Taffy Raver
New Member
News reports are claiming that the gunman was Asian........Me thinks George will jump on this incident and use it as ammunition to justify his war on terror!!!
32 Dead In Gun Rampage
- Thread starter Jonny68
- Start date
Morbyd
Moderator
I'm not 100% sure in this case, but "Asian" in the US is different from "Asian" in the UK. The term is more associated with people from East Asia.
For people from the subcontinent, "South Asian" (or just Indian, Pakistani, etc) is more common.
Edit: I was right. This just popped up on Yahoo news: "The Virginia Tech Police Department identified him as Cho Seung-Hui, 23, a senior in the English department." He was South Korean.
For people from the subcontinent, "South Asian" (or just Indian, Pakistani, etc) is more common.
Edit: I was right. This just popped up on Yahoo news: "The Virginia Tech Police Department identified him as Cho Seung-Hui, 23, a senior in the English department." He was South Korean.
Last edited by a moderator:
Morbyd
Moderator
It didn't. The police were at the location of the first shooting where 2 people were killed, investigating the incident under the assumption that the gunman had fled the campus. Two hours later, he showed up at the other location and began shooting there.
I haven't seen data about response times but I'm sure university police were there relatively quickly.
That's the point....you really don't get many weapons apart from semi-automatic or automatic firearms that can inflict that amount of destruction. You could not kill 33 people with a knife. Maybe 2 or 3 until you were overpowered. OK somebody is now going to suggest a bomb..but that takes a bit more organisation.
Moha
Well-Known Member
Ban of Swiss army ammunition to be kept home:
http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/...l?siteSect=105&sid=7724489&cKey=1176819344000
http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/...l?siteSect=105&sid=7724489&cKey=1176819344000
not really........the columbine killers had huge propane (i think) bombs that were in the school cafeteria. by luck they didn't go off, if they had, then the death toll would have been nearer 500 than in the teens.
LagunaBeachCA
New Member
This is very, very sad. I agree with Morbyd on the fact that societal problems have to do with violence than the actual tool that is being used, but I would argue that it is not ridiculous to think that the outcome MIGHT have been different if there might have been someone in the class with a CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT carrying a firearm. That being said, all that will end up happening now is that every Tom, Dick and Harry who does not know jack squat about firearms is going to get on the anti-gun bandwagon and push for more laws.
Just last year HB (House Bill) 1572, which would have allowed law abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms, on campus was shot down in VA. That has turned out to be a great decision. On the point of whether people legally carrying concealed firearms will help prevent crime is concerned the questions to ask are:
1) How many shootings have happened at gun shows or shooting ranges where everyone is armed?
2) Why have shooters repeatedly gone on rampages (successfully) at places where guns are not allowed (GUN-FREE ZONES)?
3) Why have these murderers sh*t in their pants and killed themselves or have been taken out only by ARMED people?
4) Ask yourselves (with the utmost sincerity) that do you believe that if your life or the life of your loved one(s) is in imminent danger you have the right to defend yourself (and your loved one) by ANY means possible?
I have no problem if one decides that one does not want to take the responsibility of carrying a firearm. It is a massive (massive is an understatement, but I do not know which word would fit best) responsibility, and I do not look at them as being sheepish. I do, have a huge problem when people decide that everyone else should not be allowed to defend themselves when their lives are threatened.
As for the Second Amendment being changed is concerned because it does not apply to the people; I would suggest that while we are making the change why not change the 1st and the 4th Amendment also? For some of y'all who are not familiar with the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments, they are as follows:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
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.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What part of "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is hard to understand? If "THE PEOPLE" does not apply to "THE PEOPLE" in the case of 2A, then why should it apply to "THE PEOPLE" in the case of 1A or 4A?
According to latest reports, he was armed with a 9mm, Glock 19 and a 22 caliber, Walther P22 pistol. These are not "automatic machine guns". They are semi-automatic pistols. In simple terms, when one pulls the trigger once, only one round is fired.
