm or destroy life. Guns are, and that is the sole purpose of the gun - to be an effective method of destruction.
The answer is simple - because automobiles are not designed to harm or destroy life. Guns are, and that is the sole purpose of the gun - to be an effective method of destruction.
But cars still are dangerous. You can drive one through a park and mow people down. Better ban kitchen knives too, as they are murder weapons. They were designed to cut things after all. And then the pointy guitars, I mean its amazing someone hasn't used one as a murder weapon by now!
Quote:
But cars still are dangerous. You can drive one through a park and mow people down. Better ban kitchen knives too, as they are murder weapons. They were designed to cut things after all. And then the pointy guitars, I mean its amazing someone hasn't used one as a murder weapon by now!
Stop that.
Banning all guns from America is ridiculous, unconstitutional, and just plain impractical. Do I feel the overabundance of firearms has led to the overabundance of shooting rampages in America? Yes. Do I feel banning all guns will STOP it? No. Laws don't stop lawless people.
And on a less serious note, there was a town in Florida that issued a handgun to all residents. The only noteworthy crime that ever happened in that town is an attempted robbery of the local supermarket by some underinformed out-of-towners. They were promptly held at gunpoint by everyone in the store until they were arrested.
Will people please stop perverting the wording of the Constitution as a justification for any Tom, Dick or Jethro-Bob to keep an uzi under the bed?
That "right" was created to allow a standing militia (like the Swiss one I've already talked about) to be formed in defence of the realm in a young country with no standing army and an uncertain possibility of getting one, not to create a Wild West mentality by giving everyone an immutable right to access to guns.
Even senior US legal figures (evidence not to hand right now - available on request) describe the hijacking of that passage by the gun lobby as some of the biggest fraud ever perpetrated in US history.
Personally, I can see both sides of the debate. I don't see why the US needs the level of gun ownership of the type of guns that it has, and I'm completely behind my own country's tight gun laws. Crime is actually falling here, but that doesn't make a very good front page story.
Taking away the opportunity for people to harm each other does reduce the figures, whether the gun lobby likes it or not.
But equally, the Swiss model shows that readily accessible firearms don't have to cause the sort of endemic high casualty rate that the US has.
I was watching an interview on CNN last night which suggested that any increased gun control would have to be accompanied by an assessment of the national desensitised attitude to violence, which is stoking these unstable people in the first place. Just look at who the killer posted his manifesto to...
And on the Houston affair: frankly, given the level of publicity given to this guy and his record-breaking, it wouldn't surprise me if there was a rash of similar attempts.
Like I siad. Taking guns isn't going to magically stop it. Like it or not, guns are a huge part of American culture. If you don't believe me, look at a movie theater, at the posters outside. Look at some music videos. Read some modern American authors.
It isn't the accessability of guns. It's people's glorification of violence. That's a bit harder to deal with, I'd think.
I think you're all being retarded and should stop it already.
Seriously, did we really need another gun control debate, in an unrelated thread no less? Spoilers (Select To Read): No we didn't.
Seriously, you're all acting like children in a schoolyard fight, only instead of being about toys or cooties it's about guns. I thought you guys had more sense than thi- Oh wait, no I didn't.
Grow up, plz. Not everything has to be a debate, especially when you're derailing a serious thread for your e-penis jousting.
I didn't see anyone taking it low and making it personal until you started slinging names and insults, Bat.
Quit it. This is a warning.
Quote:
What I was saying if the media didn't promote the hell out of stuff like this, maybe it wouldn't encourage people to do it.
Quote:
Y'know, the Virginia Tech killer, you know he admired Dylan and Eric (The Columbine shooters,) and made several references to htem i nhis letter, going so far as to say he was a martyr, like them, or something. He said that about a lot of other school shooting incidents, too.
Surely, he knew all of them IRL.
Reporting incidents isn't the same as promoting them.