Before someone pops up arguing that "both of these firearms were purchased legally, and Eureka, all guns should be banned because there is no guarantee that a legal purchaser might use it on someone NEGATIVELY, I would argue that we should then strongly consider banning cars as far more deaths are caused by automobiles than by firearms. And, almost all automobiles that were involved in the deaths of the drivers and/or passengers were acquired legally.
And just owning a firearm does not give one legal permit to carry it concealed. The Concealed Carry permit (aka, CCW, CHL) is a special permit that one has to apply with their local County-Sheriff’s Office or City Police’s Office. If one carries a firearm concealed without having a permit, it is a felony.
What has happened is tragic and sickening, but blaming and considering banning Glock or Walther or firearms in general does not solve anything. One does not blame cars or alcohol if a drunk driver kills innocent victims. All it does is to let criminals and psychopaths know that they can now have a field day.
Just last year HB (House Bill) 1572, which would have allowed law abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms, on campus was shot down in VA. That has turned out to be a great decision. On the point of whether people legally carrying concealed firearms will help prevent crime is concerned the questions to ask are:
1) How many shootings have happened at gun shows or shooting ranges where everyone is armed?
2) Why have shooters repeatedly gone on rampages (successfully) at places where guns are not allowed (GUN-FREE ZONES)?
3) Why have these murderers sh*t in their pants and killed themselves or have been taken out only by ARMED people?
4) Ask yourselves (with the utmost sincerity) that do you believe that if your life or the life of your loved one(s) is in imminent danger you have the right to defend yourself (and your loved one) by ANY means possible?
I have no problem if one decides that one does not want to take the responsibility of carrying a firearm. It is a massive (massive is an understatement, but I do not know which word would fit best) responsibility, and I do not look at them as being sheepish. I do, have a huge problem when people decide that everyone else should not be allowed to defend themselves when their lives are threatened.
As for the Second Amendment being changed is concerned because it does not apply to the people; I would suggest that while we are making the change why not change the 1st and the 4th Amendment also? For some of y'all who are not familiar with the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments, they are as follows:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
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.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What part of "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is hard to understand? If "THE PEOPLE" does not apply to "THE PEOPLE" in the case of 2A, then why should it apply to "THE PEOPLE" in the case of 1A or 4A?
According to latest reports, he was armed with a 9mm, Glock 19 and a 22 caliber, Walther P22 pistol. These are not "automatic machine guns". They are semi-automatic pistols. In simple terms, when one pulls the trigger once, only one round is fired.
Before someone pops up arguing that "both of these firearms were purchased legally, and Eureka, all guns should be banned because there is no guarantee that a legal purchaser might use it on someone NEGATIVELY, I would argue that we should then strongly consider banning cars as far more deaths are caused by automobiles than by firearms. And, almost all automobiles that were involved in the deaths of the drivers and/or passengers were acquired legally.
And just owning a firearm does not give one legal permit to carry it concealed. The Concealed Carry permit (aka, CCW, CHL) is a special permit that one has to apply with their local County-Sheriff’s Office or City Police’s Office. If one carries a firearm concealed without having a permit, it is a felony.
What has happened is tragic and sickening, but blaming and considering banning Glock or Walther or firearms in general does not solve anything. One does not blame cars or alcohol if a drunk driver kills innocent victims. All it does is to let criminals and psychopaths know that they can now have a field day.
Last edited by a moderator:
GUNS kill people, and people kill people. You can reduce people killing people by gun control, obviously. Im not sayin that by banning guns, shootings or murders will stop but it will have an impact..
And i gotta say that it sux that this a**hole killed himself...its such an easy way out..no suffering and no paying for his crimes...and MORE IMPORTANTLY no justice for the victims and their loved ones.
And i gotta say that it sux that this a**hole killed himself...its such an easy way out..no suffering and no paying for his crimes...and MORE IMPORTANTLY no justice for the victims and their loved ones.