The media is not encouraging people to do things that have been done for decades. Calling the people "sickos" and "psychopaths" (and those are the nicer terms) is not promoting anything. Arguing that the media is responsible is the same mindset that allows Jack Thompson to blame video games for it.
Oh, and the Houston thing isn't really a copy-cat incident--unless every shooting is a copy-cat incident. ;p
Sam's outfit changed. o.o
Quote:
And lastly, if we ban guns, wouldn't it also make sense to ban automobiles?
Wish you would. It'd solve global warming into the bargain.
But yeah- leaving my radical anti-automobile prejudices aside (which are no joke, by the way 
) I noted that Sarah mentioned Switzerland. Could the obligatory military service have anything to do with the more responsible attitude to guns there, would you say?
Quote:
The answer is simple - because automobiles are not designed to harm or destroy life. Guns are, and that is the sole purpose of the gun - to be an effective method of destruction.
All depends on how the person behind it uses it. Sure, a car can be used for driving. It can also be used for driving over people.
A gun's function is, point blank, to propel a projectile at high speed. It can be used for killing someone (be it out of self-defense, or to murder someone out of cold blood). It can be used for hunting. It can also be used to wound someone.
A gun can be shot at someone's arm or foot and incapacitate them without killing them. Get hit by a car? Eh, not sure if it can only go for an arm without hitting the rest of you.
My point still stands: what results in more deaths each year: people who use guns or people who use automobiles?
Quote:
That "right" was created to allow a standing militia (like the Swiss one I've already talked about) to be formed in defence of the realm in a young country with no standing army and an uncertain possibility of getting one, not to create a Wild West mentality by giving everyone an immutable right to access to guns.
Then why not use "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms" instead of "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"?
Quote:
Then why not use "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms" instead of "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"?
Because the full wording of the Constitution strongly suggests that it is intended to only mean militia?
You could go either way on that view, but if you consider what they refer to in the militia in historical context:
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...
---George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment (Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788)
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?
---Patrick Henry (At the Ratification Convention for the Virginia Constitution, 1788)
The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them
---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.
The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
---Thomas Paine
No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson (Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334)
Consider the people considered to be part of the militia: all of the citizens of the United States. Consider that citizens are the ones who form the militia. If only members of the militia are able to bear arms, are they any different from the army that has no opposition from an unarmed populace?
We should hold a necromancy and then ask the foundes what they meant Or is there some other possible way to find out?
I understand the urge to persuade but I do not see it happening successfully in the Mobius Forum (especially with some of this group)
Goddamnit, guys.
God f**king damn it.
I say lets ban America and have done with it ;P
Y'know, I agree with Bat in the sense that this thread doesn't need to be a gun debate. I wish that wasn't what this has come to, and I really wish I said so earlier. =/
Take this crap where it belongs and leave this thread to be, I dunno, one for mourning. If anyone's gonna crap on the memories of these people with their agendas, let the TV pundits do it. They are the professionals, after all.
So quit effing it up with this insipid pro-skub/anti-skub nonsense.
Quote:
Goddamnit, guys.
God f**king damn it.
I agree full heartedly. I was going to say the same thing earlier, but decided not to.
32 people are DEAD. That's all that should be discussed here. Not who's to blame for this horrible crime. Politics should have no part in this topic. That's what Marble Garden is for.
If I haven't said it before, I'll say it right now. My thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of the victims.
Take the inane gun control debates to Marble Garden and leave this thread be. Thats not what its for and thats not what it was originally intended to be. I grow weary of clicking threads and seeing them de-evolve into soapboxes for ones political beliefs and everybody else going WOAHNOES over it. That's what MG is for or did you forget?
Gettin' kinda stupid now guys Kthxbye.
What Dubs said, I'm tired of this hotair blowing contest already. Take it Marble, kiddies. Buncha damn Jack Thompson Juniors using other people's misfortune to buff their ego's.
~Tobe
Well, after 7 straight posts of that, I think people have gotten the point, no?