Morbyd
Moderator
Well argued, Laguna, as usual. And we'll agree to disagree on this one.
I've been reading a lot on this story yesterday and today. It's very close to home for me. As such, I would like to note some counter-arguments for the record.
- Your argument about concealed weapons is more escalation than prevention. Consider this: which would you have preferred? That both the US and USSR had nuclear weapons and thus a deterrent? Or that nobody had nuclear weapons and kids didn't have to practice ducking under desks in school or listen to air raid siren drills while growing up during the Cold War. I know which one I'd have picked!
- Re: the amendments. For better or worse, we do have limitations on the first amendment (yelling "fire" in a theater, slander/libel, pornography) and the 4th amendment has been chipped away quite a bit since 2001. The fact is, putting strict limits on the availability of guns does not constitute denial of access to a firearm. The amendment doesn't say "the right of people to keep and bear any friggin' gun they want in 5 minutes time." It says "to keep and bear arms".
- Cars are designed for transport. Yes, there are deaths caused by automobiles, but that is not their designed purpose. Guns are designed to kill. There's a qualitative difference, which is paramount to the quantitative argument.
For the Europeans on the board, I'd like to point out some facts (which you may already know or might not) that put real obstacles in the way of enacting UK-style gun control in the US.
- The 2nd amendment to the Constitution talks of a right to bear arms. Amending the Constitution is, by design, a very very difficult task.
- Gun laws are often drafted state-by-state. The US is not a monolith - it's 50 states with a patchwork of legislation. 44 state constitutions have a right to bear arms clause.
I saw some frightening statistics last night. The United States accounts for 5% of the world's population but about 30% of the world's guns
There is definietly something wrong with that.
Also, the state of Virginia sadly has some of the most lax gun laws in the US. The police can not refuse to issue a concealed permit to residents (those permits are not valid on the grounds of educational institutions, however). There is no waiting period to purchase a gun, just instant background tests for a criminal record.
From the Washington Post today:
What if there had been a waiting period for Cho to acquire these guns? What if there had been a more serious background check, which might have noted that he'd been referred by his professor to the university counselors for suspected psychological issues?
And if, as Grego mentioned, the US' assault weapons law had not been allowed to lapse in 2004 by Bush and the Republicans, could it have made a difference? That law limited clips in semi-automatic pistols to 5 bullets. Cho's Glock had 15-bullet clips. Less time reloading, more killing.
It appears that the VA Tech killer, who immigrated to the US in 1992, grew up just a few miles from where I did. I've mentioned before about having been to Blacksburg and knowing people that studied there. The more I find out about this event, the more I'm in shock about it.
And my opinion is evolving - I still think there are societal problems that account for much of the US' gun violence. But this guy wasn't a victim of society, just a run-of-the-mill psycho. A loner. A person lost in the crowd who had obviously lost his way. And he got 2 guns without hinderance and killed 32 innocent people. I feel increasingly strongly that the availability of guns has got to be addressed.
My uncles live in Virginia, and they hunt. I would be loathe to deny them a rifle to go get their deer (which they eat). But they don't need a semi-automatic pistol for that.
Apologies for the long-winded essay.
I've been reading a lot on this story yesterday and today. It's very close to home for me. As such, I would like to note some counter-arguments for the record.
- Your argument about concealed weapons is more escalation than prevention. Consider this: which would you have preferred? That both the US and USSR had nuclear weapons and thus a deterrent? Or that nobody had nuclear weapons and kids didn't have to practice ducking under desks in school or listen to air raid siren drills while growing up during the Cold War. I know which one I'd have picked!
- Re: the amendments. For better or worse, we do have limitations on the first amendment (yelling "fire" in a theater, slander/libel, pornography) and the 4th amendment has been chipped away quite a bit since 2001. The fact is, putting strict limits on the availability of guns does not constitute denial of access to a firearm. The amendment doesn't say "the right of people to keep and bear any friggin' gun they want in 5 minutes time." It says "to keep and bear arms".
- Cars are designed for transport. Yes, there are deaths caused by automobiles, but that is not their designed purpose. Guns are designed to kill. There's a qualitative difference, which is paramount to the quantitative argument.
For the Europeans on the board, I'd like to point out some facts (which you may already know or might not) that put real obstacles in the way of enacting UK-style gun control in the US.
- The 2nd amendment to the Constitution talks of a right to bear arms. Amending the Constitution is, by design, a very very difficult task.
- Gun laws are often drafted state-by-state. The US is not a monolith - it's 50 states with a patchwork of legislation. 44 state constitutions have a right to bear arms clause.
I saw some frightening statistics last night. The United States accounts for 5% of the world's population but about 30% of the world's guns
There is definietly something wrong with that.Also, the state of Virginia sadly has some of the most lax gun laws in the US. The police can not refuse to issue a concealed permit to residents (those permits are not valid on the grounds of educational institutions, however). There is no waiting period to purchase a gun, just instant background tests for a criminal record.
From the Washington Post today:
What if there had been a waiting period for Cho to acquire these guns? What if there had been a more serious background check, which might have noted that he'd been referred by his professor to the university counselors for suspected psychological issues?
And if, as Grego mentioned, the US' assault weapons law had not been allowed to lapse in 2004 by Bush and the Republicans, could it have made a difference? That law limited clips in semi-automatic pistols to 5 bullets. Cho's Glock had 15-bullet clips. Less time reloading, more killing.
It appears that the VA Tech killer, who immigrated to the US in 1992, grew up just a few miles from where I did. I've mentioned before about having been to Blacksburg and knowing people that studied there. The more I find out about this event, the more I'm in shock about it.
And my opinion is evolving - I still think there are societal problems that account for much of the US' gun violence. But this guy wasn't a victim of society, just a run-of-the-mill psycho. A loner. A person lost in the crowd who had obviously lost his way. And he got 2 guns without hinderance and killed 32 innocent people. I feel increasingly strongly that the availability of guns has got to be addressed.
My uncles live in Virginia, and they hunt. I would be loathe to deny them a rifle to go get their deer (which they eat). But they don't need a semi-automatic pistol for that.
Apologies for the long-winded essay.
I think thats a vital point, the design of the guns available to joe public. As an outsider, I would place them into two different categories:
'Sports': Hunting/game based equipment - Traditionally non-automatic.
'Protection': Whatever you feel is necessary....
I feel there is a strange tradition in many American families which dictates a need for protection. For the majority of us here in the UK have a lock on our door and an alarm if we feel like taking security a little further. Even in the gun-crime hotspots of london I'd argue that this is the case. In various parts of the US it seems like a significant number feel that they need one or more guns in the house for protection. I'd take a wild guess and say a vast majority have never been at risk of needing such a weapon. So why is it that everyone has guns for protection? The 2nd amendment is a right, not a reason. Of course, the social & political climate is different but it still seems that this need to bear arms hails back centuries and doesnt apply today.
Lagunas post reflects the views of many Americans but I feel it is one that has been accepted throughout the generations and rarely reconsidered.
There is no denying that if another student had been carrying a gun they may have been able to stop the gunman. However there is also a substantial argument that more thorough gun regulations and checks could have prevented all of the deaths. As Morbyd pointed out, there are various social issues which have a bearing on gun crime and these need to be addressed before arguing over the 2nd Amendment.
'Sports': Hunting/game based equipment - Traditionally non-automatic.
'Protection': Whatever you feel is necessary....
I feel there is a strange tradition in many American families which dictates a need for protection. For the majority of us here in the UK have a lock on our door and an alarm if we feel like taking security a little further. Even in the gun-crime hotspots of london I'd argue that this is the case. In various parts of the US it seems like a significant number feel that they need one or more guns in the house for protection. I'd take a wild guess and say a vast majority have never been at risk of needing such a weapon. So why is it that everyone has guns for protection? The 2nd amendment is a right, not a reason. Of course, the social & political climate is different but it still seems that this need to bear arms hails back centuries and doesnt apply today.
Lagunas post reflects the views of many Americans but I feel it is one that has been accepted throughout the generations and rarely reconsidered.
There is no denying that if another student had been carrying a gun they may have been able to stop the gunman. However there is also a substantial argument that more thorough gun regulations and checks could have prevented all of the deaths. As Morbyd pointed out, there are various social issues which have a bearing on gun crime and these need to be addressed before arguing over the 2nd Amendment.
the issue of the uni/college being a gun free zone and the argument that this makes them vunerable cos they don't have "the right to bear arms" offers the most disturbing of solutions........
that is, all college kids and students carrying guns around with them to lessons and seminars. what a disgusting thought that is. (there would be hundreds poss thousands die every year through accidents/pranks)
that is, all college kids and students carrying guns around with them to lessons and seminars. what a disgusting thought that is. (there would be hundreds poss thousands die every year through accidents/pranks)
Totally agree with you, grego. I wonder if it's a cultural thing or a limit in my empaty, but when Laguna says that a student with a gun might change things, I think it's a really disturbing argument. Anyway, very very interesting post
there also should be controls in place so that when this guy's tutor reports some of the disturbing things he's been writing about or if he has counselling, then he gets a "warning" mark on his record..................and therefore he can't buy a gun.
JESUS, you miss a payment on a credit card and your credit score is damaged and it's often very difficult to sort out any other loans, mortgages, cards, etc, etc
You write disturbing stories and get referred for pyshcological counselling..............but they'll still sell you a gun. the system/law is wrong, simple as.
JESUS, you miss a payment on a credit card and your credit score is damaged and it's often very difficult to sort out any other loans, mortgages, cards, etc, etc
You write disturbing stories and get referred for pyshcological counselling..............but they'll still sell you a gun.
the system/law is wrong, simple as.
Morbyd
Moderator
That's what I'm saying! Where's the real background check? Not just a quick run of the computer to see the guy doesn't have outstanding parking tickets.You write disturbing stories and get referred for pyshcological counselling..............but they'll still sell you a gun.
In reality, the number of American households with guns (whether we speak of hunting rifles or handguns) has fallen substantially over the past 30 years, from 54% to 35%.
In my neighborhood growing up, many people didn't even lock their doors much less have handguns for protection. But I lived in a low-crime area.
I'm not so sure how many Americans really agree with this anymore. I'm pretty sure it's less than half, but the gun lobbyists are so strong and so well financed that politicians are scared to make tough choices. If you do, they'll come gunning for you (excuse the pun!) and heavily finance your opponent in the next election.dam0 said:
Taffy Raver
New Member
I think Lagunas arguement is scary and just goes to show how messed up things are in the USA.
I feel much safer living in the UK knowing that the chances of someone owning a gun is very slim, lowering the chances of me ever having a need to protect myself by using one!!
Can you imagine what it would be like in Ibiza if everyone was walking around on edge carrying guns.......it just wouldnt have the same vibe now would it?
What american politicians need to do is have the balls to say guns are banned, get the police force out there hunting down the criminal gangs, seizing their guns and making the country a much safer place!
I cant believe knowing that everyone has a gun makes you feel safer!
I feel much safer living in the UK knowing that the chances of someone owning a gun is very slim, lowering the chances of me ever having a need to protect myself by using one!!
Can you imagine what it would be like in Ibiza if everyone was walking around on edge carrying guns.......it just wouldnt have the same vibe now would it?
What american politicians need to do is have the balls to say guns are banned, get the police force out there hunting down the criminal gangs, seizing their guns and making the country a much safer place!
I cant believe knowing that everyone has a gun makes you feel safer!
Glad to hear it. It just goes to show its only the 'loudest' voices that get heard. Unfortunately for us over the pond I always thought that the general portrayal of the US citizens in media was biased towards Pro Gun - Pro 2nd Amendment.
Last edited by a moderator: